Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Iluka Subdivision
Prepared for Stevens Holdings Pty Ltd
Prepared for
Stevens Holdings Pty Ltd
8 August 2015
CGS2590-002.0
8 August 2015
Contact Information
Document Information
Prepared for
Project Name
Iluka Subdivision
Job Reference
CGS2590
File Reference
CGS2590-002.0
Date
8 August 2015
Version Number
Effective Date
06/08/15
Date Approved:
06/08/15
Author(s):
David Bastian
Senior Technical Officer
Approved By:
Phil Band
Principal Geotechnical Engineer
Document History
Version
Effective
Date
Description of Revision
Prepared by:
Reviewed by:
27/07/15
First issue
David Bastian
Phil Band
Cardno. Copyright in the whole and every part of this document belongs to Cardno and may not be used, sold, transferred, copied
or reproduced in whole or in part in any manner or form or in or on any media to any person other than by agreement with Cardno.
This document is produced by Cardno solely for the benefit and use by the client in accordance with the terms of the engagement.
Cardno does not and shall not assume any responsibility or liability whatsoever to any third party arising out of any use or reliance by
any third party on the content of this document.
CGS2590-002.0
8 August 2015
ii
Table of Contents
1
Introduction
2.1
2.2
1
1
Site History
3.1
3.2
3.3
2
5
6
4.1
4.2
4.3
6
6
7
Fieldwork
Sampling and Contamination Procedures
Laboratory Testing
Investigation Findings
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
7
7
8
8
8
8
Published Data
Walkover Survey
Subsurface Conditions
Laboratory Test Results
5.4.1
Geotechnical Laboratory Results
5.4.2
Environmental Testing Results
14
6.1
6.2
6.3
14
14
15
15
15
16
7.1
7.2
16
16
17
17
17
17
17
18
18
18
19
19
19
20
7.3
Investigation Methodology
6.4
Proposed Development
Site Description
Excavations
Filling
7.2.1
Residential Structures
7.2.2
Site Classification
7.2.3
Foundation Conditions
Pavements
7.3.1
Design Subgrade
7.3.2
Design Traffic
7.3.3
Pavement Composition
7.3.4
Materials and Compaction Specification
7.3.5
Subgrade Preparation
7.3.6
Pavement Drainage
7.3.7
Pavement Interface
7.3.8
Construction Inspections
Limitations
21
References
CGS2590-002.0
8 August 2015
22
iii
Appendices
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E
Appendix F
Drawings
Aerials
149 Certificates
Site Photographs
Engineering Logs
Laboratory Test Results
Tables
Table 3-1
Table 5-1
Table 5-2
10
Table 5-3
13
Table 6-1
15
Table 7-1
Design Traffic
18
Table 7-2
19
CGS2590-002.0
8 August 2015
iv
Introduction
This report presents the results of the Preliminary Contamination Assessment (PCA) and preliminary
geotechnical investigation undertaken by Cardno Geotech Solutions (CGS) at the site of a proposed
residential subdivision located off Elizabeth Street, Iluka.
The PCA comprised a desktop study of the S149 Planning certificate, historical aerial photographs and
historical title deed search together with a site inspection and limited intrusive sampling and testing. The
assessment was undertaken with reference to NSW EPA Guidelines for Consultants Reporting on
Contaminated Sites [1]. Preliminary geotechnical investigation conducted comprised limited excavations
across the site, sampling and testing to form the basis for preliminary comments.
Information supplied for the purpose of investigation comprised the following:
> Draft subdivision layout plan prepared by jcd A+U, project number 1460 issue A dated 14 April 2015;
> Location plan prepared by Steve Brailsford Surveying, ref. no 05074 dated 19/08/2005; and
> Draft field information from Keystone Ecological including points and tracks recorded on site using a
handheld GPS, and site photos.
This report ha been prepared under the instruction of Lin Armstrong of Stevens Holdings Pty Ltd.
2.1
Proposed Development
Based on the supplied draft subdivision plans the proposed development comprises:
> 162 residential allotments ranging in size from 500 to 1,037m2;
> Parks 1 and 2 ranging in size from 13,611 to 18,220m2 proposed to be used as flora and fauna reserves;
> Park 3 being 756 m2 in size;
> Approximately 2,070m of internal road pavement; and
> Extension of Hickey Street to the west, with a total length of works of approximately 400m inclusive of the
existing Hickey Street alignment.
The subdivision plans provided are preliminary in nature only.
The proposed development, lot boundaries and test hole locations are shown on drawing 2 attached in
Appendix A.
2.2
Site Description
The site is defined as Lot 99 on DP 823635 and is referred to as the Iluka subdivision for the purpose of this
report. The Hickey Street extension works are situated in both the Hickey Street road reserve and Lot 7020
on DP 1114873.
The site is roughly trapezoidal in shape and is bounded by:
> Iluka Golf Club to the north;
> Iluka Road and the Iluka Nature Reserve to the east;
> Undeveloped land to the south, west and north west; and
> Existing residential development to the south west.
CGS2590-002.0
8 August 2015
Topographically the site is situated on back-dune formations, approximately midway between Iluka Beach
and fore-dune deposits located further to the east and the north arm of the Clarence River further to the west
of the site.
Site surfaces varied from relatively flat through to gentle south-west slopes, with undulations noted across
the site typical of dune formations. A significant height difference was observed in the south west site
portion, with the site surfaces approximately 2-3m lower than the adjacent Elizabeth Street and residential
development.
Vegetation generally comprised thick semi mature to mature native trees and coastal scrub across the site.
The following site features were observed at the time of investigation.
> Informal tracks clear of vegetation aligned south west to north east through the central / western portion
of the site and aligned south east to north west through the south eastern site portion. Several informal
tracks were also observed in various site areas and were overgrown with vegetation and appeared unused.
> Various isolated dumping of anthropological waste, generally in proximity to the informal site tracks.
> Stockpiles of brick and concrete rubble approximately 2-3m in diameter and 0.5-1m in height.
> Minor evidence of plant cultivation in some site areas, including water containers and fertilizer packaging.
The proposed development, lot boundaries and test locations conducted during the investigation are shown
on drawing 2 (file ref. 2590-002-d2) attached in Appendix A.
Site History
A review of the following available information was undertaken to aid in determining site history and previous
site uses:
> Review of available historical aerial photographs and google earth imagery for the area;
> Review of Section 149(2) Planning Certificate from Clarence Valley Council; and
> Review of historical and title search conducted by Legal Liaison Services.
3.1
A review of a range of available aerial photography and google earth imagery indicates that the site has
remained undeveloped, with vegetation cleared from the site and surrounding areas in the late 1970s, and
some areas of disturbance evident. The ability to discern site features was limited due to the relatively small
scale and poor resolution of some of the photographs.
A summary of observed site features detailed in the reviewed aerial photographs are detailed in Table 3-1
below and copies are attached in Appendix B.
CGS2590-002.0
8 August 2015
Table 3-1
Date
Reference
October
1958
Woodburn 327
5168
Run 3 4M
Scale 1:22,000
B/W
Comments
> Access tracks traverse south west to north east through the central
and western site portions, and south west to north east through the
central / eastern portion.
Woodburn 1442
5183
Run 4M
Scale 1:15,500
B/W
aerial photograph.
27 August
1978
Woodburn 1843
157
Run 11
Scale 1:25,000
B/W
> Residential development to the south west and west of the site has
increased slightly from that observed in the 1958 aerial photograph
in proximity to the Clarence River, with scattered residential
dwellings and access roads evident.
aerial photographs.
> Disturbed area in the south western site portion adjacent residential
development, approximately 40 60 m in size.
> Vegetation appears to have been cleared from areas to the north
(current golf course area), north west, to the east of Iluka Road and
to the south of the site.
> Iluka township progressing further inland from the Clarence River to
the east.
Off Site
CGS2590-002.0
8 August 2015
Date
Reference
14 April
1989
Woodburn NSW
3654 74
Run 7
Scale 1:40,000
B/W
Comments
> Additional access track that traverses north west to south east
through the central / south eastern site portion, intersecting with
Iluka Road in the east.
> Golf club infrastructure including club house building, shed/s and
golf fairways evident.
30 June
1996
554110 AGFA
1310
COVERAGE
PROG FAR NTH
COAST M2036
Colour
> Generally consistent with 1989 aerial photograph, with access track
in the central / south eastern site portion predominantly covered by
vegetation.
On Site
> Sealed section of Hickey Street extending from Iluka Road in the
east through to the golf club house.
16 July
2004
12
Febraury
2011
CGS2590-002.0
8 August 2015
Iluka NSW4553
(M2241)
Run 25
Approximate
Scale 1:16,000
Colour
Iluka NSW4854
(M2425)
Run 25
Approximate
Scale 1:16,000
Colour
DigitalGlobe
(Google earth)
Off Site
> Vegetation appears thicker across the site, and access tracks
Off Site
On Site
Off Site
On Site
Date
Reference
15 July
2012
DigitalGlobe
(Google earth)
5 October
2013
3.2
DigitalGlobe
(Google earth)
Comments
Off Site
On Site
Off Site
A review of the section 149 certificate for Lot 99 on DP823635 obtained from Clarence Valley Council
indicates:
> The land is Zoned as R2 Low Density Residential;
> The land is affected by a planning proposal for a proposed environmental planning instrument to update
the Flood Planning Map for the Clarence River floodplain;
> The Clarence Valley Development Control Plan applies to the land;
> The land is affected by State Environmental Planning Policies No 1, 4, 6, 15, 21, 22, 30, 32, 33, 36, 44,
50, 55, 62, 64, 65 and Policy No 71 Coastal Protection;
> There is no minimum lot size for dwelling purposes;
> The subject land is not known to include or comprise critical habitat;
> The land is not located within a heritage conservation area;
> The land does not have located on it any items of environmental heritage;
> Complying development must comply with all relevant requirements and other development standards of
State Environmental Planning Policy 2008;
> The land is identified as an environmentally sensitive area being in, or within 100 metres of an area
identified as a wetland of international significance or a world heritage area and complying development
may not be carried out on part of this land;
> Council has not been notified by the Department of Public Works whether the land is affected by the
operation of section 38 or 39 of the Coastal Protection Act, 1979;
> The land is not proclaimed to be within a mine subsidence district;
> The land is not affected by any planned road widening or road re-alignment;
> The subject land is mapped as being potentially affected by Acid Sulfate Soils;
> The subject land is indicated on council maps as being bush fire prone land;
> The land is located below the flood planning level and any development is subject to flood related
development controls;
> The land is not biodiversity certified land;
> The land is not subject to biobanking agreements; and
> The land is not within land declared to be significantly contaminated land, subject to a management order,
subject of an approved voluntary management proposal, subject of an ongoing maintenance order or
subject to a site audit statement within the meaning of the Contaminated Land Act 1997.
CGS2590-002.0
8 August 2015
Several points mentioned above have been summarised and the complete S149(2) certificate should be
referenced which is attached in Appendix C.
3.3
A review of the historical and tile searches conducted by Legal Liaison Services for the site indicates:
> The early title to the land is Crown Title;
> The land was held from 14.09.1910 under Crown Reserve No. 45759 from sale for the purposes of
General Cemetery, forfeited on 11.11.1928;
> The land was held from 13.02.1958 under Mineral Lease 7 for the purpose of Zircon, Rutile etc to L.
Foyster, voided / forfeited on 19.11.1978; and
> Has been held since 08.07.1994 to date by Birrigan Gargle Local Aboriginal Land Council.
Plans obtained as part of the historical and title searches conducted do not clearly indicate the location of
any former activities or past uses of the site.
Investigation Methodology
4.1
Fieldwork
Field investigation was undertaken on the 9 and 10 June 2015 and comprised the following:
> Site walkover by a senior technical officer to identify potential Areas of Environmental Concern (AEC).
> Excavation of seven test pits (TP01 to TP07) to depths of 2m using a 6T excavator equipped with a
450mm toothed bucket. All test pits reached the target depth of 2m.
> Excavation of six test bores (TB01 to TB06) to depths of 2m using a hand auger, with all bores reaching
the target depth of 2m.
> Perth Sand Penetrometer tests (PSP) were conducted adjacent selected test pits and bores to aid in the
assessment of subsurface strength conditions.
> Bulk disturbed samples were recovered from the test pits for the purpose of geotechnical laboratory
testing, which was conducted at CGS NATA accredited laboratory.
> Environmental samples were taken from the site surface and within test pits / bores for the purpose of
environmental laboratory testing. Environmental testing was conducted at an external NATA accredited
laboratory.
All fieldwork including logging of subsurface profiles and collecting of samples was carried out by a senior
technical officer from Cardno Geotech Solutions. Test locations were located with reference to the client
supplied data, as shown of drawings 1 and 2 attached in Appendix A.
Subsurface conditions are summarised in Section 5.3 below and detailed in the test pit engineering logs
attached in Appendix E together with explanatory notes.
4.2
Environmental sampling was performed according to CGS standard operating procedures with sampling
data recorded on Chain of Custody sheets and the general sampling procedure comprising:
> Shallow and surface sampling with a suitably decontaminated stainless steel trowel and deep samples at
depths greater than 1 m from excavator bucket / hand auger following suitable decontamination of
equipment;
CGS2590-002.0
8 August 2015
> The use and changing of disposable gloves between each sampling event to prevent cross
contamination;
> Decontamination of all sampling equipment using a 3% solution of phosphate free detergent (Decon 90)
and tap water prior to each test pit / bore;
> Soil sample storage for all sampling events was via appropriate containers supplied by Envirolab
laboratories;
> Sample storage in chilled, insulated containers prior to transport to the laboratory; and
> Sample storage less than 72hrs.
4.3
Laboratory Testing
Laboratory testing on selected samples recovered during fieldwork comprised the following tests.
> Nine (9) soil contamination tests for eight metals (As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Hg, Ni, Zn), organochlorine
pesticides (OCPs) and organophosphate pesticides (OPPs), Total Recoverable Hydrocarbons (TRH),
BTEX (Benzene, Toluene, Ethyl-benzene and Xylenes), Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH),
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB); and
>
Environmental chemical laboratory testing was carried out by Envirolab Laboratories, which holds current
accreditation with the National Association of Testing Authorities, Australia (NATA).
Results of laboratory testing are detailed in the reports sheets attached in Appendix F and summarised in
Section 5.4 below.
Investigation Findings
5.1
Published Data
Reference to the 1:100,000 Woodburn Map, Geological Sheet 9539 [2], indicates that the site is underlain by
transgressive dune formations known to comprise sand.
5.2
Walkover Survey
A walkover survey was undertaken on the 9 June 2015, by a Senior Technical Officer from CGS and
identified the following.
> General dumped refuse in various locations across the site, generally in proximity to the access tracks
identified in Section 2.2. The refuse observed comprised items such as foam, tin sheeting, plastic, steel
containers, fence netting, shade cloth, timber, steel fragments, mattresses, plastic childrens toys, lounge
chairs, a television and a portable air conditioner.
> Bitumen fragments up to 300 mm in size on access track surface at ES005 location (see drawing 3
attached in Appendix A).
> Isolated areas of dumped fibrous sheeting at the location of ES003 / ES004 and ES014 / ES015.
> Fertilizer / potting mix packaging and drinking bottle containers suggesting plant growing at ES008
location.
> Steel frame of possible boat trailer at ES009 location.
> Large vehicle / machinery rubber tyre approximately 1 m in diameter at ES010 location.
> Dumped fridge at ES011 location.
CGS2590-002.0
8 August 2015
> Stockpiles of brick rubble and concrete rubble, approximately 2-3m in diameter by 0.5-1m high, in
proximity to ES011 location.
> Steel cottonseed oil (as labelled) drum at ES012 location.
> Dumped concrete on site surface approximately less than 100mm thick in proximity to TP04 location.
Environmental samples were taken in the identified areas listed above that where assessed to be of concern
from an environmental perspective.
It should be noted that the walkover was restricted somewhat due to the thick vegetation present on the site
during the investigation.
5.3
Subsurface Conditions
The subsurface conditions encountered in the test locations across the site are detailed on the report log
sheets attached in Appendix E together with explanatory notes. The subsurface profile generally comprised
topsoil overlying Aeolian sand, as summarised below:
> TOPSOIL: comprising SAND with root fibres and roots to depths of 0.25-0.45m below surface level (bsl);
> AEOLIAN: SAND to depths of 2 m bsl (investigation limit), assessed as slightly below to slightly above
standard optimum moisture content (SOMC) and ranging from medium dense to dense in consistency
based on PSP blow counts.
Major spalling (material falling into excavation) was observed in several test pits in the 0.5-2.0 m bsl depth
range.
Groundwater was not encountered during the investigation. It should be noted that groundwater levels are
likely to fluctuate with variations in climatic and site conditions.
5.4
5.4.1
The laboratory CBR results are detailed in the report sheets attached in Appendix F and summarised in
Table 5-1 below.
Table 5-1
Notes:
FMC
SOMC
SMDD
CBR
5.4.2
Test Pit
Depth
(m)
Material Type
FMC
(%)
SOMC
(%)
SMDD
(t/m)
Swell
(%)
CBR
(%)
TP01
0.50-1.00
SAND
4.6
22.0
1.59
-1.0
50
TP03
0.50-1.00
SAND
5.2
22.0
1.60
-0.5
80
TP05
0.50-1.30
SAND
5.3
23.5
1.59
-0.5
60
Contamination testing was carried out on soil samples using Envirolab Services Pty Ltd (Envirolab), which
holds current accreditation with the National Association of Testing Authorities, Australia (NATA). The initial
testing of the soil was undertaken as a broad scale preliminary assessment.
All testing was undertaken within the terms of their accreditation. Copies of the testing laboratory reports are
shown in Appendix F. The results of laboratory analysis for inorganic and organic contaminants in the soil
samples are summarised in the following tables:
Table 5-2 Results of Laboratory Analysis for Heavy Metals;
Figure 5-1 Results of Laboratory Analysis for TPH/BTEX;
CGS2590-002.0
8 August 2015
Figure 5-2 Results of Laboratory Analysis for Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs), Organochlorine &
Organophosphorus Pesticides (OCP/OPPs);
Table 5-3 Results of Asbestos testing of Soils.
CGS2590-002.0
8 August 2015
Table 5-2
Depth (m)
Date
Sampled
Filling (F) /
Natural
Secondary
Prim ary
(N)
Constituent Constituent
Heavy Metals
Contam inant
Observations
As
Cd
Cr
Cu
Pb
Hg
Ni
Zn
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
17
ES005
9/06/2015
F/N
SAND
<4
<0.4
<0.1
<1
ES008
9/06/2015
SAND
<4
<0.4
<1
<1
<0.1
<1
ES009
9/06/2015
SAND
<4
<0.4
<1
<1
<0.1
<1
26
ES010
9/06/2015
SAND
<4
<0.4
<1
<1
<0.1
<1
22
ES011
9/06/2015
SAND
<4
<0.4
<1
<1
<0.1
<1
26
ES012
9/06/2015
SAND
<4
<0.4
<1
<1
<0.1
<1
TP02
1.8
10/06/2015
SAND
<4
<0.4
<1
<1
<0.1
<1
TP05
0.05
10/06/2015
SAND
<4
<0.4
14
<1
<0.1
<1
TB02
1.7
10/06/2015
SAND
<4
<0.4
<1
<1
<0.1
<1
ENVIROLAB PQL
0.4
0.1
ALS PQL
1.0
0.1
20
100
40
400
NC
30
Guideline Values
NEPM (2013) HILs for Residential A Land-Use (HIL A)
1
100
2
100
NC
190
6000
60
300
1100
7400
70
NC
NC
NC
NC
300
NC
NC
NC
NSW DECCW (2009) General Solid Waste Contaminant Threshold Concentrations (CT1)
100
20
100
NC
100
40
NC
NSW DECCW (2009) Restricted Solid Waste Contaminant Threshold Concentrations (CT2)
400
80
400
NC
400
16
160
NC
Notes to Table
Residential A - residential land-use w ith garden/accessible soil (home grow n produce <10% fruit and vegetable uptake (no poultry)), also includes childcare centres, preschools and primary schools
HIL A - Health-based Investigation Levels for Residential A Land-Use
1 - The EIL is calculated by summing the ACL and the ABC. In the absence of pH, CEC and/or % clay content testing, the most conservative ACL value from Tables 1B(1) to 1B(3) NEPM (2013) is adopted as the EIL.
2 - Urban residential/public open space is broadly equivalent to the HIL A, HIL B and HIL C land-use criteria
3 - Generic EIL
4 - EIL is the most conservative ACL value adopted from Table 1B(1) to 1B(3) NEPM 2013 in the absence of pH, CEC and/or % clay content testing
5 - Values are the same for general solid w aste (putrescible) and general solid w aste (non-putrescible)
CGS2590-002.0
8 August 2015
10
Depth (m)
Date
Sampled
Filling (F) /
Natural
Secondary
Prim ary
(N)
Constituent Constituent
TRH
Contam inant
Observations
BTEX
Naphthalene
Benzene
Toluene
Ethyl
Benzene
Total
Xylenes
C6 - C9
C10 - C36
F1
C6 - C9
F2 >
C10 - C16
F3 >
C16 - C34
F4 >
C34 - C40
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
ES005
9/06/2015
F/N
SAND
<25
<250
<25
<50
<100
<100
<1
<0.2
<0.5
<1
<3
ES008
9/06/2015
SAND
<25
<250
<25
<50
<100
<100
<1
<0.2
<0.5
<1
<3
ES009
9/06/2015
SAND
<25
<250
<25
<50
<100
<100
<1
<0.2
<0.5
<1
<3
ES010
9/06/2015
SAND
<25
<250
<25
<50
<100
<100
<1
<0.2
<0.5
<1
<3
ES011
9/06/2015
SAND
<25
<250
<25
<50
<100
<100
<1
<0.2
<0.5
<1
<3
ES012
9/06/2015
SAND
<25
<250
<25
<50
<100
<100
<1
<0.2
<0.5
<1
<3
TP02
1.8
10/06/2015
SAND
<25
<250
<25
<50
<100
<100
<1
<0.2
<0.5
<1
<3
TP05
0.05
10/06/2015
SAND
<25
<250
<25
<50
<100
<100
<1
<0.2
<0.5
<1
<3
TB02
1.7
10/06/2015
SAND
<25
<250
<25
<50
<100
<100
<1
<0.2
<0.5
<1
<3
ENVIROLAB PQL
25
250
25
50
100
100
0.2
ALS PQL
10
50
10
50
100
100
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
NC
NC
45
110
NC
NC
0.5
160
55
40
NC
NC
40
230
NC
NC
0.6
390
NL
95
NC
NC
50
280
NC
NC
0.7
480
NL
110
NC
NC
70
240
NC
NC
NL
0.5
220
NL
60
NC
NC
65
NL
NC
NC
NL
0.7
NL
NL
210
NC
NC
90
NL
NC
NC
NL
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
170
NEPM (2013) ESL for Urban Residential/Public Open Space - Course Grained Soils
NC
NC
180 *
120 *
300
2,800
NC
50
NEPM (2013) ESL 3 for Urban Residential/Public Open Space 1 - Fine Grained Soils
NC
NC
180 *
120 *
1300
5,600
NC
65
NEPM (2013) Management Limits for Residential, Parkland and Open Space - Course Grained Soils
NC
NC
700
1000
2500
10,000
NC
NC
NEPM (2013) Management Limits 4 for Residential, Parkland and Open Space 1 - Fine Grained Soils
NC
NC
800
1000
3500
10,000
NC
NC
65
1000
Guideline Values
1
1
NSW DECCW (2009) General Solid Waste Contaminant Threshold Concentrations (CT1)
NSW DECCW (2009) Restricted Solid Waste Contaminant Threshold Concentrations (CT2)
650
10,000
2,600
40,000
NL
310
NC
NC
85
70
105
105
125
45
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
130
50
25
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
10
288
600
1,000
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
40
1152
2,400
4,000
HSL A & B - Health Screening Levels for Residential A and Residential B Land-Use
1 - Urban residential/public open space is broadly equivalent to the HIL A, HIL B and HIL C land-use criteria
2 - Generic EIL
3 - ESLs are of low reliability except w here indicated by * w hich indicates that the ESL is of moderate reliability
4 - Management limits are applied after consideration of relevant ESLs and HSLs
5 - Values are the same for general solid w aste (putrescible) and general solid w aste (non-putrescible)
6 - Contaminants only assessed using the SCC (Specific Contaminant Concentration)
11
NL
NC
NC
Residential A - residential land-use w ith garden/accessible soil (home grow n produce <10% fruit and vegetable uptake (no poultry)), also includes childcare centres, preschools and primary schools
1
NC
NC
Notes to Table
CGS2590-002.0
8 August 2015
Figure 5-2 Results of Laboratory Analysis for PAHs, Organochlorine Pesticides, Organophosphorus Pesticides, results in mg/kg
Material Description
Location
Depth (m)
Date
Sampled
Filling (F) /
Natural
Secondary
Prim ary
(N)
Constituent Constituent
PAH
Contam inant
Observations
OCP
OPP
Total
B(a)P
B(a)P TEQ
(Upper)
Total
DDT+DDE
+DDD
DDT
Aldrin +
Dieldrin
Chlordane
Endosulfan
Endrin
Heptachlor
HCB
Methoxychlor
Total
Chlorpyrifos
Total PCB
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
ES005
9/06/2015
F/N
SAND
NIL (+)VE
<0.05
<0.5
<2.0
<0.3
<0.1
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.1
<0.1
<1.2
<0.2
<0.7
ES008
9/06/2015
SAND
NIL (+)VE
<0.05
<0.5
<2.0
<0.3
<0.1
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.1
<0.1
<1.2
<0.2
<0.7
ES009
9/06/2015
SAND
NIL (+)VE
<0.05
<0.5
<2.0
<0.3
<0.1
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.1
<0.1
<1.2
<0.2
<0.7
ES010
9/06/2015
SAND
NIL (+)VE
<0.05
<0.5
<2.0
<0.3
<0.1
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.1
<0.1
<1.2
<0.2
<0.7
ES011
9/06/2015
SAND
NIL (+)VE
<0.05
<0.5
<2.0
<0.3
<0.1
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.1
<0.1
<1.2
<0.2
<0.7
ES012
9/06/2015
SAND
NIL (+)VE
<0.05
<0.5
<2.0
<0.3
<0.1
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.1
<0.1
<1.2
<0.2
<0.7
TP02
1.8
10/06/2015
SAND
NIL (+)VE
<0.05
<0.5
<2.0
<0.3
<0.1
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.1
<0.1
<1.2
<0.2
<0.7
TP05
0.05
10/06/2015
SAND
NIL (+)VE
<0.05
<0.5
<2.0
<0.3
<0.1
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.1
<0.1
<1.2
<0.2
<0.7
TB02
1.7
10/06/2015
SAND
NIL (+)VE
<0.05
<0.5
<2.0
<0.3
<0.1
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.1
<0.1
<1.2
<0.2
<0.7
ENVIROLAB PQL
1.55
0.05
0.5
2.0
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
1.2
0.2
0.7
ALS PQL
0.50
0.50
0.5
1.35
0.05
0.2
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.2
1.4
0.05
0.1
300
NC
NC
240
NC
50
270
10
10
300
NC
160
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
180
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NEPM (2013) ESL 3 for Urban Residential/Public Open Space 1 - Course Soils
NC
0.7
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NEPM (2013) ESL 3 for Urban Residential/Public Open Space 1 - Fine Soils
NC
0.7
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
20
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
< 50
16
< 50
Guideline Values
NEPM (2013) HILs for Residential A Land-Use (HIL A)
NEPM (2013) EIL for Urban Residential/Public Open Space
NSW DECCW (2009) General Solid Waste Contaminant Threshold Concentrations (CT1)
NSW DECCW (2009) Restricted Solid Waste Contaminant Threshold Concentrations (CT2)
200
0.8
NC
< 50
NC
NC
NC
NC
60
NC
NC
NC
NC
250
800
3.2
NC
< 50
NC
NC
NC
NC
240
NC
NC
NC
NC
1,000
Notes to Table
Residential A - residential land-use w ith garden/accessible soil (home grow n produce <10% fruit and vegetable uptake (no poultry)), also includes childcare centres, preschools and primary schools
HIL A - Health-based Investigation Levels for Residential A
1 - Urban residential/public open space is broadly equivalent to the HIL A, HIL B and HIL C land-use criteria
2 - Generic EIL
3 - ESLs are of low reliability except w here indicated by * w hich indicates that the ESL is of moderate reliability
4 - Values are the same for general solid w aste (putrescible) and general solid w aste (non-putrescible)
5 - Contaminants only assessed using the SCC (Specific Contaminant Concentration)
CGS2590-002.0
8 August 2015
12
Arsenic
Cd
Cadmium
Cr
Chromium
Cu
Copper
Pb
Lead
Hg
Mercury
Ni
Nickel
Zn
Zinc
NEPM (2013)
National Environment Protection Council, National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure, 1999 (ammended April 2013)
HIL
EIL
ACL
ABC
NC
No Criteria
NT
Not Tested
ND
Not Detected
Table 5-3
Location
Date
Sampled
Material Description
Sample Location
Comment
ES003
09/06/2015
ES004
09/06/2015
SAND (topsoil)
ES015
09/06/2015
ES014
09/06/2015
SAND (topsoil)
Dimension / Sample
Weight (g)
Asbestos Detected
200
40
297
35
Notes to Table
Bold indicates asbestos detected
CGS2590-002.0
8 August 2015
13
It should be appreciated that the assessment was preliminary in nature and was limited in scope.
6.1
The investigation levels for soil were established based on the following references:
> National Environment Protection Council, National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site
Contamination) Measure (NEPC), 1999 (April 2013) (NEPM 2013) [3].
> NSW DECCW, Waste Classification Guidelines Part 1: Classifying Waste, 2009 (NSW DECCW, 2009)
[4].
The current assessment criteria used in NSW to evaluate soil analytical results are based on the NSW DEC
Guidelines for the NSW Site Auditor Scheme 2nd Edition 2006 [5] and National Environment Protection
Measure (NEPM) for the Assessment of Site Contamination, 2013 [3], and was used as the criteria for the
assessment of the soil on site. Table 5A of Schedule B (1) Guideline on Investigation Levels for Soil and
Groundwater provides limits on investigation concentrations for contaminants based on human health risk
and certain exposure scenarios due to site use.
The proposed site use is Residential A, that is, residential with garden/accessible soil (home grown produce
<10% fruit and vegetable intake (no poultry)) and also includes childcare centres, preschools and primary
schools. The Health Investigation Levels (HILs) (Column 1 of Table 1A(1) in NEPM, 2013) and the Ecological
Investigation Levels (EILs) (Table 1(B)1 Table 1(B)7 in NEPM, 2013) are applicable to the site.
6.2
As mentioned in Section 3.1 isolated disturbed areas were observed in the aerial photography, which
potentially suggests a borrow pit was located on the site to source fill during construction of the adjacent
residential development. Signs of disturbance were unable to be identified during the walkover survey
conducted due to thick vegetation and visual or olfactory signs of contamination were not evident on site in
disturbed areas observed in the aerial photography.
The historical and title searches conducted, summarised in Section 3.3, reveals the site was held under a
mineral lease from 1958 to 1978. There is no available evidence of land clearing, mining infrastructure,
mining pits or dredging ponds in the aerial photography, which suggests that no mining or on site separation
processes were conducted on the site.
The construction compound noted in Section 3.1 that existed in 2012 is noted to be outside of the site, and is
therefore of limited concern.
Potential for contamination is therefore associated with isolated dumping of asbestos, the rubber tyre, steel
trailer frame, fridge and cottonseed oil drum observed during the walkover survey.
In order to provide preliminary comment on the identified potential areas and contaminants of concern a
limited program of targeted intrusive testing was undertaken.
The fieldwork was based on observed conditions and comprised surface sampling at targeted locations and
within selected test pits. Sample locations are shown on drawing 3 attached in Appendix A.
The potential contaminants of potential concern (COPCs) and Areas of Concern based on site history and
investigations are presented in Table 6-1 below.
CGS2590-002.0
8 August 2015
14
Table 6-1
Area of Concern
Asbestos
Notes to table:
Heavy Metals (As Arsenic; Cd Cadmium; Cr Chromium; Cu Copper; Pb Lead; Ni Nickel; Zn Zinc; Hg Mercury); TRH
Total Recoverable Hydrocarbons; PAHs Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons; OCP Organochlorine Pesticides; OPP
Organophosphorus Pesticides.
6.3
A summary of the laboratory chemical testing results as compared to the NEPM (2013) [3] and the NSW
DECCW (2009) [4] are presented in 5.4.1 above, whilst the complete laboratory report sheets are presented
in Appendix F in the attachments section of this report.
The laboratory results summarised in Table 5-2, Figure 5-1 and Figure 5-2 indicate that the samples
analysed were within the adopted site criteria.
As mentioned in Section 5.2 isolated areas of dumped fibrous sheeting were observed, and laboratory
results shown in Table 5-3 indicate sample ES015 comprising compressed fibre cement material does
contains chrysotile asbestos. Asbestos was not detected in the soil sample tested (ES014) beneath the fibre
cement material tested. The other suspected asbestos area at the location of samples ES003 and ES004
did not contain Asbestos material.
6.3.1
Envirolab laboratories have undertaken internal quality assurance testing which involves duplicate analysis
on selected samples, a review of the QA results and interpretation. Results are contained within the
laboratory report sheets and are attached to this report.
The review of internal QA indicates that sufficient internal QA was undertaken for most analytes and that,
Recovery of Surrogates, Recovery of Spikes, Relative Percentage Differences for Duplicates and Holding
times where within acceptance criteria as defined by Envirolab laboratories.
The data obtained from this testing is considered accurate and the results can be relied on to the for the
purpose of the assessment.
The QA/QC Report can is attached in Appendix F.
6.4
PCA Conclusions
Based on the results of the subsurface investigation and chemical contamination testing, no exceedances of
the Residential (HIL A) or EIL guideline concentrations were identified at the site. Asbestos was identified in
a sample of compressed fibre cement material.
Remediation of the site for residential land use shall comprise the following.
> Removal of identified asbestos materials and rubber tyre and disposal of as special waste in accordance
with DECCW 2014 guidelines [4] at an accredited waste disposal facility. The asbestos removal shall be
undertaken under by a licenced asbestos remover or hygienist.
> Removal of all general refuse and disposal of as general solid waste in accordance with DECCW 2014
guidelines [4] at an accredited waste disposal facility. Recyclable items such as fridges and metal should
be disposed of appropriately at an accredited waste disposal facility.
> Removal of steel trailer frame from the site and disposal of at a steel recycler / scrap metal facility.
CGS2590-002.0
8 August 2015
15
Inspection by a suitably qualified environmental consultant shall be undertaken following removal of material
to confirm suitable execution of works. Note confirmatory testing may be required at this point. Following this
the site would be considered suitable for the proposed residential development from a contamination
perspective.
Given the limited access due to thick vegetation additional general refuse may be encountered following site
clearing and appropriate allowances should be made for disposal.
7.1
Excavations
Machine refusal on rock was not encountered during the investigation to depths of up to 2 m, and
excavations for the development are expected to be achievable using conventional earthmoving equipment
such as backhoes and excavators.
Collapsing excavation conditions were encountered during the investigation in the Aeolian sands and
support of excavations will likely be required depending on prevailing weather conditions. Specific
geotechnical advice should be sought prior to entering excavations.
Excavations or trenches in the natural sands are not expected to stand vertical in the short-term and should
be battered back to 2H:1V or flatter for short-term excavations. It is recommended that long-term excavations
should be either battered at 3H:1V or flatter and protected against erosion or be supported by engineer
designed and suitably constructed retaining walls.
7.2
Filling
Fill should be placed and compacted in accordance with AS 3798-2007 [6]. It is expected that construction of
a suitable fill platform to support structural loads, such as ground slabs and stiffened raft slabs, would include
the following:
> Removal of any existing uncontrolled fill, topsoil or deleterious soils (if encountered) from areas where fill
is to be placed.
> Proof rolling of the exposed subgrade to detect any weak or deforming areas of subgrade that should be
excavated and replaced with compacted fill.
> Placement of fill in a maximum of 300mm loose thickness in horizontal layers with compaction of each
layer to a minimum 95% of standard maximum dry density or 70% density index and within 85% to 115%
of SOMC.
> Fill within 0.5m of design subgrade in road alignments is to be compacted to 100% standard relative
density or 80% density index at a 70-100% of SOMC.
Care is required to ensure that compaction is achieved over the entire fill area, particularly adjacent any
vertical excavated faces. This may require benching to allow compaction equipment to achieve full
compaction to the edge. Alternately, the use of hand compaction equipment may be required.
All fill should be supported by properly designed and constructed retaining walls or else battered at a slope
of 2H:1V or flatter and protected against erosion by vegetation or similar and the provision of adequate
drainage.
Properly compacted fill batters may be constructed up to 6 m high at gradient of 3H:1V or flatter. Specific
geotechnical advice is required for higher or steeper batters.
Materials excavated on site with the exception of fill, topsoil and other deleterious materials are considered
suitable for re-use as engineering fill. The materials may require treatment or moisture re-conditioning,
subject to further assessment and weather conditions prior to and during construction.
CGS2590-002.0
8 August 2015
16
7.2.1
Residential Structures
From a geotechnical viewpoint there are no constraints on the type of residential structures that may be
constructed at the site provided all footings are designed and constructed in accordance with AS 2870-2011,
Residential Slabs and Footings [7].
7.2.2
Site Classification
Australian Standard AS 2870-2011 [7] establishes performance requirements and specific designs for
common foundation conditions as well as providing guidance on the design of footing systems using
engineering principles based on site classifications as defined by the standard.
Based on the laboratory test results the lots in their natural state would be classed as Class A with little or no
ground movement from moisture changes; however, settlement of up to 25mm may occur upon construction
which is the equivalent of a Class M classification and it is recommended that slabs are designed to
accommodated this movement.
The site in its current condition, prior to any earthworks that may be required, would be classified as Class A
in accordance with AS 2870-2011 [7]. Earthworks conducted at the site involving importation of filling need to
consider the potential for site classifications to increase following works. If clay material is imported to the
site additional investigation and classification would be required.
The field testing conducted suggests the natural sand materials are of medium dense to dense consistency;
however, in aelioan sand profiles there is the potential for variation in consistency given the depositional
nature of the materials. If loose or unconsolidated sands are encountered excavation and recompaction may
be required. It is recommended that a programme of PSP testing is carried out during construction to
characterised the sand density.
7.2.3
Foundation Conditions
All foundations should be designed and constructed in accordance with AS 2870-2011 [7]. All footings
should be founded below any topsoil, deleterious soils or uncontrolled fill, on strata of similar stiffness and
reactivity to minimise the risk of differential movements.
High-level footing alternatives could be expected to comprise slabs on ground with edge beams or pad
footings for the support of concentrated loads. Such footings designed in accordance with engineering
principles and founded in medium dense or better natural sands or controlled filling may be proportioned on
an allowable bearing capacity of 150 kPa. Inspection of high-level footing excavations shall be undertaken
during construction to confirm founding conditions.
Piered footings are considered as an alternative to deep edge beams or high level footings and will be
required where foundations for structures are located within the zone of influence of any service trenching or
test pits. The depth of the pier should be extended below the zone of influence ignoring shaft adhesion. A
structural engineer should be consulted for detailing. Where piered footing are utilised, the potential for
volume change in the subsurface profile should be taken into considered by the designer.
It is suggested that piered footings, founded in medium dense or better natural sands could be proportioned
on an end bearing pressure of 150 kPa. Inspection of pier footings shall be undertaken to confirm the
founding conditions and the base shall be cleared of fall-in prior to the formation of the footing.
7.3
Pavements
7.3.1
Design Subgrade
Based on the subsurface conditions encountered in the test pits, subgrade conditions across the site and
current conditions (prior to earthworks) are likely to comprise aeolian sands.
The results of the laboratory CBR testing indicate soaked CBR values in the order of 50% to 80% for the
Aeolian sands when compacted to 100% relative density using standard compactive effort.
CGS2590-002.0
8 August 2015
17
Based on the results of the laboratory CBR testing a design subgrade CBR of 10% would be recommended
for the sand subgrade. This is based on the assumption that the subgrade is compacted to 100% standard
dry density.
7.3.2
Design Traffic
Design traffic has been assumed in accordance with the Northern Rivers Local Government Development
Design Specification D2 Pavement Design (Council design specification) [8] based on road designations as
indicated below.
Table 7-1
Design Traffic
Road Name
Road Category
Design Traffic
Hickey Street
Local Distributor
2 106 ESA
Street 1
Collector
1 106 ESA
Streets 2 to 8 (inclusive)
Local Street
3 105 ESA
Access Street
3 105 ESA
Notes to table:
ESA: Design Equivalent Standard Axles
Where traffic data varies from the information provided in this report, review of pavement design may be
required.
7.3.3
Pavement Composition
Pavement designs have been conducted in accordance with Austroads AGPT02-12 Guide to Pavement
Technology Part 2: Pavement Structural Design [9].
It should be noted that the layer thicknesses detailed are minimum thicknesses regardless of construction
tolerances.
Figure 7-1 Pavement Composition
Road Name
Hickey Street
40 mm AC (1) (2)
Basecourse (mm)
150 (3)
150 (3)
Select (mm)
Street 1
40 mm AC (1) (2)
150 (3)
150 (3)
340
(3)
2 106 ESA
340
Streets 2 to 8 (inclusive)
and Access Ways 1 to 7
(inclusive)
25 mm AC (1) (2)
150 (3)
150(3)
-
(3)
1 106 ESA
325 (3)
3 105 ESA
Notes to table:
1 10mm Primer seal required
2 Dense graded asphalt required in accordance with RMS QA specification R117.
3 Minimum thickness from Council design specification [8]
4 - A thicker subbase and or select may be required for construction purposes and will be dependent on the contractor and materials
utilised. Crusher dust has been successfully used on sand subgrades as a alternate subbase material
The requirement for a select layer should be assessed at the time of construction and will be dependent on
climatic conditions prior to and during construction. Crusher dust should be considered as an alternative
subbase material (if readily available locally), subject to Council approval.
7.3.4
Pavement materials and compaction requirements for new pavement construction shall conform to the
Council design specification [8] guidelines and the following requirements.
CGS2590-002.0
8 August 2015
18
Table 7-2
Pavement Course
Material Specification
Compaction Requirements
Wearing Course
Asphaltic Concrete
Basecourse
High quality crushed rock
Subbase
Subbase quality crushed
rock or crusher dust
Select
Crushed rock or gravel
CBR 10%
Subgrade
or replacement
7.3.5
Subgrade Preparation
Subgrades should be prepared in accordance with appropriate Council guidelines and the following general
recommendations.
> Proof rolling of the exposed subgrade with a heavy (minimum 10 tonne static) roller with any soft or weak
areas detected to be excavated and replaced with a suitable compacted fill or subgrade replacement. To
prevent zones of variable permeability, which may trap moisture and lead to subgrade deformation,
material of similar consistency to the subgrade should be utilised in the case where localised replacement
is required.
> Compaction of the subgrade filling or select shall be to a minimum dry density ratio of 100% Standard
Compaction or 80% density index in layers of not greater than 250 mm loose thickness and generally
within 60-90% of SOMC;
> It is essential to keep the sand subgrade moist to provide a tight surface for placement of the subsequent
subbase layer; and
> Formation of the pavement in accordance with the above recommendations and specifications.
Crusher dust has been recommended as an alternative to reduce punching of subbase into the sand and
could be considered for the full depth of pavement, where acceptable to Council.
It is recommended that trafficking of the subgrade be minimised or avoided (where possible) during
construction to prevent the permanent deformation of the subgrade. The boxed road alignment should not be
used as a haul road during construction, with footpath areas outside the road alignment offering alternate
areas for construction traffic.
Particular care should be taken in the choice of compaction equipment and methods where pavement
construction is to be undertaken in the vicinity of existing structures due to the potential for vibration
transference which is a particular issue on sans subgrades. Observation and monitoring of existing adjacent
residences for signs of distress should be undertaken in conjunction with proof rolling and compaction of the
subgrade and pavement materials.
7.3.6
Pavement Drainage
Pavement Drainage is unlikely to be required provided sand is maintained as the subgrade material.
7.3.7
Pavement Interface
It is recommended that any new pavement where it abuts existing should be keyed-in to the existing
pavement to a minimum width of 0.5 m. It should be noted that when variable pavements are abutted then
the potential for localised failure is greater. Care should be exercised in the placement and compaction of the
subgrade and pavements in this area to maximise the performance of the pavement.
CGS2590-002.0
8 August 2015
19
Consideration should also be given to sealing any cracks that may develop between existing and new
pavements, benching to tie in pavements and the use of a strain relieving membranes at the interface may
be appropriate.
7.3.8
Construction Inspections
The subgrade will require inspection by an experienced geotechnical consultant after boxing out or filling to
design subgrade level. The purpose of inspections is to confirm design parameters, assess the suitability of
the subgrade to support the pavement and delineate areas which may require subgrade replacement / select
and areas requiring remedial treatment prior to rehabilitation.
CGS2590-002.0
8 August 2015
20
Limitations
Cardno Geotech Solutions (CGS) have performed investigation and consulting services for this project in
general accordance with current professional and industry standards. The extent of testing was limited to
discrete test locations and variations in ground conditions can occur between test locations that cannot be
inferred or predicted.
A geotechnical consultant or qualified engineer shall provide inspections during construction to confirm
assumed conditions in this assessment. If subsurface conditions encountered during construction differ from
those given in this report, further advice shall be sought without delay.
Cardno Geotech Solutions, or any other reputable consultant, cannot provide unqualified warranties nor
does it assume any liability for the site conditions not observed or accessible during the investigations. Site
conditions may also change subsequent to the investigations and assessment due to ongoing use.
This report and associated documentation was undertaken for the specific purpose described in the report
and shall not be relied on for other purposes. This report was prepared solely for the use by Stevens
Holdings Pty Ltd and any reliance assumed by other parties on this report shall be at such parties own risk.
CGS2590-002.0
8 August 2015
21
References
[1] EPA, Contaminated Sites: Guideline for Consultants Reporting on Contaminated Sites, EPA, 1997.
[2] Woodburn, 1:100 000 Series Sheet 9539, Geological Survey of New South Wales, Department of
Mineral Resources, Provisional Geology Jan 2002.
[3] National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure 1999, Schedule B1
Guidelines on Investigation Levels For Soil and Groundwater, National Environment Protection Council,
16 May 2013.
[4] NSW DECC Waste Classification Guidelines, Part 1 - Classifying Waste, Department of Environment
and Climate Change NSW, December 2009.
[5] NSW DEC, Guidelines for the NSW Site Auditor Scheme (2nd Edition), Department of Environment
and Conservation NSW, April 2006.
[6] Australian Standard AS3798-2007, Guidelines on Earthworks for Commercial and Residential
Structures, Standards Australia, 2007.
[7] Australian Standard AS2870-2011, Residential Slabs and Footings, Standards Australia, 2011.
[8] Northern Rivers - Local Government, Development Design Specification, August 2013.
[9] Austroads AGPT02-12, Guide to Pavement Technology Part 2: Pavement Structural Design, Austroads
Ltd, 2012.
CGS2590-002.0
8 August 2015
22
Iluka Subdivision
APPENDIX
A
DRAWINGS
CGS2590-002.0
8 August 2015
23
NOTES:
LOT 971
DP 876936
LOT 93
DP 1105124
LEGEND:
LOT 7020
DP 1114873
TP04
HICKE
Y STRE
LOT 64
DP 41701
ET
TP05
Approximate boundaries as adapted
from SIX Maps
HICKE
Y STRE
ET
SITE
TP03
TB04
NOT TO SCALE
TB02
TB05
TP02
LOT 99
DP 823635
TB03
TP01
TB06
TB01
TP06
TP07
SCALE 1:2000
50
100
150
200m
HORIZONTAL SCALE
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:
SITE LOCATION:
SITE PLAN
PCA & PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
PROPOSED SUBDIVISION - ELIZABETH STREET, ILUKA
CLIENT:
PROJECT NO:
CGS2590
DRAWING NO: 1
FILE REF:
2590-002-d1
CHECKED BY:
NORTH
NOTES:
LOT 971
DP 876936
LOT 93
DP 1105124
prepared by jcd A+U, project number '1460' issue A dated 14 April 2015.
Image adapted from google earth aerial imagery.
LEGEND:
LOT 7020
DP 1114873
TP04
HICKE
LOT 64
DP 41701
Y STRE
ET
TP05
AW
AY
HICKE
Y STRE
ET
SITE
STREE
T
2
TB04
TP03
AW
AY
STREE
PARK 1
T1
AWAY
1
NOT TO SCALE
TB02
TB05
STREE
T3
AWAY 3
TP02
LOT 99
DP 823635
AW
AY
STREE
T4
T1
R
ST
EE
STRE
ET
TB03
TP01
STREE
T6
EE
ST
TB06
7
TB01
ROAD 7
AWAY
TP06
T
EE
ST
8
AY
AW
TP07
SCALE 1:2000
50
100
150
200m
HORIZONTAL SCALE
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:
SITE LOCATION:
CLIENT:
PROJECT NO:
CGS2590
DRAWING NO: 2
FILE REF:
2590-002-d2
CHECKED BY:
NORTH
NOTES:
LOT 971
DP 876936
LOT 93
DP 1105124
LEGEND:
LOT 7020
DP 1114873
HICKE
LOT 64
DP 41701
Y STRE
ET
TP05
HICKE
Y STRE
ET
SITE
ES012
ES0013 & 14
ES005
NOT TO SCALE
ES003 & 4
TB02
TP02
LOT 99
DP 823635
ES009
ES008
ES010
ES011
SCALE 1:2000
50
100
150
200m
HORIZONTAL SCALE
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:
SITE LOCATION:
CLIENT:
PROJECT NO:
CGS2590
DRAWING NO: 3
FILE REF:
2590-002-d3
CHECKED BY:
NORTH
Iluka Subdivision
APPENDIX
B
AERIALS
CGS2590-002.0
8 August 2015
24
Iluka Subdivision
APPENDIX
C
149 CERTIFICATES
CGS2590-002.0
8 August 2015
25
Iluka Subdivision
APPENDIX
D
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
CGS2590-002.0
8 August 2015
26
Photograph 1:
Photograph 2:
Photograph 3:
Photograph 4:
Photograph 5:
Photograph 6:
Photograph 7:
Photograph 8:
Photograph 9:
Photograph 10:
Photograph 11:
Photograph 12:
Photograph 13:
Photograph 14:
Photograph 15:
Photograph 16:
Photograph 17:
Photograph 18:
Iluka Subdivision
APPENDIX
E
ENGINEERING LOGS
CGS2590-002.0
8 August 2015
27
Explanatory Notes
The methods of description and classification of soils and rocks used in this report are based on Australian Standard 1726
Geotechnical Site Investigations Code. Material descriptions are deduced from field observation or engineering examination,
and may be appended or confirmed by in situ or laboratory testing. The information is dependent on the scope of
investigation, the extent of sampling and testing, and the inherent variability of the conditions encountered.
Subsurface investigation may be conducted by one or a
combination of the following methods.
Method
Field testing
SPT
HP/PP
Hand/Pocket Penetrometer
EX
Excavator bucket
Existing excavation
Push tube
Hammer drilling
AH
Air hammer
AT
Air track
AD/T
RR
Rock roller
63mm diamond-tipped core barrel
52mm diamond-tipped core barrel
NQ
Concrete coring
DT
Diatube
Disturbed sample
ES
Undisturbed sampling
SPT
U#
Water samples
EW
Vane Shear
PBT
RQD
PSP
VS
DCP
Seepage
Inflow
Soil Classification
Particle Size
CLAY
< 0.002mm
SILT
0.002mm 0.075mm
Dry
SAND
GRAVEL
fine
0.075mm to 0.2mm
medium
0.2mm to 0.6mm
coarse
0.6mm to 2.36mm
fine
2.36mm to 6mm
medium
6mm to 20mm
coarse
20mm to 63mm
COBBLES
63mm to 200mm
BOULDERS
> 200mm
Trace
With
Symbol
Very Soft
VS
< 12kPa
Soft
12kPa to 25kPa
Firm
25kPa to 50kPa
Stiff
St
50kPa to 100kPa
Very Stiff
VSt
100kPa to 200kPa
Hard
> 200kPa
Moist
Wet
Liquid Limit
Low plasticity
35%
Medium plasticity
High plasticity
> 50%
Description
Layer
Lens
Topsoil
Colluvial soil
Aeolian soil
Alluvial soil
Deposited by rivers
Lacustrine soil
Deposited by lakes
Relative Density
Symbol
Density Index
Marine soil
Very Loose
VL
< 15%
Residual soil
Loose
15% to 35%
Medium Dense
MD
35% to 65%
Dense
65% to 85%
Very Dense
VD
> 85%
Rock Type
Description
CONGLOMERATE
Definition
Defect Spacing
Thinly laminated
< 6mm
SANDSTONE
Laminated
6mm to 20mm
20mm to 60mm
Thinly bedded
60mm to 0.2m
Medium bedded
0.2m to 0.6m
SILTSTONE
Thickly bedded
0.6m to 2m
SHALE
> 2m
CLAYSTONE
Terms
Joint
JT
Sheared zone
SZ
Definition
Bed Parting
BP
Sheared surface
SS
Residual
Soil
Contact
CO
Seam
SM
Dyke
DK
Crushed Seam
CS
Decomposed Zone
DZ
Infilled Seam
IS
Fracture
FC
Foliation
FL
Fracture Zone
FZ
Vein
VN
Extremely
weathered
Distinctly
weathered
Slightly
weathered
Fresh Rock
RS
XW
DW
SW
FR
Extremely low
EL
< 0.03MPa
Very Low
VL
0.03MPa to 0.1MPa
Low
0.1MPa to 0.3MPa
Medium
0.3MPa to 1MPa
High
1MPa to 3MPa
Very High
VH
3MPa to 10MPa
Extremely High
EH
> 10MPa
Roughness
Planar
PR
Very Rough
VR
Curved
CU
Rough
RF
Undulating
Smooth
Irregular
IR
Polished
POL
Stepped
ST
Slickensides
SL
Description
Clean
Stain
Veneer
Coating
GRAVELS
SEDIMENTARY ROCK
CLAY
GRAVEL
CONGLOMERATE
Silty CLAY
Clayey GRAVEL
BRECCIA
Sandy CLAY
Silty GRAVEL
SANDSTONE
Gravelly CLAY
Sandy GRAVEL
STONE
SILTSTONE
SHALE
SILTS
MUDSTONE / CLAYSTONE
Organic SILT
COAL
SILT
MISCELLANEOUS
Clayey SILT
Sandy SILT
Gravelly SILT
SANDS
FILL
TOPSOIL
CONCRETE
ASPHALT
METAMORPHIC ROCK
SLATE / PHYLLITE / SCHIST
GNEISS
QUARTZITE
SAND
CORE LOSS
Clayey SAND
PAVEMENT GRAVEL
GRANITE
Silty SAND
BASALT
Gravelly SAND
TUFF
IGNEOUS ROCK
TESTBORE LOG
HOLE NO : TB01
PROJECT REF : CGS2590
SHEET : 1 OF 1
METHOD :
LOGGED BY : DGB
CHECKED BY :
STRUCTURE
& Other Observations
400
HAND
PENETROMETER
(kPa)
300
200
100
PSP
(BLOW COUNT)
MOISTURE /
WEATHERING
SYMBOL
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Soil Type, plasticity or particle characteristic, colour
Rock Type, grain size, colour
Secondary and minor components
CONSISTENCY /
REL DENSITY /
ROCK STRENGTH
0.0
CLASSIFICATION
GRAPHIC
LOG
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES &
FIELD TESTS
GROUND WATER
LEVELS
TOPSOIL
0.25m
AEOLIAN
0.5
1.0
D-M
MD
1.5
2.00m
2.0
2.5
3.0
WATER / MOISTURE
CONSISTENCY
RELATIVE DENSITY
ROCK STRENGTH
ROCK WEATHERING
D
M
W
OMC
PL
U
D
ES
B
SPT
HP
VS
S
F
St
VSt
H
VL
L
MD
D
VD
EL
VL
L
M
H
VH
EH
RS
XW
DW
SW
FR
Dry
Moist
Wet
Optimum MC
Plastic Limit
Water inflow
Undisturbed Sample
Disturbed Sample
Environmental sample
Bulk Disturbed Sample
Standard Penetration Test
Hand/Pocket Penetrometer
Very Soft
Soft
Firm
Stiff
Very Stiff
Hard
Very Loose
Loose
Medium Dense
Dense
Very Dense
Extremely low
Very low
Low
Medium
High
Very high
Extremely high
Residual soil
Extremely weathered
Distinctly weathered
Slightly weathered
Fresh rock
TESTBORE LOG
HOLE NO : TB02
PROJECT REF : CGS2590
SHEET : 1 OF 1
METHOD :
LOGGED BY : DGB
CHECKED BY :
STRUCTURE
& Other Observations
400
HAND
PENETROMETER
(kPa)
300
200
100
DYNAMIC
PENETROMETER
MOISTURE /
WEATHERING
SYMBOL
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Soil Type, plasticity or particle characteristic, colour
Rock Type, grain size, colour
Secondary and minor components
CONSISTENCY /
REL DENSITY /
ROCK STRENGTH
0.0
CLASSIFICATION
GRAPHIC
LOG
DEPTH (m)
GROUND WATER
LEVELS
SAMPLES &
FIELD TESTS
TOPSOIL
0.30m
AEOLIAN
0.5
0.60m
ES
D-M
1.0
1.50m
D
1.50m
1.5
1.70m
ES
2.00m
2.00m
2.0
2.5
3.0
WATER / MOISTURE
CONSISTENCY
RELATIVE DENSITY
ROCK STRENGTH
ROCK WEATHERING
D
M
W
OMC
PL
U
D
ES
B
SPT
HP
VS
S
F
St
VSt
H
VL
L
MD
D
VD
EL
VL
L
M
H
VH
EH
RS
XW
DW
SW
FR
Dry
Moist
Wet
Optimum MC
Plastic Limit
Water inflow
Undisturbed Sample
Disturbed Sample
Environmental sample
Bulk Disturbed Sample
Standard Penetration Test
Hand/Pocket Penetrometer
Very Soft
Soft
Firm
Stiff
Very Stiff
Hard
Very Loose
Loose
Medium Dense
Dense
Very Dense
Extremely low
Very low
Low
Medium
High
Very high
Extremely high
Residual soil
Extremely weathered
Distinctly weathered
Slightly weathered
Fresh rock
TESTBORE LOG
HOLE NO : TB03
PROJECT REF : CGS2590
SHEET : 1 OF 1
METHOD :
LOGGED BY : DGB
CHECKED BY :
STRUCTURE
& Other Observations
400
HAND
PENETROMETER
(kPa)
300
200
100
DYNAMIC
PENETROMETER
MOISTURE /
WEATHERING
SYMBOL
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Soil Type, plasticity or particle characteristic, colour
Rock Type, grain size, colour
Secondary and minor components
CONSISTENCY /
REL DENSITY /
ROCK STRENGTH
0.0
CLASSIFICATION
GRAPHIC
LOG
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES &
FIELD TESTS
GROUND WATER
LEVELS
TOPSOIL
0.25m
AEOLIAN
0.5
1.0
D-M
1.5
2.00m
2.0
2.5
3.0
WATER / MOISTURE
CONSISTENCY
RELATIVE DENSITY
ROCK STRENGTH
ROCK WEATHERING
D
M
W
OMC
PL
U
D
ES
B
SPT
HP
VS
S
F
St
VSt
H
VL
L
MD
D
VD
EL
VL
L
M
H
VH
EH
RS
XW
DW
SW
FR
Dry
Moist
Wet
Optimum MC
Plastic Limit
Water inflow
Undisturbed Sample
Disturbed Sample
Environmental sample
Bulk Disturbed Sample
Standard Penetration Test
Hand/Pocket Penetrometer
Very Soft
Soft
Firm
Stiff
Very Stiff
Hard
Very Loose
Loose
Medium Dense
Dense
Very Dense
Extremely low
Very low
Low
Medium
High
Very high
Extremely high
Residual soil
Extremely weathered
Distinctly weathered
Slightly weathered
Fresh rock
TESTBORE LOG
HOLE NO : TB04
PROJECT REF : CGS2590
SHEET : 1 OF 1
METHOD :
LOGGED BY : DGB
CHECKED BY :
STRUCTURE
& Other Observations
400
HAND
PENETROMETER
(kPa)
300
200
100
PSP
(BLOW COUNT)
MOISTURE /
WEATHERING
SYMBOL
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Soil Type, plasticity or particle characteristic, colour
Rock Type, grain size, colour
Secondary and minor components
CONSISTENCY /
REL DENSITY /
ROCK STRENGTH
0.0
CLASSIFICATION
GRAPHIC
LOG
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES &
FIELD TESTS
GROUND WATER
LEVELS
TOPSOIL
TOPSOIL, SAND, fine to medium grained, grey, with root fibres, trace
roots
1
D
2
0.30m
AEOLIAN
0.5
MD
1.0
D-M
10
1.5
10
2.00m
2.0
2.5
3.0
WATER / MOISTURE
CONSISTENCY
RELATIVE DENSITY
ROCK STRENGTH
ROCK WEATHERING
D
M
W
OMC
PL
U
D
ES
B
SPT
HP
VS
S
F
St
VSt
H
VL
L
MD
D
VD
EL
VL
L
M
H
VH
EH
RS
XW
DW
SW
FR
Dry
Moist
Wet
Optimum MC
Plastic Limit
Water inflow
Undisturbed Sample
Disturbed Sample
Environmental sample
Bulk Disturbed Sample
Standard Penetration Test
Hand/Pocket Penetrometer
Very Soft
Soft
Firm
Stiff
Very Stiff
Hard
Very Loose
Loose
Medium Dense
Dense
Very Dense
Extremely low
Very low
Low
Medium
High
Very high
Extremely high
Residual soil
Extremely weathered
Distinctly weathered
Slightly weathered
Fresh rock
TESTBORE LOG
HOLE NO : TB05
PROJECT REF : CGS2590
SHEET : 1 OF 1
METHOD :
LOGGED BY : DGB
CHECKED BY :
STRUCTURE
& Other Observations
400
HAND
PENETROMETER
(kPa)
300
200
100
DYNAMIC
PENETROMETER
MOISTURE /
WEATHERING
SYMBOL
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Soil Type, plasticity or particle characteristic, colour
Rock Type, grain size, colour
Secondary and minor components
CONSISTENCY /
REL DENSITY /
ROCK STRENGTH
0.0
CLASSIFICATION
GRAPHIC
LOG
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES &
FIELD TESTS
GROUND WATER
LEVELS
TOPSOIL
TOPSOIL, SAND, fine to medium grained, grey, with root fibres, trace
roots
D
0.30m
AEOLIAN
0.5
1.0
D-M
1.5
2.00m
2.0
2.5
3.0
WATER / MOISTURE
CONSISTENCY
RELATIVE DENSITY
ROCK STRENGTH
ROCK WEATHERING
D
M
W
OMC
PL
U
D
ES
B
SPT
HP
VS
S
F
St
VSt
H
VL
L
MD
D
VD
EL
VL
L
M
H
VH
EH
RS
XW
DW
SW
FR
Dry
Moist
Wet
Optimum MC
Plastic Limit
Water inflow
Undisturbed Sample
Disturbed Sample
Environmental sample
Bulk Disturbed Sample
Standard Penetration Test
Hand/Pocket Penetrometer
Very Soft
Soft
Firm
Stiff
Very Stiff
Hard
Very Loose
Loose
Medium Dense
Dense
Very Dense
Extremely low
Very low
Low
Medium
High
Very high
Extremely high
Residual soil
Extremely weathered
Distinctly weathered
Slightly weathered
Fresh rock
TESTBORE LOG
HOLE NO : TB06
PROJECT REF : CGS2590
SHEET : 1 OF 1
METHOD :
LOGGED BY : DGB
CHECKED BY :
STRUCTURE
& Other Observations
400
HAND
PENETROMETER
(kPa)
300
200
100
DYNAMIC
PENETROMETER
MOISTURE /
WEATHERING
SYMBOL
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Soil Type, plasticity or particle characteristic, colour
Rock Type, grain size, colour
Secondary and minor components
CONSISTENCY /
REL DENSITY /
ROCK STRENGTH
0.0
CLASSIFICATION
GRAPHIC
LOG
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES &
FIELD TESTS
GROUND WATER
LEVELS
TOPSOIL
0.25m
AEOLIAN
0.5
1.0
D-M
1.5
2.00m
2.0
2.5
3.0
WATER / MOISTURE
CONSISTENCY
RELATIVE DENSITY
ROCK STRENGTH
ROCK WEATHERING
D
M
W
OMC
PL
U
D
ES
B
SPT
HP
VS
S
F
St
VSt
H
VL
L
MD
D
VD
EL
VL
L
M
H
VH
EH
RS
XW
DW
SW
FR
Dry
Moist
Wet
Optimum MC
Plastic Limit
Water inflow
Undisturbed Sample
Disturbed Sample
Environmental sample
Bulk Disturbed Sample
Standard Penetration Test
Hand/Pocket Penetrometer
Very Soft
Soft
Firm
Stiff
Very Stiff
Hard
Very Loose
Loose
Medium Dense
Dense
Very Dense
Extremely low
Very low
Low
Medium
High
Very high
Extremely high
Residual soil
Extremely weathered
Distinctly weathered
Slightly weathered
Fresh rock
TESTPIT LOG
HOLE NO : TP01
PROJECT REF : CGS2590
SHEET : 1 OF 1
LOGGED BY : DGB
CHECKED BY :
STRUCTURE
& Other Observations
400
HAND
PENETROMETER
(kPa)
300
200
100
PSP
(BLOW COUNT)
MOISTURE /
WEATHERING
SYMBOL
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Soil Type, plasticity or particle characteristic, colour
Rock Type, grain size, colour
Secondary and minor components
CONSISTENCY /
REL DENSITY /
ROCK STRENGTH
0.0
CLASSIFICATION
GRAPHIC
LOG
DEPTH (m)
GROUND WATER
LEVELS
SAMPLES &
FIELD TESTS
TOPSOIL
TOPSOIL, SAND, fine to medium grained, pale grey, with roots and root
fibres
1
D
2
0.30m
AEOLIAN
MD
0.50m
0.5
1.00m
1.0
D-M
1.5
2.00m
2.0
2.5
3.0
WATER / MOISTURE
CONSISTENCY
RELATIVE DENSITY
ROCK STRENGTH
ROCK WEATHERING
D
M
W
OMC
PL
U
D
ES
B
SPT
HP
VS
S
F
St
VSt
H
VL
L
MD
D
VD
EL
VL
L
M
H
VH
EH
RS
XW
DW
SW
FR
Dry
Moist
Wet
Optimum MC
Plastic Limit
Water inflow
Undisturbed Sample
Disturbed Sample
Environmental sample
Bulk Disturbed Sample
Standard Penetration Test
Hand/Pocket Penetrometer
Very Soft
Soft
Firm
Stiff
Very Stiff
Hard
Very Loose
Loose
Medium Dense
Dense
Very Dense
Extremely low
Very low
Low
Medium
High
Very high
Extremely high
Residual soil
Extremely weathered
Distinctly weathered
Slightly weathered
Fresh rock
TESTPIT LOG
HOLE NO : TP02
PROJECT REF : CGS2590
SHEET : 1 OF 1
LOGGED BY : DGB
CHECKED BY :
STRUCTURE
& Other Observations
400
HAND
PENETROMETER
(kPa)
300
200
100
DYNAMIC
PENETROMETER
MOISTURE /
WEATHERING
SYMBOL
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Soil Type, plasticity or particle characteristic, colour
Rock Type, grain size, colour
Secondary and minor components
CONSISTENCY /
REL DENSITY /
ROCK STRENGTH
0.0
CLASSIFICATION
GRAPHIC
LOG
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES &
FIELD TESTS
GROUND WATER
LEVELS
TOPSOIL
0.30m
AEOLIAN
0.5
0.80m
ES
1.0
D-M
1.5
1.80m
ES
2.00m
2.0
2.5
3.0
WATER / MOISTURE
CONSISTENCY
RELATIVE DENSITY
ROCK STRENGTH
ROCK WEATHERING
D
M
W
OMC
PL
U
D
ES
B
SPT
HP
VS
S
F
St
VSt
H
VL
L
MD
D
VD
EL
VL
L
M
H
VH
EH
RS
XW
DW
SW
FR
Dry
Moist
Wet
Optimum MC
Plastic Limit
Water inflow
Undisturbed Sample
Disturbed Sample
Environmental sample
Bulk Disturbed Sample
Standard Penetration Test
Hand/Pocket Penetrometer
Very Soft
Soft
Firm
Stiff
Very Stiff
Hard
Very Loose
Loose
Medium Dense
Dense
Very Dense
Extremely low
Very low
Low
Medium
High
Very high
Extremely high
Residual soil
Extremely weathered
Distinctly weathered
Slightly weathered
Fresh rock
TESTPIT LOG
HOLE NO : TP03
PROJECT REF : CGS2590
SHEET : 1 OF 1
LOGGED BY : DGB
CHECKED BY :
STRUCTURE
& Other Observations
400
HAND
PENETROMETER
(kPa)
300
200
100
PSP
(BLOW COUNT)
MOISTURE /
WEATHERING
SYMBOL
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Soil Type, plasticity or particle characteristic, colour
Rock Type, grain size, colour
Secondary and minor components
CONSISTENCY /
REL DENSITY /
ROCK STRENGTH
0.0
CLASSIFICATION
GRAPHIC
LOG
DEPTH (m)
GROUND WATER
LEVELS
SAMPLES &
FIELD TESTS
TOPSOIL
TOPSOIL, SAND, fine to medium grained, pale grey, with roots and root
fibres
1
D
2
0.30m
AEOLIAN
0.50m
B
0.5
MD
1.00m
1.0
D-M
13
1.5
2.00m
2.0
2.5
3.0
WATER / MOISTURE
CONSISTENCY
RELATIVE DENSITY
ROCK STRENGTH
ROCK WEATHERING
D
M
W
OMC
PL
U
D
ES
B
SPT
HP
VS
S
F
St
VSt
H
VL
L
MD
D
VD
EL
VL
L
M
H
VH
EH
RS
XW
DW
SW
FR
Dry
Moist
Wet
Optimum MC
Plastic Limit
Water inflow
Undisturbed Sample
Disturbed Sample
Environmental sample
Bulk Disturbed Sample
Standard Penetration Test
Hand/Pocket Penetrometer
Very Soft
Soft
Firm
Stiff
Very Stiff
Hard
Very Loose
Loose
Medium Dense
Dense
Very Dense
Extremely low
Very low
Low
Medium
High
Very high
Extremely high
Residual soil
Extremely weathered
Distinctly weathered
Slightly weathered
Fresh rock
TESTPIT LOG
HOLE NO : TP04
PROJECT REF : CGS2590
SHEET : 1 OF 1
LOGGED BY : DGB
CHECKED BY :
0.05m
ES
STRUCTURE
& Other Observations
400
HAND
PENETROMETER
(kPa)
300
200
100
PSP
(BLOW COUNT)
MOISTURE /
WEATHERING
SYMBOL
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Soil Type, plasticity or particle characteristic, colour
Rock Type, grain size, colour
Secondary and minor components
CONSISTENCY /
REL DENSITY /
ROCK STRENGTH
0.0
CLASSIFICATION
GRAPHIC
LOG
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES &
FIELD TESTS
GROUND WATER
LEVELS
TOPSOIL
5
0.45m
AEOLIAN
0.5
1.0
7
D-M
MD - D
8
1.5
10
2.00m
2.0
2.5
3.0
WATER / MOISTURE
CONSISTENCY
RELATIVE DENSITY
ROCK STRENGTH
ROCK WEATHERING
D
M
W
OMC
PL
U
D
ES
B
SPT
HP
VS
S
F
St
VSt
H
VL
L
MD
D
VD
EL
VL
L
M
H
VH
EH
RS
XW
DW
SW
FR
Dry
Moist
Wet
Optimum MC
Plastic Limit
Water inflow
Undisturbed Sample
Disturbed Sample
Environmental sample
Bulk Disturbed Sample
Standard Penetration Test
Hand/Pocket Penetrometer
Very Soft
Soft
Firm
Stiff
Very Stiff
Hard
Very Loose
Loose
Medium Dense
Dense
Very Dense
Extremely low
Very low
Low
Medium
High
Very high
Extremely high
Residual soil
Extremely weathered
Distinctly weathered
Slightly weathered
Fresh rock
TESTPIT LOG
HOLE NO : TP05
PROJECT REF : CGS2590
SHEET : 1 OF 1
LOGGED BY : DGB
CHECKED BY :
0.05m
ES
0.05m
HAND
PENETROMETER
(kPa)
FILL
STRUCTURE
& Other Observations
400
300
200
100
PSP
(BLOW COUNT)
MOISTURE /
WEATHERING
SYMBOL
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Soil Type, plasticity or particle characteristic, colour
Rock Type, grain size, colour
Secondary and minor components
CONSISTENCY /
REL DENSITY /
ROCK STRENGTH
0.0
CLASSIFICATION
GRAPHIC
LOG
DEPTH (m)
GROUND WATER
LEVELS
SAMPLES &
FIELD TESTS
FILL, Clayey SAND, fine to medium grained, dark orange, with gravels
M
7
0.30m
AEOLIAN
0.50m
B
0.5
1.00m
1.0
AEOLIAN
D-M
11
1.30m
1.5
2.00m
2.0
2.5
3.0
WATER / MOISTURE
CONSISTENCY
RELATIVE DENSITY
ROCK STRENGTH
ROCK WEATHERING
D
M
W
OMC
PL
U
D
ES
B
SPT
HP
VS
S
F
St
VSt
H
VL
L
MD
D
VD
EL
VL
L
M
H
VH
EH
RS
XW
DW
SW
FR
Dry
Moist
Wet
Optimum MC
Plastic Limit
Water inflow
Undisturbed Sample
Disturbed Sample
Environmental sample
Bulk Disturbed Sample
Standard Penetration Test
Hand/Pocket Penetrometer
Very Soft
Soft
Firm
Stiff
Very Stiff
Hard
Very Loose
Loose
Medium Dense
Dense
Very Dense
Extremely low
Very low
Low
Medium
High
Very high
Extremely high
Residual soil
Extremely weathered
Distinctly weathered
Slightly weathered
Fresh rock
TESTPIT LOG
HOLE NO : TP06
PROJECT REF : CGS2590
SHEET : 1 OF 1
LOGGED BY : DGB
CHECKED BY :
STRUCTURE
& Other Observations
400
HAND
PENETROMETER
(kPa)
300
200
100
DYNAMIC
PENETROMETER
MOISTURE /
WEATHERING
SYMBOL
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Soil Type, plasticity or particle characteristic, colour
Rock Type, grain size, colour
Secondary and minor components
CONSISTENCY /
REL DENSITY /
ROCK STRENGTH
0.0
CLASSIFICATION
GRAPHIC
LOG
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES &
FIELD TESTS
GROUND WATER
LEVELS
TOPSOIL
TOPSOIL, SAND, fine to medium grained, pale orange, with roots and
root fibres
M
0.30m
AEOLIAN
0.5
1.00m
ES
1.0
1.5
2.00m
2.0
2.5
3.0
WATER / MOISTURE
CONSISTENCY
RELATIVE DENSITY
ROCK STRENGTH
ROCK WEATHERING
D
M
W
OMC
PL
U
D
ES
B
SPT
HP
VS
S
F
St
VSt
H
VL
L
MD
D
VD
EL
VL
L
M
H
VH
EH
RS
XW
DW
SW
FR
Dry
Moist
Wet
Optimum MC
Plastic Limit
Water inflow
Undisturbed Sample
Disturbed Sample
Environmental sample
Bulk Disturbed Sample
Standard Penetration Test
Hand/Pocket Penetrometer
Very Soft
Soft
Firm
Stiff
Very Stiff
Hard
Very Loose
Loose
Medium Dense
Dense
Very Dense
Extremely low
Very low
Low
Medium
High
Very high
Extremely high
Residual soil
Extremely weathered
Distinctly weathered
Slightly weathered
Fresh rock
TESTPIT LOG
HOLE NO : TP07
PROJECT REF : CGS2590
SHEET : 1 OF 1
LOGGED BY : DGB
CHECKED BY :
STRUCTURE
& Other Observations
400
HAND
PENETROMETER
(kPa)
300
200
100
PSP
(BLOW COUNT)
MOISTURE /
WEATHERING
SYMBOL
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Soil Type, plasticity or particle characteristic, colour
Rock Type, grain size, colour
Secondary and minor components
CONSISTENCY /
REL DENSITY /
ROCK STRENGTH
0.0
CLASSIFICATION
GRAPHIC
LOG
DEPTH (m)
GROUND WATER
LEVELS
SAMPLES &
FIELD TESTS
TOPSOIL
4
M
4
0.25m
AEOLIAN
0.50m
B
0.5
1.0
5
1.50m
1.5
2.00m
2.0
2.5
3.0
WATER / MOISTURE
CONSISTENCY
RELATIVE DENSITY
ROCK STRENGTH
ROCK WEATHERING
D
M
W
OMC
PL
U
D
ES
B
SPT
HP
VS
S
F
St
VSt
H
VL
L
MD
D
VD
EL
VL
L
M
H
VH
EH
RS
XW
DW
SW
FR
Dry
Moist
Wet
Optimum MC
Plastic Limit
Water inflow
Undisturbed Sample
Disturbed Sample
Environmental sample
Bulk Disturbed Sample
Standard Penetration Test
Hand/Pocket Penetrometer
Very Soft
Soft
Firm
Stiff
Very Stiff
Hard
Very Loose
Loose
Medium Dense
Dense
Very Dense
Extremely low
Very low
Low
Medium
High
Very high
Extremely high
Residual soil
Extremely weathered
Distinctly weathered
Slightly weathered
Fresh rock
Iluka Subdivision
APPENDIX
F
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
CGS2590-002.0
8 August 2015
28
Laboratory:
Phone:
02 4949 4300
Address:
Email:
james.young@cardno.com.au
Website:
www.cardno.com.au
Fax:
02 4966 0485
Stevens Holdings
Report Number:
15689/R/1019-1
Client Address:
Project Number:
15689/P/2590
Project:
Iluka Subdivision
Lot Number:
Location:
Iluka Subdivision
Component:
Client Reference/s:
Area Description:
09/07/2015
Test Procedures
AS1289.6.1.1, AS1289.2.1.1
Sample Number
15689/S/1971
Sampling Method
AS1289.1.2.1 Cl 6.5.4
Pit No.
TP01
Date Sampled
10/06/2015
Sample Type
Bulk
Sampled By
David Bastian
Sample Depth
Date Tested
08/07/2015
Material Source
In situ
Material Type
Client Reference
Compactive Effort
Standard
Material Description
Sample Location
1.59
22.0
4.6
0.0
Excluded
0.50-1.00
100
100
1.59
100.0
21.8
100.0
Soaked / 4 Days
4.5
1.61
21.8
-1.0
50
Remarks
Accreditation Number:
15689
Approved Signatory: Ian Piper
Form ID: W7Rep Rev 1
Page 1 of 4
Laboratory:
Phone:
02 4949 4300
Address:
Email:
james.young@cardno.com.au
Website:
www.cardno.com.au
Fax:
02 4966 0485
Stevens Holdings
Report Number:
15689/R/1019-1
Client Address:
Project Number:
15689/P/2590
Project:
Iluka Subdivision
Lot Number:
Location:
Iluka Subdivision
Component:
Client Reference/s:
Area Description:
09/07/2015
Test Procedures
AS1289.6.1.1, AS1289.2.1.1
Sample Number
15689/S/1972
Sampling Method
AS1289.1.2.1 Cl 6.5.4
Pit No.
TP03
Date Sampled
10/06/2015
Sample Type
Bulk
Sampled By
David Bastian
Sample Depth
Date Tested
08/07/2015
Material Source
In situ
Material Type
Client Reference
Compactive Effort
Standard
Material Description
Sample Location
1.60
22.0
5.2
0.0
Excluded
0.50-1.00
100
100
1.60
100.0
21.9
100.0
Soaked / 4 Days
4.5
1.61
21.9
-0.5
80
Remarks
Accreditation Number:
15689
Approved Signatory: Ian Piper
Form ID: W7Rep Rev 1
Page 2 of 4
Laboratory:
Phone:
02 4949 4300
Address:
Email:
james.young@cardno.com.au
Website:
www.cardno.com.au
Fax:
02 4966 0485
Stevens Holdings
Report Number:
15689/R/1019-1
Client Address:
Project Number:
15689/P/2590
Project:
Iluka Subdivision
Lot Number:
Location:
Iluka Subdivision
Component:
Client Reference/s:
Area Description:
09/07/2015
Test Procedures
AS1289.6.1.1, AS1289.2.1.1
Sample Number
15689/S/1973
Sampling Method
AS1289.1.2.1 Cl 6.5.4
Pit No.
TP05
Date Sampled
10/06/2015
Sample Type
Bulk
Sampled By
David Bastian
Sample Depth
Date Tested
08/07/2015
Material Source
In situ
Material Type
Client Reference
Compactive Effort
Standard
Material Description
Sample Location
1.59
23.5
5.3
0.0
Excluded
0.50-1.30
100
100
1.59
100.0
23.4
100.0
Soaked / 4 Days
4.5
1.60
23.4
-0.5
60
Remarks
Accreditation Number:
15689
Approved Signatory: Ian Piper
Form ID: W7Rep Rev 1
Page 3 of 4
Laboratory:
Phone:
02 4949 4300
Address:
Email:
james.young@cardno.com.au
Website:
www.cardno.com.au
Fax:
02 4966 0485
Stevens Holdings
Report Number:
15689/R/1019-1
Client Address:
Project Number:
15689/P/2590
Project:
Iluka Subdivision
Lot Number:
Location:
Iluka Subdivision
Component:
Client Reference/s:
Area Description:
09/07/2015
Test Procedures
AS1289.6.1.1, AS1289.2.1.1
Sample Number
15689/S/1974
Sampling Method
AS1289.1.2.1 Cl 6.5.4
Pit No.
TP7
Date Sampled
10/06/2015
Sample Type
Bulk
Sampled By
David Bastian
Sample Depth
Date Tested
08/07/2015
Material Source
In situ
Material Type
Client Reference
Compactive Effort
Standard
Material Description
Sample Location
1.64
21.0
4.6
0.0
Excluded
0.50-1.50
100
100
1.64
100.0
21.1
100.0
Soaked / 4 Days
4.5
1.64
21.1
-0.5
70
Remarks
Accreditation Number:
15689
Approved Signatory: Ian Piper
Form ID: W7Rep Rev 1
Page 4 of 4
CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS
129424
Client:
Cardno Geotech Solutions
PO Box 4224
Edgeworth
NSW 2285
Attention:
David Bastian
CGS2590
21 Soils 2 Materials
12/06/2015
/ 12/06/2015
Analysis Details:
Please refer to the following pages for results, methodology summary and quality control data.
Samples were analysed as received from the client. Results relate specifically to the samples as received.
Results are reported on a dry weight basis for solids and on an as received basis for other matrices.
Please refer to the last page of this report for any comments relating to the results.
Report Details:
Date results requested by: / Issue Date:
19/06/15
/
19/06/15
Date of Preliminary Report:
Not Issued
NATA accreditation number 2901. This document shall not be reproduced except in full.
Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025.
Tests not covered by NATA are denoted with *.
Results Approved By:
Envirolab Reference:
Revision No:
129424
R 00
Page 1 of 23
Client Reference:
CGS2590
vTRH(C6-C10)/BTEXN in Soil
Our Reference:
UNITS
129424-5
129424-8
129424-9
129424-10
129424-11
Your Reference
-------------
ES005
ES008
ES009
ES010
ES011
Depth
------------
Date Sampled
Type of sample
9/06/2015
Soil
9/06/2015
Soil
9/06/2015
Soil
9/06/2015
Soil
9/06/2015
Soil
Date extracted
15/06/2015
15/06/2015
15/06/2015
15/06/2015
15/06/2015
Date analysed
15/06/2015
15/06/2015
15/06/2015
15/06/2015
15/06/2015
TRHC 6 - C 9
mg/kg
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
TRHC 6 - C 10
mg/kg
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
mg/kg
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
Benzene
mg/kg
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
Toluene
mg/kg
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Ethylbenzene
mg/kg
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
m+p-xylene
mg/kg
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
o-Xylene
mg/kg
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
naphthalene
mg/kg
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
Surrogate aaa-Trifluorotoluene
104
100
103
104
103
vTRH(C6-C10)/BTEXN in Soil
Our Reference:
UNITS
129424-12
129424-17
129424-19
129424-23
Your Reference
-------------
ES012
TP02
TP05
TB02
Depth
------------
Date Sampled
Type of sample
1.8
0.05
1.7
9/06/2015
Soil
10/06/2015
Soil
10/06/2015
Soil
10/06/2015
Soil
Date extracted
15/06/2015
15/06/2015
15/06/2015
15/06/2015
Date analysed
15/06/2015
15/06/2015
15/06/2015
15/06/2015
TRHC 6 - C 9
mg/kg
<25
<25
<25
<25
TRHC 6 - C 10
mg/kg
<25
<25
<25
<25
mg/kg
<25
<25
<25
<25
Benzene
mg/kg
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
Toluene
mg/kg
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Ethylbenzene
mg/kg
<1
<1
<1
<1
m+p-xylene
mg/kg
<2
<2
<2
<2
o-Xylene
mg/kg
<1
<1
<1
<1
naphthalene
mg/kg
<1
<1
<1
<1
Surrogate aaa-Trifluorotoluene
105
101
104
103
Envirolab Reference:
Revision No:
129424
R 00
Page 2 of 23
Client Reference:
CGS2590
UNITS
129424-5
129424-8
129424-9
129424-10
129424-11
Your Reference
-------------
ES005
ES008
ES009
ES010
ES011
Depth
------------
9/06/2015
Soil
9/06/2015
Soil
9/06/2015
Soil
9/06/2015
Soil
9/06/2015
Soil
15/06/2015
15/06/2015
15/06/2015
15/06/2015
15/06/2015
Date Sampled
Type of sample
Date extracted
Date analysed
15/06/2015
15/06/2015
15/06/2015
15/06/2015
15/06/2015
TRHC 10 - C 14
mg/kg
<50
<50
<50
<50
<50
TRHC 15 - C 28
mg/kg
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
TRHC 29 - C 36
mg/kg
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
TRH >C10-C 16
mg/kg
<50
<50
<50
<50
<50
mg/kg
<50
<50
<50
<50
<50
TRH >C16-C 34
mg/kg
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
TRH >C34-C 40
mg/kg
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
78
81
83
90
82
Surrogate o-Terphenyl
svTRH (C10-C40) in Soil
Our Reference:
UNITS
129424-12
129424-17
129424-19
129424-23
Your Reference
-------------
ES012
TP02
TP05
TB02
Depth
------------
Date Sampled
Type of sample
1.8
0.05
1.7
9/06/2015
Soil
10/06/2015
Soil
10/06/2015
Soil
10/06/2015
Soil
Date extracted
15/06/2015
15/06/2015
15/06/2015
15/06/2015
Date analysed
16/06/2015
16/06/2015
16/06/2015
16/06/2015
TRHC 10 - C 14
mg/kg
<50
<50
<50
<50
TRHC 15 - C 28
mg/kg
<100
<100
<100
<100
TRHC 29 - C 36
mg/kg
<100
<100
<100
<100
TRH >C10-C 16
mg/kg
<50
<50
<50
<50
mg/kg
<50
<50
<50
<50
TRH >C16-C 34
mg/kg
<100
<100
<100
<100
TRH >C34-C 40
mg/kg
<100
<100
<100
<100
79
81
82
80
Surrogate o-Terphenyl
Envirolab Reference:
Revision No:
129424
R 00
Page 3 of 23
Client Reference:
CGS2590
PAHs in Soil
Our Reference:
UNITS
129424-5
129424-8
129424-9
129424-10
129424-11
Your Reference
-------------
ES005
ES008
ES009
ES010
ES011
Depth
------------
9/06/2015
Soil
9/06/2015
Soil
9/06/2015
Soil
9/06/2015
Soil
9/06/2015
Soil
15/06/2015
15/06/2015
15/06/2015
15/06/2015
15/06/2015
Date analysed
15/06/2015
15/06/2015
15/06/2015
15/06/2015
15/06/2015
Naphthalene
mg/kg
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Acenaphthylene
mg/kg
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Acenaphthene
mg/kg
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Date Sampled
Type of sample
Date extracted
Fluorene
mg/kg
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Phenanthrene
mg/kg
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Anthracene
mg/kg
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Fluoranthene
mg/kg
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Pyrene
mg/kg
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Benzo(a)anthracene
mg/kg
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Chrysene
mg/kg
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Benzo(b,j+k)fluoranthene
mg/kg
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
Benzo(a)pyrene
mg/kg
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene
mg/kg
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
mg/kg
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
mg/kg
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
mg/kg
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
mg/kg
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
mg/kg
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
mg/kg
NIL (+)VE
NIL (+)VE
NIL (+)VE
NIL (+)VE
NIL (+)VE
Surrogate p-Terphenyl-d14
94
96
99
97
98
Envirolab Reference:
Revision No:
129424
R 00
Page 4 of 23
Client Reference:
CGS2590
PAHs in Soil
Our Reference:
UNITS
129424-12
129424-17
129424-19
129424-23
Your Reference
-------------
ES012
TP02
TP05
TB02
Depth
------------
1.8
0.05
1.7
9/06/2015
Soil
10/06/2015
Soil
10/06/2015
Soil
10/06/2015
Soil
15/06/2015
15/06/2015
15/06/2015
15/06/2015
Date analysed
15/06/2015
15/06/2015
15/06/2015
15/06/2015
Naphthalene
mg/kg
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Acenaphthylene
mg/kg
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Acenaphthene
mg/kg
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Date Sampled
Type of sample
Date extracted
Fluorene
mg/kg
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Phenanthrene
mg/kg
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Anthracene
mg/kg
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Fluoranthene
mg/kg
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Pyrene
mg/kg
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Benzo(a)anthracene
mg/kg
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Chrysene
mg/kg
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Benzo(b,j+k)fluoranthene
mg/kg
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
Benzo(a)pyrene
mg/kg
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene
mg/kg
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
mg/kg
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
mg/kg
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
mg/kg
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
mg/kg
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
mg/kg
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
mg/kg
NIL (+)VE
NIL (+)VE
NIL (+)VE
NIL (+)VE
Surrogate p-Terphenyl-d14
102
101
100
101
Envirolab Reference:
Revision No:
129424
R 00
Page 5 of 23
Client Reference:
CGS2590
UNITS
129424-5
129424-8
129424-9
129424-10
129424-11
Your Reference
-------------
ES005
ES008
ES009
ES010
ES011
Depth
------------
9/06/2015
Soil
9/06/2015
Soil
9/06/2015
Soil
9/06/2015
Soil
9/06/2015
Soil
15/06/2015
15/06/2015
15/06/2015
15/06/2015
15/06/2015
Date analysed
16/06/2015
16/06/2015
16/06/2015
16/06/2015
16/06/2015
HCB
mg/kg
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
alpha-BHC
mg/kg
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
gamma-BHC
mg/kg
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Date Sampled
Type of sample
Date extracted
beta-BHC
mg/kg
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Heptachlor
mg/kg
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
delta-BHC
mg/kg
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Aldrin
mg/kg
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Heptachlor Epoxide
mg/kg
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
gamma-Chlordane
mg/kg
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
alpha-chlordane
mg/kg
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Endosulfan I
mg/kg
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
pp-DDE
mg/kg
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Dieldrin
mg/kg
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Endrin
mg/kg
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
pp-DDD
mg/kg
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Endosulfan II
mg/kg
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
pp-DDT
mg/kg
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Endrin Aldehyde
mg/kg
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Endosulfan Sulphate
mg/kg
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Methoxychlor
mg/kg
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Surrogate TCMX
97
99
102
102
105
Envirolab Reference:
Revision No:
129424
R 00
Page 6 of 23
Client Reference:
CGS2590
UNITS
129424-12
129424-17
129424-19
129424-23
Your Reference
-------------
ES012
TP02
TP05
TB02
Depth
------------
1.8
0.05
1.7
9/06/2015
Soil
10/06/2015
Soil
10/06/2015
Soil
10/06/2015
Soil
15/06/2015
15/06/2015
15/06/2015
15/06/2015
Date analysed
16/06/2015
16/06/2015
16/06/2015
16/06/2015
HCB
mg/kg
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
alpha-BHC
mg/kg
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
gamma-BHC
mg/kg
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Date Sampled
Type of sample
Date extracted
beta-BHC
mg/kg
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Heptachlor
mg/kg
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
delta-BHC
mg/kg
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Aldrin
mg/kg
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Heptachlor Epoxide
mg/kg
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
gamma-Chlordane
mg/kg
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
alpha-chlordane
mg/kg
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Endosulfan I
mg/kg
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
pp-DDE
mg/kg
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Dieldrin
mg/kg
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Endrin
mg/kg
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
pp-DDD
mg/kg
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Endosulfan II
mg/kg
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
pp-DDT
mg/kg
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Endrin Aldehyde
mg/kg
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Endosulfan Sulphate
mg/kg
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Methoxychlor
mg/kg
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Surrogate TCMX
102
101
100
104
Envirolab Reference:
Revision No:
129424
R 00
Page 7 of 23
Client Reference:
CGS2590
Organophosphorus Pesticides
Our Reference:
UNITS
129424-5
129424-8
129424-9
129424-10
129424-11
Your Reference
-------------
ES005
ES008
ES009
ES010
ES011
Depth
------------
9/06/2015
Soil
9/06/2015
Soil
9/06/2015
Soil
9/06/2015
Soil
9/06/2015
Soil
15/06/2015
15/06/2015
15/06/2015
15/06/2015
15/06/2015
Date Sampled
Type of sample
Date extracted
Date analysed
16/06/2015
16/06/2015
16/06/2015
16/06/2015
16/06/2015
Azinphos-methyl (Guthion)
mg/kg
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Bromophos-ethyl
mg/kg
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Chlorpyriphos
mg/kg
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Chlorpyriphos-methyl
mg/kg
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Diazinon
mg/kg
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Dichlorvos
mg/kg
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Dimethoate
mg/kg
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Ethion
mg/kg
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Fenitrothion
mg/kg
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Malathion
mg/kg
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Parathion
mg/kg
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Ronnel
mg/kg
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Surrogate TCMX
97
99
102
102
105
Organophosphorus Pesticides
Our Reference:
UNITS
129424-12
129424-17
129424-19
129424-23
Your Reference
-------------
ES012
TP02
TP05
TB02
Depth
------------
1.8
0.05
1.7
9/06/2015
Soil
10/06/2015
Soil
10/06/2015
Soil
10/06/2015
Soil
Date Sampled
Type of sample
Date extracted
15/06/2015
15/06/2015
15/06/2015
15/06/2015
Date analysed
16/06/2015
16/06/2015
16/06/2015
16/06/2015
Azinphos-methyl (Guthion)
mg/kg
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Bromophos-ethyl
mg/kg
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Chlorpyriphos
mg/kg
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Chlorpyriphos-methyl
mg/kg
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Diazinon
mg/kg
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Dichlorvos
mg/kg
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Dimethoate
mg/kg
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Ethion
mg/kg
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Fenitrothion
mg/kg
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Malathion
mg/kg
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Parathion
mg/kg
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Ronnel
mg/kg
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Surrogate TCMX
102
101
100
104
Envirolab Reference:
Revision No:
129424
R 00
Page 8 of 23
Client Reference:
CGS2590
PCBs in Soil
Our Reference:
UNITS
129424-5
129424-8
129424-9
129424-10
129424-11
Your Reference
-------------
ES005
ES008
ES009
ES010
ES011
Depth
------------
9/06/2015
Soil
9/06/2015
Soil
9/06/2015
Soil
9/06/2015
Soil
9/06/2015
Soil
15/06/2015
15/06/2015
15/06/2015
15/06/2015
15/06/2015
Date analysed
16/06/2015
16/06/2015
16/06/2015
16/06/2015
16/06/2015
Aroclor 1016
mg/kg
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Aroclor 1221
mg/kg
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Aroclor 1232
mg/kg
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Aroclor 1242
mg/kg
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Aroclor 1248
mg/kg
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Aroclor 1254
mg/kg
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Aroclor 1260
mg/kg
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Surrogate TCLMX
97
99
102
102
105
Our Reference:
UNITS
129424-12
129424-17
129424-19
129424-23
Your Reference
-------------
ES012
TP02
TP05
TB02
Depth
------------
1.8
0.05
1.7
9/06/2015
Soil
10/06/2015
Soil
10/06/2015
Soil
10/06/2015
Soil
Date Sampled
Type of sample
Date extracted
PCBs in Soil
Date Sampled
Type of sample
Date extracted
15/06/2015
15/06/2015
15/06/2015
15/06/2015
Date analysed
16/06/2015
16/06/2015
16/06/2015
16/06/2015
Aroclor 1016
mg/kg
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Aroclor 1221
mg/kg
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Aroclor 1232
mg/kg
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Aroclor 1242
mg/kg
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Aroclor 1248
mg/kg
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Aroclor 1254
mg/kg
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Aroclor 1260
mg/kg
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Surrogate TCLMX
102
101
100
104
Envirolab Reference:
Revision No:
129424
R 00
Page 9 of 23
Client Reference:
CGS2590
UNITS
129424-5
129424-8
129424-9
129424-10
129424-11
Your Reference
-------------
ES005
ES008
ES009
ES010
ES011
Depth
------------
9/06/2015
Soil
9/06/2015
Soil
9/06/2015
Soil
9/06/2015
Soil
9/06/2015
Soil
15/06/2015
15/06/2015
15/06/2015
15/06/2015
15/06/2015
Date analysed
15/06/2015
15/06/2015
15/06/2015
15/06/2015
15/06/2015
Arsenic
mg/kg
<4
<4
<4
<4
<4
Cadmium
mg/kg
<0.4
<0.4
<0.4
<0.4
<0.4
Chromium
mg/kg
<1
<1
<1
<1
Copper
mg/kg
<1
<1
<1
<1
Lead
mg/kg
Mercury
mg/kg
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Nickel
mg/kg
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
Zinc
mg/kg
17
26
22
26
Our Reference:
UNITS
129424-12
129424-17
129424-19
129424-23
Your Reference
-------------
ES012
TP02
TP05
TB02
Depth
------------
1.8
0.05
1.7
9/06/2015
Soil
10/06/2015
Soil
10/06/2015
Soil
10/06/2015
Soil
Date Sampled
Type of sample
Date digested
Date Sampled
Type of sample
Date digested
15/06/2015
15/06/2015
15/06/2015
15/06/2015
Date analysed
15/06/2015
15/06/2015
15/06/2015
15/06/2015
Arsenic
mg/kg
<4
<4
<4
<4
Cadmium
mg/kg
<0.4
<0.4
<0.4
<0.4
Chromium
mg/kg
<1
14
Copper
mg/kg
<1
<1
<1
<1
Lead
mg/kg
<1
<1
Mercury
mg/kg
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Nickel
mg/kg
<1
<1
<1
<1
Zinc
mg/kg
Envirolab Reference:
Revision No:
129424
R 00
Page 10 of 23
Client Reference:
CGS2590
Moisture
Our Reference:
UNITS
129424-5
129424-8
129424-9
129424-10
129424-11
Your Reference
-------------
ES005
ES008
ES009
ES010
ES011
Depth
------------
9/06/2015
Soil
9/06/2015
Soil
9/06/2015
Soil
9/06/2015
Soil
9/06/2015
Soil
15/06/2015
15/06/2015
15/06/2015
15/06/2015
15/06/2015
Date analysed
16/06/2015
16/06/2015
16/06/2015
16/06/2015
16/06/2015
Moisture
9.7
9.9
11
8.3
16
Our Reference:
UNITS
129424-12
129424-17
129424-19
129424-23
Your Reference
-------------
ES012
TP02
TP05
TB02
Depth
------------
1.8
0.05
1.7
9/06/2015
Soil
10/06/2015
Soil
10/06/2015
Soil
10/06/2015
Soil
Date Sampled
Type of sample
Date prepared
Moisture
Date Sampled
Type of sample
Date prepared
15/06/2015
15/06/2015
15/06/2015
15/06/2015
Date analysed
16/06/2015
16/06/2015
16/06/2015
16/06/2015
Moisture
13
18
11
14
Envirolab Reference:
Revision No:
129424
R 00
Page 11 of 23
Client Reference:
CGS2590
Asbestos ID - soils
Our Reference:
UNITS
129424-4
129424-14
Your Reference
-------------
ES004
ES014
Depth
------------
9/06/2015
Soil
9/06/2015
Soil
16/06/2015
16/06/2015
Date Sampled
Type of sample
Date analysed
Approx 40g
Approx 35g
Sample Description
Grey sandy
soil
Grey sandy
soil
Asbestos ID in soil
No asbestos
detected at
reporting limit
of 0.1g/kg
Organic
fibres
detected
No asbestos
detected at
reporting limit
of 0.1g/kg
Organic
fibres
detected
Trace Analysis
No asbestos
detected
No asbestos
detected
Envirolab Reference:
Revision No:
129424
R 00
Page 12 of 23
Client Reference:
CGS2590
Asbestos ID - materials
Our Reference:
UNITS
129424-3
129424-15
Your Reference
-------------
ES003
ES015
Depth
------------
9/06/2015
Material
9/06/2015
Material
Date Sampled
Type of sample
Date analysed
19/06/2015
19/06/2015
Approx 200g
Approx 297g
Sample Description
Brown
compressed
fibrous chipboard
Grey
compressed
fibre cement
fragments
Asbestos ID in materials
No asbestos
detected
Organic
fibres
detected
Chrysotile
asbestos
detected
Envirolab Reference:
Revision No:
129424
R 00
Page 13 of 23
Client Reference:
Method ID
CGS2590
Methodology Summary
Org-016
Soil samples are extracted with methanol and spiked into water prior to analysing by purge and trap GC-MS.
Water samples are analysed directly by purge and trap GC-MS. F1 = (C6-C10)-BTEX as per NEPM B1
Guideline on Investigation Levels for Soil and Groundwater.
Org-014
Soil samples are extracted with methanol and spiked into water prior to analysing by purge and trap GC-MS.
Org-003
Soil samples are extracted with Dichloromethane/Acetone and waters with Dichloromethane and analysed by
GC-FID.
F2 = (>C10-C16)-Naphthalene as per NEPM B1 Guideline on Investigation Levels for Soil and Groundwater
(HSLs Tables 1A (3, 4)). Note Naphthalene is determined from the VOC analysis.
Org-012 subset
Soil samples are extracted with Dichloromethane/Acetone and waters with Dichloromethane and analysed by
GC-MS. Benzo(a)pyrene TEQ as per NEPM B1 Guideline on Investigation Levels for Soil and Groundwater 2013.
For soil results:1. TEQ PQL values are assuming all contributing PAHs reported as <PQL are actually at the PQL. This is the
most conservative approach and can give false positive TEQs given that PAHs that contribute to the TEQ
calculation may not be present.
2. TEQ zero values are assuming all contributing PAHs reported as <PQL are zero. This is the least
conservative approach and is more susceptible to false negative TEQs when PAHs that contribute to the TEQ
calculation are present but below PQL.
3. TEQ half PQL values are assuming all contributing PAHs reported as <PQL are half the stipulated PQL.
Hence a mid-point between the most and least conservative approaches above.
Note, the Total +ve PAHs PQL is reflective of the lowest individual PQL and is therefore" Total +ve PAHs" is
simply a sum of the positive individual PAHs.
Org-005
Soil samples are extracted with dichloromethane/acetone and waters with dichloromethane and analysed by
GC with dual ECD's.
Org-008
Soil samples are extracted with dichloromethane/acetone and waters with dichloromethane and analysed by
GC with dual ECD's.
Org-006
Soil samples are extracted with dichloromethane/acetone and waters with dichloromethane and analysed by
GC-ECD.
Metals-020 ICPAES
Metals-021 CVAAS
Inorg-008
ASB-001
Asbestos ID - Qualitative identification of asbestos in bulk samples using Polarised Light Microscopy and
Dispersion Staining Techniques including Synthetic Mineral Fibre and Organic Fibre as per Australian Standard
4964-2004.
Envirolab Reference:
Revision No:
129424
R 00
Page 14 of 23
Client Reference:
QUALITY CONTROL
UNITS
PQL
METHOD
CGS2590
Blank
Duplicate
Sm#
vTRH(C6-C10)/BTEXN in
Soil
Duplicate results
Spike Sm#
Spike %
Recovery
Date extracted
15/06/2
015
129424-5
15/06/2015 || 15/06/2015
LCS-6
15/06/2015
Date analysed
15/06/2
015
129424-5
15/06/2015 || 15/06/2015
LCS-6
15/06/2015
TRHC 6 - C 9
mg/kg
25
Org-016
<25
129424-5
<25 || <25
LCS-6
114%
TRHC 6 - C 10
mg/kg
25
Org-016
<25
129424-5
<25 || <25
LCS-6
114%
Benzene
mg/kg
0.2
Org-016
<0.2
129424-5
<0.2 || <0.2
LCS-6
120%
Toluene
mg/kg
0.5
Org-016
<0.5
129424-5
<0.5 || <0.5
LCS-6
116%
Ethylbenzene
mg/kg
Org-016
<1
129424-5
<1 || <1
LCS-6
111%
m+p-xylene
mg/kg
Org-016
<2
129424-5
<2 || <2
LCS-6
111%
o-Xylene
mg/kg
Org-016
<1
129424-5
<1 || <1
LCS-6
111%
naphthalene
mg/kg
Org-014
<1
129424-5
<1 || <1
[NR]
[NR]
Surrogate aaaTrifluorotoluene
Org-016
112
129424-5
LCS-6
112%
Spike Sm#
Spike %
Recovery
QUALITY CONTROL
UNITS
PQL
METHOD
Blank
Duplicate
Sm#
Duplicate results
Base ll Duplicate ll %RPD
Date extracted
15/06/2
015
129424-5
15/06/2015 || 15/06/2015
LCS-6
15/06/2015
Date analysed
15/06/2
015
129424-5
15/06/2015 || 15/06/2015
LCS-6
15/06/2015
TRHC 10 - C 14
mg/kg
50
Org-003
<50
129424-5
<50 || <50
LCS-6
99%
TRHC 15 - C 28
mg/kg
100
Org-003
<100
129424-5
<100 || <100
LCS-6
95%
TRHC 29 - C 36
mg/kg
100
Org-003
<100
129424-5
<100 || <100
LCS-6
95%
TRH >C10-C 16
mg/kg
50
Org-003
<50
129424-5
<50 || <50
LCS-6
99%
TRH >C16-C 34
mg/kg
100
Org-003
<100
129424-5
<100 || <100
LCS-6
95%
TRH >C34-C 40
mg/kg
100
Org-003
<100
129424-5
<100 || <100
LCS-6
95%
Org-003
81
129424-5
78 || 82 || RPD: 5
LCS-6
127%
Spike Sm#
Spike %
Recovery
Surrogate o-Terphenyl
QUALITY CONTROL
%
UNITS
PQL
METHOD
Blank
Duplicate
Sm#
PAHs in Soil
Duplicate results
Base ll Duplicate ll %RPD
Date extracted
15/06/2
015
129424-5
15/06/2015 || 15/06/2015
LCS-6
15/06/2015
Date analysed
15/06/2
015
129424-5
15/06/2015 || 15/06/2015
LCS-6
15/06/2015
Naphthalene
mg/kg
0.1
Org-012
subset
<0.1
129424-5
<0.1 || <0.1
LCS-6
112%
Acenaphthylene
mg/kg
0.1
Org-012
subset
<0.1
129424-5
<0.1 || <0.1
[NR]
[NR]
Acenaphthene
mg/kg
0.1
Org-012
subset
<0.1
129424-5
<0.1 || <0.1
[NR]
[NR]
Fluorene
mg/kg
0.1
Org-012
subset
<0.1
129424-5
<0.1 || <0.1
LCS-6
90%
Phenanthrene
mg/kg
0.1
Org-012
subset
<0.1
129424-5
<0.1 || <0.1
LCS-6
90%
Anthracene
mg/kg
0.1
Org-012
subset
<0.1
129424-5
<0.1 || <0.1
[NR]
[NR]
Fluoranthene
mg/kg
0.1
Org-012
subset
<0.1
129424-5
<0.1 || <0.1
LCS-6
86%
Envirolab Reference:
Revision No:
129424
R 00
Page 15 of 23
Client Reference:
QUALITY CONTROL
UNITS
PQL
METHOD
CGS2590
Blank
Duplicate
Sm#
PAHs in Soil
Duplicate results
Spike Sm#
Spike %
Recovery
Pyrene
mg/kg
0.1
Org-012
subset
<0.1
129424-5
<0.1 || <0.1
LCS-6
90%
Benzo(a)anthracene
mg/kg
0.1
Org-012
subset
<0.1
129424-5
<0.1 || <0.1
[NR]
[NR]
Chrysene
mg/kg
0.1
Org-012
subset
<0.1
129424-5
<0.1 || <0.1
LCS-6
89%
Benzo(b,j+k)
fluoranthene
mg/kg
0.2
Org-012
subset
<0.2
129424-5
<0.2 || <0.2
[NR]
[NR]
Benzo(a)pyrene
mg/kg
0.05
Org-012
subset
<0.05
129424-5
<0.05 || <0.05
LCS-6
94%
Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene
mg/kg
0.1
Org-012
subset
<0.1
129424-5
<0.1 || <0.1
[NR]
[NR]
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
mg/kg
0.1
Org-012
subset
<0.1
129424-5
<0.1 || <0.1
[NR]
[NR]
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
mg/kg
0.1
Org-012
subset
<0.1
129424-5
<0.1 || <0.1
[NR]
[NR]
Surrogate p-Terphenyld14
Org-012
subset
101
129424-5
94 || 94 || RPD: 0
LCS-6
103%
Spike Sm#
Spike %
Recovery
QUALITY CONTROL
UNITS
PQL
METHOD
Blank
Duplicate
Sm#
Organochlorine
Pesticides in soil
Duplicate results
Base ll Duplicate ll %RPD
Date extracted
15/06/2
015
129424-5
15/06/2015 || 15/06/2015
LCS-6
15/06/2015
Date analysed
16/06/2
015
129424-5
16/06/2015 || 16/06/2015
LCS-6
16/06/2015
HCB
mg/kg
0.1
Org-005
<0.1
129424-5
<0.1 || <0.1
[NR]
[NR]
alpha-BHC
mg/kg
0.1
Org-005
<0.1
129424-5
<0.1 || <0.1
LCS-6
97%
gamma-BHC
mg/kg
0.1
Org-005
<0.1
129424-5
<0.1 || <0.1
[NR]
[NR]
beta-BHC
mg/kg
0.1
Org-005
<0.1
129424-5
<0.1 || <0.1
LCS-6
79%
Heptachlor
mg/kg
0.1
Org-005
<0.1
129424-5
<0.1 || <0.1
LCS-6
83%
delta-BHC
mg/kg
0.1
Org-005
<0.1
129424-5
<0.1 || <0.1
[NR]
[NR]
Aldrin
mg/kg
0.1
Org-005
<0.1
129424-5
<0.1 || <0.1
LCS-6
107%
Heptachlor Epoxide
mg/kg
0.1
Org-005
<0.1
129424-5
<0.1 || <0.1
LCS-6
95%
gamma-Chlordane
mg/kg
0.1
Org-005
<0.1
129424-5
<0.1 || <0.1
[NR]
[NR]
alpha-chlordane
mg/kg
0.1
Org-005
<0.1
129424-5
<0.1 || <0.1
[NR]
[NR]
Endosulfan I
mg/kg
0.1
Org-005
<0.1
129424-5
<0.1 || <0.1
[NR]
[NR]
pp-DDE
mg/kg
0.1
Org-005
<0.1
129424-5
<0.1 || <0.1
LCS-6
92%
Dieldrin
mg/kg
0.1
Org-005
<0.1
129424-5
<0.1 || <0.1
LCS-6
102%
Endrin
mg/kg
0.1
Org-005
<0.1
129424-5
<0.1 || <0.1
LCS-6
101%
pp-DDD
mg/kg
0.1
Org-005
<0.1
129424-5
<0.1 || <0.1
LCS-6
87%
Endosulfan II
mg/kg
0.1
Org-005
<0.1
129424-5
<0.1 || <0.1
[NR]
[NR]
pp-DDT
mg/kg
0.1
Org-005
<0.1
129424-5
<0.1 || <0.1
[NR]
[NR]
Endrin Aldehyde
mg/kg
0.1
Org-005
<0.1
129424-5
<0.1 || <0.1
[NR]
[NR]
Endosulfan Sulphate
mg/kg
0.1
Org-005
<0.1
129424-5
<0.1 || <0.1
LCS-6
93%
Methoxychlor
mg/kg
0.1
Org-005
<0.1
129424-5
<0.1 || <0.1
[NR]
[NR]
Surrogate TCMX
Org-005
103
129424-5
97 || 103 || RPD: 6
LCS-6
101%
Envirolab Reference:
Revision No:
129424
R 00
Page 16 of 23
Client Reference:
QUALITY CONTROL
UNITS
PQL
METHOD
CGS2590
Blank
Duplicate
Sm#
Organophosphorus
Pesticides
Duplicate results
Spike Sm#
Spike %
Recovery
Date extracted
15/06/2
015
129424-5
15/06/2015 || 15/06/2015
LCS-6
15/06/2015
Date analysed
16/06/2
015
129424-5
16/06/2015 || 16/06/2015
LCS-6
15/06/2015
Azinphos-methyl
(Guthion)
mg/kg
0.1
Org-008
<0.1
129424-5
<0.1 || <0.1
LCS-6
75%
Bromophos-ethyl
mg/kg
0.1
Org-008
<0.1
129424-5
<0.1 || <0.1
[NR]
[NR]
Chlorpyriphos
mg/kg
0.1
Org-008
<0.1
129424-5
<0.1 || <0.1
LCS-6
117%
Chlorpyriphos-methyl
mg/kg
0.1
Org-008
<0.1
129424-5
<0.1 || <0.1
[NR]
[NR]
Diazinon
mg/kg
0.1
Org-008
<0.1
129424-5
<0.1 || <0.1
[NR]
[NR]
Dichlorvos
mg/kg
0.1
Org-008
<0.1
129424-5
<0.1 || <0.1
LCS-6
101%
Dimethoate
mg/kg
0.1
Org-008
<0.1
129424-5
<0.1 || <0.1
[NR]
[NR]
Ethion
mg/kg
0.1
Org-008
<0.1
129424-5
<0.1 || <0.1
LCS-6
114%
Fenitrothion
mg/kg
0.1
Org-008
<0.1
129424-5
<0.1 || <0.1
LCS-6
104%
Malathion
mg/kg
0.1
Org-008
<0.1
129424-5
<0.1 || <0.1
LCS-6
95%
Parathion
mg/kg
0.1
Org-008
<0.1
129424-5
<0.1 || <0.1
LCS-6
99%
Ronnel
mg/kg
0.1
Org-008
<0.1
129424-5
<0.1 || <0.1
[NR]
[NR]
Surrogate TCMX
Org-008
103
129424-5
97 || 103 || RPD: 6
LCS-6
107%
Spike Sm#
Spike %
Recovery
QUALITY CONTROL
UNITS
PQL
METHOD
Blank
Duplicate
Sm#
PCBs in Soil
Duplicate results
Base ll Duplicate ll %RPD
Date extracted
15/06/2
015
129424-5
15/06/2015 || 15/06/2015
LCS-6
15/06/2015
Date analysed
16/06/2
015
129424-5
16/06/2015 || 16/06/2015
LCS-6
15/06/2015
Aroclor 1016
mg/kg
0.1
Org-006
<0.1
129424-5
<0.1 || <0.1
[NR]
[NR]
Aroclor 1221
mg/kg
0.1
Org-006
<0.1
129424-5
<0.1 || <0.1
[NR]
[NR]
Aroclor 1232
mg/kg
0.1
Org-006
<0.1
129424-5
<0.1 || <0.1
[NR]
[NR]
Aroclor 1242
mg/kg
0.1
Org-006
<0.1
129424-5
<0.1 || <0.1
[NR]
[NR]
Aroclor 1248
mg/kg
0.1
Org-006
<0.1
129424-5
<0.1 || <0.1
[NR]
[NR]
Aroclor 1254
mg/kg
0.1
Org-006
<0.1
129424-5
<0.1 || <0.1
LCS-6
112%
Aroclor 1260
mg/kg
0.1
Org-006
<0.1
129424-5
<0.1 || <0.1
[NR]
[NR]
Surrogate TCLMX
Org-006
103
129424-5
97 || 103 || RPD: 6
LCS-6
95%
Envirolab Reference:
Revision No:
129424
R 00
Page 17 of 23
Client Reference:
QUALITY CONTROL
UNITS
PQL
METHOD
CGS2590
Blank
Duplicate
Sm#
Duplicate results
Spike Sm#
Spike %
Recovery
Date digested
15/06/2
015
129424-5
15/06/2015 || 15/06/2015
LCS-11
15/06/2015
Date analysed
15/06/2
015
129424-5
15/06/2015 || 15/06/2015
LCS-11
15/06/2015
Arsenic
mg/kg
Metals-020
ICP-AES
<4
129424-5
<4 || <4
LCS-11
111%
Cadmium
mg/kg
0.4
Metals-020
ICP-AES
<0.4
129424-5
<0.4 || <0.4
LCS-11
107%
Chromium
mg/kg
Metals-020
ICP-AES
<1
129424-5
2 || 3 || RPD: 40
LCS-11
111%
Copper
mg/kg
Metals-020
ICP-AES
<1
129424-5
2 || 3 || RPD: 40
LCS-11
112%
Lead
mg/kg
Metals-020
ICP-AES
<1
129424-5
4 || 5 || RPD: 22
LCS-11
104%
Mercury
mg/kg
0.1
Metals-021
CV-AAS
<0.1
129424-5
<0.1 || <0.1
LCS-11
91%
Nickel
mg/kg
Metals-020
ICP-AES
<1
129424-5
<1 || <1
LCS-11
106%
Zinc
mg/kg
Metals-020
ICP-AES
<1
129424-5
17 || 23 || RPD: 30
LCS-11
106%
QUALITY CONTROL
UNITS
Dup. Sm#
vTRH(C6-C10)/BTEXN in
Soil
Duplicate
Spike Sm#
Spike % Recovery
Date extracted
[NT]
[NT]
129424-8
15/06/2015
Date analysed
[NT]
[NT]
129424-8
15/06/2015
TRHC 6 - C 9
mg/kg
[NT]
[NT]
129424-8
105%
TRHC 6 - C 10
mg/kg
[NT]
[NT]
129424-8
105%
Benzene
mg/kg
[NT]
[NT]
129424-8
111%
Toluene
mg/kg
[NT]
[NT]
129424-8
107%
Ethylbenzene
mg/kg
[NT]
[NT]
129424-8
103%
m+p-xylene
mg/kg
[NT]
[NT]
129424-8
102%
o-Xylene
mg/kg
[NT]
[NT]
129424-8
103%
naphthalene
mg/kg
[NT]
[NT]
[NR]
[NR]
Surrogate aaaTrifluorotoluene
[NT]
[NT]
129424-8
102%
Envirolab Reference:
Revision No:
129424
R 00
Page 18 of 23
Client Reference:
QUALITY CONTROL
UNITS
Dup. Sm#
CGS2590
Duplicate
Spike Sm#
Spike % Recovery
Date extracted
[NT]
[NT]
129424-8
15/06/2015
Date analysed
[NT]
[NT]
129424-8
15/06/2015
TRHC 10 - C 14
mg/kg
[NT]
[NT]
129424-8
103%
TRHC 15 - C 28
mg/kg
[NT]
[NT]
129424-8
100%
TRHC 29 - C 36
mg/kg
[NT]
[NT]
129424-8
83%
TRH >C10-C 16
mg/kg
[NT]
[NT]
129424-8
103%
TRH >C16-C 34
mg/kg
[NT]
[NT]
129424-8
100%
TRH >C34-C 40
mg/kg
[NT]
[NT]
129424-8
83%
Surrogate o-Terphenyl
[NT]
[NT]
129424-8
132%
QUALITY CONTROL
UNITS
Dup. Sm#
Duplicate
Spike Sm#
Spike % Recovery
PAHs in Soil
Date extracted
[NT]
[NT]
129424-8
15/06/2015
Date analysed
[NT]
[NT]
129424-8
15/06/2015
Naphthalene
mg/kg
[NT]
[NT]
129424-8
118%
Acenaphthylene
mg/kg
[NT]
[NT]
[NR]
[NR]
Acenaphthene
mg/kg
[NT]
[NT]
[NR]
[NR]
Fluorene
mg/kg
[NT]
[NT]
129424-8
94%
Phenanthrene
mg/kg
[NT]
[NT]
129424-8
93%
Anthracene
mg/kg
[NT]
[NT]
[NR]
[NR]
Fluoranthene
mg/kg
[NT]
[NT]
129424-8
88%
Pyrene
mg/kg
[NT]
[NT]
129424-8
92%
Benzo(a)anthracene
mg/kg
[NT]
[NT]
[NR]
[NR]
Chrysene
mg/kg
[NT]
[NT]
129424-8
92%
Benzo(b,j+k)fluoranthene
mg/kg
[NT]
[NT]
[NR]
[NR]
Benzo(a)pyrene
mg/kg
[NT]
[NT]
129424-8
103%
Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene
mg/kg
[NT]
[NT]
[NR]
[NR]
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
mg/kg
[NT]
[NT]
[NR]
[NR]
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
mg/kg
[NT]
[NT]
[NR]
[NR]
Surrogate p-Terphenyl-d14
[NT]
[NT]
129424-8
102%
Envirolab Reference:
Revision No:
129424
R 00
Page 19 of 23
Client Reference:
QUALITY CONTROL
UNITS
Dup. Sm#
Organochlorine Pesticides
in soil
CGS2590
Duplicate
Spike Sm#
Spike % Recovery
Date extracted
[NT]
[NT]
129424-8
15/06/2015
Date analysed
[NT]
[NT]
129424-8
16/06/2015
HCB
mg/kg
[NT]
[NT]
[NR]
[NR]
alpha-BHC
mg/kg
[NT]
[NT]
129424-8
97%
gamma-BHC
mg/kg
[NT]
[NT]
[NR]
[NR]
beta-BHC
mg/kg
[NT]
[NT]
129424-8
78%
Heptachlor
mg/kg
[NT]
[NT]
129424-8
86%
delta-BHC
mg/kg
[NT]
[NT]
[NR]
[NR]
Aldrin
mg/kg
[NT]
[NT]
129424-8
107%
Heptachlor Epoxide
mg/kg
[NT]
[NT]
129424-8
95%
gamma-Chlordane
mg/kg
[NT]
[NT]
[NR]
[NR]
alpha-chlordane
mg/kg
[NT]
[NT]
[NR]
[NR]
Endosulfan I
mg/kg
[NT]
[NT]
[NR]
[NR]
pp-DDE
mg/kg
[NT]
[NT]
129424-8
92%
Dieldrin
mg/kg
[NT]
[NT]
129424-8
102%
Endrin
mg/kg
[NT]
[NT]
129424-8
103%
pp-DDD
mg/kg
[NT]
[NT]
129424-8
87%
Endosulfan II
mg/kg
[NT]
[NT]
[NR]
[NR]
pp-DDT
mg/kg
[NT]
[NT]
[NR]
[NR]
Endrin Aldehyde
mg/kg
[NT]
[NT]
[NR]
[NR]
Endosulfan Sulphate
mg/kg
[NT]
[NT]
129424-8
95%
Methoxychlor
mg/kg
[NT]
[NT]
[NR]
[NR]
Surrogate TCMX
[NT]
[NT]
129424-8
93%
Envirolab Reference:
Revision No:
129424
R 00
Page 20 of 23
Client Reference:
QUALITY CONTROL
UNITS
Dup. Sm#
Organophosphorus
Pesticides
CGS2590
Duplicate
Spike Sm#
Spike % Recovery
Date extracted
[NT]
[NT]
129424-8
15/06/2015
Date analysed
[NT]
[NT]
129424-8
16/06/2015
Azinphos-methyl (Guthion)
mg/kg
[NT]
[NT]
129424-8
74%
Bromophos-ethyl
mg/kg
[NT]
[NT]
[NR]
[NR]
Chlorpyriphos
mg/kg
[NT]
[NT]
129424-8
112%
Chlorpyriphos-methyl
mg/kg
[NT]
[NT]
[NR]
[NR]
Diazinon
mg/kg
[NT]
[NT]
[NR]
[NR]
Dichlorvos
mg/kg
[NT]
[NT]
129424-8
95%
Dimethoate
mg/kg
[NT]
[NT]
[NR]
[NR]
Ethion
mg/kg
[NT]
[NT]
129424-8
106%
Fenitrothion
mg/kg
[NT]
[NT]
129424-8
97%
Malathion
mg/kg
[NT]
[NT]
129424-8
91%
Parathion
mg/kg
[NT]
[NT]
129424-8
105%
Ronnel
mg/kg
[NT]
[NT]
[NR]
[NR]
Surrogate TCMX
[NT]
[NT]
129424-8
100%
QUALITY CONTROL
UNITS
Dup. Sm#
Duplicate
Spike Sm#
Spike % Recovery
PCBs in Soil
Date extracted
[NT]
[NT]
129424-8
15/06/2015
Date analysed
[NT]
[NT]
129424-8
16/06/2015
Aroclor 1016
mg/kg
[NT]
[NT]
[NR]
[NR]
Aroclor 1221
mg/kg
[NT]
[NT]
[NR]
[NR]
Aroclor 1232
mg/kg
[NT]
[NT]
[NR]
[NR]
Aroclor 1242
mg/kg
[NT]
[NT]
[NR]
[NR]
Aroclor 1248
mg/kg
[NT]
[NT]
[NR]
[NR]
Aroclor 1254
mg/kg
[NT]
[NT]
129424-8
102%
Aroclor 1260
mg/kg
[NT]
[NT]
[NR]
[NR]
Surrogate TCLMX
[NT]
[NT]
129424-8
89%
QUALITY CONTROL
UNITS
Dup. Sm#
Duplicate
Spike Sm#
Spike % Recovery
Date digested
[NT]
[NT]
129424-8
15/06/2015
Date analysed
[NT]
[NT]
129424-8
15/06/2015
Arsenic
mg/kg
[NT]
[NT]
129424-8
102%
Cadmium
mg/kg
[NT]
[NT]
129424-8
113%
Chromium
mg/kg
[NT]
[NT]
129424-8
111%
Copper
mg/kg
[NT]
[NT]
129424-8
113%
Lead
mg/kg
[NT]
[NT]
129424-8
109%
Mercury
mg/kg
[NT]
[NT]
129424-8
89%
Nickel
mg/kg
[NT]
[NT]
129424-8
109%
Zinc
mg/kg
[NT]
[NT]
129424-8
109%
Envirolab Reference:
Revision No:
129424
R 00
Page 21 of 23
Client Reference:
CGS2590
Report Comments:
Asbestos: A portion of the supplied sample was sub-sampled for asbestos analysis according to Envirolab procedures.
We cannot guarantee that this sub-sample is indicative of the entire sample. Envirolab recommends supplying
40-50g of sample in its own container.
Envirolab Reference:
Revision No:
129424
R 00
Page 22 of 23
Client Reference:
CGS2590
Envirolab Reference:
Revision No:
129424
R 00
Page 23 of 23
StatementofEnvironmental
Effects
162LOTRESIDENTIAL
SUBDIVISION
LOT99,DP823635
HICKEYSTREET,ILUKA
PreparedBy: LinArmstrong
Date: October2015
W:\!!PROJECTFILES!!\ACTIVEPROJECTS\ILUKA\02TownPlanning\SEE\SEEIluka151015.docx
Page2
TABLEOFCONTENTS
TABLEOFCONTENTS.....................................................................................................................................2
SECTION1.0..................................................................................................................................................4
1.
INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................................4
SECTION2.0..................................................................................................................................................5
2.
THESITE...............................................................................................................................................5
2.1
SITELOCATION...................................................................................................................................5
2.2
PHYSICALDESCRIPTION.....................................................................................................................5
2.3
REALPROPERTYDESCRIPTION...........................................................................................................6
SECTION3.0..................................................................................................................................................7
3.
THEPROPOSAL....................................................................................................................................7
SECTION4.0..................................................................................................................................................9
4.
5.
STATUTORYPROVISIONS.....................................................................................................................9
4.1
STATEENVIRONMENTALPLANNINGPOLICIES(SEPPS)....................................................................9
4.1.1 SEPPNo.26LittoralRainforests.......................................................................................9
4.1.2 SEPPNo.44KoalaHabitatProtection.............................................................................9
4.1.3 SEPPNo.55Remediationofland..................................................................................10
4.1.4 SEPPNo.71CoastalProtection.....................................................................................11
4.1.5 StateEnvironmentalPlanningPolicy(Infrastructure)2007..............................................14
4.1.6 RuralFiresAct1997No65................................................................................................15
4.2
LOCALENVIRONMENTALPLAN.......................................................................................................17
4.3
DEVELOPMENTCONTROLPLANCLARENCEVALLEY(CVDCP).......................................................18
4.3.1 CVDCPPARTCControlsforBushFireProneLand..........................................................19
4.3.2 CVDCPPartH..................................................................................................................19
4.3.3 CVDCPPARTI..................................................................................................................21
4.3.4 CVDCPPARTJ..................................................................................................................22
4.3.4.1 Roadnetwork/streetpattern..........................................................................22
4.3.4.2 CoastalDesignGuidelines.................................................................................24
4.3.4.3 LotLayout.........................................................................................................25
4.3.4.4 LotOrientation.................................................................................................26
4.3.4.5 Minimumlotsizesforsubdivision....................................................................26
4.3.4.6 Stormwatermanagement................................................................................26
4.3.4.7 StreetPlanting..................................................................................................27
4.3.4.8 ProvisionofServices.........................................................................................27
4.4
MIDNORTHCOASTREGIONALSTRATEGY.......................................................................................29
OTHERRELEVANTMATTERS...............................................................................................................30
5.1
IMPACTONTHENATURALENVIRONMENT.....................................................................................30
5.2
IMPACTONTHEBUILTENVIRONMENT...........................................................................................30
5.3
SOCIALIMPACT................................................................................................................................30
5.4
ECONOMICIMPACT.........................................................................................................................30
5.5
SUITABILITYOFTHESITE.................................................................................................................31
W:\!!PROJECTFILES!!\ACTIVEPROJECTS\ILUKA\02TownPlanning\SEE\SEEIluka151015.docx
Page3
5.6
ANYSUBMISSIONS...........................................................................................................................31
5.7
THEPUBLICINTEREST......................................................................................................................31
6.
CONCLUSION6.0................................................................................................................................32
7.
APPENDIX1SITELOCATIONPLAN...................................................................................................33
8.
APPENDIX2PROPOSEDSUBDIVISIONPLANS...................................................................................34
9.
APPENDIX3TRAFFICIMPACTASSESSMENT.....................................................................................35
10.
APPENDIX4BUSHFIRETHREATASSESSMENT..................................................................................36
11.
APPENDIX5PROPOSEDLANDSCAPEPLANS.....................................................................................37
W:\!!PROJECTFILES!!\ACTIVEPROJECTS\ILUKA\02TownPlanning\SEE\SEEIluka151015.docx
Page4
SECTION1.0
1. INTRODUCTION
ThisStatementofEnvironmentalEffectshasbeenpreparedbytheStevensGroupinsupport
of a Development Application to Clarence Valley Council. The application seeks Councils
approvalfora162lotresidentialsubdivisionofLot99inDP823635HickeyStreet,Iluka.The
site location is demonstrated on the plans attached at Appendix 1. The proposed
subdivisionlayoutisdemonstratedontheplansattachedatAppendix2.
TheproposalisIntegratedDevelopmentunderSection100BoftheRuralFiresAct1997.
This Statement of Environmental Effects describes the proposed development, the social
andphysicalcontextinwhichitisproposedtobeestablishedandmakesanassessmentof
the relevant matters for consideration under Section 79(C) of the Environmental Planning
andAssessmentAct,1979(asamended).
Thereportshouldbereadinconjunctionwiththefollowingplansanddocumentation:
Appendix1SiteLocationPlan
Appendix2ProposedSubdivisionPlans
Appendix3TrafficImpactAssessment
Appendix4BushfireThreatAssessment
Appendix5ProposedLandscapePlans
FloraandFaunaImpactAssessmentsubmittedunderseparatecover.
W:\!!PROJECTFILES!!\ACTIVEPROJECTS\ILUKA\02TownPlanning\SEE\SEEIluka151015.docx
Page5
SECTION2.0
2. THESITE
ThisSectionofthereportdescribesthesiteinordertoplacethedevelopmentproposalin
context.
2.1
SITELOCATION
ThesubjectlandislocatedatLot99DP823635HickeyStreet,Iluka,intheClarenceValley
LocalGovernmentArea.
ThesitehasfrontagetoHickeyStreetinthenorthandaformedandpartiallyformedsection
ofElizabethStreettothesouth.ThesiteadjoinsIlukaRoadatitseasternboundary.The
IlukaGolfCourseClubhouseislocatedontheoppositesideofHickeyStreettothenorth.A
portionofCrownLandwhichiscurrentlythesubjectofanAboriginalLandclaimandexisting
residentialdevelopmentadjointhesouthernboundaryofthesite.Densevegetationadjoins
anunformedportionofRiverviewStreetatthesiteswesternboundary.
TheIlukaNatureReserveliestotheeastandsoutheastofthesiteandgenerallyextendsto
IlukaBeach.
2.2
PHYSICALDESCRIPTION
Thesubjectlandisatriangularshapedallotmentofapproximately19.41Hectares.
The land has been previously cleared as demonstrated in the Preliminary Site Assessment
submitted under separate cover. The site however is now relatively densely vegetated,
unfencedandcrisscrossedbyroadsandtracks.Twosignificanttracksdissectthesiteina
north to south direction and provide an informal pedestrian link between the township of
Iluka and the Golf course to the north. These tracks are regularly used by locals for dog
walking.
The Flora and Fauna Impact Assessment undertaken in support of the Development
Application, and submitted under separate cover, notes that the natural landscape of the
areaiscomplexanddiverse.MostoftheIlukaPeninsulaiswithinavirtuallyuninterrupted
bandofconservationreservesthatstretchfromRedRockinthesouthtotheRichmondRiver
inthenorth.Inthesitesimmediatevicinity,IlukaNatureReserveandBundjalungNational
Parkprotectssome35kmsofcoastlineandnearcoastallandnorthtoEvansHead.Asnoted
above Iluka Nature Reserve is located to the east of the subject site, separated from the
subjectlandbyIlukaRoad.ThisReserveisanoutstandingexampleoflittoralrainforestand
is part of the world heritage listed central eastern rainforest reserves (Australia) World
HeritageArea.
ThemouthoftheClarenceRiveriswideandmeanderingandincludesanumberofislands
andlargeareasoftidalflats.Theestuarinehabitatsarefavouredbymanymigratoryshore
birdsandlargefishinghawks,suchastheEasternOspreyandWhiteBelliedSeaEagle.
W:\!!PROJECTFILES!!\ACTIVEPROJECTS\ILUKA\02TownPlanning\SEE\SEEIluka151015.docx
Page6
The Flora and Fauna Impact Assessment also notes that the European history of the area
datesfromthe1830s,whentimbercuttersarrivedandpliedtheirtradefromtheClarence
RivertoSydney.TheTownshipofIlukabegantodevelopinconjunctionwiththebreakwall
works,withthefirstsaleoflandinIlukain1875.
Historicallocallanduseswerepredominantlyforestry,farmingandfishinguntilthegranting
ofsandminingleasesin1935toextractrutileandzirconatIlukaandYamba.Aerialphotos
attached to the Flora and Fauna Impact Assessment demonstrate land clearing over that
period. This clearing saw the subject land denuded of vegetation in 1978. It is unclear
whetherthelandhasbeenpreviouslyminedhoweverithasbeensignificantlydisturbed.
In1966thevegetationwasrelativelyintact.Therewereopenpatches,probablytheresult
ofpastclearingand/orfire,butitappearsthatthedunesystemwasintact.The1978aerial
photograph shows the site almost completely denuded of vegetation and the loss of the
paralleldunestructure.Itisconcludedthatthedestructivepatternwasmostlikelydueto
borrowingofmaterialforthedevelopmentofthegolfcoursetothenorthortheresidential
areastosouthwest.By1996thephotosdemonstratethatthevegetationhasregrownwith
woodyvegetation,albeitsparselyinparts.
Clarence ValleyCouncils Bushfire Prone Land Map identifies that thesubject sitecontains
designated Category 1 Vegetation and its associated buffer zone. As the subject site is
identified as being bushfire prone Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006 must be
considered. A Bushfire Hazard Assessment Report has been preparedby BC & BHS and is
attachedatAppendix4ofthisreport.
2.3
REALPROPERTYDESCRIPTION
TheRealPropertydescriptionforthesiteis:
Lot99inDP823635HickeyStreet,Iluka
W:\!!PROJECTFILES!!\ACTIVEPROJECTS\ILUKA\02TownPlanning\SEE\SEEIluka151015.docx
Page7
SECTION3.0
3. THEPROPOSAL
TheproposalisdemonstratedontheplansattachedatAppendix2.Insummary,approvalis
sought for the subdivision of 1 lot into 162 residential lots, 3 parks and associated
infrastructure.
The proposed subdivision has been designed to best accommodate the multifaceted
constraints that affect the land whilst achieving an aesthetically pleasing and functional
urbandesign.
Theproposedlotsrangeinsizefrom500m2to1,062m2toaccommodatevarioushousing
choicesandrequirements.
Ten(10)internalstreetsandseven(7)accesswaysbenefitingindividuallotsareproposed.
Street 1 will form a central boulevard linking Micalo Street and the existing residential
developmentinthesouthtoHickeyStreetandtheexistingGolfCourseinthenorth.Street
1hasaproposedtotalreservewidthof30masdemonstratedonDrawingno.1.30attached
atAppendix2.AccesstotheproposedlotswillbeprohibitedalongthefulllengthofStreet
1.
Thereare18proposedlotswithfrontagetoIlukaRoad. Giventhetrafficenvironmenton
IlukaRoad,allaccesstotheselotswillbefromproposedstreet5andaccessways2,5and6
asshownontheplansattachedatAppendix2.
The wide verges proposed throughout the subdivision serve several purposes including
providing biodiversity corridors, allowing for water sensitive urban design, achievement of
adequateassetprotectionzonesforbushfireprotectionpurposes,adoptingtheprinciplesof
CrimePreventionThroughEnvironmentalDesign,andensuringahighqualityurbandesign
outcomethatisinkeepingwiththeestablishedcharacterofgreaterIluka.
The three parks that are proposed will enable the retention of existing established
vegetationanditemsofindigenousheritage.Parks1(17647m2)and2(10004m2)willform
biodiversity corridors with proposed linkages to the wide, appropriately landscaped road
verges and adjacent lands. Proposed Park 3 (756m2) will ensure the preservation of an
existingitemofindigenousheritage.
AspreviouslydiscussedthesubjectlandcontainsBushfireProneVegetationasdoadjacent
lands (Category 1, 2 and Vegetation Buffer), the proposal must therefore accord with
PlanningforBushFireProtection2006andbeassessedasIntegratedDevelopmentunder
Section 100B of the Rural Fires Act 1997. The subdivision layout has been designed to
W:\!!PROJECTFILES!!\ACTIVEPROJECTS\ILUKA\02TownPlanning\SEE\SEEIluka151015.docx
Page8
exceedtheminimumAssetProtectionZonerequirementsandensurethatnoproposedlotis
affected by a BAL exceeding 29 (see Appendix 4 and Section 4.2 of this report). The
proposed internal road system satisfies the requirements of Planning for Bush Fire
Protection2006.
Lotswillbereleasedbasedondemand.TheStagingPlanhashadregardtothelocationof
existingservicesandtheefficientextensionofsuchservices.
Lot7020DP1114873asindicatedontheSiteLocationPlanattachedatAppendix1hasbeen
identifiedfromapropertysearchwiththeNSWDepartmentofPrimaryIndustriesLands,
whichindicatesthisLot7020wasCrownpublicroadclosed9March1990.Thesearchnotes
itwasintendedatthetimetoaddthelandtotheadjoiningreservetothenorthforlease
purposes.
TheLotiscurrentlyCrownLandwithinReserve751379forFuturePublicRequirements.
W:\!!PROJECTFILES!!\ACTIVEPROJECTS\ILUKA\02TownPlanning\SEE\SEEIluka151015.docx
Page9
SECTION4.0
4. STATUTORYPROVISIONS
ThissectionofthereportdealswiththerelevantmattersforconsiderationunderSection79
(C) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended), specifically the
relevantenvironmentalplanninginstruments(StateandLocalPlansbothcurrentanddraft),
applyingtotheland.RelevantDevelopmentControlPlansarealsodiscussed.
4.1
STATEENVIRONMENTALPLANNINGPOLICIES(SEPPS)
4.1.1 SEPPNo.26LittoralRainforests
The aim of this Policy is to ensure that development applications with the potential to
negatively impact Littoral Rainforests are properly considered and that such areas are
preserved.
Thesubjectlandiswithin100mofLittoralrainforestbutasitisresidentiallyzonedlandthe
applicationisexemptfromtheprovisionsofthePolicy.
It is noted however that the proposed development will not negatively impact upon the
nearbylittoralrainforestprovidedappropriatesedimentationanderosioncontrolmeasures
areimplementedduringconstruction.OngoingStormwaterManagementmeasureswillbe
implementedassetoutlaterinthisreport.
4.1.2 SEPPNo.44KoalaHabitatProtection
The Flora and Fauna Impact Assessment submitted in conjunction with this application
consideredSEPP44inrelationtotheproposalandconcludedasfollows:
SEPP44KoalaHabitatProtectionisapolicyaimedattheencouragementoftheconservation
and management of natural vegetation that provide habitat for koalas, to ensure a
permanentfreelivingpopulationovertheirpresentrangeandreversethecurrenttrendof
koalapopulationdecline.Tothisend,SEPP44providesamethodologyforidentificationof
coreKoalahabitatandrequiresthepreparationandimplementationofmanagementplans
forareassoidentified.InconservationplanningithasbeenovertakenbyspecificPlansof
Management in individual LGAs and by the Approved Recovery Plan. However, this SEPP
imposesastatutoryobligationforconsideration.
Inregardstodevelopmentapplications,thispolicyappliestolandthathasorisapartofa
parceloflandofmorethan1hectarewithinlistedLGAs,includingtheClarenceValleyLGA.
Moreover, before Council may grant consent to develop land to which SEPP 44 applies, it
mustsatisfyitselfwhetherornotthelandispotentialorcoreKoalahabitat.Ifitisdeemed
tobecorehabitat,thenthedevelopmentmustconformtoaComprehensiveKoalaPlanof
Managementor,initsabsence,toasitespecificKoalaPlanofManagement.
TheidentificationofKoalahabitatthatattractsprotectionsunderthisSEPPdependsonthe
presenceof(i)recognisedKoalafoodtreesand(ii)Koalasthemselves.
W:\!!PROJECTFILES!!\ACTIVEPROJECTS\ILUKA\02TownPlanning\SEE\SEEIluka151015.docx
Page10
OfthelistoffoodtreesprovidedwithintheSEPPfortheNorthCoastregion,onlyonewas
foundonsiteEucalyptustereticornisForestRedGumandinlownumbers.
Although an individual was observed in a camera trap image, no other evidence of this
specieswasfounddespiteintensiveandextensivesurvey.TheKoalapopulationatIlukais
consideredtobefunctionallyextinctandisnowonlyrecordedveryrarely.
ThesitedoesnotcontaincoreKoalahabitatSEPP44andsonofurtherconsiderationneed
begiventotheprovisionsofthisSEPP.
4.1.3 SEPPNo.55Remediationofland
SEPP55aimstoprovideastatewideplanningapproachtotheremediationofcontaminated
land to reduce the risk of such to both human health and the environment. The policy
specifies when consent is required for remediation work, to what extent it is to be
undertakenandthestandardandnotificationrequirementssuchworkmustachieve.
The 149 certificate for Lot 99 indicates that the land is not declared to be significantly
contaminated land, subject to a management order, subject of an approved voluntary
management proposal, subject of an ongoing maintenance order or subject to asite audit
statementwithinthemeaningoftheContaminatedLandAct1997.
A Preliminary Contamination Assessment (PCA) was undertaken by Cardno and has been
submittedinconjunctionwiththisapplication.
AreviewofthehistoricalandtitlesearcheswithinthePCAfound:
TheearlytitletothelandisCrownTitle;
The land was held from 14.09.1910 under Crown Reserve No. 45759 from sale for the
purposes of General Cemetery, forfeited on 11.11.1928; (not located within the
developmentfootprint)
The land was held from 13.02.1958 under Mineral Lease 7 for the purpose of Zircon,
RutileetctoL.Foyster,voided/forfeitedon19.11.1978;and
Hasbeenheldsince08.07.1994todatebyBirriganGargleLocalAboriginalLandCouncil.
Whilst there is no available evidence that mining or on site separation processes were
conducted on the land in conjunction with the historical Mineral Lease, historical aerial
photography suggests a borrow pit was located on the site to source fill for nearby
development.
Potential contamination was therefore only associated with isolated dumping areas
observed during the walkover survey. Subsurface investigations and chemical
contamination testing found no exceedances of Residential Guideline concentrations.
Absestoswashoweveridentifiedinasampleofdumpedmatter.
The report concluded the following steps be undertaken to remediate the site for the
proposedresidentialuse:
W:\!!PROJECTFILES!!\ACTIVEPROJECTS\ILUKA\02TownPlanning\SEE\SEEIluka151015.docx
Page11
Removal of identified asbestos materials and rubber tyre and disposal of as special
waste in accordance with DECCW 2014 guidelines [4] at an accredited waste disposal
facility.Theasbestosremovalshallbeundertakenunderbyalicensedasbestosremover
orhygienist.
Removalofallgeneralrefuseanddisposalofasgeneralsolidwasteinaccordancewith
DECCW 2014 guidelines [4] at an accredited waste disposal facility. Recyclable items
such as fridges and metal should be disposed of appropriately at an accredited waste
disposalfacility.
Removal of steel trailer frame from the site and disposal of at a steel recycler / scrap
metalfacility.
The proposed remediation will ensure that risk of harm to human health and or the
environmentisamelioratedasrequiredbySEPP55.
TheminorextentofcontaminationplacesthesitewithinCategory2ofSEPP55anddoesnot
requireDevelopmentConsentforthecleanup.
4.1.4 SEPPNo.71CoastalProtection
ThesubjectlandisaffectedbySEPP71theobjectivesofwhicharesetoutbelow.Itshould
benotedthatthesitedoesnotfallwithinthedefinitionofaSensitiveCoastalLocationas
itwasnotResidentialLandasdefinedunderSEPP26,atthetimeofgazettaloftheSEPP..In
thisregardtheSEPPcameintoeffectin1988andthelandwasnotzonedresidentialatthat
time.Thelandhasthereforebeenthrougharezoningprocessanddoesnotrequirereferral
totheDirectorGeneralforcomment.
Subsequently,theaimsoftheSEPPareasfollows;
a) toprotectandmanagethenatural,cultural,recreationalandeconomicattributesof
theNewSouthWalescoast,and
b) toprotectandimproveexistingpublicaccesstoandalongcoastalforeshorestothe
extentthatthisiscompatiblewiththenaturalattributesofthecoastalforeshore,and
c) toensurethatnewopportunitiesforpublicaccesstoandalongcoastalforeshoresare
identifiedandrealisedtotheextentthatthisiscompatiblewiththenaturalattributes
ofthecoastalforeshore,and
d) to protect and preserve Aboriginal cultural heritage, and Aboriginal places, values,
customs,beliefsandtraditionalknowledge,and
e) toensurethatthevisualamenityofthecoastisprotected,and
f) toprotectandpreservebeachenvironmentsandbeachamenity,and
g) toprotectandpreservenativecoastalvegetation,and
h) toprotectandpreservethemarineenvironmentofNewSouthWales,and
i) toprotectandpreserverockplatforms,and
W:\!!PROJECTFILES!!\ACTIVEPROJECTS\ILUKA\02TownPlanning\SEE\SEEIluka151015.docx
Page12
Only matters (d), (g), (j) and (k) above are relevant to the current application given that
whilstthelandisintheCoastalZone,itisnotbeachfrontorwaterfrontland.
The subject land is known to be of aboriginal cultural heritage significance with recorded
items existing in the locality. Where such items have been identified, they have been
protected in the lot layout by incorporation within open space areas that will not be
developed.
Thelandhasbeenrezonedforresidentialpurposes.Inpreparingthisapplicationaniterative
processhasbeenfollowedwhichhasresultedintheMasterplanbeingamendedtoensure
retention of areas of significant vegetation for the incorporation of fauna corridors in
parklandsthatprovideconnectivity.Inaddition,PlanningforBushfirehasbeenaddressedin
consultation with an ecologist and the proposed landscape treatment of the site reflects
ecologicalrecommendations.
TheproposalisconsideredtoachievetheaimsoftheCoastalPolicy.
Clause8oftheSEPPsetsoutthemattersforconsideration.Themattersandaresponseto
eacharedetailedbelow:
a) theaimsofthisPolicysetoutinclause2,
SeeabovecommentsinrelationtotheaimsofthePolicy.
b) existingpublicaccesstoandalongthecoastalforeshoreforpedestriansorpersonswitha
disabilityshouldberetainedand,wherepossible,publicaccesstoandalongthecoastal
foreshoreforpedestriansorpersonswithadisabilityshouldbeimproved.
Notapplicable.
c) opportunities to provide new public access to and along the coastal foreshore for
pedestriansorpersonswithadisability.
Notapplicable.
d) thesuitabilityofdevelopmentgivenitstype,locationanddesignanditsrelationshipwith
thesurroundingarea.
W:\!!PROJECTFILES!!\ACTIVEPROJECTS\ILUKA\02TownPlanning\SEE\SEEIluka151015.docx
Page13
The site is zoned for residential use. The proposed Subdivision has been designed to
integratewithandenhanceexistingdevelopmentinthevicinityofthesitewhilstretaining
elementsofenvironmentalsignificancewithinthesite.
e) any detrimental impact that development may have on the amenity of the coastal
foreshore, including any significant overshadowing of the coastal foreshore and any
significantlossofviewsfromapublicplacetothecoastalforeshore.
Notapplicable.
f) the scenic qualities of the New South Wales coast, and means to protect and improve
thesequalities,
Three parks are proposed within the subdivision footprint to enable protection of a
biodiversitycorridor,vegetationofenvironmentalsignificanceandanitemofIndigenous
significance.Theparksalsoservetoenhancethescenicamenityofthedevelopment.
A Flora and Fauna Impact Assessment was undertaken by Keystone Ecological and has
been submitted under separate cover. The site is adjacent to, but not within a
recognised regional wildlife corridor. The proposal includes Park 1 and 2 (as
demonstratedontheplansattachedatAppendix2)whichhavebeenlocatedtoensure
theretentionofthehighestvaluehabitatsandtoprovidemovementcorridorsforfauna
inconjunctionwiththewidelandscapedstreetverges.TheAssessmentconcludedthat
theproposalwasunlikelytoresultinanysignificantadverseimpactforanymattersof
FloraandFaunaimportandthatnofurtherassessmentisrequired.
(h) measurestoconservefish(withinthemeaningofPart7AoftheFisheriesManagement
Act1994)andmarinevegetation(withinthemeaningofthatPart),andtheirhabitats
Notapplicable.
(i) existingwildlifecorridorsandtheimpactofdevelopmentonthesecorridors,
See(g)above.
(j) thelikelyimpactofcoastalprocessesandcoastalhazardsondevelopmentandanylikely
impactsofdevelopmentoncoastalprocessesandcoastalhazards,
Notapplicable.
(k) measures to reduce the potential for conflict between landbased and waterbased
coastalactivities,
Notapplicable.
W:\!!PROJECTFILES!!\ACTIVEPROJECTS\ILUKA\02TownPlanning\SEE\SEEIluka151015.docx
Page14
(l) measures to protect the cultural places, values, customs, beliefs and traditional
knowledgeofAboriginals,
Theproposeddevelopmenthasincludedandwillcontinuetoincludeconsultationwith
the traditional land owners. The design includes retention of items identified to be of
significance.
(m) likelyimpactsofdevelopmentonthewaterqualityofcoastalwaterbodies,
Notapplicable.
Nootherknownitemsofhistoricalsignificancearelocatedonthesite.
(o) onlyincasesinwhichacouncilpreparesadraftlocalenvironmentalplanthatappliesto
landtowhichthisPolicyapplies,themeanstoencouragecompacttownsandcities,
Notapplicable.
(p) onlyincasesinwhichadevelopmentapplicationinrelationtoproposeddevelopmentis
determined:
(i) thecumulativeimpactsoftheproposeddevelopmentontheenvironment,and
(ii) measurestoensurethatwaterandenergyusagebytheproposeddevelopmentis
efficient.
Notapplicable.
WhererelevanttheproposalsatisfiestheintentoftheCoastalProtectionSEPP.
4.1.5 StateEnvironmentalPlanningPolicy(Infrastructure)2007
StateEnvironmentalPlanningPolicy(Infrastructure)2007appliestotheproposal.
Schedule3oftheSEPPappliestotrafficgeneratingdevelopmentandrequiresreferralofan
applicationfornominatedusestotheRoadsandMaritimeService(RMS)forconsideration.
Subdivision oflandfor 50 ormore allotmentswithaccesstoaclassifiedroadortoaroad
that connects to a classified road (if access is within 90 metres of connection, measured
alongalignmentofconnectingroad)totheRMS.
The proposed 162 lot subdivision does not provide direct access to Iluka Road which is a
classifiedroad,however,HickeyStreetservicesanumberofallotmentswithin90metresof
theintersectionofHickeyStreetwithIlukaRoad.
W:\!!PROJECTFILES!!\ACTIVEPROJECTS\ILUKA\02TownPlanning\SEE\SEEIluka151015.docx
Page15
Section104oftheSEPPappliestotrafficgeneratingdevelopments.Subclause3ofSection
104providesthat:
beforedeterminingadevelopmentapplicationfordevelopmentforwhichthisclause
applies,theconsentauthoritymust:
(a) GivewrittennoticeoftheapplicationtotheRTA(RMS)withinsevendaysafter
theapplicationismade,and
(b) Takeintoconsideration:
(i)
AnysubmissionthattheRTAprovidesinresponsetothatnoticewithin
21 days after the notice was given (unless, before the 21 days have
passed,theRTAadvisesthatitwillnotbemakingasubmission),and
(ii)
Theaccessibilityofthesiteconcerned,including:
(A)
Theefficiencyofmovementofpeopleandfreighttoandfromthe
siteandtheextentofmultipurposetrips.
(B)
The potential to minimise the need for travel by car and to
maximise movement of freight in containers of bulk freight by
rail,
(iii)
Any potential traffic safety, road congestion or parking implications of
thedevelopment.
ATrafficImpactAssessmenthasbeenpreparedbyBJBradleyandAssociatesandisattached
at Appendix 3 of this report. The proposal does not adversely impact upon the level of
service or safety of any local or classified roads. As noted elsewhere in this report, the
proposed subdivision layout provides for the efficient movement of people and minimises
theneedfortravelbycarallowingpedestrianstomovebetweentheexistingurbanareaof
Ilukaandthegolfclubhouseandcoursetothenorth.
Thesubdivisionisinternallyservicedbyroadsandhasminimalrelianceonexternalroadsfor
accesstoproposedallotmentswithinthesubdivision.
ItisconcludedthattheproposalmeetstheaimsandobjectivesoftheSEPP.
4.1.6 RuralFiresAct1997No65
The site is mapped as being bushfire prone land on the applicable Clarence Valley Council
LEPMap.TheproposedsubdivisionisclassifiedasIntegratedDevelopmentandassessedas
a100BapplicationundertheRuralFiresAct1997.TheobjectsoftheActare:
(a) for the prevention, mitigation and suppression of bush and other fires in local
governmentareas(orpartsofareas)andotherpartsoftheStateconstitutedasrural
firedistricts,and
W:\!!PROJECTFILES!!\ACTIVEPROJECTS\ILUKA\02TownPlanning\SEE\SEEIluka151015.docx
Page16
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
for the coordination of bush fire fighting and bush fire prevention throughout the
State,and
fortheprotectionofpersonsfrominjuryordeath,andpropertyfromdamage,arising
fromfires,and
fortheprotectionofinfrastructureandenvironmental,economic,cultural,agricultural
andcommunityassetsfromdamagearisingfromfires,and
for the protection of the environment by requiring certain activities referred to in
paragraphs (a)(c1) to be carried out having regard to the principles of ecologically
sustainabledevelopmentdescribedinsection6(2)oftheProtectionoftheEnvironment
AdministrationAct1991.
Section100BoftheRuralFiresAct1997pertainstoBushfiresafetyauthoritiesandstates:
(1) TheCommissionermayissueabushfiresafetyauthorityfor:
(a) asubdivisionofbushfirepronelandthatcouldlawfullybeusedforresidentialor
ruralresidentialpurposes,or
(b) developmentofbushfirepronelandforaspecialfireprotectionpurpose.
(2) A bush fire safety authority authorises development for a purpose referred to in
subsectiontotheextentthatitcomplieswithstandardsregardingsetbacks,provision
ofwatersupplyandothermattersconsideredbytheCommissionertobenecessaryto
protectpersons,propertyortheenvironmentfromdangerthatmayarisefromabush
fire.
(3) A person must obtain such a bush fire safety authority before developing bush fire
pronelandforapurposereferredtoinsubsection(1).
(4) Application for a bush fire safety authority is to be made to the Commissioner in
accordancewiththeregulations.
(5) Developmenttowhichsubsection(1)applies:
(a) does not include the carrying out of internal alterations to any building, and (a1)
doesnotincludethecarryingoutofanydevelopmentexcludedfromtheoperation
ofthissectionbytheregulations,and
(b) isnotcomplyingdevelopmentforthepurposesoftheEnvironmentalPlanningand
AssessmentAct1979,despiteanyenvironmentalplanninginstrument.
InaccordancewithSection100B(2)theproposedsubdivisionhasbeendesignedtocomply
with the setback and water supply standards, as demonstrated in The Bushfire Hazard
AssessmentReportattachedatAppendix4.
W:\!!PROJECTFILES!!\ACTIVEPROJECTS\ILUKA\02TownPlanning\SEE\SEEIluka151015.docx
Page17
4.2
LOCALENVIRONMENTALPLAN
The land is zoned R2 Low Density Residential under the provisions of the Clarence Valley
LocalEnvironmentalPlan2011(CVLEP2011).Theobjectivesofthezoneare;
To provide for the housing needs of the community within a low density residential
environment,and
Toenableotherlandusesthatprovidefacilitiesorservicestomeetthedaytodayneeds
ofresidents.
Whilst subdivision is not identified in the permitted uses table, section 2.6 of the LEP
provides
LandtowhichthisPlanappliesmaybesubdivided,butonlywithdevelopmentconsent
Thereforetheproposed162LotsubdivisionispermissiblewithconsentwithintheR2Low
DensityResidentialZone.Theproposalisinkeepingwiththeobjectivesofthezoneasthe
subdivision will facilitate the provision of housing for the community within a low density
environment.
ThelandisnotsubjecttoaminimumlotsizerequirementwithintheLEPoraccompanying
maps.TheClarenceValleyCouncilDevelopmentControlPlan(DCP)2011howevercontains
guidelinespertainingtotheminimumsitearearequirementswithinresidentialzones,within
the applicable R2 (Low Density) zone. The minimum site area for a residential dwelling
house is 400m2. All of the 162 proposed lots have an area of 500m2 or greater, 123 of
whichhaveaproposedareaof700m2orgreater.Arangeoflotsizesareproposedhowever
toaccommodateavarietyofhousingoptions.
ThemaximumbuildingheightforthelandasprovidedwithintheLEPisnine(9)metres.This
proposal is for the subdivision and associated infrastructure only and any further
development applications will address the maximum building height restrictions if
applicable.
TheClarenceValleyCouncilFloodMappingindicatesthelandissituatedaboveandoutside
ofthe1in100yearflood.
TheCouncilfloodmapsalsoidentifyafloodmapwithadescriptionFloodExtremethisisa
higherfloodwaterlevelthanthe1in100yearflood.Thismapindicatesasmallportionof
the land situated in the south west corner near the Elizabeth Street and Riverview Street
intersection.ThispartofthelandisproposedtobePark2asindicatedontheSubdivision
MasterplanattachedatAppendix2.
ItisnotedtheClarenceValleyLocalEnvironmentalPlan2011DrinkingWaterCatchment
Map, Flood Planning Map, Coastal Risk Planning Map, Riverbank Erosion Planning Map,
UrbanReleaseAreaMapindicatesthefollowingwithrespecttotheinfluenceontheland:
DrinkingWaterCatchmentnotinfluencedthereforenotapplicable;
W:\!!PROJECTFILES!!\ACTIVEPROJECTS\ILUKA\02TownPlanning\SEE\SEEIluka151015.docx
Page18
Flood Planning Area the land is influenced and it is shown to be situated below the
probable Maximum Flood Line. Emergency evacuation routes can be achieved by
usingIlukaRoadtoareasabovetheProbableMaximumFloodLineinIlukatothesouth
andeastofthelandortoareasabovetheProbableMaximumFloodLinetothenorth
towardsWoodyHead.Futureresidentialbuildingdesignandhabitablefloorlevelscan
be reviewed and structures designed appropriately to ensure compliance with the
Clarence Valley Council requirements with respect to structures within the Flood
PlanningProbableMaximumFloodLine.
CoastalRiskThelandisnotinfluencedbythisdesignation,thereforenotapplicable.
Urban Release Area The land is not influenced by this designation, therefore not
applicable.
The land is mapped as being bushfire prone, specifically Category 1 Bushfire Prone
Vegetation and Bushfire Prone Vegetation Buffer therefore the proposed subdivision must
meettherequirementsofPlanningforBushFireProtection2006andAustralianStandard
3959ConstructionofBuildingsinbushfireproneareas2009whereapplicable.ABushfire
HazardImpactAssessmenthasbeenpreparedbyBC&BHSandisattachedatAppendix4.
The proposed subdivision involves clearing of large portions of existing vegetation to
accommodatetheproposed162residentiallots.
The vegetation that remains in parks 1 and 2 has been identified as posing a potential
bushfire hazard and the minimum required Asset Protection Zones (APZs) determined
accordingly.Park1requiresan18msetbackandPark2,20m.
Vegetation surrounding the subject land to the north/northwest, south and east has also
beendeterminedtorequirean18mAPZ.
The proposed APZs have been increased so that no new dwelling will be required to be
constructedtoaboveBAL29underAS39592009.Allproposedlotsthereforehavepotential
building envelopes that exceed the minimum required APZ for Residential Subdivisions in
accordancewithAppendix2ofPlanningforBushFireProtection2006(PBP)
TheproposedwatersupplyandaccessprovisionsalsocomplywithPBP2006.
4.3
DEVELOPMENTCONTROLPLANCLARENCEVALLEY(CVDCP)
TheDevelopmentControlPlanrelatingtothedevelopmentistheClarenceValleyResidential
ZonesDevelopmentControlPlan2011(DCP)
TheaimoftheplanistosupportandcomplementClarenceValleyLocalEnvironmentalPlan
2011 (CVLEP 2011) and to encourage well designed, high quality development within
residentialzonesintheClarenceValley.Theobjectivesoftheplanare:
a) Toprovide,setbacks,sitecoveragerequirements,privateopenspacecontrolsandother
developmentcontrolsforresidentialzones.
W:\!!PROJECTFILES!!\ACTIVEPROJECTS\ILUKA\02TownPlanning\SEE\SEEIluka151015.docx
Page19
ThefollowingsectionsoftheDCPareofparticularrelevancetotheproposeddevelopment.
4.3.1 CVDCPPARTCControlsforBushFireProneLand
On bush fire prone land a Development Application must comply with the NSW Rural Fire
ServicePlanningforBushfireProtection2006.AnAssetProtectionZone(APZ)andadequate
access is required. Use of noncombustible materials may be required. It is advisable to
consulttheNSWRuralFireService.
A Development Application for bush fire prone land must include information to show
compliancewiththeNSWRuralFireServicePlanningforBushfireProtection2006.
As previously discussed portions of the subject land and adjacent lands are mapped as
bushfire prone vegetation within the Clarence Valley LEP 2011. The proposal will be
assessedasIntegratedDevelopmentunderSection100BoftheRuralFiresAct1997,andas
suchwillbereferredtotheNSWRuralFireService.
A Bushfire Hazard Assessment Report has been prepared by BC & BHS and is attached at
Appendix4ofthisreport.AsdiscussedinSection4.2ofthisstatementofenvironmental
effects the proposed subdivision design incorporates above adequate Asset Protection
Zones to any potentially hazardous vegetation both internal and external to the site.
Adequate Access is also provided. The proposal is in keeping with Planning for Bushfire
Protection2006.
4.3.2 CVDCPPartH
WhataretheSustainableWaterobjectivesforResidentialZones?
Thesustainablewaterobjectivesforresidentialzonesare:
(a) Tomaintainwaterqualityandhydrologytoasnearaspossibletopredevelopmentflows
Itisproposedtoachievethisobjectivethroughacombinationof:
W:\!!PROJECTFILES!!\ACTIVEPROJECTS\ILUKA\02TownPlanning\SEE\SEEIluka151015.docx
Page20
I.
Allotmentlevelandregionaltreatmentforstormwaterqualityandquantity.Lot
leveltreatmentwillbeasperSection3oftheClarenceValleySustainableWater
Requirements.InformationforApplicantdocumentwithacombinationofabove
groundrainwatertanksandinfiltrationtrenches.
II.
Regional (within the Masterplan site) treatment for quality and quantity will
consistofgrassswalesinplaceofkerbandchannelforroaddrainage,and
III.
Furtherregional(withintheMasterplansite)infiltrationandretentiontechniques
ifrequired.
(b) Preventorminimisepollutantsenteringstormwaterandtreatingstormwaterasnearas
possibletothesource
Asstatedaboveinitem(a)allotmentlevelstormwatertreatmentisproposedwithinthe
developmenttoensurepollutantsareminimisedbeforeenteringanyinterallotmentand
roaddrainagesystems.
(c) Toenableamoreefficientuseofpotablewater
ii. As part of the Lot Level treatmentrainwater tanks are proposed, rainwater tanks
providereuseopportunitiesthatareaneffectivesolutionforincreasingefficiency
ofpotablewaterusage.
(d) Toreducestormwaterrunoffvolumesandpeaksandtomimicnaturaltailwaterflows
To comply with the Clarence Valley Sustainable Water Requirement Information for
Applicants documentation, it is proposed to use infiltration techniques to reduce
stormwatervolumesandpeakflows.Thesetechniqueswillincludebutnotbelimitedto:
Lotlevelinfiltrationtrenches;
Grassswalesforroaddrainage;and
Regionalinfiltration/retentiontechniques.
TheproposedstormwaterqualityandquantitytechniquesareinkeepingwithSections3
and 4 of the Clarence Valley Sustainable Water Requirements. Information for
Applicants documentation, which outlines Residential Single Lot and Residential
SubdivisionscaleSustainableWaterManagementtechniques.
(f) Facilitiesmustbedesignedtominimisemaintenance
W:\!!PROJECTFILES!!\ACTIVEPROJECTS\ILUKA\02TownPlanning\SEE\SEEIluka151015.docx
Page21
4.3.3 CVDCPPARTI
Whataretheerosionandsedimentcontrolobjectivesforresidentialzones?
Theerosionandsedimentcontrolobjectivesofthisplanareto:
(a) Prevent land from being degraded by soil erosion or unsatisfactory land and water
managementpractices.
(b) Protect the Clarence River and other streams and waterways from being degraded by
erosionandsedimentationcausedbyunsatisfactorylandandstormwatermanagement
practices.
(c) Promoteandprotectbiodiversitybyminimisingcumulativeimpactsofsedimentationin
theenvironment.
(d) To ensure that sediment resulting from construction and land development activities is
containedonsite.
(e) Topreventsedimententeringtheurbandrainagesystemtherebyreducingitscapacity.
InordertomeettheseobjectivesanErosionandSedimentControlPlanwillbepreparedfor
the subject site. As per Clarence Valley Council Residential Zones DCP 2011 Part I, as the
proposeddevelopmentisasubdivisionofgreaterthantwo(2)lotsandrequiresconstruction
ofanewroad,itwillbenecessarytoprovideaDetailedErosionandSedimentControlPlan.
TheDetailedErosionandSedimentControlPlanwillincludethefollowing:
Planswhichwillincludebutnotbelimitedto:
Thelocalityofthesite;
Existingandpostdevelopmentcontours;
PreandPostdevelopmentdrainageinfrastructure;
Proposedearthworksdetails,includingextentsofcutandfillandanystockpiling;
Locationofproposedaccessduringconstructionphase;
Proposed erosion and sediment control techniques, and monitoring and
maintenancedetails;
Staging information of construction and how proposed techniques will be adopted
withineachstage.
Supportinginformationwhichwillincludebutnotbelimitedto:
Descriptionofexistingsiteandproposeddevelopment;
Description of proposed erosion and sediment control techniques, and also
identifyinganyproblemareas;
Descriptionofconstructionschedulingandhowtheerosionandsedimentcontrol
techniqueswillbeincorporatedintotheschedule;
Descriptionofsitelandscapingstrategy;
Description of maintenance required for any proposed erosion and sediment
controldevices;
Description of how the erosion and sediment control techniques relate to the
stormwatermanagementofthesubjectsite.
Constructiondetailsandcalculationswhichwillincludebutnotbelimitedto:
W:\!!PROJECTFILES!!\ACTIVEPROJECTS\ILUKA\02TownPlanning\SEE\SEEIluka151015.docx
Page22
The Erosion and Sediment Control techniques will be addressed in more detail during the
detaileddesignphasefortheproject.Thiswilltakeintoconsiderationthedetailedapproved
allotment layout, site topography, soil testing, construction scheduling, and stormwater
managementdetails.
4.3.4 CVDCPPARTJ
Whataretheobjectivesforengineeringstandardsandsubdivision?
Thesubdivisionandengineeringstandardsobjectivesare:
Itisproposedtheengineeringstandardstoapplytothesubdivisionofthelandwillbethe:
NorthernRiversLocalGovernmentDevelopmentandDesignManual;
NortherRiversLocalGovernmentConstructionManual;
NorthernRiversLocalGovernmentHandbookofStormwaterDrainageDesign(above
describedasNRDesignManuals);
SewerageCodeofAustralia(WSA022002);
WaterSupplyCodeofAustralia(WSA022002);
ThePressureSewerageCodeofAustralia(WSA072007).
TheSiteAnalysisPlan1.24andSiteAnalysisPlan,AerialOverlayI.25attachedatAppendix
2 indicate the spatial relationship of key elements of the existing urban emissions. These
plansaretobereadinconjunctionwiththevariousspecialistreportsincludingtheFloraand
Fauna Assessment, Traffic Report and Bushfire Threat Assessment accompanying this
application.
4.3.4.1
Roadnetwork/streetpattern
Subdivisionlayoutandroaddesignmustconsidertheparticularsiteconstraintsofthe
land, the proposed use of the land and integrate the subdivision and road network
withthesurroundingroadanddevelopmentpattern.
Subdivisionsshouldbedesignedtominimiseimpactsonthenaturalenvironmentand
retainsignificantlandscapefeatures.Subdivisionsshouldbedesignedtominimisecut
andfill.Ageotechnicalreportmayberequiredwhensubdividingsteepland.
W:\!!PROJECTFILES!!\ACTIVEPROJECTS\ILUKA\02TownPlanning\SEE\SEEIluka151015.docx
Page23
Theroadnetworkshouldbedesignedtocaterforanticipatedtrafficvolumesandthe
typeoftrafficgeneratedbyfutureuses.CouncilmayrequireaTrafficStudyaspartof
theDevelopmentApplicationdependingontheproposedscaleofthesubdivision.
Theproposedroadnetworkmust:
(a) Provideforsafeandfunctionalvehicleandpedestrianmovement.
(b) Connect efficiently with external traffic routes. Proposed roads must link with
otherroadsthathavethecapacitytoaccommodateincreasedtraffic.
(c) Locateintersectionstocreatesafeandconvenientvehiclemovements.
(d) Provideconvenientvehicularaccesstoalllotsforresidentsandvisitors.
(e) Provide adequate access for service and emergency vehicles, for example,
garbagecollectionservices.
(f) Accommodatepublictransportservicesgenerallyalongcollectorroadsandwithin
400 metres of all dwellings and in accordance with Sections D1.21 of the NR
DesignManuals.
(g) Provide for pedestrians and cyclists by including cycle ways and footpaths on
collector streets and distribution roads and in accordance with the NR Design
Manuals.
A Traffic Assessment Report has been prepared by BJ Bradley & Associates and is
attached at Appendix 3. The report includes analysis of the existing traffic
environmentonIlukaRoadandsurroundingroadnetworkandtheprojectedimpact
of the proposal utilising the RTA Guidelines to Traffic Generating Development and
SIDRA Program. The assessment concluded that the proposed development would
have no adverse effect on the level of service, capacity or level of traffic safety of
roadsintheIlukaarea,includingIlukaRoad.TheintersectionofIlukaRdandHickey
Streetisnotdeemedtorequireturningfacilitiesduetothelowturningandthrough
volumesandaboveaveragesightdistances.
The proposed internal road network of the development has been designed to
minimise the impact on the natural environment, wide verges, central culdesac
refugeislandsthatareappropriatelyplantedwillcreatelinkageswiththebiodiversity
corridorrunningeastwestthroughthesite.
The proposed road network has been designed to integrate with and improve the
existingroadanddevelopmentpattern.ProposedStreet1isanextensionofMicalo
Street, forming a central boulevard through the development, linking the existing
residentialsubdivisioninthesouthtoHickeyStreetandtheexistinggolfcourseinthe
north. Proposed street 1 will provide access for future residents whilst also
improving the transport network for the greater community, by creating a more
directvehicularandpedestrianroutefromthesouthtothenorthofIluka.
A total of ten streets and the partial extension of Hickey Street are proposed
throughout the subdivision including seven roundabouts to ensure safe and
convenient intersections. A further seven access ways servicing individual lots are
alsoproposedasdemonstratedontheplansattachedatAppendix2.
W:\!!PROJECTFILES!!\ACTIVEPROJECTS\ILUKA\02TownPlanning\SEE\SEEIluka151015.docx
Page24
InordertoensuresafeaccesstoalllotsandtheefficientoperationofIlukaRoadand
proposed Street 1, access will be prohibited from said frontages and provided in
appropriate locations from within the subdivision. Similarly the lots fronting the
unmade portion of Elizabeth Street will be accessed from within the subdivision as
demonstratedontheplansattachedatAppendix2.
Theroadnetworkhasbeendesignedtoaccommodateservice(includingemergency
vehiclessuchasfireemergency)vehicles.
Iluka Road is a Classified Council road and as such, referral to NSW Roads and
MaritimeService(RMS)willberequired.
HickeyStreetisdesignatedasaCrownPublicRoad.
PartofElizabethStreet(betweenRiverviewStreetandHickeyStreet)isdesignatedas
aCouncilPublicRoad.
PartofElizabethStreet(betweenMicaloStreetandRiverviewStreet)isdesignatedas
CrownPublicRoad.
4.3.4.2
CoastalDesignGuidelines
Subdivisions within and adjacent to coastal settlements must consider the NSW
CoastalDesignGuidelinesinthedesigningnewsubdivisions.
Thefollowinggeneralguidelinesshouldbeconsidered:
(a) The original street pattern should be maintained and reinforced. The new road
networkshouldbuildontheexistingroadpattern.
(b) Theroad/streetpatternshouldrespondtothetopography.
(c) Thestreetpatternshouldprovideviewsandvistasofimportantnaturalfeatures
(coast,river,foreshores,headlands)andplacesofcivic/communityimportancein
thesurroundinglocality.
(d) Theroadhierarchyshouldbeappropriatetotherequirementsofthelocality.
(e) Thenumberofconnectionswithintheroadhierarchyshouldrelatetosurrounding
uses.Thetraditionalstreetgridpatternhashighaccessibilityandpermeabilityfor
vehiclesandpedestrians.
(f) Roadcrossingsoverwaterwaysandwaterbodiesshouldbeminimised.
(g) Fastmovingthroughtrafficinresidentialstreetsshouldbelimited.
(h) A system of pedestrian pathways throughout and between localities should be
provided.
(i) Residential areas should be separated from open space and environmental
protection areas by the use of roads (edge roads) to front open space and
reserves,thusdefiningtheboundaryoftheresidential/urbanarea.Thisprovides
W:\!!PROJECTFILES!!\ACTIVEPROJECTS\ILUKA\02TownPlanning\SEE\SEEIluka151015.docx
Page25
asset protection zones for bushfire management and access to open spaces,
foreshoresandthelike.
(j) Streetsshouldbeplantedwithappropriatevegetationandstreettrees.
TheproposedsiteistriangularinshapeandgeographicallyconstrainedbyIlukaRoad
intheeast,Ilukagolfcourseinthenorth,significantvegetationinthewestandan
unmadecrownroadinthesouth.Whilstelementsoftheexistingroadnetworkhave
been reinforced and improved (Micalo and Hickey Street) the standard grid like
pattern of greater Iluka has been modified to suit the shape, topography and
environmental constraints of the site and to reinforce high accessibility and
permeabilityforbothpedestrianandvehicles.
Wide verges will ensure the proposed development is in keeping with the coastal
characterofthewiderIlukaareawhilstalsosupportingwatersensitiveurbandesign,
appropriatelandscapingandAssetProtectionZoneswhereapplicable.
Trafficcalmingmeasurestoreducefastmovingthroughtrafficincluderoundabouts
andarticulationoflongstretchesofroadwithinthesubdivision.
4.3.4.3
LotLayout
A variety of lot sizes should be provided to meet market demand. Lots should be
regularandrectangularinshape.
Battle axe blocks generally shouldbe avoided in subdivision designand will onlybe
consideredunderexceptionalcircumstances.
Avarietyoflotsizesareproposedtomeetmarketdemandandthevaryinghousing
needsofthecommunity.
Theproposedlotsizesareasfollows;
34lotsbetween500sqmand600sqm,
5lotsbetween600sqmand700sqm,
111lotsbetween700sqmand800sqm,
6lotsbetween800sqmand900sqm,
2lotsbetween900sqmand1000sqm,
4lotsbetween1000sqmand1100sqm.
The vast majority of lots within the subdivision are proposed to be regular and
rectangular in shape with the exception of a small percentage of triangular and
trapezoid shaped lots, designed to allow for the most efficient road network. The
irregularlyshapedlotsareallgreaterthan700sqmensuringtherearenorestrictions
forfuturedwellings.Thetypicallotattributesareasfollows;
W:\!!PROJECTFILES!!\ACTIVEPROJECTS\ILUKA\02TownPlanning\SEE\SEEIluka151015.docx
Page26
The smaller lots proposed within the subdivision have dimensions suitable for
standarddwellingconstructionincludingprovisionforadequateprivateopenspace
andlandscaping.
4.3.4.4
LotOrientation
Subdivisionsmustbedesignedtomaximisesolaraccess.Lotdesignshouldallowfor
housestobebuiltwithnorthfacingwindowswhichreceivemaximumwintersun.
Theproposedsubdivisionlayoutisconducivetosolaraccessforallfuturedwellings.
Ifdesignedappropriatelythereispotentialfornorthfacingwindowstobeincludedin
thearchitecturaldesignforeachofthe162lots.
4.3.4.5
Minimumlotsizesforsubdivision
Minimum lot sizes for subdivision are included in CV LEP 2011. See clause 4.1
MinimumsubdivisionlotsizeandtheLotSizeMap.
AsdiscussedinSection4.2ofthisStatementofEnvironmentalEffectsthelandisnot
subject to a minimum lot size requirement within the Clarence Valley Local
Environmental Plan or accompanying maps however all lots within the subdivision
areproposedtobe500sqminareaorgreater.
4.3.4.6
Stormwatermanagement
Stormwatermanagementshouldbebasedontheprinciplesofwatersensitiveurban
design.Thisapproachrequiresmanagingwateruseandrunoffatthelotleveland
emphasisesthereuseofstormwaterandwastewater.
'Watersensitiveurbandesign'isbasedonthe:
(a) Treatmentofstormwaterasclosetothesourceaspossible.
(b) Retentionandrestorationofnaturaldrainagesystems.
(c) Thehydrologicalconditions(bothqualityandquantity)ofstormwaterrunoffafter
development being approximately the same as predevelopment conditions, for
the20%ARIstormevent.
(d) Onsitestorageorinfiltrationbeingmaximised.
(e) Stormwater management to include vegetation management, in particular the
plantingoflocalindigenousplantspeciesandminimisinglanddisturbance.
(f) StormwaterdesignshallbeinaccordancewithSectionD5ofNRDesignManuals.
W:\!!PROJECTFILES!!\ACTIVEPROJECTS\ILUKA\02TownPlanning\SEE\SEEIluka151015.docx
Page27
AfloodstudymayberequiredbyCouncilincircumstanceswheredevelopmentmay
beimpactedbyfloodingfromnearbylocalcatchmentflowpathsordrainagesystems.
4.3.4.7
StreetPlanting
Thesubdivisionwillbeprovidedwithalandscapestrategywhichwillhaveregardto;
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
newplantingstofacilitatetheadoptedwatersensitiveurbandesignfacilities;
(iv)
newplantingstoreflectthespeciesendemictothearea.
4.3.4.8
ProvisionofServices
Thesubdivisionofthelandwillcreatenewallotmentsthatwillmeettheobjectivesof
Part C General Development Controls for Residential Zones objective (g) Services
andinfrastructureservicesandinfrastructurethatareessentialforthecarryingout
ofthedevelopmentareavailableand/orcanbeeconomicallyprovidedtoservicethe
landandthedevelopment.
The subdivision of the land will be serviced with the following infrastructure to be
designed and constructed in accordance with the previously identified NR Design
Manuals;
RoadAsreferencedinSection4.3.4.1ofthisreport;
KerbandGutterTheintentionisnottointroducekerbandguttertotheland.Itis
proposed the streets will be serviced by a sealed section of road pavement with
concrete edge support and to utilise grass swales to ensure compliance with the
Clarence Valley (CV) Water Sensitive Urban Design principles are achieved. In this
regardthedesignswillalsofollowsoundWaterbyDesignprinciples.
Drainagethesubdivisionistobeservicedbyacombinationofintegrateddrainage
facilities;
Allotmentleveltoincorporaterainwatertanksandinfiltrationtrenches;
W:\!!PROJECTFILES!!\ACTIVEPROJECTS\ILUKA\02TownPlanning\SEE\SEEIluka151015.docx
Page28
Streetsgrassswalesfordrainageandraingardens;
Parksswalesforregionalfacilities.
ReticulatedWatereachallotmentwillbeabletobeconnectedtotheextensionof
theexistingIlukawatersupplysystematapointofconnectiontoboththe250mm
diameter trunk water supply main and interconnection with the 100 mm diameter
reticulation water main generally situated at the intersection of Micalo Street and
ElizabethStreet.DetailedmodellingbyClarenceValleyCouncilofthewatersupply
systemwillidentifyifothertrunkmainupgradeswillbenecessary.
ElectricityElectricitywillbeprovidedviaundergroundsupplyserviceandconduits
to service the new areas and allotments, the exception to underground will be the
use of existing overhead electricity supply where it currently exists adjacent to the
land.
StreetLightingistobeprovidedwithintheStreetofthesubdivisiontobedesigned
inaccordancewiththerelevantNRDesignManualsandCVCouncilrequirements.
W:\!!PROJECTFILES!!\ACTIVEPROJECTS\ILUKA\02TownPlanning\SEE\SEEIluka151015.docx
Page29
4.4
MIDNORTHCOASTREGIONALSTRATEGY
TheMidNorthCoastRegionalStrategy(2009)appliestoalllandwithintheClarenceValley
Local Government Area. The primary of aim of the Strategy is to ensure the provision of
adequate,appropriatelylocatedlandforthehousingandemploymentneedsoftheregions
populationoverthenext25years.
The subject land is identified within the strategy as being within the Iluka Urban Growth
Area. The proposed 162 lot residential subdivision will add to the provision of housing
within a projected growth area without adversely affecting the environmental or cultural
significance of the site. The land is not flood prone and the bushfire hazard threat is
manageable. Further the subdivision will allow for the improvement of the local road
networkandwillbeanaturalcontinuationofthedevelopmentpatternwithinthetownship
ofIluka.
W:\!!PROJECTFILES!!\ACTIVEPROJECTS\ILUKA\02TownPlanning\SEE\SEEIluka151015.docx
Page30
5. OTHERRELEVANTMATTERS
5.1
IMPACTONTHENATURALENVIRONMENT
StormwaterManagementwillbecriticaltoensuringthatthereisnoadverseimpactonthe
littoralrainforestlocatedtotheeastofthesite,norontheretainedvegetationtothewest
ofthesite.
5.2
IMPACTONTHEBUILTENVIRONMENT
ThesubdivisionlayouthasbeendesignedtointegratewiththeexistingurbanareaofIluka.
The proposed road layout is legible and reduces the impact of future residential
developmentonlocalroads,includingElizabethStreetandIlukaRoad.Thedevelopmentis
largely serviced via a proposed internal road network with connectivity provided between
theexistingresidentialareaofIlukaandthegolfcoursetothenorth.
Future residential dwelling designs will be subject to planning control under either the
ClarenceValleyDevelopmentControlPlanorLocalEnvironmentalPlanoralternativelythe
exemptandcomplyingdevelopmentprovisions.
It is considered, having regard to the above, that the proposed development will have a
minimalimpactonthebuiltenvironment.
5.3
SOCIALIMPACT
TheprovisionofadditionalhousingopportunitieswithintheIlukaareaisconsideredwiththe
Mid North Coast Regional Strategy. The proposal will contribute to affordability and the
availabilityoflandforresidentialpurposes.
5.4
ECONOMICIMPACT
Theproposedsubdivisionwillgenerateasignificantnumberofjobsduringtheconstruction
phase.Inthisregardlocalcontractorswillbeusedfortheconstruction.Uponcompletion
the future 162 dwellings that will be established on the land will continue to create
employment opportunities in the region. It is therefore considered that the proposal will
haveasatisfactoryeconomiceffect.
W:\!!PROJECTFILES!!\ACTIVEPROJECTS\ILUKA\02TownPlanning\SEE\SEEIluka151015.docx
Page31
5.5
SUITABILITYOFTHESITE
The subject land is ideally located for residential development lying between the existing
Ilukaresidentialareaandthegolfcourse.Thelandhasbeenthrougharezoningprocessand
hasbeendeemedsuitablefortheformofdevelopmentproposed.
5.6
ANYSUBMISSIONS
Noneatthisstage.
5.7
THEPUBLICINTEREST
The proposed subdivision will expand housing options within the Iluka area. Both the
subdivisionandfuturedwellingconstructionwillcreatelocalemploymentopportunities.
Thedevelopmenthasbeendesignedtoensurethatthereisminimalimpactonthenatural
orbuiltenvironmentandassuchisconsideredtobeconsistentwiththepublicinterest.
W:\!!PROJECTFILES!!\ACTIVEPROJECTS\ILUKA\02TownPlanning\SEE\SEEIluka151015.docx
Page32
CONCLUSION6.0
The proposed 162 lot residential subdivision is consistent will all statutory provisions
applying to the land. The aims and objectives of the Clarence Valley Local Environmental
PlanandDevelopmentControlPlanhavebeenachievedinthesubdivisionlayout.
AsnotedthroughoutthisStatementofEnvironmentalEffectstheproposedsubdivisionwill
expand the range of housing option available within Iluka and will create employment
opportunities during the construction phase of both the subdivision and future dwelling
houses.
Councilsfavourableconsiderationoftheapplicationisrequested.
W:\!!PROJECTFILES!!\ACTIVEPROJECTS\ILUKA\02TownPlanning\SEE\SEEIluka151015.docx
APPENDIX1
SITELOCATIONPLAN
W:\!!PROJECTFILES!!\ACTIVEPROJECTS\ILUKA\02TownPlanning\SEE\SEEIluka151015.docx
APPENDIX2
PROPOSEDSUBDIVISIONPLANS
W:\!!PROJECTFILES!!\ACTIVEPROJECTS\ILUKA\02TownPlanning\SEE\SEEIluka151015.docx
APPENDIX3
TRAFFICIMPACTASSESSMENT
W:\!!PROJECTFILES!!\ACTIVEPROJECTS\ILUKA\02TownPlanning\SEE\SEEIluka151015.docx
FOR
PROPOSED
RESIDENTIAL
SUBDIVISION
AT
ILUKA ROAD
ILUKA
28 AUGUST 2015
1.0
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this Traffic Assessment Report is to examine the potential traffic
impacts of a proposed residential subdivision to provide one hundred and sixty two
(162) residential lots.
The site is on the western side of Iluka Road near the northern extremity of the
Iluka township.
The site is bounded by an informed section of Elizabeth Street, Iluka Road, Hickey
Street and an unformed extension of Riverview Street.
2.0
LOCALITY DIAGRAM
PROPOSED
RESIDENTIAL
SUBDIVISION
Traffic Assessment Report for Proposed Residential Subdivision, Iluka Road, Iluka
B J Bradley & Associates
3.0
4.0
ADJACENT DEVELOPMENTS
Properties in the vicinity of the proposed subdivision consist of rural and residential
land.
The Iluka Golf Course is located just north of the proposed residential subdivision
on the northern side of Hickey Street.
5.0
Traffic volumes on the Iluka Road have been obtained courtesy of Clarence Valley
Council as follows:
The Woody Head turnoff is approximately 2.9km north of Hickey Street. There are
no major traffic generating developments between these two intersections and the
Woody Head traffic volumes at Hickey would not be significantly different.
Assuming a rate of traffic growth of 3% per annum, the projected 2015 traffic
volumes on Iluka Road would be:
2015 AADT
The projected 2025 AADT would be:
1,950
2,620
The RTA Guide to Traffic Generating Developments indicates that peak traffic
volumes are generally approximately 10% of AADT.
That is:
2015 Weekday Peak Hour Volumes
2025 Weekday Peak Hour Volumes
It is assumed that a large percentage of trips in the peak hours on Iluka Road
would be work-related or shopping related, with trips to busier shopping /
employment centres such as MacLean ( 33km; hour), Grafton (77km; 1 hr)
and Woodburn ( 55km; 40 mins).
Traffic Assessment Report for Proposed Residential Subdivision, Iluka Road, Iluka
B J Bradley & Associates
It has therefore been assumed that the distribution of trips along Iluka Road would
be approximately:
AM Peak
70% towards the Pacific Highway
30% towards Iluka
PM Peak
30% towards the Pacific Highway
70% towards Iluka
Traffic surveys have not been undertaken at the existing Golf Club access on Iluka
Road. Golf courses generally generate higher traffic volumes early in the
mornings during weekends, particularly as competitions are generally held on
weekends.
Traffic surveys were previously undertaken on Clarencetown Road at Hanleys
Creek Road which provides access to several large rural residential properties in
addition to the Dungog Golf Course a 9-hole course and can be used as a
comparison with the Iluka Golf Course. The weekday traffic generation was
surveyed during the PM peak and a total of 13 vehicle trips were recorded along
Hanleys Creek Road. Some of those trips would have been associated with the
large rural residential lot dwellings along that road.
The traffic generated at Hanleys Creek Road has been doubled in the weekday
peak to represent the Iluka Golf Course having 18 hole capacity. This is
conservative as apart from a trucking business just west of the golf course, there
are no residential dwellings officially serviced by the unformed section of Hickey
Street.
The estimated average peak hour traffic generation into and out of Hickey Street is
therefore approximately 30 trips per hour, with the majority being inward in the
morning peak and outward in the evening peak.
The assumed modal split for residential subdivisions based on other residential
subdivisions is:
AM Peak
80% outward
20% inward
PM Peak
20% outward
80% inward
It is also assumed that approximately 80% of trips to Iluka would utilize the Micalo
Street route in preference to Iluka Road via Hickey Street because of the
subdivision layout and internal road layout.
There is also a gravel track linking Mical Street and the unformed portion of Hickey
Street that may be utilized to access the Golf Course.
Traffic Assessment Report for Proposed Residential Subdivision, Iluka Road, Iluka
B J Bradley & Associates
60
(2 outward)
(28 inward)
6
0
0
0
2
0
22
0
To Iluka
140
PM Peak
30 Trips
(28 outward)
(2 inward)
140
0
0
6
0
22
0
0
To Iluka
60
Traffic Assessment Report for Proposed Residential Subdivision, Iluka Road, Iluka
B J Bradley & Associates
6.0
Iluka Road is a Local Road linking the Pacific Highway just north of Chatsworth
Island to small residential settlements such as Woombah, The Freshwater and
terminating at Iluka.
The Iluka Road has sealed lanes northbound and southbound at Hickey Street
each approximately 3 metres wide. There is a sealed shoulder / cycle lane on the
eastern side of the southbound lane approximately 3.0 metres including a form of
chevron marking to delineate the cycle pathway from the southbound lane.
The Iluka Road has a relatively straight horizontal alignment past the site, with a
bend just south of the site. Iluka Road has relatively low gradients past the site.
There is broken centreline marking and edgelines along the Iluka Road in the
vicinity of the site.
The speed zone on the Iluka Road just north of Elizabeth Street road reserve and
past the proposed residential subdivision is 80km/h, and 50km/h south into the
Iluka township.
There is no street lighting along the Iluka Road in the vicinity of the proposed
residential subdivision.
7.0
Sight distances at the intersection of Hickey Street (golf course access) and Iluka
Road are as follows:
Towards the right (generally north)
Towards the left (generally south)
80
65
83
Sight distances at the proposed subdivision access location on the Iluka Road will
considerably exceed the AS2890.1 2004 desirable sight distances in both
directions.
Traffic Assessment Report for Proposed Residential Subdivision, Iluka Road, Iluka
B J Bradley & Associates
8.0
PROPOSED SUBDIVISION
The proposed subdivision will provide one hundred and sixty two (162) residential
lots and two areas to be used for parks.
The subdivision lots will be used for residential purposes only and the internal
roads will have internal traffic controls. The internal roads will be designed in
accordance with the requirements of Clarence Valley Council.
9.0
RTA Guidelines for Traffic Generating Developments suggest the following traffic
generation rates for residential properties:
Daily Generation
Weekday peak hour generation
The traffic generation likely to result from the proposed subdivision when fully
developed, would therefore be:
10.0
Say
The proposed subdivision will have access to Iluka Road only at the existing road
reserve at Hickey Street. Hickey Street will be constructed from the golf club
access west to the internal road system of the proposed subdivision.
There will be no individual driveways onto Iluka Road from the proposed
subdivision.
Access towards the Iluka township will also be provided via a road connection to
the formed section of Micalo Street which connects with Duke Street and several
other streets in Iluka.
Traffic Assessment Report for Proposed Residential Subdivision, Iluka Road, Iluka
B J Bradley & Associates
11.0
Based on the location of the proposed subdivision being near the northern
extremity of the Iluka township and the relatively small number of commercial /
retail / hospital;ity businesses in ILuka, it is assumed that the majority of trips will
be to and from the east / north onto Iluka Road via Hickey Street to access the
Pacific Highway (75%).
It is also assumed that approximately 25% of weekday peak hour trips will to / from
the south, into and out of Iluka.
It is also assumed approximately 80% of morning trips would be outward, and 20%
inward. The reverse is assumed in the evening peak period.
12.0
Traffic generation from the one hundred and sixty two (162) residential lots is likely
to be 110 outward and 28 inward trips in the morning peak and 28 outward and
110 inward trips during the evening peak, based on the RTA Guide for Traffic
Generating Developments.
The Iluka Road traffic flows, with the additional traffic generation from the
proposed subdivision included, are shown diagrammatically below:
AM Peak (2015)
138 trips
60
(110 outward)
(28 Inward)
6+ 20 = 26
0*
0 + 77 = 77
0*
0*
2+3=5
0*
0*
22 + 2 = 24
To Iluka
140
Traffic Assessment Report for Proposed Residential Subdivision, Iluka Road, Iluka
B J Bradley & Associates
PM Peak (2015)
138 trips
(28 outward)
(110 inward)
140
0 + 77 = 77
0*
6 + 8 = 14
0
0*
22 + 2 = 24
0*
2+3=5
0*
To Iluka
60
Note *:
Approximately 36 trips would be generated into Iluka in the weekday morning peak
period and approximately 48 trips would be generated into Iluka in the weekday
afternoon peak period using Micalo Street and other streets such as Duke Street.
The additional traffic would be distributed over Micalo Street and Duke Street and
would not significantly impact on the amenity of existing streets in Iluka.
Traffic Assessment Report for Proposed Residential Subdivision, Iluka Road, Iluka
B J Bradley & Associates
13.0
SIDRA ANALYSES
SIDRA simulations have been undertaken for the existing traffic volumes on Iluka
Road at the Hickey Street access to Iluka Road to determine traffic impacts of the
proposed residential subdivision traffic superimposed onto existing traffic volumes.
The SIDRA program was developed in conjunction with ARRB Transport
Research Ltd to analyse the operation of intersections controlled by traffic signals,
Give Way signs, Stop signs, conventional roundabouts and signal controlled
roundabouts. It is widely used by consulting traffic engineers and is recognised
and used by the Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW. SIDRA is now owned and
developed by Akcelik & Associates Pty Ltd.
The parameters used in the SIDRA program are measured against the following
performance standards developed by the Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW and
the American Transportation Research Board.
Table 13 1:
The simulations indicate that delays resulting from traffic generated by the
proposed subdivision would be as tabulated below:
Traffic Assessment Report for Proposed Residential Subdivision, Iluka Road, Iluka
B J Bradley & Associates
Table 13 2:
Movement
Average Delay
(secs / vehicle)
Existing Traffic
Level of
Service
Level of
Service
Average Delay
(secs / vehicle)
Existing Traffic
plus subdivision
traffic
7.0
7.0
0
6.9
6.9
3.6
3.6
2.9
3.0
4.7
5.2
7.4
7.4
0.1
0.2
7.1
7.1
4.9
5.0
4.0
4.2
5.6
5.9
1.0
N/A
2.4
N/A
The SIDRA simulations indicate that the average delays for all movements are
essentially geometrical delays for vehicles slowing to perform turns and there will
be negligible additional delays to through movements on the Iluka Road in the
morning peak period.
The performance of all movements would be at Level of Service A.
Traffic Assessment Report for Proposed Residential Subdivision, Iluka Road, Iluka
B J Bradley & Associates
10
Table 13 3:
Movement
Average Delay
(secs / vehicle)
Existing Traffic
Level of
Service
Level of
Service
Average Delay
(secs / vehicle)
Existing Traffic
plus subdivision
traffic
7.0
7.1
0
7.1
7.1
3.8
3.8
2.8
3.1
4.7
5.1
7.0
7.1
0.1
6.8
6.8
4.7
4.7
3.9
4.3
5.6
6.1
0.9
N/A
2.5
N/A
The SIDRA simulations indicate that the average delays for all movements are
essentially geometrical delays for vehicles slowing to perform turns and there will
be negligible additional delays to through movements on the Iluka Road in the
afternoon peak period.
The performance of all movements would be at Level of Service A.
Traffic Assessment Report for Proposed Residential Subdivision, Iluka Road, Iluka
B J Bradley & Associates
11
14.0
14.1
Summary
a)
The proposed residential subdivision will provide 162 residential lots with
an internal road system, plus two parks. Vehicular access will be via
Hickey Street which will be constructed to Iluka Road and also via a
constructed extension to Micalo Street.
b)
c)
d)
The RTA Guide for Traffic Generating Developments indicates that traffic
generated by the one hundred and sixty two (162) residential lots would be
approximately 1,458 trips per day, with 138 trips being in the weekday
peak periods. It is estimated that approximately 75% of trips would be to
and from the north along Iluka Road in the weekday peak periods
e)
The speed zone on Iluka Road north of Elizabeth Street past the site is
80km/h and 50km/h south of Elizabeth Street.
f)
g)
14.2
Recommendation
I recommend the proposed one hundred and sixty two (162) residential lots
subdivision in Iluka as being an appropriate development on the site as it
would have no adverse affect on the level of service, capacity or level of
traffic safety of the Iluka Road in the Iluka area.
Traffic Assessment Report for Proposed Residential Subdivision, Iluka Road, Iluka
B J Bradley & Associates
12
APPENDIX A
SIDRA DATA
Traffic Assessment Report for Proposed Residential Subdivision, Iluka Road, Iluka
B J Bradley & Associates
13
MOVEMENT SUMMARY
Site: Iluka Road and Hickey Street, Iluka. 2015 Traffic AM Peak
Iluka Street and Hickey Street
Giveway / Yield (Two-Way)
Movement Performance - Vehicles
Mov ID ODMo
v
Average
Delay
sec
Level of
Service
Prop.
Effective
Queued Stop Rate
per veh
Average
Speed
km/h
7.0
0.0
6.9
1.0
LOS A
LOS A
LOS A
NA
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
59.9
78.3
52.3
75.0
3.6
2.9
4.7
3.7
LOS A
LOS A
LOS A
LOS A
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.44
0.44
0.44
0.44
48.2
42.1
47.9
45.9
7.4
0.1
7.1
0.8
LOS A
LOS A
LOS A
NA
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
53.0
78.3
59.1
75.6
4.9
4.0
5.6
5.0
1.0
LOS A
LOS A
LOS A
LOS A
NA
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.03
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.10
53.7
41.9
53.3
50.0
73.9
Traffic Assessment Report for Proposed Residential Subdivision, Iluka Road, Iluka
B J Bradley & Associates
14
MOVEMENT SUMMARY
Site: Iluka Road and Hickey Street, Iluka. 2015 Traffic PM Peak
Iluka Street and Hickey Street
Giveway / Yield (Two-Way)
Movement Performance - Vehicles
Mov ID ODMo
v
Average
Delay
sec
Level of
Service
Prop.
Effective
Queued Stop Rate
per veh
Average
Speed
km/h
7.1
0.0
7.1
0.3
LOS A
LOS A
LOS A
NA
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
60.5
79.3
52.7
77.9
3.8
2.8
4.7
3.7
LOS A
LOS A
LOS A
LOS A
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.44
0.44
0.44
0.44
48.0
42.0
47.7
45.7
7.0
0.0
6.8
0.1
LOS A
LOS A
LOS A
NA
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
53.7
79.8
60.0
79.3
4.7
3.9
5.6
5.4
0.9
LOS A
LOS A
LOS A
LOS A
NA
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.03
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.09
53.6
41.9
53.2
52.8
73.8
Traffic Assessment Report for Proposed Residential Subdivision, Iluka Road, Iluka
B J Bradley & Associates
15
MOVEMENT SUMMARY
Site: Iluka Road and Hickey Street, Iluka. 2015 Traffic AM Peak + Subdivision
Iluka Street and Hickey Street
Giveway / Yield (Two-Way)
Movement Performance - Vehicles
Mov ID ODMo
v
Average
Delay
sec
Level of
Service
Prop.
Effective
Queued Stop Rate
per veh
Average
Speed
km/h
7.0
0.0
6.9
1.1
LOS A
LOS A
LOS A
NA
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
59.9
78.2
52.2
74.6
3.6
3.0
5.2
3.9
LOS A
LOS A
LOS A
LOS A
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.44
0.44
0.44
0.44
48.1
42.1
47.8
45.8
7.4
0.2
7.1
2.4
LOS A
LOS A
LOS A
NA
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
51.6
75.3
57.4
68.6
5.0
4.2
5.9
5.0
2.4
LOS A
LOS A
LOS A
LOS A
NA
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.11
0.52
0.52
0.52
0.52
0.23
53.5
41.8
53.1
53.3
66.2
Traffic Assessment Report for Proposed Residential Subdivision, Iluka Road, Iluka
B J Bradley & Associates
16
MOVEMENT SUMMARY
Site: Iluka Road and Hickey Street, Iluka. 2015 Traffic PM Peak + Subdivision
Iluka Street and Hickey Street
Giveway / Yield (Two-Way)
Movement Performance - Vehicles
Mov ID ODMo
v
Average
Delay
sec
Level of
Service
Prop.
Effective
Queued Stop Rate
per veh
Average
Speed
km/h
7.0
0.0
7.1
0.6
LOS A
LOS A
LOS A
NA
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06
60.2
78.8
52.5
76.4
3.8
3.1
5.1
4.0
LOS A
LOS A
LOS A
LOS A
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
48.0
42.0
47.6
45.7
7.1
0.1
6.8
2.5
LOS A
LOS A
LOS A
NA
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
51.6
75.2
57.4
67.6
4.7
4.3
6.1
5.5
2.5
LOS A
LOS A
LOS A
LOS A
NA
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.4
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
3.1
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.11
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.23
53.4
41.8
53.1
52.8
66.7
Traffic Assessment Report for Proposed Residential Subdivision, Iluka Road, Iluka
B J Bradley & Associates
17
APPENDIX4
BUSHFIRETHREATASSESSMENT
W:\!!PROJECTFILES!!\ACTIVEPROJECTS\ILUKA\02TownPlanning\SEE\SEEIluka151015.docx
Bushfire Hazard
Assessment Report
Proposed:
Residential Subdivision
At:
Lot 99 DP 823635,
Hickey Street, Iluka NSW
Reference Number: 160072
Prepared For:
Shellharbour Unit Trust
(Stevens Group)
PO Box 124
Berowra NSW 2081
ABN 19 057 337 774
www.bushfirehazardsolutions.com.au
160072
Contents
Page No.
List of Abbreviations
1.0
Introduction
2.0
Purpose of Report
3.0
Scope of Report
4.0
5.0
4-5
6.0
6-7
7.0
8.0
14 - 15
9.0
Recommendations
16 - 17
10.0
Conclusion
18 - 19
11.0
Annexure
Attachments
8 - 13
19
Page 1 of 19
160072
List of Abbreviations:
APZ
AS3959
BAL
BCA
BPMs
BPLM
Council
DA
Development Application
EP&A Act
ESD
FRNSW
IPA
NCC
NP
National Park
NSP
OPA
PBP
ROW
Right of Way
RF Act
RFS
SEPP
SFPP
SWS
WSP
Page 2 of 19
160072
1.0 Introduction
The development proposal relates to the subdivision of one (1) existing allotment located at Lot 99
Hickey Street, Iluka into one hundred and sixty-two (162) new residential allotments, the creation of
three (3) Parks and the construction of associated infrastructure including the extension of the
existing road network into this new subdivision.
The application will also include the re-alignment of the existing fire trail (known as the Elizabeth
Street Fire Trail) such that it is located entirely within the adjacent Lot 7018 DP 115127 Crown
Land, immediately adjacent the subject site.
The subject site has street frontage to Hickey Street to the north, Iluka Road to the east, Elizabeth
Street and an unformed paper road to the southwest.
Clarence Valley Councils Bushfire Prone Land Map identifies that the subject site contains
designated Category 1 Vegetation and its associated buffer zone. As the subject site is identified
as being bushfire prone Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006 must be considered.
Page 3 of 19
160072
East
South
Northwest /
Park 2
Vegetation
Structure
Forest*
(20/25 t/ha)
Forest*
(20/25 t/ha)
Forest*
(20/25 t/ha)
Forest*
(20/25 t/ha)
Vegetation Width
100 metres
100 metres
100 metres
100 metres
80
80
80
80
1 degree down
1 degree down
1 degree down
0 degrees & up
Required Asset
Protection Zone
18 metres
18 metres
18 metres
20 metres
Proposed Asset
Protection Zone
22 metres
22 metres
22 metres
21 metres
10 metre APZ
within park
Iluka Road
Proposed
perimeter road
Threatened Species
Not Known
By Others
Not Known
By Others
Not Known
By Others
Not Known
By Others
Aboriginal Relics
Not Known
By Others
Not Known
By Others
Not Known
By Others
Not Known
By Others
BAL 29
BAL 29
BAL 29
BAL 29
FDI
Slope
Significant
Environmental
Features
Bushfire Attack
Level (AS3959)
* The vegetation posing a hazard to all aspects was difficult to classify under the parameters of
Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006, resembling scrub/ tall heath in areas and not achieving the
canopy percentage cover of forest in others. As a cautionary approach we have uniformly applied a
Forest classification to all bushfire hazards.
Page 4 of 19
160072
Public Roads
The continuation of the existing public roads into the subject development will
provide a minimum carriageway of 8 metres. Furthermore the proposed
perimeter road adjacent Park 2 will provide a minimum 8 metre carriageway.
The proposed internal road system has been reviewed and in our opinion
satisfies the requirements for Public Roads under s4.1.3 (1) of PBP 2006.
Water Supply
Hydrants are available along Elizabeth Street and other existing public roads for
the replenishment of attending fire services. The hydrant system will be
extended to service the proposed residential allotments on the new internal
roads. The sizing, spacing and pressures of this system must comply with
AS2419.1-2005.
Electricity
Services
Evacuation
Page 5 of 19
160072
N
Subject
site
N
Subject site
Page 6 of 19
160072
Image 03: Extract from the proposed subdivision plan overlayed with the proposed APZs
Building Code & Bushfire Hazard Solutions Pty Limited
Page 7 of 19
160072
Subject site
Image 04: Extract from Clarence Valley Councils Bushfire Prone Land Map
Building Code & Bushfire Hazard Solutions Pty Limited
Page 8 of 19
160072
7.02 Location
The subject site comprises of one (1) existing vacant residential allotment (zoned R2 Low
Density Residential) known as Lot 99 DP 823635.
The subject site has street frontage to Hickey Street to the north, Iluka Road to the east, Elizabeth
Street and an unformed paper road to the southwest.
Iluka
Golf
Club
Subject
site
Approximate
location of the
subject
allotment
Page 9 of 19
160072
7.04 Vegetation
The Iluka locality, inclusive of the subject site, contains a diverse range of vegetation communities
including shrubby dry sclerophyll forest, scrub and World Heritage listed littoral rainforest (in the
adjacent Iluka Nature Reserve and Bundjalung National Park).
The majority of the subject site will be cleared for the proposed residential allotments and
associated infrastructure with three (3) parks, with two (2) of the parks being created for the
protection of the existing fully structured vegetation. The proposed parks will also include
maintained buffers (a.k.a. Asset Protection Zones) adjacent the proposed residential development,
as shown on Image 03 of this report.
The vegetation identified a posing a potential bushfire hazard to the proposed residential
allotments is located within the proposed parks (Parks 1 & 2) and to the north/ north-west and
south within vacant vegetated allotments and east within Iluka Nature Reserve and Bundjalung
National Park.
The vegetation posing a hazard to all aspects was difficult to classify under the parameters of
Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006, resembling scrub/ tall heath in areas and not achieving the
canopy percentage cover or surface and elevated fuels of forest in others. As a cautionary
approach we have uniformly applied a Forest classification to all bushfire hazards.
While it is noted that the adjacent Iluka Nature Reserve and Bundjalung National Park contain
littoral rainforest, this community was not found to be the highest hazard within the 140 metre
assessment area. The presence of the littoral rainforest will however reduce the likelihood of a
bushfire impacting the site from this aspect.
Reduced
surface and
elevated fuels
Page 10 of 19
160072
Photograph 03: View northeast along an existing walking trail of the north-western hazard
Photograph 04: View southwest from the Elizabeth Street Fire Trail toward the southern hazard
Subject
site
Southern
hazard
Elizabeth
Street Fire
Trail
Photograph 05: View southeast from the intersection of Elizabeth Street and Micalo Street toward
the southern hazard
Building Code & Bushfire Hazard Solutions Pty Limited
Page 11 of 19
160072
0 degrees &
up
0 degrees &
up
1 degree
down
(Park 1)
1 degree
down
1 degree
down
Image 06: Extract from Land and Property Management Authority Spatial Information Exchange
Page 12 of 19
160072
The application will include the maintenance of the western road verge of Iluka Road and the
proposed re-aligned Elizabeth Street Fire Trail (9 metres wide) to the standard of an APZ.
A restriction to the land use pursuant to section 88B of the Conveyancing Act 1919 shall be placed
on all lots within the subdivision, including the parks, requiring the provision of asset protection
zones (APZ) as identified on the attached APZ overlay.
The Asset Protection Zones within the subject site will be maintained in accordance with an Asset
Protection Zone (Inner Protection Area) as detailed in the NSW Rural Fire Services document
Standards for Asset Protection Zones.
Page 13 of 19
160072
Level of construction
under AS3959-2009
No special construction requirements
12.5
BAL - 12.5
19
12.6 to 19.0
BAL - 19
29
19.1 to 29.0
BAL - 29
40
29.1 to 40.0
BAL - 40
BAL FZ No deemed to satisfy
provisions
12.5
Flame Zone
>40.0
Page 14 of 19
160072
Page 15 of 19
160072
9.0 Recommendations
The following recommendations are provided as the minimum necessary for compliance with
Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006 and Australian Standard 3959 Construction of buildings
in bushfire-prone areas - 2009.
Access
4. That the proposed road design complies with the Masterplan prepared by JCD
A+U (project no 1460, dwg no I.30, issue A, dated 22nd August 2015).
5. Public road access shall comply with section 4.1.3 (1) of Planning for Bush Fire
Protection 2006.
6. The extension of Hickey Street shall comply with section 4.1.3 (1) of Planning for
Bush Fire Protection 2006.
7. The proposed re-aligned Elizabeth Street Fire Trail must be constructed in
accordance with the requirements for Fire Trails as detailed in section 4.1.3(3) of
Planning for Bush Fire Protection and provide a 9 metre wide cleared area
adjacent the subject site.
Services
8. That electricity and gas are to comply with section 4.1.3 of Planning for Bush
Fire Protection 2006.The following are the requirements for the relevant
services.
Electricity:
Where practicable, electrical transmission lines are underground.
Where overhead electrical transmission lines are proposed:
- lines are installed with short pole spacing (30 metres), unless
crossing gullies, gorges or riparian areas; and
- no part of a tree is closer to a power line than the distance set out in
accordance with the specifications in Vegetation Safety Clearances
issued by Energy Australia (NS179, April 2002).
Building Code & Bushfire Hazard Solutions Pty Limited
Page 16 of 19
160072
Gas:
Water:
That the new hydrant sizing, spacing and pressures must comply with
AS2419.1 2005.
Page 17 of 19
160072
10.0 Conclusion
Given that the property is deemed bushfire prone under Clarence Valley Councils Bushfire Prone
Land Map any development would need to meet the requirements of Planning for Bush Fire
Protection 2006 and of the construction requirements of Australian Standard 3959 Construction
of buildings in bushfire-prone areas - 2009 if any are applicable. The determination of any bushfire
hazard must be made on a site-specific basis that includes an assessment of the local bushland
area and its possible impact to the subject site.
The development proposal relates to the subdivision of one (1) existing vacant residential allotment
located along Hickey Street, Iluka into one hundred and sixty-two (162) new residential allotments,
the creation of three (3) Parks and the construction of associated infrastructure including the
extension of the existing road network into this new subdivision.
The vegetation identified a posing a potential bushfire hazard to the proposed residential
allotments is located within the proposed parks (Parks 1 & 2) and to the north/ north-west and
south within vacant vegetated allotments and east within Iluka Nature Reserve and Bundjalung
National Park. As a cautionary assessment the vegetation posing a hazard to all aspects was
determined to be Forest.
The minimum required Asset Protection Zone to the northwest / Park 2 was determined from Table
A2.5 of Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006 (PBP) to be 20 metres. The minimum required
Asset Protection Zones to Park 1 and the eastern and southern hazards were determined from
Bushfire Design Modelling (attached) consistent with Appendix 2 of PBP to be 18 metres.
The proposed Asset Protection Zones have been increased so that no new dwelling will be
required to exceed BAL 29 construction under AS3959 2009. All proposed residential allotments
therefore accommodate a building footprint exceeding the minimum required Asset Protection
Zone for Residential Subdivisions under Appendix 2 of PBP.
The proposed water supply and access provisions are considered adequate and must satisfy
section 4.1.3 of Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006.
In accordance with the bushfire safety measures contained in this report, and consideration of the
site specific bushfire risk assessment it is our opinion that when combined, they will provide a
reasonable and satisfactory level of bushfire protection to the subject development and also satisfy
both the Rural Fire Services concerns and those of Council in this area.
We are therefore in support of the development application.
Should you have any enquiries regarding this project please contact me at our office.
Prepared by
Building Code & Bushfire Hazard Solutions
Reviewed by
Building Code & Bushfire Hazard Solutions P/L
Stuart McMonnies
Wayne Tucker
Page 18 of 19
160072
Disclaimer:
Quote from Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006, Any representation, statement opinion, or advice expressed or
implied in this publication is made in good faith on the basis that the State of New South Wales, the NSW Rural Fire
Service, its agents and employees are not liable (whether by reason of negligence, lack of care or otherwise) to any
person for any damage or loss whatsoever which has occurred or may occur in relation to that person taking or not
taking (as the case may be) action in respect of any representation, statement or advice referred to above..
Similarly the interpretations and opinions provided by Building Code and Bushfire Hazard Solutions in regard to bushfire
protection are also given in the same good faith.
11.0 Annexure 01
List of Referenced Documents
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
Acknowledgements to:
NSW Department of Lands SixMaps
Street-directory.com.au
NearMap
g)
Masterplan prepared by JCD A+U (project no 1460, dwg no I.30, issue A, dated 22nd
August 2015)
h)
Clarence Valley Bush Fire Management Committee Bush Fire Risk Management Plan
(approved 22.09.2010) and the Iluka Village Protection Strategy (endorsed by the Clarence
Valley BFMC 18/09/2014)
Attachments
Attachment 01:
Attachment 02:
Page 19 of 19
Attachment 01:
Asset Protection Zone
Overlay
20
SE 21
m
)
AL
M 9 R
U L 2 TE
IM A IN
IN B m
M CK 12
2 2 BA L T NA
SE ER
T
EX
22 MINIMUM
SETBACK BAL 29
(EXTERNAL)
0m
(1
EX ( TB M
TE 1m AC IN
R IN K IM
N TE B U
AL R A M
- W NA L 2
IT L, 9
H
IN
SI
TE
)
RE
00
FI
.0
9m
13
AI
TR
L
NA
m
(9
UM 29 R
IM L TE
IN BA IN
M K m
m C 11
22 BA L,
T
A
SE RN
E
T
EX
22m
SETB MINIMUM
ACK
(EXTE BAL 29
RNAL
)
LEGEND
APZ (IPA) MINIMUM SETBACK
CONSTRAINTS OVERLAY
REFERENCE
NO.
160072
ADDRESS
DATE.
LOT 99 DP 823635
28/08/2015
REVISION
CLIENT
STEVENS GROUP
REVISION DATE
DRAWN BY
28/08/2015
IT
SCALE: NTS
Attachment 02:
Bushfire Design Modelling
Print Date:
24/08/2015
Assessment Date:
10/08/2015
Assessor:
Stuart McMonnies; Building Code & Bushfire Hazard Solutions Pty Ltd
Clarence Valley
No
Alpine Area:
Equations Used
Transmissivity: Fuss and Hammins, 2002
Flame Length: RFS PBP, 2001
Rate of Fire Spread: Noble et al., 1980
Radiant Heat: Drysdale, 1985; Sullivan et al., 2003; Tan et al., 2005
Peak Elevation of Receiver: Tan et al., 2005
Peak Flame Angle: Tan et al., 2005
Run Description:
Vegetation Information
Vegetation Type:
Forest
Vegetation Group:
Vegetation Slope:
1 Degrees
Site Information
0 Degrees
Level
APZ/Separation(m):
18
100
Flame Temp(K)
1090
95
Relative Humidity(%):
25
Ambient Temp(K):
308
Moisture Factor:
FDI:
80
Site Slope
Elevation of Receiver(m) 5
Fire Inputs
Veg./Flame Width(m):
Calculation Parameters
Flame Emissivity:
Program Outputs
Category of Attack:
HIGH
Fire Intensity(kW/m):
26572
Radiant Heat(kW/m2): 29
58
0.448
18
Flame Length(m):
16.37
0.852
Run Description:
Vegetation Information
Vegetation Type:
Forest
Vegetation Group:
Vegetation Slope:
1 Degrees
Site Information
0 Degrees
Level
APZ/Separation(m):
22
100
Flame Temp(K)
1090
95
Relative Humidity(%):
25
Ambient Temp(K):
308
Moisture Factor:
FDI:
80
Site Slope
Elevation of Receiver(m) 5
Fire Inputs
Veg./Flame Width(m):
Calculation Parameters
Flame Emissivity:
Program Outputs
Category of Attack:
HIGH
Fire Intensity(kW/m):
46500
Radiant Heat(kW/m2): 29
55
0.452
15
Flame Length(m):
20.91
0.844
Page 2 of 2
APPENDIX5
PROPOSEDLANDSCAPEPLANS
W:\!!PROJECTFILES!!\ACTIVEPROJECTS\ILUKA\02TownPlanning\SEE\SEEIluka151015.docx
Author:
Ashby, E. and McTackett, A. (2015) Flora and Fauna Impact Assessment, Hickey Street, Iluka, Clarence Valley
LGA. Unpublished report, Keystone Ecological
Keystone Ecological
Flora and Fauna Specialists
Mail:
Telephone:
Email:
ABN:
SUMMARY
Keystone Ecological has been contracted by Shellharbour Unit Trust (Stevens Group) to prepare an
assessment of the likely impact of the subdivision and subsequent residential development at Lot 99 DP
823635 Hickey Street Iluka in the Clarence Valley Local Government Area, upon nationally and state listed
threatened flora and fauna and their habitat.
Commonwealth legislation (Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act 1999) requires
that actions judged to significantly impact upon matters of National Environmental Significance are to be
assessed via a formal referral process. This assessment report determines whether a referral to be made to
the Department of Environment for further assessment is required.
State legislation (Environmental Planning and Assessment (EPA) Act 1979) requires that actions judged to
significantly impact upon threatened species, populations or ecological communities, or their habitats listed under
the Threatened Species Conservation (TSC) Act (1995) or Fisheries Management (FM) Act (1994) trigger the
preparation of a Species Impact Statement. This assessment report applies considerations under Section 5A of
the EPA Act (1979) and determines whether a significant impact is likely to occur and, correspondingly,
whether a Species Impact Statement is required.
The subject site is an approximately triangular-shaped lot of 19.41 hectares. Its main frontage is on Iluka Road,
with Hickey Street and the unformed part of Elizabeth Street forming its northern and southern boundaries
respectively. It occurs near the southern end of the Iluka peninsula, a narrow flat coastal sandplain between
the coast and the mouth of the Clarence River. A golf course occurs immediately to the north of the subject site
and residential development to the south west.
The natural landscape of this area is complex and diverse. Most of the Iluka peninsula is within a virtually
uninterrupted band of conservation reserves that stretch from Red Rock in the south to the Richmond River
in the north. In the sites immediate vicinity, Iluka Nature Reserve and Bundjalung National Park protect some
35 kilometres of coastline and near-coastal land north to Evans Head. Iluka Nature Reserve is directly to the
east of the subject site, separated from the subject site by Iluka Road. It is an outstanding example of littoral
rainforest and is part of the World Heritage listed Central Eastern Rainforest Reserves (Australia) World
Heritage area.
The European history of the area dates from the 1830s, when timber cutters arrived and plied their trade from
the Clarence River to Sydney. Historical local land uses were predominantly forestry, farming and fishing until
the granting of sand mining leases in 1935 to extract rutile and zircon at Iluka and Yamba. Commercial mining
continued intermittently until 1982. It is likely that the subject site was sand mined sometime between 1966
and 1978.
The subject site is now entirely vegetated but is unfenced and criss-crossed by roads and tracks. Such
unfettered access has resulted in dumping of cars, furniture, building materials, oil drums and other rubbish
as well as garden refuse. The latter has resulted in many extensive patches of escaped garden weeds. The
structure and floristic composition of the site also indicate that it has experienced very hot fires in the recent
past.
The proposal is to subdivide the site and create 162 residential lots and three reserved areas (Parks 1 to 3).
The internal road system will have wide verges and roundabouts, allowing for significant plantings as part of
a formal landscape plan. The street verges will serve a number of purposes besides access, aesthetics and
delivery of infrastructure, including biodiversity corridors, water sensitive urban design features and bushfire
control. The reserved areas have been carefully located in order to capture the highest value habitats as well
as provide important corridors for the local movement of fauna. The site is adjacent to, but not within, a
recognised regional wildlife corridor.
SUMMARY
Formal consideration has been given to the potential for impact on listed matters of conservation significance
that are known to occur or have a high likelihood to occur on site:
Swamp Sclerophyll Forest occurs along the sites western edge and to be wholly retained
in Park 2;
Phaius australis Lesser Swamp Orchid not found on site but known from vegetation directly
to the north. Potential habitat in the Swamp Sclerophyll Forest;
Acronychia littoralis Scented Acronychia not found on site but known to occur in the local
area;
Dromaius novaehollandiae Emu scats found across the site;
Lophoictinia isura Square-tailed Kite observed overhead. May forage on the subject site;
Ptilinopus regina Rose-crowned Fruit-dove observed in the adjacent Nature Reserve and
heard on site. May forage on some of the fruits of the occasional rainforest trees scattered
across the site;
Calyptorhynchus lathami Glossy Black-Cockatoo evidence of foraging by this species along
the northern edge of the site was reported in 2005;
Glossopsitta pusilla Little Lorikeet the site provides potential foraging and breeding
habitat for this species;
Coracina lineata Barred Cuckoo-shrike observed nearby and the site provides potential
foraging habitat;
Carterornis leucotis White-eared Monarch not recorded during survey but the site
provides potential foraging habitat;
Rhipidura rufifrons Rufous Fantail regularly observed foraging across the site during
survey and a nest was recorded in the vicinity of the proposed Park 2;
Daphoenositta chrysoptera Varied Sittella observed foraging in the eastern part of the site
in the area to be retained in Park 1;
Merops ornatus Rainbow Bee-eater observed foraging along the edges of the site and
nesting in the intact sand dune along the sites northern edge. This area is to be retained in
Park 2;
Hirundapus causacutus White-throated Needletail observed flying overhead. Terrestrial
habitat is largely irrelevant to this species;
Phascolarctos cinereus Koala observed walking across the site from south to north;
Pteropus poliocephalus Grey-headed Flying-fox not recorded during survey but the
blossom and fruits of the canopy trees provide potential foraging habitat;
Syconycteris australis Common Blossom Bat - not recorded during survey but the blossom
and of Banksia integrifolia Coast Banksia provides potential foraging habitat;
Mormopterus norfolkensis Eastern Freetail-bat recorded foraging on site during survey.
Hollow-bearing trees also provide potential roosting / breeding habitat;
Nyctophilus bifax Eastern Long-eared Bat possibly recorded foraging on site during
survey. Prefered habitat in high value vegetation along the western boundary;
Miniopterus australis Little Bentwing-bat - recorded foraging on site during survey; and
Overall, the proposal will remove 16.71 hectares of highly modified Low Acacia Woodland (10.55 hectares)
and Open Forest and Woodland (6.16 hectares). These vegetation types are highly modified by past clearing,
repeated hot fires and the continued influence of transformer weeds such as Lantana camara Lantana. The
infestations of Lantana are significant, being impenetrable in places.
While this represents the majority of the vegetation on site, the principles of avoiding, minimising, mitigating
and offsetting environmental impacts have been observed by the following elements of the proposal and
recommendations arising from this assessment:
The best quality habitat of the highest conservation value (Swamp Sclerophyll Forest EEC) is to be
retained and managed for conservation purposes.
This area will be further protected from the residential development by a buffer of native vegetation.
The two large areas of retained vegetation have been located so as to maintain connectivity for the
species of most concern that were recorded on site, being Dromaius novaehollandiae Emu and
Phascolarctos cinereus Koala.
SUMMARY
Potential adverse impacts on these species will be further mitigated by the implementation of a
landscape plan that includes the planting out of the wide verges with native trees favoured by Koalas,
such as Eucalyptus tereticornis Forest Red Gum and Corymbia intermedia Pink Bloodwood.
Traffic calming measures will also be employed and the route of traffic flow managed by road design.
These measures will decrease the risk of road trauma.
Domestic pets are to be kept within fenced premises, especially at night.
The replacement with nest boxes of all hollow-bearing trees to be removed. Most hollow-bearing
trees on site are dead and at risk of falling over in the near future. The proposal will allow for the
replacement of this resource and thus avoid a bottleneck for hollow-dependent fauna.
Felled hollow trees will be re-used as terrestrial habitat in the retained vegetation.
Vegetation clearing will be conducted under ecological supervision to protect resident fauna from
direct harm.
Clearing is to be conducted outside of the breeding season of important fauna species, particularly
Dromaius novaehollandiae Emu (December to end March).
Lighting is to be of a type that minimises spill and glare. This is important for microchiropteran bats
and other nocturnal species.
Water sensitive urban design principles are to be incorporated into the development. This will
minimise the potential indirect impacts to surrounding bushland.
Vegetation management in the APZs is to entail the removal of only the aerial parts of plants. This
will serve as a soil conservation measure.
Dumping of garden refuse in bushland areas is to be prohibited.
Residents are to be encouraged to plant locally native species in their gardens and particularly avoid
heavy nectar-bearing plants (such as Grevillea) in order to avoid dominance by the aggressive Noisy
Miner.
All erosion and sediment controls are to be strictly observed during works.
The proposal is considered unlikely to result in a significant adverse impact for any matters of import. Thus
no further assessment is required: neither a Species Impact Statement need be prepared under guidelines
issued by the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage nor a referral to the Commonwealth Department of
Environment need be pursued.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................. 1
Background and Objectives .......................................................................................................... 1
The Site and the Proposal ............................................................................................................. 1
Legislative Context and Scope ...................................................................................................... 4
1.3.1
Commonwealth Legislation .............................................................................................................................. 4
1.3.2
State Legislation .................................................................................................................................................... 5
1.3.3
Regional / Local.................................................................................................................................................... 6
1.4
Review of Relevant Past Studies ................................................................................................... 6
1.1
1.2
1.3
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
IMPACT ASSESSMENT....................................................................................................................... 37
Vegetation Communities ............................................................................................................ 38
5.1.1
Swamp Sclerophyll Forest ................................................................................................................................ 38
5.2
Flora Species ............................................................................................................................... 38
5.2.1
Phaius australis Lesser Swamp Orchid .......................................................................................................... 38
5.2.2
Acronychia littoralis Scented Acronychia ................................................................................................... 38
5.3
Birds............................................................................................................................................ 39
5.3.1
Dromaius novaehollandiae Emu ................................................................................................................... 39
5.3.2
Lophoictinia isura Square-tailed Kite .......................................................................................................... 39
5.3.3
Ptilinopus regina Rose-crowned Fruit-Dove ............................................................................................. 40
5.3.4
Calyptorhynchus lathami Glossy Black-Cockatoo .................................................................................. 40
5.3.5
Glossopsitta pusilla Little Lorikeet ............................................................................................................... 40
5.3.6
Coracina lineata Barred Cuckoo-shrike ...................................................................................................... 41
5.3.7
Carterornis leucotis White-eared Monarch ................................................................................................ 41
5.3.8
Daphoenositta chrysoptera Varied Sittella ................................................................................................. 41
5.4
Mammals .................................................................................................................................... 42
5.4.1
Phascolarctos cinereus Koala .......................................................................................................................... 42
5.4.2
Pteropus poliocephalus Grey-headed Flying-fox ..................................................................................... 44
5.4.3
Syconycteris australis Common Blossom Bat ........................................................................................... 44
5.4.4
Mormopterus norfolkensis Eastern Freetail-bat ...................................................................................... 44
5.4.5
Nyctophilus bifax Eastern Long-eared Bat ............................................................................................... 45
5.4.6
Miniopterus australis Little Bentwing-bat ................................................................................................. 45
5.1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
5.5
5.5.1
5.5.2
5.5.3
5.5.4
5.5.5
REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................................. 57
FIGURES........................................................................................................................................................ 60
PHOTOGRAPHS ........................................................................................................................................... 72
APPENDIX 1 - FLORA DETAILS................................................................................................................. 89
APPENDIX 2 FAUNA DETAILS ............................................................................................................... 96
APPENDIX 3 SEVEN PART TESTS ........................................................................................................ 126
INTRODUCTION
1.1
Keystone Ecological has been contracted by the Shellharbour Unit Trust (Stevens Group)
to prepare an assessment of the likely impact of a proposed development upon nationally
and state listed threatened flora and fauna and their habitats. It is proposed to subdivide
Lot 99 DP 823635, Hickey Street, Iluka in the Clarence Valley Local Government Area
(LGA) into 162 residential lots.
The following standard procedures guided this Flora and Fauna Impact Assessment:
1. Review of the existing literature and information currently available for the subject
site and general locality to determine issues for consideration;
2. Flora survey to identify species and vegetation communities present on the subject
site;
3. Fauna survey to identify species present on the subject site;
4. Assessment of the conservation value of the species and communities recorded or
identified with potential to occur on the subject site. This includes assessment of the
condition of vegetation communities and the value of the subject site as fauna habitat;
5. Analysis of the likely significance of the impacts of the proposed action in accordance
with Commonwealth and State legislative requirements and local guidelines;
6. Quantitative assessment of the proposed conservation offset; and
7. Identification of specific measures that may be incorporated into the design of the
proposed action to provide for amelioration of likely impacts upon the native flora and
fauna of the subject site.
1.2
The subject site is located at Lot 99 DP 823635, Hickey Street, Iluka in the Clarence Valley
LGA. It lies in the North Coast Bioregion in the Clarence River Catchment and the centre of
the site is approximately at grid reference 534549 E 6747858 N MGA on the Woodburn
1:100,000 topographic map sheet.
The geographic context and topography of the site are shown in Figure 1; the extent of
vegetation and development in the local area is illustrated in an aerial photograph at
Figures 2 and 3. The site is illustrated in Photographs 1 to 26.
The subject site is an approximately triangular-shaped lot of 19.41 hectares. Its main
frontage is on Iluka Road, with Hickey Street and the unformed part of Elizabeth Street
forming its northern and southern boundaries respectively.
It occurs near the southern end of the Iluka peninsula, a narrow flat coastal sandplain
between the coast and the mouth of the Clarence River. Much of the peninsula is vegetated,
with the small township of Iluka more or less restricted to its western side. A golf course
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14-695 October 2015
occurs immediately to the north of the subject site and residential development to the
south west.
The natural landscape of this area is complex and diverse. Most of the Iluka peninsula is
within a virtually uninterrupted band of conservation reserves that stretch from Red Rock
in the south to the Richmond River in the north. In the sites immediate vicinity, Iluka
Nature Reserve and Bundjalung National Park protect some 35 kilometres of coastline and
near-coastal land north to Evans Head. Iluka Nature Reserve is directly to the east of the
subject site, separated from the subject site by Iluka Road. It is an outstanding example of
littoral rainforest and is part of the World Heritage listed Central Eastern Rainforest
Reserves (Australia) World Heritage area.
The mouth of the Clarence River is wide and meandering, and includes a number of islands
and large areas of tidal flats. These estuarine habitats are favoured by many migratory
shorebirds and large fishing hawks, such as the Eastern Osprey and White-bellied SeaEagle.
The European history of the area dates from the 1830s, when timber cutters arrived and
plied their trade from the Clarence River to Sydney. The township of Iluka began to
develop in conjunction with the breakwall works, with the first sale of land in Iluka in 1875
(Iluka History Group, http://www.ilukahistory.org.au/general/timeline.htm).
Historical local land uses were predominantly forestry, farming and fishing until the
granting of sand mining leases in 1935 to extract rutile and zircon at Iluka and Yamba.
Commercial mining activity began in this area in about 1932 and continued intermittently
until 1982 (NSW NPWS 1997). These were some of the most environmentally damaging
activities undertaken along the NSW coast, with the vegetation completely stripped away,
the soil structure and seedbank destroyed and the minerals extracted from the soil. In
many instances the reshaped and depleted sands were not rehabilitated, and in the 1950s
huge drifts of unconsolidated sand threatened the township of Iluka. Bitou Bush was
planted in a trial stabilisation program at that time, with disastrous ecological results.
Bitou Bush is now declared as a Weed of National Significance.
It is likely that the subject site was sand mined as the property was held from 1958 until
1978 under a mineral lease for the purpose of extraction of Zircon, Rutile, etc. (Cardno
2015). A series of aerial photographs of the site provided at Figure 4 also show the
historical uses of the site from 1966 to 1996.
In 1966 the vegetation is relatively intact. There are open patches, probably the result of
past clearing and / or fire, but linearments are visible, indicating that the dune system was
intact. The 1978 aerial photograph shows the site almost completely denuded of
vegetation and the loss of the parallel dune structure; rises are visible in only two or three
places. This destructive pattern may have been the result of sand mining or borrowing
of material for the development of the golf course to the north and / or the residential
areas to the south west. By 1996 the site has regrown with woody vegetation, albeit
sparsely in parts.
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14-695 October 2015
The subject site is now entirely vegetated but is unfenced and criss-crossed by roads and
tracks. Such unfettered access has resulted in dumping of cars, furniture, building
materials (including asbestos), oil drums and other rubbish as well as garden refuse. The
latter has resulted in many extensive patches of escaped garden weeds. The structure and
floristic composition of the site also indicate that it has experienced at least one very hot
fire in the recent past.
The layout of the proposed development is shown in Figure 5 and is the result of a multidisciplinary iterative process, taking into account competing constraints that included
zoning and other planning issues, bushfire hazard and biodiversity conservation. The
proposal is to subdivide the site and create 162 residential lots and three parks in
accordance with its zoning see Figure 6.
The lots range in size from 500 square metres to 1,062 square metres and are arranged
around 10 internal streets. Although 18 of these lots will have frontages to Iluka Road,
vehicular access is prohibited from that direction. Pedestrian access to Iluka Road will be
facilitated by five accessways.
Vehicular access from the 25 lots along the unformed part of Elizabeth Street is similarly
prohibited, as will be access from the western edge of the development area and along the
central internal street that runs across the development from north to south.
The internal road system will have wide verges and roundabouts, allowing for significant
plantings as part of a formal landscape plan. The street verges will serve a number of
purposes besides access, aesthetics and delivery of infrastructure, including biodiversity
corridor, water sensitive urban design features and bushfire control.
The proposal includes the retention of some of the existing vegetation as establishment in
three parks, primarily for the purposes of conservation of biodiversity and Aboriginal
heritage.
Park 1 is 17,647 square metres in extent and located in the north eastern part of the site.
It has a frontage to Iluka Road to the east and internal Street 1 to the west. The Asset
Protection Zones (APZs) required for bushfire hazard control impinge on the vegetation
of the park for a distance of 10 metres on the parks northern and southern boundaries.
Park 2 is 10,004 square metres in extent and located between the western edge of the
development and the western boundary of the lot. No clearing or vegetation management
is required within this park for bushfire control.
Park 3 is only 756 square metres and intended to protect an Aboriginal scarred tree that
has been identified by others. No clearing or other disturbance is required in this area.
The related plans and reports relied upon for this assessment include the following:
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14-695 October 2015
1.3
Threatened species and ecological communities are listed under Part 13, Division 1,
Subdivision A of the EPBC Act (1999). Migratory species are listed under Part 13, Division
2, Subdivision A of the Act.
The Department of the Environment identifies the following:
Under the EPBC Act a person must not take an action that has, will have or
is likely to have a significant impact on any of these matters of NES without
approval from the Commonwealth Environment Minister. There are
penalties for taking such an action without approval.
In general, an action that may need approval under the Act will involve some
physical interaction with the environment, such as clearing native
vegetation, building a new road, discharging pollutants into the
environment, or offshore seismic survey.
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14-695 October 2015
If the application is for development on land that is, or is a part of, critical habitat, or is
likely to significantly affect threatened species, populations or ecological communities, or
their habitats, a Species Impact Statement must be prepared.
This Flora and Fauna Impact Assessment considers these factors in accordance with the
aforementioned legislative requirements. It also provides conclusions in regard to the
necessity for a Species Impact Statement.
State Environmental Planning Policy No 44 Koala Habitat Protection is a policy
aimed at the encouragement of the conservation and management of natural vegetation
that provide habitat for koalas, to ensure a permanent free-living population over their
present range and reverse the current trend of koala population decline. To this end, SEPP
44 provides a methodology for identification of core Koala habitat and requires the
preparation and implementation of management plans for areas so identified.
In regards to development applications, this policy applies to land that has or is a part of
a parcel of land of more than 1 hectare within listed LGAs, including the Clarence Valley
LGA. Moreover, before Council may grant consent to develop land to which SEPP 44
applies, it must satisfy itself whether or not the land is potential or core Koala habitat. If
it is deemed to be core habitat, then the development must conform to a Comprehensive
Koala Plan of Management or, in its absence, to a site-specific Koala Plan of Management.
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14-695 October 2015
1.4
A literature review was carried out. Of particular importance were records of species or
matters of conservation significance. This background information informed the field
survey and impact assessment.
Preliminary Assessment of the Ecological Attributes of BGLALC Land at Iluka
(Fitzgerald 19 June 2005) and Vegetation Mapping of BGLALC Land at Iluka
(Fitzgerald 19 August 2005)
The subject site represented only part of the investigation area, it including the parcels of
land to the west and north west of the subject site. The Preliminary Assessment was
undertaken in order to:
1. identify the ecological features of the site;
2. identify environmental constraints to the development of the site; and
3. identify what further studies might be required.
It was observed that the eastern part of the investigation area was more disturbed than
the western end (which only partially includes the subject site). This was observed to be
due to severe fire in the recent past, but mooted that it may also reflect past sand mining
activities.
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14-695 October 2015
The Swamp Sclerophyll Forest was observed in two interdunal swales near the western
boundary of the current subject site. The vegetation in this area was dominated by
Melaleuca quinquenervia Broad-leaved Paperbark. What was mooted as Littoral
Rainforest was observed on the higher dune slopes on deep sand where the dunes were
intact along the western boundary of the subject site. The extent of this vegetation was
subsequently mapped in toto in the company of a land surveyor; this boundary is also
relied upon in this Flora and Fauna Impact Assessment.
The eastern part of the study area (which makes up the majority of the current subject
site) was assessed as supporting dense tall closed woodland dominated by the Acacia
aulacocarpa Brush Ironbark Wattle [sic]2. The understorey vegetation was described as
highly disturbed. Exotic grasses (such as Melinus minutiflora Molasses Grass) dominated
the understorey close to the edges and in the open central parts, but Lantana camara
Lantana was overwhelmingly dominant across most of the site, but often with some native
rainforest saplings (such as Euroschinus falcata Ribbonwood, Cupaniopsis anacardioides
Tuckeroo, Polyscias elegans Celery Wood and Acronychia imperforata Beach Acronychia).
Other understorey species observed across the site included Persoonia stradbrokensis and
a number of epiphytes including Platycerium superbum Staghorn, Asplenium
australasicum Birds Nest Fern and Cymbidium species.
This part of the study area also had many dead standing trees, obviously as a result of the
fierce fire that gave rise to the dominant Acacia. Some of these dead trees had developed
hollows.
Single eucalypts and patches of eucalypt trees were observed as occurring occasionally as
emergents above the layers of grass, Lantana and rainforest sapling. These includes
Corymbia intermedia Pink Bloodwood, Eucalyptus tereticornis Forest Red Gum, Eucalyptus
seeana Narrow-leaved Red Gum and Lophostemon confertus Brush Box. Allocasuarina
littoralis Black She-oak occurred rarely.
Although little fauna survey was undertaken for this preliminary investigation, the
presence of two threatened species was inferred. Scats were found beneath a eucalypt in
the current subject site (exact location unknown) that were identified as belonging to
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14-695 October 2015
Phascolarctos cinereus Koala. Also, characteristically chewed cones that were found
beneath a female Allocasuarina littoralis Black She-oak along the northern boundary
indicate the presence of Calyptorhynchus lathami Glossy Black-Cockatoo.
This survey extended to lands to the west and north west of the current subject site. The
endangered orchid Phaius sp. 3 was located in the Swamp Sclerophyll Forest in the
vegetation to the west of the golf course, north west of the current subject site.
NSW Ecosystems Study (Mitchell 2002) and Description for NSW (Mitchell)
Landscapes (Mitchell, unpub and EcoLogical 2008)
The Mitchell Landscape project was a comprehensive exercise in describing and mapping
ecosystems across NSW for conservation planning purposes. It integrated available data
on topography, geology, soils, vegetation and climate. In that mapping, the subject site is
defined as part of the Clarence Richmond Barriers and Beaches Mitchell Landscape.
This Landscape is made up of beaches, dunes, swamps and lagoons on Quaternary coastal
sands, with inner and outer barrier dune sequences. It is low, with a general elevation
from 0 to 25 metres and maximum local relief to 10 metres. The landscape elements are:
siliceous sand on the beach;
siliceous sand with organic topsoil on the hind dune with; Cupaniopsis
anacardioides Tuckeroo, Acacia longifolia ssp. sophorae Coast Wattle, Melaleuca
quinquenervia Broad-leaved Paperbark, and Pandanus pedunculata Coastal Screw
Palm;
Pleistocene high dunes with well-developed podsol profile and Banksia spinulosa
Hairpin Banksia, Banksia aemula Wallum Banksia, Banksia ericifolia Heath
Banksia, Melaleuca bracteata Black Tea-tree, Corymbia intermedia Pink
Bloodwood, Eucalyptus acmenoides Broad-leaved White Mahogany, Xanthorrhoea
sp. Grass Tree, Themeda australis Kangaroo Grass and Imperata cylindrica Blady
Grass;
Poorly drained inner low dunes and beach ridges, relief 1 to 2 metres, with humus
podsols and peaty podsols with Melaleuca quinquenervia Broad-leaved
Paperbark, Callistemon pachyphyllus Wallum Bottlebrush, Leptospermum
laevigatum Coast Tea-tree, Phragmites australis Common Reed, Juncus usitatus
Common Rush and Gleichenia sp. Coral Fern;
Back barrier swamps and plains with gradational dark coloured loamy sand, peaty
podsol and acid peat with Melaleuca quinquenervia Broad-leaved Paperbark,
Casuarina glauca Swamp Oak, Eucalyptus robusta Swamp Mahogany, Eucalyptus
tereticornis Forest Red Gum, Corymbia gummifera Red Bloodwood, Corymbia
intermedia Pink Bloodwood, Banksia integrifolia Coast Banksia, and Angophora
floribunda Rough-barked Apple on better drained sites; and
High dunes on the bedrock coastal ramp with shallow podsols and Eucalyptus
pilularis Blackbutt, Corymbia intermedia Pink Bloodwood, Eucalyptus acmenoides
All Phaius species in NSW are now considered to be Phaius australis Lesser Swamp Orchid. It is listed as
Endangered under both the NSW TSC Act and the Commonwealth EPBC Act. Source: Department of the
Environment (2015) Phaius tancarvilleae in Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of the
Environment, Canberra. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat.
3
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14-695 October 2015
The subject site is best described as part of the Back barrier swamps and plains, with
elements of High dunes on the bedrock coastal ramp.
CRAFTI Upper North East Floristics VIS ID 1108
This vegetation mapping project was part of the Comprehensive Regional Assessment
Forest Type Inventory (CRAFTI) for upper north east NSW. It was designed to provide
raw data on floristics, growth stage and distribution of eucalypt forests.
The delineation of broad floristic types was achieved by traditional API techniques
supplemented with ancillary mapping at an adequate scale and classification that had
been already undertaken by others. Some of this ancillary mapping included detailed
vegetation descriptions. For any one polygon, the level of floristic mapping may vary in
resolution from formation to subformation (for special feature mapping) or subformation
to community (for Eucalypt and related species mapping) to Forest Types detailed in
Research Note 17 or a more detailed classification.
An extract of this mapping is provided at Figure 7 and shows the subject site as supporting
two broad vegetation types: Swamp Sclerophyll Forest in the north eastern corner and
the remainder being Dry Sclerophyll Forest dominated by Bloodwood / Apple.
The vegetation in Iluka Nature Reserve to the east is defined as a more complex mosaic of
vegetation types, with the vegetation immediately to the east being described as a Wattle
forest. To the east of the Wattle Forest is a band of woodland dominated by Forest Red
Gum, with Littoral Rainforest occurring between that vegetation and the foredunes.
Coastal Vegetation of North East NSW, VIS ID 3885
This is fine scale vegetation mapping of reserves in north eastern NSW that was initiated
in 1984 and has been continually refined since using aerial photo interpretation
specialists. Interpretation was predominantly based on 1:25,000 colour photography,
with limited coverage at scales of 1:10,000 and 1:16,000. The structural classification
follows Walker and Hopkins (1984); subformation names are an adaptation of the
classification proposed by Beadle and Costin (1952). The communities were named after
dominant indicator species of the tallest stratum (and occasionally lower stratum), and
most could be considered associations using the definition of Beadle (1981) 'a community
in which the dominant stratum exhibits uniform floristic composition, the community
usually exhibiting uniform structure'. In rainforests, however, floristic composition of the
tallest stratum is often somewhat variable within and between stands. Where this is found
to be the case, an API group is assigned to the most appropriate suballiance of Floyd
(1990).
An extract of this mapping is provided at Figure 7 for comparison with the subject site.
The vegetation immediately to the east of the subject site is delineated as a Dry
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14-695 October 2015
Sclerophyll Forest and Woodland dominated by Wattle. To the east of that is a series of
Forests and Woodlands variously dominated by a mixture of Eucalyptus tereticornis
Forest Red Gum, Lophostemon confertus Brush Box and Banksia integrifolia Coast Banksia.
Littoral Rainforest occurs further to the east again, between those forests and the
foredune.
Soil Landscapes of the Woodburn 1: 100,000 Sheet Report (Morand 2001a) and Soil
Landscapes of the Morand 1:100,000 Sheet Map (Morand 2001b)
Soil landscapes are a good predictor of vegetation types and therefore of threatened
species habitat, and so are an important consideration for this Flora and Fauna Impact
Assessment.
The subject site is within the Bundjalung Dunefield physiographic region which occupies
the coastal plain where it is underlain by Quaternary aeolian and marine sands. Within
this region on the Iluka peninsula, the Iluka soil landscape is dominant on the landward
side of the beach dunes. It is an aeolian soil landscape with two sub-types; the subject site
is within variant a.
Iluka soil landscape occurs on extremely low, level to undulating Quaternary sand sheets.
Variant a is of made up of low beach ridges of Holocene age. Importantly, this Holocene
ridge system consist of distinct longitudinal dune-swale ridges, parallel to the coast.
Drainage generally consists of sub-surface flow and water tables are high. It is protected
by onshore weather by the frontal dune system.
The vegetation in this soil landscape is typically a mix of open forest (various plant
community types) and closed forest (Littoral Rainforest).
Dominant tree species of the open forest types are Corymbia intermedia Pink Bloodwood,
Eucalyptus tereticornis Forest Red Gum, Corymbia gummifera Red Bloodwood, Eucalyptus
planchoniana Needlebark Stringybark, Lophostemon suaveolens Swamp Box, Banksia
integrifolia Coast Banksia, Acacia aulacocarpa Brush Ironbark Wattle [sic] 4 and Melaleuca
quinquenervia Broad-leaved Paperbark. The ground layer is dominated by grasses (e.g.
Imperata cylindrica Blady Grass), graminoids (e.g. Lomandra longifolia Spiny-headed Matrush) and ferns (e.g. Pteridium esculentum Bracken). Lantana camara Lantana is a
common weed in this soil landscape.
The Littoral Rainforest (closed forest) occurs in the more seaward locations and
particularly where the Iluka soil landscape borders the coastal dune system. In Iluka
Nature Reserve to the east of the subject site, the Littoral Rainforest is dominated by
Syzygium luehmannii Riberry and Acmena hemilampra Broad-leaved Lilly Pilly. Patches of
Palm Forest are dominated by Livistona australis Cabbage Tree Palm and Archontophoenix
cunninghamiana Bangalow Palm are also included.
Extracts of the soil landscape mapping is provided at Figure 8. Notably, the subject site is
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14-695 October 2015
10
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14-695 October 2015
11
2.1
Survey Methods
Prior to the detailed survey of the subject site, and in addition to the literature review as
described in Section 1 above, the following was carried out:
2. A search of the EPBC Act (1999) database using the Protected Matters Search Tool
(www.environment.gov.au/erin/ert/epbc/index.html) on the Department of the
Environment website was completed. The search area was confined to a 10
kilometre radius of the site. This identified species of conservation significance
under the EPBC Act (1999) that may require habitat assessment or targeted
survey.
3. The online component of the OEH Wildlife Atlas (http://www.bionet.nsw.gov.au/)
was interrogated for an area confined to a 10 kilometre radius of the site. This
search provided records of species of threatened flora within the locality.
4. PlantNet, the online database of the National Herbarium of NSW at the Royal Botanic
Gardens
was
also
interrogated
(http://plantnet.rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au/floraonline.htm) for rare or threatened
species that have been recorded in the locality.
5. The Atlas of Living Australia (http://www.ala.org.au/) was interrogated for all
threatened plant species recorded within 10 kilometres of the subject site. As well
as records held by PlantNet and the OEH Wildlife Atlas, this online database also
contains records from other institutions (such as State Forests of NSW) that may
not otherwise be displayed.
Dense woodland dominated by Acacia, particularly in the eastern part of the site;
Open forest / woodland vegetation across the centre of the site; and
Moist open forest along the sites western edge.
Field sampling of flora for this Flora and Fauna Impact Assessment was conducted from 10th
to 16th October 2014 and 26th to 27th November 2014. Flora was sampled by way of quadrats
and random meander transects. Two quadrats were located in each of the photo patterns,
with an additional quadrat in the north eastern corner of the site (Quadrat 7) to capture
maximum variability.
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14-695 October 2015
12
As the threatened species Phaius australis Lesser Swamp Orchid was reported by Fitzgerald
(2005) as occurring in the patch of vegetation to the north west of the subject site, this area
was also investigated by targeted random meander for comparisons with habitats present on
site. Similarly, the vegetation within Iluka Nature Reserve to the east was also investigated
by random meander as the photo patterns are similar to those on site.
The locations of the vegetation survey activities are shown in Figure 9.
The data recorded are consistent with the standards used by the NSW National Parks and
Wildlife Service and the Royal Botanic Gardens of the Office of Environment and Heritage.
The data recorded included:
1. Geographical information (MGA, location, relevant aerial photography and
topographic map);
2. Physical features (topographic position, elevation, slope, aspect and general soil
type);
3. Disturbance history (including grazing, clearing/logging, weeds and fire);
4. Structural features of the vegetation according to Specht et al. (1995) (numbers and
types of layers present, their heights, canopy cover, and three most dominant species
in each layer); and
5. Species and their cover abundance using a following modified Braun-Blanquet 7
point scale:
1. <5% cover, rare / few individuals (3 or fewer)
2. <5% cover, uncommon (>3 individuals, sparsely scattered)
3. <5% cover, common (consistent throughout)
4a. <5% cover, abundant (many individuals)
4b. 5-25% cover
5. 25-50% cover
6. 50-75% cover
7. 75-100% cover
Specimens were collected for later identification of plants not readily identifiable in the field.
Such specimens were identified according to Harden (1990, 1991, 1992, 1993) and the
interactive flora (Flora Online) provided online by NSW National Herbarium of the Royal
Botanic Gardens (http://plantnet.rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au/floraonline.htm).
2.2
Survey Limitations
Although best practice methodology has been employed, all surveys have inherent
limitations as they can only ever represent a sample in time and place of the sites flora. Also,
movement through this site is constrained by the dense infestations of Lantana and so some
areas have not been surveyed. However, the survey was conducted at an optimum season
(spring) and coverage of the site is considered adequate to characterise the habitats, species
and vegetation types present. For the flora species of interest for this site, the season and
method of survey were considered appropriate and adequate.
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14-695 October 2015
13
2.3
Floristic Composition
In total, only 83 locally-native species and 25 introduced species were observed within
the subject site. A species list is provided in Table 1.1 in Appendix 1.
2.4
Weeds
Ten of the families found on or immediately adjacent to the site are represented only by
exotic species. The site also contains a number of important weeds, including listed
noxious species, Weeds of National Significance and species recognised as transformer
species.
The Noxious Weeds Act (1993) requires all landholders in certain areas to control certain
serious weeds that are declared noxious weeds. To be declared noxious, a number of
criteria must be met:
Under the National Weeds Strategy, 32 introduced plants have been identified as Weeds
of National Significance (WONS). These weeds are regarded as the worst weeds in
Australia because of their invasiveness, potential for spread, and economic and
environmental impacts.
Transformer weeds have the potential to seriously alter the structure and function of an
ecological community and have serious consequences for biodiversity. Such species often
form dense infestations that have significant impacts on many ecosystem processes. For
example, scrambling species that can climb up mature trees have the potential to severely
affect the growth and health of native vegetation (e.g. Lantana, Cape Ivy).
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14-695 October 2015
14
The following listed Noxious Weeds, WONS or transformer species were all recorded on
or immediately adjacent to the site during survey:
2.5
Vegetation Types
Aerial photography reveals three obvious patterns in the canopy. Sampling has confirmed
that they coincide with three different vegetation types that are driven largely by
disturbance history. Their distribution is mapped in Figure 9 and described below.
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14-695 October 2015
15
Structure: Data from two sample quadrats (Q3 and Q5). The sampling quadrats are
illustrated in Photographs 6 and 7.
Layer
Morphology
Height
Cover
Top
Small tree
8-15 m
35-40%
Middle 1
Middle 2
Lowest
Small tree
Shrub
Grass
5m
1.5 m
0.2 m
10%
10-40%
15-80%
Dominant species
Acacia disparrima subsp. disparrima
Callitris columellaris
Callitris columellaris
Lantana camara
Melinis minutiflora
Very little fallen timber is in evidence and leaf litter is not well developed...
Large hollow-bearing trees occur, mainly as dead stags, killed by fire.
Weeds: The numbers of weed species are not numerous. The weeds present are
overwhelmingly dominated by Lantana camara Lantana and Melinis minutiflora Molasses
Grass. Other species tend to occur dense patches as a result of past disturbances, such as
dumping of garden refuse. Other weed species with this pattern include Tradescantia
zebrina and Bryophyllum delagoense Mother of Millions.
Disturbance: This vegetation type suffers from severe past and ongoing disturbances.
These include complete loss of vegetation and removal of the sand (may have been sand
mined) as a result of very hot (and probably repeated) fires, dumping of rubbish and
garden refuse, weed infestations and edge effects.
Vegetation type 2: Open Forest and Woodland.
Area: 6.93 hectares (36% of the site).
Distribution: Predominantly in the centre of the site, with small patches in the north
eastern corner and on a remnant dune in the south eastern part.
Structure: Data from three sample quadrats (Q4, Q6 and Q7). The sampling quadrats are
illustrated in Photographs 8, 9 and 10.
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14-695 October 2015
16
This is the most diverse of the three vegetation types on site, as the species composition
and structure are largely determined by disturbance impacts. Although the species are
generally consistent, their heights and cover ratings vary. The upper and mid layers of Q4
are taller and denser than in the other quadrats. The upper canopy in Q7 was almost
exclusively made up of Acacia disparrima subsp. disparrima Salwood, many of which were
dead.
Layer
Morphology
Height
Top
Middle 1
(Q4)
Tree
10-25 m
Small tree
15-20 m
Middle 1
(Q6)
Small tree
3-5 m
Middle 1
(Q7)
Small tree
5m
Lowest
Grass / Fern
Middle 2
Shrub
1-3 m
0.2-1.5 m
Cover
Dominant species
Corymbia
intermedia
25-35%
(10% in Q7) Acacia disparrima subsp. disparrima
Glochidion ferdinandi var. ferdinandi
45%
Acacia disparrima subsp. disparrima
Acronychia imperforata
Schefflera actinophylla
Glochidion ferdinandi var. ferdinandi
10%
Acacia disparrima subsp. disparrima
Polyscias elegans
Acronychia imperforata
Acronychia imperforata
Mischocarpus pyriformis
10%
25-90%
10-50%
Very little fallen timber is in evidence and leaf litter is not well developed.
Large hollow-bearing trees occur, mainly as dead stags, killed by fire.
Dominant species: The overwhelmingly dominant species in the canopy are Corymbia
intermedia Pink Bloodwood and Acacia disparrima subsp. disparrima Salwood.
Lophostemon confertus Brush Box is common; other canopy species are rare. As elsewhere,
the understorey is dominated by Lantana camara Lantana and the ground layer by Melinis
minutiflora Molasses Grass.
Weeds: The more open parts are particularly infested with weeds, with dense (almost
impenetrable) thickets of Lantana camara Lantana and head-high exotic grass.
Disturbance: This vegetation type suffers from severe past and ongoing disturbances.
These include complete loss of vegetation and removal of the sand (may have been sand
mined) as a result of very hot (and probably repeated) fires, dumping of rubbish and
garden refuse, weed infestations and edge effects.
Vegetation type 2/3: Mosaic of Swamp Sclerophyll Forest and Open Forest /
Woodland.
Area: 0.47 hectares (2% of the site).
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14-695 October 2015
17
Distribution: Restricted to the western edge of the site in the intact dune / swale sequence.
Structure: Data from two sample quadrats (Q1 and Q2).The sampling quadrats are
illustrated in Photographs 11 and 12.
The historical aerial photographs indicate that this part of the site was not cleared and its
topographic structure degraded in the 1960s, as occurred across the remainder of the site.
Thus, mature trees and a dune-swale sequence are in evidence.
Layer
Morphology
Height
Cover
Top
Tree
25 m
40%
Middle 1
Small tree
/Shrub/Scrambler
10 m
15-20%
Shrub/Scrambler
2-4 m
60%
Herbs/graminoids/ferns/
shrubs
0.2-05 m
30%
Middle 2
Lowest
Dominant species
Corymbia intermedia
Lophostemon confertus
Melaleuca quinquenervia
Acacia maidenii
Lantana camara
Cupaniopsis anacardioides
Schefflera actinophylla
Smilax australis
Lantana camara
Asparagus aethiopicus
Asparagus densiflorus
Passiflora herbertiana
Melinis minutiflora
Ochna serrulata
Fallen timber is in evidence. The swales are relatively moist with a well-developed leaf
litter layer.
Large hollow-bearing trees occur, mainly as live trees.
18
There is evidence of fire, but it has not transformed the vegetation into a low dense
woodland with a virtual monoculture of Acacia disparrima subsp. disparrima Salwood, as
has occurred to the east. Continuing disturbance are generally confined to those
associated with weed infestations. This vegetation type is particularly vulnerable to
dumped garden refuse along Elizabeth Street. Many serious weeds were observed along
this edge, and included transformer weeds such as Delairia odorata Cape Ivy and Ipomoea
cairica Blue Morning Glory.
2.6
Results from the Protected Matters Search Tool and the OEH Wildlife Atlas online database
searches revealed a number of listed species that require consideration as part of this
assessment. Their habitat requirements and likelihood to occur on site is explored in Table
1.2 in Appendix 1. Those Threatened Species considered to have a high likelihood to
occur are:
1. Peristeranthus hillii Brown Fairy-chain Orchid 2. Phaius australis Lesser Swamp Orchid
3. Acronychia littoralis Scented Acronychia
None of these species were recorded during survey but Phaius australis Lesser Swamp
Orchid was reportedly observed by Fitzgerald in the swamp forest to the north west of the
subject site (Fitzgerald 2005). The potential impact of the proposal will be addressed for
all the above species.
Of the Threatened Ecological Communities listed under the State TSC Act (1995) and
Commonwealth EPBC Act (1999), the Office of Environment and Heritage Threatened
Species website lists only 2 Endangered Ecological Communities as occurring or
potentially occurring in the Clarence Lowlands sub-region of the North Coast Catchment
Management Authority (CMA) region, of which the subject site is a part:
Subtropical Coastal Floodplain Forest of the New South Wales North Coast
Bioregion; and
Swamp Sclerophyll Forest on Coastal Floodplains of the New South Wales North
Coast, Sydney Basin and South East Corner Bioregions.
The threatened community Littoral Rainforest in the New South Wales North Coast,
Sydney Basin and South East Corner Bioregions also occurs in this catchment, with the
largest occurrence in Australia being within the adjacent Iluka Nature reserve.
Of these, Swamp Sclerophyll Forest is considered to occur in the western part of the site,
where it is moist and least disturbed. This is mapped as a mosaic of Swamp Sclerophyll
Forest and Open Forest / Woodland, because those other floristic components are also
dominant in parts, particularly on the upper parts of the intact dune.
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14-695 October 2015
19
In his preliminary assessment of the vegetation of this site, Fitzgerald (2005) suggested
that this western part of the site was a mosaic of Swamp Sclerophyll Forest and Littoral
Rainforest. However, the floristic data collected for this Flora and Fauna Impact
Assessment do not support that conclusion. While it is recognised that species
characteristic of Littoral Rainforest occur as scattered individuals in the understorey
across the entire site, their presence alone is not enough to define the presence of this
community. As with any vegetation community, Littoral Rainforest is defined by a
multiplicity of factors including species composition, relative abundance of species,
vegetation structure, soil characteristics, topography and geography.
In the Final Determination (NSW Scientific Committee 2004,) the community is defined
as having the following characteristics:
No parts of the vegetation on the subject site have a closed forest structure. The densest
canopy occurs in the Acacia Woodland, but the maximum measured canopy cover was
only 40%. The position of the epiphytes low on the tree trunks rather than high in the
canopies probably reflects the influence of salt-laden winds. Vines are present but not a
major component for most of the site; vines are more prevalent in the vegetation of the
western edge. The canopy is not dominated by rainforest species anywhere on site.
Rather, the canopy is uniformly dominated by Corymbia intermedia Pink Bloodwood,
Acacia disparrima subsp. disparrima Salwood with Lophostemon confertus Brush Box in
the western parts and occasional Eucalyptus tereticornis Forest Red Gum and rainforest
species scattered across the site in small patches, usually as single trees. Melaleuca
quinquenervia Broad-leaved Paperbark is a major component of the vegetation in the
swale at the western boundary. Historical aerial photography shows that the sand dune
structure was stripped away between 1966 and 1978. The site is within 2 kilometres of
the sea. There are species present that occur in the nominated rainforest alliance (Floyd
1990) but they do not dominate the vegetation. Thus, the vegetation types of the site do
not align very well with the legal definition of the endangered ecological community
Littoral Rainforest as listed under the TSC Act (1995).
In recognition of the difficulties posed by the identification of Littoral Rainforest,
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14-695 October 2015
20
Eurobodalla Shire Council has produced a Fact Sheet detailing important determining
features of this community (ESC no date). Tellingly, this highlights the profound influence
of fire, quoted below:
Occurrences of Littoral Rainforest may be quite fluid over time. In the absence
of fire stands can develop under other vegetation types over a period of a few
decades, but they may be eliminated in the course of a single fire event. Mature
rainforest stands are not very flammable, but by their nature many littoral
stands include sclerophyll elements and may abut sclerophyll forest or scrub
with highly flammable groundcover such as bracken and grasses prominent in
the groundcover. Although many of the common component tree species are
capable of resprouting after fire, mature littoral rainforest cannot develop
under a regime of even occasional fires, so complete fire exclusion is necessary
for full development of this community.
A formal fire history was not available for this area but the vegetation of the subject site
has undoubtedly experienced severe - and probably repeated fire. This is evidenced by
site observations (fire scars, vegetation structure and composition) and is additionally
supported by the scientific literature in relation to Koalas in Iluka (see particularly
Lunney et al. 2002). Further, the Woombah area has been documented as experiencing a
fire every 5 years and Bundjalung National Park and surrounds experienced large and hot
fires in 1989 and 1994 (Clarence Valley Council 2010).
The Commonwealth policy statement for this community (DEWHA 2009) is also
instructive here. That document provides a checklist of features that must all be present
in order to determine the presence of the Commonwealth-listed protected entity Littoral
Rainforest and Coastal Vine Thickets of Eastern Australia, as shown below.
Feature
The ecological community occurs in a restricted set of bioregions,
including the NSW North Coast.
Occurs typically within 2 kilometres of the coast.
Occurs on coastal headlands, dunes, sea-cliffs or other places
influenced by the sea.
21
56%
27%
The site features do not accord with all of these defining characteristics therefore cannot
be regarded as an example of the Commonwealth-listed entity.
Overall it is therefore concluded that neither the NSW-listed endangered ecological
community Littoral Rainforest or the Commonwealth-listed Littoral Rainforest and
Coastal Vine Thickets of Eastern Australia occur on site.
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14-695 October 2015
22
3.1
Survey Methods
Prior to the survey of the subject site, and in addition to the literature review as described
in Section 1 above, the following was carried out:
1. Colour aerial photography was interpreted prior to field survey to delineate
preliminary vegetation community boundaries and areas of disturbance on site.
2. A search of the EPBC Act (1999) database using the Protected Matters Search Tool
(www.environment.gov.au/erin/ert/epbc/index.html) on the Department of the
Environment website was completed. The search area was confined to a 10
kilometre radius of the site. This identified species of conservation significance
under the EPBC Act (1999) that may require habitat assessment or targeted
survey.
Survey was conducted for this Flora and Fauna Impact Assessment from 10th to 16th October
2014 and the 11th to 28th November 2014 and comprised:
camera trapping;
spotlighting;
stagwatching of tree hollows at dusk;
recording and identification of calls of microbats;
nocturnal and diurnal searches for reptiles;
habitat searches and assessment;
diurnal bird survey by active searches and audio recording;
nocturnal bird survey by call playback and spotlighting;
scat searches for predators, Emu and Koala;
call playback of Koala and Grey Headed Flying Fox; and
terrestrial and arboreal hair funnels for mammals.
Locations of the fauna survey effort are depicted in Figure 10 and details of fauna survey
effort are provided in Table 2.1 in Appendix 2.
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14-695 October 2015
23
The fauna survey was intended to sample the various habitats present across the site.
Weather details during fauna survey are listed in Table 2.2 in Appendix 2.
For reasons of comparison and context, fauna species observed off site in the local area
(such as in the township and on the Clarence River estuary) are also reported. Also,
observational fauna survey was extended to the patches of vegetation immediately
surrounding the subject site: the connected vegetation to the west of the site (habitat
assessment, diurnal birds, scat searches), the patch of moist forest to the west of the golf
course (habitat assessment, diurnal birds), the golf course (habitat assessment, diurnal
birds) and in the parts of Iluka Nature Reserve closest to the site where the aerial photo
pattern of the canopy is similar to that on the subject site.
3.2
Survey Limitations
Spotlighting was not very efficient on this site due to the very dense infestations of
Lantana. Thus, spotlighting was confined to the internal and external tracks. Live-trapping
was not undertaken as it was considered unnecessary for the target species of interest and
unnecessarily stressful for the animals. Target species were therefore instead surveyed by
direct and indirect observational techniques (e.g. camera traps, scats, tracks and signs).
These survey techniques are considered appropriate for medium-sized mammals of
interest such as Koalas, Phascogales and Quolls.
In order to overcome these survey limitations, this report includes a detailed assessment
of the habitat present on the site. This habitat analysis is then compared to the results of
database searches for threatened species occurring within a 10 kilometre radius of the
site. This comparison allows for the prediction of potential use of the site by species of
conservation significance. Any threatened species (flora or fauna) considered to have
potential habitat within the site is then made subject to a Section 5A Assessment of
Significance. This process ensures that all threatened species with potential to use the site
are considered in the impact assessment, rather than only those that were recorded during
survey.
3.3
Survey Results
Including the species observed off-site, 125 species of fauna were recorded during survey
of which 101 species are from the site or in its immediate surrounds and therefore
probably using the habitats of the site.
Results from the fauna survey are provided in Appendix 2 and includes a complete list of
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14-695 October 2015
24
species (Table 2.3), results of microchiropteran bat call analysis (Table 2.4), details of
hollow-bearing trees (Table 2.5), details of Koala Spot Assessment Technique quadrats
(Table 2.6) and results from the camera traps (Table 2.7).
Amphibians
No amphibians were heard or seen. This reflects the absence of appropriate habitat.
Reptiles
Six common species of reptiles were recorded occurring on or immediately near the
subject site and included skinks, a dragon, a monitor and a snake:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
The Vermicella annulata Bandy Bandy Snake was found dead on Iluka Road, immediately
adjacent to the site. This species feeds almost exclusively on blind snakes from the
Typhlopidae family, thus also indicating the presence of its prey species.
Birds
The bird fauna was well represented with 95 species recorded during the survey period.
These characterized many different foraging guilds including forest birds, raptors, birds
of open areas and aquatic species recorded during survey of the site and the local area.
However, many of these species do not occur on site and will not use the site due to the
absence of habitat (e.g. shorebirds).
A total of 74 species were recorded foraging, nesting or otherwise using the habitats of
the subject site or were recorded flying overhead or nearby and are judged to be able or
likely to use the habitats of the subject site. This included 3 exotic species.
Of the 74 species of the subject site, 9 are listed species under the NSW TSC Act (1995)
and / or under the Commonwealth EPBC Act (1999).
Dromaius novaehollandiae Emu Endangered Population (NSW);
Lophoictinia isura Square-tailed Kite Vulnerable species (NSW);
Ptilinopus regina Rose-crowned Fruit-dove Vulnerable species (NSW);
Calyptorhynchus lathami Glossy Black-Cockatoo Vulnerable species (NSW);
Hirundapus caudacutus White-throated Needletail Migratory
(Commonwealth);
6. Merops ornatus Rainbow Bee-eater Migratory (Commonwealth);
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14-695 October 2015
25
Arboreal species
Terrestrial species
Small, medium and large terrestrial mammals were recorded on site, none of which are
listed threatened species:
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14-695 October 2015
26
10. Oryctolagus cuniculus Rabbit observed in the local area and likely to occur on
site.
Volant species
Nine species of microchiropteran bats were identified from call analysis; 4 of these
species listed threatened species:
3.4
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
The fauna habitats on site have been simplified due to the cumulative impacts of severe
fire, weed infestations and past land use. The state of the vegetation indicates that there
has been a severe fire or sequence of fires: large canopy trees have been killed and a mass
germination event of wattles has created a virtual monoculture of Acacia disparrima
across most of the site. Weed infestations are also significant, with vast impenetrable
thickets of Lantana across large areas. Notably, many weeds that area recognised as
transformer species occur across the site and in dense thickets. Microhabitats normally
associated with the sequence of dune crests and swales has been destroyed across most
of the site as a result of past vegetation clearing and soil removal.
However, some important habitat features remain and include:
Hollow-bearing trees and terrestrial shelter sites in fallen timber. Few hollow
bearing trees were recorded and most were dead stags as a result of severe fire.
Fallen timber was relatively uncommon. Hollow-bearing trees identified across
the site are shown in Figure 11. Note that it is likely that not all hollow-bearing
trees on site were identified, as the dense infestations of Lantana impeded survey.
These trees provide potential shelter and breeding sites for a number of
threatened fauna species including reptiles, birds and mammals. However, no
hollow-dependent species were observed using any of these hollow-bearing trees.
Tree canopy shelter and nest sites. The canopies of mature and semi-mature
trees (particularly the myrtaceous species) provide shelter, roosting and breeding
sites for many species. During this survey, the Rufous Fantail and the Rufous
Whistler were both observed on nests in the canopy trees.
Foraging resources of the canopy: pollen, nectar, fruit and leaves. Pollen and
nectar is provided by the canopy and mid-storey trees; Lophostemon confertus
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14-695 October 2015
27
The leaves of some of the other canopy species on site are recognised food tree
species for Phascolarctos cinereus Koala, namely Eucalyptus tereticornis Forest Red
Gum, Eucalyptus propinqua Small-fruited Grey Gum and Corymbia intermedia Pink
Bloodwood.
Prey species. The natural vegetation provides suitable habitat for many species
of insects, thus in turn providing foraging resources for insectivorous birds and
mammals, many of which are threatened species. Similarly, the higher order
predators (such as raptors, carnivorous marsupials and reptiles, many of which
are threatened) are also well served by the presence of diverse habitats suitable
for their favoured prey species.
Sandy substrate. The light sandy soil and the occurrence (although rare) of the
dune-swale sequence provides opportunities for burrowing species to construct
fossorial nests. Diggings and burrows of Rattus tunneyi were common across the
site, but particularly in the swale at the sites western edge and under fallen timber
in the sites centre. Merops ornatus Rainbow Bee-eater (Migratory species listed
under the EPBC Act 1999) was also observed nesting in the swale of the north
western corner.
The fauna habitats on site are important in their own right, but they assume an even
greater significance when considered in their spatial context. The bushland on site is
separated from bushland to the north, south by unformed tracks and to the east by Iluka
Road. However, these patches are functionally connected despite this fragmentation for
most fauna species as the gaps are only 10 to 20 metres wide. Thus, the site is functionally
connected to a vast swathe of bushland, most of which is reserved.
The National Parks and Wildlife Service has identified Key Habitats and Corridors along
the east coast of NSW, including those areas considered important for conservation in the
advent of climate change (Scotts 2003). These corridors have been delineated according
to their known and predicted forest fauna habitats and their ability to contribute to a
conservation network at the landscape scale.
The relationship of the site with the mapped Key Habitats and Fauna Corridors in the local
area is shown in Figure 12. The bushland on the site and in surrounding lands is mapped
as Key Habitat. However, the Fauna Corridors do not extend outside of the reserved lands
to the east: the subject site is not part of a recognised fauna corridor.
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14-695 October 2015
28
The recognised regional fauna corridors alongside the subject site link a series of habitats
that occur along the coast. They incorporate a number of habitat types, some of which are
identified as being particularly important for some fauna species. For example,
Nyctophilus bifax Eastern Long-eared Bat is an identified focal species for the Iluka-Yaray
regional corridor (number 8) that crosses the Clarence River. Similarly, the Tyndale
Swamp regional corridor (number 242) is intended to particularly accommodate Petaurus
australis Yellow-bellied Glider and Aepyprymnus rufescens Rufous Bettong. Otherwise, the
coastal corridor is identified to facilitate the conservation and movements of a large
assemblage of species, the priority ones being (Scotts 2003):
Of these priority species, Nyctophilus bifax Eastern Long-eared Bat was possibly recorded
on site during survey.
3.5
Threatened Species
Results from the Protected Matters Search Tool and the OEH Wildlife Atlas online database
searches revealed a number of listed species that require consideration as part of this
assessment. Their habitat requirements and likelihood to occur on site are explored in
Table 2.8 in Appendix 2.
Following survey, those threatened or migratory species considered to have a high
likelihood to occur and require further consideration for impact are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14-695 October 2015
29
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
The potential impact of the proposal will be addressed for all the above species.
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14-695 October 2015
30
4.1
Vegetation Clearing
The distribution of direct impact across the site is illustrated in Figure 11 and detailed
below:
Vegetation type
1
Low Wattle
Woodland
2
Open Forest
and
Woodland
2/3
Mosaic
TOTAL
Area to be
retained
Area to be
managed as APZ
Area to be
removed
12.01 ha
1.05 ha
0.41 ha
10.55 ha
6.93 ha
0.66 ha
0.11 ha
6.16 ha
0.47 ha
0.47 ha
19.41 ha
2.18 ha
0.52 ha
16.71 ha
The total area of proposed development envelopes and access roads (including some
APZ) accounts for approximately 16.71 hectares 86% of the total site area. The remaining
2.7 hectares will be retained, of which 2.18 hectares will be managed entirely for
conservation purposes and narrow strips in Park 1 totalling 0.52 hectares will be
managed as an APZ.
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14-695 October 2015
31
The high quality vegetation on site is restricted to the sliver along the western edge where
remnant vegetation occurs on an intact topographic sequence. The entire occurrence of
this high quality vegetation (the Mosaic vegetation type 2/3) will be retained and
managed for conservation within Park 2. Thus, impact has been avoided on the most
important vegetation feature of the site.
Potential impacts on this vegetation have been further minimised and mitigated by the
presence of a vegetation buffer between the high quality vegetation and the development.
This in turn is further buffered by a landscaped streetscape using native vegetation.
The losses across the rest of the site have been further mitigated by the location of the
development footprint within the areas of least ecological value, areas with significant
weed invasion, transformed ecosystems and other modifications (such as loss of soil
structure).
4.2
Habitat Fragmentation
The subject site is adjacent to, but not part of, the large scale regional corridor recognised
and mapped by OEH (see Figure 12). Although the subject site is in very poor condition, it
is likely to play some role in connecting this important corridor to other vegetation and
habitats to the west and north west, just by reason of its location. Thus, the development
of a large part of this site has the potential to interrupt this link.
Therefore, in order to mitigate against this potential impact of habitat fragmentation, the
areas to be retained in Parks 1 and 2 have been located so that they will best facilitate
fauna movements and for the species most likely to be so advantaged. The significant
fauna species recorded on site include Dromaius novaehollandiae Emu, Phascolarctos
cinereus Koala, a number of birds and microchiropteran bats. These are all species that
are able to travel long distances and are therefore unlikely to be significantly
disadvantaged by the increase in fragmentation resulting from the development of the
site.
However, this part of Iluka Road has already been identified as a crossing point for
Dromaius novaehollandiae Emu (see Photograph 20). Park 1 has therefore been located
in order to facilitate east-west fauna movements between Iluka Nature Reserve and the
vegetation to the west, north and north west. Scats of Dromaius novaehollandiae Emu
were also found in this area during survey, thus supporting the retention of this area as a
corridor.
The Phascolarctos cinereus Koala observed on site was walking along the ground not
foraging in the trees or moving through the canopy and moving from south to north.
Thus, it was also considered important to maintain and enhance the north-south
connection.
Park 2 has been increased in size from the original proposal, in order to provide as wide
a corridor as possible for north-south movements of fauna, which was the direction in
which the Koala was headed. The corridor to be retained and managed for conservation
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14-695 October 2015
32
will be approximately 50 metres wide on site. When considered in conjunction with the
vegetated lands to the west, Park 2 will be part of a 250 metre wide link between the
swamp forest of the subject site with similar vegetation to the north.
Further design elements of the proposal will enhance the functionality of these wildlife
corridors. The configuration of the streets and the vehicular access points to the lots will
help to control the volume and speed of traffic in and around the development, and direct
it away from the corridors. Vehicular access onto Iluka Road will be restricted to the
current intersection at Hickey Street, further restricting the traffic impacts.
The landscaping of the streetscape has been informed by the most recent design
guidelines to act as a corridor for Koalas (McAlpine et al. 2007). Critical elements to be
incorporated are food tree species selection and planting distances. The planting of large
native trees will be successful in the streetscape due to the incorporation of very wide
verges into the layout.
The other area of vegetation to be retained is in Park 3, which has been located to protect
trees of high Aboriginal heritage value. However, it will also provide a stepping stone
function for the more mobile species such as bird and bats.
4.3
Fauna habitat will be lost or alienated through the removal of trees and disturbance rising
from the occupation of the site by new residents. The trees to be removed represent
foraging, roosting and sheltering habitat for a range of fauna species including reptiles,
birds and mammals.
However, the losses of the trees within the development area will be mitigated to some
extent by the retention and conservation management of Parks 1, 2 and 3. These retained
areas contain the most valuable fauna habitat and also maintain links to other important
areas of habitat.
Of the 15 hollow-bearing trees located within the subject site, one will be retained in Park
1. The loss of hollow-bearing trees is a recognised Key Threatening Process and such
losses and impacts must be ameliorated. Therefore, it is recommended that the loss of
these potential breeding sites are to be offset by the installation of nest boxes in the
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14-695 October 2015
33
retained parks as a ratio of at least 1:1. These boxes are to be of a type suitable for the
species that might otherwise use the natural hollow.
Further, if hollows are found within felled trees not otherwise visible from the ground,
then these losses are also to be ameliorated by the installation of nest boxes of various
sizes at a compensatory ratio of at least 1:1.
However, natural hollow formation can be very slow: research by State Forests of NSW
has shown that Eucalyptus pilularis Blackbutt generally do not form hollows suitable for
Petaurus australis Yellow-bellied Glider until the trees are 180+ years old. Therefore the
development provides an opportunity to replace these hollows that will unavoidably be
soon lost.
The sites landscape design will be informed by best practice design guidelines for
accommodating Koalas in residential areas (McAlpine et al. 2007). Some of the elements
to be incorporated include:
4.4
Displacement of Fauna
The felling of hollow-bearing trees will displace fauna resident at the time of felling and
also has the potential to harm them during the felling process itself.
The timing of the felling of the hollow trees is important in order to avoid the breeding
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14-695 October 2015
34
seasons of species likely to be using the hollows for nesting. For most species of interest,
this is usually late summer / autumn.
Also, as the dense Lantana camara Lantana infestation prevented complete searches for
hollow-bearing trees, all vegetation is to be removed under ecological supervision to
ensure animal welfare considerations are observed.
4.5
Parks 1 and 2 will pose a bushfire hazard to the surrounding lots. Therefore an APZ is to
be implemented. The APZ required to protect the properties from Park 2 will be wholly
contained within the road and verges and will not encroach on the retained bushland.
However, the APZ for the lots around Park 1 will encroach into the retained vegetation to
a maximum distance of 10 metres. This narrow buffer needs to be managed to the
standards of an Inner Protection Area with very little ground and fine fuel, no vertical
connectivity between the ground and canopy and no horizontal connectivity between the
tree canopies.
It is recommended that only the aerial parts of vegetation is removed during APZ
management; the retained roots will serve as a soil conservation measure.
4.6
Light Pollution
Lighting of the subsequent developed lots should be minimised in time and space, limited
to the areas where and when lighting is required for amenity or security and of a type that
reduces spill and glare.
4.7
The proposal has the potential to impose indirect impacts on vegetation and habitats that
remain on site as well as to those that occur off site. Alteration to the amount and quality
of runoff from the development areas has the potential to alter sensitive downslope
environments. The introduction of hard surfaces (roofs, driveways, access roads, hard
landscaping) interrupt the percolation of rainwater through the soil profile and instead
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14-695 October 2015
35
delivers water in greater volumes and at greater speeds downslope through drainage
controls.
These usually manifest as enhanced edge effects (e.g. increased weeds, increased
exposure and instability of trees).
Such potential impacts are to be controlled by Water Sensitive Urban Design and by the
conservation management of the retained bushland n Parks 1, 2 and 3. The management
of these areas will focus on weed control.
Exposed areas of soil have the potential to mobilise and will be managed with the strategic
use of standard erosion and sediment controls.
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14-695 October 2015
36
IMPACT ASSESSMENT
For the purposes of the impact assessment the following terms of reference are used:
For the threatened species of interest recorded within 10 kilometres of the subject site,
(see Appendices 1 and 2), the likelihood of occurrence of each species in or near the
subject site was determined by analysis of their habitat requirements, the habitats on site
and the nature and extent of adjacent habitats.
Each species has been assigned to one of four groups according to their likelihood of
occurring on the subject site or within adjacent habitats likely to be impacted by the
proposed works:
High likelihood to occur - species whose preferred habitat features occur on the
site and / or have been recorded close by in similar habitat, and / or are able to
reach the subject site from other known and confirmed locations;
Moderate likelihood to occur - species whose preferred habitat features in a
strict sense occur on or near to the site but are considered generally unlikely to
occur. This may be due to such things as the nature of habitats and disturbances
between confirmed locations and the subject site, movement patterns of the
subject species, the extensive and common nature of the available habitat in the
local area, the rarity of the species, the length of time since it was last recorded
and / or the size of its home range;
Low likelihood to occur - species with specific terrestrial niches and habitat
requirements that generally do not occur on or near the subject site or species
that have not been found the area for a considerable period of time; and
No likelihood to occur - these are generally aquatic or marine species.
The impacts of the proposal on those species observed on site or listed in the first group
(high likelihood to occur) have been assessed using a Section 5A assessment (or seven part
test) as required by the EPA Act (1979). The remaining species assigned to the last three
groups (those with no to moderate likelihood to occur) have not been considered in
further detail as, although possible, their presence is unlikely.
Section 5A of the EPA Act (1979) requires that the consent authority take into account
seven factors when deciding whether there is likely to be a significant effect on threatened
species, populations or ecological communities, or their habitats. If a significant impact is
judged likely to occur, a Species Impact Statement (SIS) is required.
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14-695 October 2015
37
The potential impact of the proposal on the subset of NSW listed threatened entities
recorded on site or considered likely to occur are assessed in full individually in Appendix
3 and summarised below. In keeping with the spirit of the Bilateral Agreement between
the Commonwealth and New South Wales State Governments, these assessments are
considered adequate in satisfying the EPBC Act (1999) for those species listed under both
pieces of legislation for an Environmental Impact Assessment. However, for species listed
only under Commonwealth legislation, a separate assessment is provided in accordance
with the EPBC Act (1999) below.
5.1
Vegetation Communities
5.1.1
This vegetation community occurs in the intact swales at the western edge of the site. It
will be retained in its entirety and be subject to conservation management, with an
emphasis on weed control. It will be further protected from edge effects by the presence
of a substantial buffer of Low Acacia Woodland.
5.2
Flora Species
5.2.1
This species was not recorded on the subject site but is known to occur in the swamp
forest immediately to the north of the subject site.
The potential habitat on site is within swamp forest vegetation on the western boundary.
This area will be wholly retained and managed for conservation purposes.
This species was not recorded on the subject site during survey. Potential habitat occurs
across the site but the best habitat is within the remnant vegetation along the sites
western boundary.
The area with the most potential to support this species will be retained and managed for
conservation purposes.
The proposal is unlikely to have a significant adverse impact on this threatened species.
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14-695 October 2015
38
5.3
Birds
5.3.1
Evidence of this endangered population was found on site: a number of scats were
collected from the site, with the greatest concentration being in the remnant vegetation
on the western boundary that is to be retained and managed for conservation purposes.
The nearby Bundjalung National Park is a known stronghold for this species in this area,
but it has declined in recent times with too frequent fires, loss of habitat outside of the
reserve, road trauma and predation of eggs and chicks by exotic predators.
The development proposal will remove potential and realised habitat for this species, but
the highly modified vegetation dominated by dense thickets of Lantana camara Lantana
are likely to be of only marginal value to this species as it favours vegetation with a more
open understorey. The conservation management of the retained parks will be of benefit
to this species by the removal of weeds, the improvement in the condition of native food
plants and by the opening up of the understorey structure. Also, Park 1 was located
specifically to maintain east-west connectivity in the area known to be frequented by this
species.
It is a nomadic and highly mobile species, with home ranges of between 5 to 10 square
kilometres. Therefore the animals occurring on site would have access to the protected
habitats in the nearby Iluka Nature Reserve and Bundjalung National Park and be part of
the population known to frequent those protected areas. In that context, the loss of 16.71
hectares of highly modified poor condition habitat across the subject site represents less
than 2% of its home range, most of which is reserved.
It is recommended that clearing is not undertaken during the breeding season (December
to end of March) in order to prevent disruption to nesting animals that may be in
residence. All clearing is to be conducted under ecological supervision. It is also
recommended that domestic pets are kept under control at all times, confined in secure
yards and prevented from wandering at night in order to prevent additional predation.
Traffic calming controls to be implemented in the development will also minimise road
trauma.
5.3.2
This species was observed flying in a thermals near the subject site during survey. It may
forage on site, being a specialist hunter of small birds taken from the tree canopy.
Favoured prey species include honeyeaters, many of which were observed during survey.
The development will remove much of this potential habitat; but connectivity to other vast
areas of potential habitat will not be disrupted for such a highly mobile species. Also, the
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14-695 October 2015
39
retention and conservation management of the vegetation within the parks will improve
some of the habitat for its prey and in turn for this species.
The proposal is unlikely to have a significant impact on this species.
5.3.3
This species was heard calling on one occasion from the eastern end of the subject site
during survey. It was also observed foraging in Littoral Rainforest in Iluka Nature
Reserve.
This species is a specialist feeder on rainforest fruits. The potential habitat on the subject
site is confined to types 2 and 2/3 mosaic as these are the areas where there is greater
diversity in the tree canopy, including some rainforest species that produce the favoured
fleshy fruits. However, given the very poor condition of the vegetation on site and the
proximity of a large area of reserved good condition habitat, the subject site is unlikely to
be important for the survival of a local viable population. Notwithstanding, the retention
and conservation management of Parks 1, 2 and 3 is likely to be of advantage to this
species as it will improve the condition of potential food plants on site.
The removal of weeds from the development area and control of weeds on site in the
parks will also remove a significant source of weed propagules. This will have a positive
impact on surrounding lands, such as the Littoral Rainforest in Iluka Nature Reserve.
Characteristically chewed Allocasuarina cones were observed on the northern edge of the
subject site during preliminary survey in 2005. It was not recorded during recent survey
activities.
This species is a habitat specialist, feeding exclusively on Allocasuarina fruit and breeding
in large tree hollows. Preferred feed trees are rare on site, being observed only in the
northern part, but notably in the area to be retained and managed for conservation in
Park 1.
Suitable resources are likely to occur in the large expanses of reserved bushland from
Iluka Nature reserve north to Bundjalung National Park and beyond. It is a highly mobile
species and its ability to move through the landscape will not be altered by the proposal.
The proposal is unlikely to have a significant impact on this threatened species.
5.3.5
This species was not recorded on the subject site during survey. However, it is known
form the local area and potential foraging habitat for this species is common across the
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14-695 October 2015
40
site, particularly in the high nectar plants such as Banksia integrifolia Coast Banksia. The
hollow-bearing trees also provide potential nesting sites.
Losses of potential foraging habitat will be partially mitigated by the retention and
conservation management of the vegetation in the parks. The loss of hollow-bearing trees
will be offset by the installation of nest boxes. It is a highly mobile species and its ability
to move through the landscape will not be altered by the proposal. Given the amount of
high quality habitat in reserved lands in the immediate area, the poor condition
vegetation of the subject site is unlikely to be important for the survival of a viable local
population.
The proposal is unlikely to have a significant impact on this threatened species.
5.3.6
This species was observed nearby in Iluka Nature Reserve during survey. Thus, the
habitats of the subject site are available to this species. It feeds on insects of the canopy
and rainforest fruit; the subject site provides such habitat features. The subject site
supports poor quality potential habitat, being infested with weeds and containing only
scattered rainforest trees, and most of a young age.
The retention and conservation management of the vegetation within the parks will
improve the habitat available to this species on site. The east-west corridor provided by
Park 1 will also be of benefit to this highly mobile species.
Given the expanse of available habitat in better condition in the reserved lands nearby,
the subject site is unlikely to be important in the survival of a viable local population of
this species.
The proposal is unlikely to have a significant impact on this threatened species.
5.3.7
This species was not recorded on the subject site during survey. Favoured habitat is the
ecotone from rainforest or swamp forest to adjacent open areas. The best potential
habitat for this species on site occurs in the swamp forest to be retained and managed for
conservation along the sites western edge.
The proposal is unlikely to have a significant impact on this threatened species.
5.3.8
This species was observed during survey, foraging on tree trunks in the area to be
retained in Park 1.
This species requires well connected expanses of habitat with fallen and dead timber and
a complex understorey. The subject site provides such habitat features and can continue
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14-695 October 2015
41
5.4
Mammals
5.4.1
This species was recorded on the subject site during survey. A single image was captured
by a camera trap placed on the ground in the Low Acacia Woodland. The animal was
walking, heading from south to north. As it was not in the canopy, it was not foraging. The
head only was evident in the photograph, so there is no information regarding the
presence or absence of a joey.
Koala habitat is defined according to the density and types of recognised food trees on the
site. Of the food tree species listed under State Environmental Planning Policy 44, only
Eucalyptus tereticornis Forest Red Gum is present on site, and in very low numbers. The
Approved Recovery Plan (DECC 2008) details more species by region. Of the species listed
for the North Coast, Eucalyptus tereticornis Forest Red Gum (a primary food tree species)
and Eucalyptus propinqua Small-fruited Grey Gum (a secondary food tree species) occur
on site, again both in very low numbers.
The Draft Koala Management Plan for the Clarence Valley LGA lists Eucalyptus tereticornis
Forest Red Gum and Eucalyptus propinqua Small-fruited Grey Gum as preferred food
trees in this area, but also recognises Corymbia intermedia Pink Bloodwood as a
supplementary food tree species.
Of the 420 trees searched within the SAT plots, there were only 5 Eucalyptus tereticornis
Forest Red Gum and 3 Eucalyptus propinqua Small-fruited Grey Gum. Corymbia
intermedia Pink Bloodwood was much more plentiful, with 54 trees observed. However,
this is still only 13% of the trees and is by no means the dominant species: Acacia
disparrima subsp. disparrima Salwood was represented by 233 individual or 55% of the
trees. Such a tree composition is defined as relatively low quality Koala habitat and is
probably only capable of supporting low density Koala populations (DECC 2008).
The Clarence Valley Draft Comprehensive Koala Management Plan summarised the
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14-695 October 2015
42
research that has been carried out on the Iluka Koala population in detail and concluded
that:
The Koala population at Iluka has been declining for decades (at least since the
1970s);
The decline is associated with high mortality due to habitat loss (urban
development, feral pigs and repeated severe fire), traffic accidents, stress-related
disease, and low fertility;
Sick and injured Koalas still turn up occasionally and so there may be a surviving
small residual population in Iluka Nature Reserve;
The Bundjalung population was severely impacted by the fires of 1989 and 1994,
thus removing a source of migrants; and
The Iluka Koalas were strongly associated with Eucalyptus tereticornis Forest Red
Gum, but this species of tree has not regenerated in the sand mining areas. The
very low numbers of this species on the subject site is further testament to that
observation.
A modelling study of the Iluka population (Lunney et al. 2002) concluded that the decline
and eventual extinction of the Iluka population was inexorable, unless there was a major
influx of migrating Koalas and significant alterations to the factors influencing disease and
mortality. Thus, the provisions of corridors to and from known populations is important,
as are improvements in the condition of their habitat, and control of causes of mortality.
The development proposal will remove a substantial area of vegetation, but this is
demonstrably very poor habitat. The evidence indicates that the animal recorded on site
was moving through the site (and not foraging on the site), presumably to better habitat
to the north, where there is no evidence of sand mining and primary Koala food trees are
present. For example, both Eucalyptus tereticornis Forest Red Gum and Eucalyptus robusta
Swamp Mahogany (another primary food tree) occur on the golf course.
Thus, the proposed layout has been designed in order to deliver the factors identified as
important in maintaining the local Koala population:
The best quality habitat has been retained along the western edge, thus providing
foraging habitat;
The retained vegetation along the western boundary will maintain a wide
buffered link from north to south;
The retention and conservation management of the vegetation in Park 1 will
facilitate east-west movement from Iluka Nature Reserve to habitat on site and
beyond to the west and north west;
The conservation management of Park 1 will improve its condition and value to
the Koala;
Two of the occurrences of Eucalyptus tereticornis Forest Red Gum on site are
within Park 1, thus confirming its potential habitat value to Koalas;
The verges of the streets are to be wide and planted out specifically to facilitate
Koala movement, using best practice design guidelines (McAlpine 2007);
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14-695 October 2015
43
The landscape plan will provide the opportunity offset, to some degree, the past
losses of Eucalyptus tereticornis Forest Red Gum;
Traffic calming measures will be introduced in the streetscape in order to
minimise road trauma;
Access points to the site are limited and internal traffic flow is minimised, again
intended to minimise road trauma;
Fences are to be of a type that allows for the movement of Koalas; and
With the advent of more residential properties, fire suppression will continue to
be a high priority.
This species was not observed during survey but is likely to occur on site when
appropriate feed trees are in flower or fruit. The large areas of vegetated coastal dunes
dominated by Banksia are recognised important foraging habitat for this species,
particularly in the winter months. The potential habitat on site is likely to be of lesser
importance but may still be exploited.
This is a highly-mobile species that can exploit even the most isolated of feed trees in
highly urbanised situations.
The proposal is unlikely to have a significant impact on this threatened species.
5.4.3
This species was not observed during survey but a breeding population is known to occur
in the adjacent Iluka Nature Reserve. It is a specialist feeder of nectar and pollen and
therefore requires high quality foraging habitat such as occurs in the Banksia-dominated
coastal dunes of the nearby reserves. It roosts hanging from tree branches, near to
foraging habitat.
The subject site provides potential habitat of lesser value than is available in the nearby
reserves, but the best potential habitat on site is within the swamp forest in the western
end of the site. This will be entirely retained and managed for conservation purposes.
The proposal is unlikely to have a significant impact on this threatened species.
5.4.4
This species was recorded foraging on the subject site during survey.
The subject site provides both foraging habitat for this species and potential breeding
sites (hollow-bearing trees). Suitable hollows to be removed will be compensated for with
replacement nest boxes. The potential and realised habitat on site would only represent
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14-695 October 2015
44
a very small proportion of what is available locally and regionally as this species is highly
mobile, able to exploit widely separated resources.
The proposal is unlikely to have a significant impact on this threatened species.
5.4.5
This species was possibly recorded foraging in the moist forest at the western end of the
subject site during survey. A large number of records of this species are known from Iluka
Nature Reserve based on a comprehensive study of the movements and roosting
behaviour of this species (Lunney et al. 1995). Outside of the Mosaic Open Forest, the
subject site provides poor foraging habitat and, given that it does not forage far from its
roost sites, it is likely to be restricted to the high quality remnant forest at the western
end of the site.
All of the this habitat is to be retained and managed for conservation purposes.
This species was recorded foraging on the subject site during survey.
Foraging habitat for this species occurs below the tree canopy in the forested areas and
as the site is generally very cluttered, it is likely to forage in the open areas where the
Lantana is less dominant and / or in the moist forest at the western boundary.
As this species roosts in caves or mine tunnels, the subject site only contains foraging
habitat. This foraging habitat would represent a very small proportion of what is available
locally and regionally as this species is highly mobile, able to exploit widely separated
resources.
The proposal is unlikely to have a significant impact on this threatened species.
5.5
There are several Matters of National Environmental Significance on or near the site that
require consideration:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
The EPBC Act Policy Statement 1.1 Significant Impact Guidelines (DE 2013) outlines the
procedures that must be followed when assessing likely impacts, and the significance of
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14-695 October 2015
45
those impacts upon matter of National Environmental Significance (NES). These are
detailed below within each matter.
5.5.1
For World Heritage places, an action is likely to have a significant impact on the values of
a declared World Heritage property if there is a real chance or possibility that it will cause:
The Gondwana Rainforests are made up of a number of rainforest pockets along the east
coast of Australia they represent the remnant forests of Gondwana. They have been
declared due to their outstanding natural values:
as an outstanding example representing major stages of the earth's evolutionary
history;
as an outstanding example representing significant ongoing geological processes
and biological evolution; and
containing important and significant habitats for the in situ conservation of
biological diversity.
The Littoral Rainforest in Iluka Nature Reserve is part of that chain of rainforest. The
reserve contains the largest single stand in New South Wales of Littoral Rainforest, which
is the most constrained and distinctive coastal variant of sub-tropical rainforest. The
physical features of this Littoral Rainforest (being on as series of siliceous sand ridges)
and its biological components contribute to its World Heritage values.
The proposed residential development of the subject site will not interfere with any of
these values. It is sufficiently distant from the Littoral Rainforest within the reserve to not
introduce any indirect impacts. The actions within the development (clearing of
vegetation, construction of houses, installation of infrastructure and conservation
management of retained vegetation) are not of a type or scale likely to interfere with any
of the geological and landscape processes determining the presence of the Littoral
Rainforest or its biological components. There is potential for some of the fauna species
within the reserve to also use habitats on the subject site; thus there is potential for some
adverse impact of those species through the loss of those habitats (e.g. Ptilinopus regina
Rose-crowned Fruit-dove was observed feeding in the reserve and heard calling on the
subject site). However, the habitats within the subject site are in very poor condition and
likely to be of marginal value only to such species. Also, all such these species are mobile,
with large home ranges and able to exploit widely separated resources.
The development proposal will remove significant weed loads from the local area, thus
contributing to the success of conservation management programmes undertaken in the
reserve. The loss of habitat from the subject site has the potential to further isolate the
reserve from other vegetation. However, the site is not part of the formally recognised
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14-695 October 2015
46
regional corridor and so does not provide important biological links. Notwithstanding its
lesser value, the proposal includes the retention of vegetation in order to maintain habitat
linkages.
Thus, the scale, location and type of actions arising from the proposed development are
unlikely to degrade the world heritage values of Iluka Nature Reserve.
5.5.2
The White-throated Needletail is listed as a Migratory species under the Schedules of the
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (1999), arising from Japan
Australia Migratory Bird Agreement. Its conservation status across its range in Australia
is secure.
It is a migratory swift that breeds in Asia. Australia hosts the non-breeding population
that disperses southward in September-October along either side of the Great Dividing
Range with a similar return journey in the following autumn. While in Australia, it is
largely nomadic in response to large scale weather systems, feeding on large nuptial
swarms of insects (Simpson and Day 1993).
Individuals have been recorded taking refuge in trees or on the ground in extreme
circumstances (e.g. heatwave), but this species spends most of its life in the air while in
Australia. However, it is recorded most often over wooded areas and less so over
woodland and farmland. There are few threats to the populations of White-throated
Needletail (DSEWPC 2012).
This species was observed overhead during survey, indicating it was on its southward
migration from the Asian breeding grounds. The subject site probably contributes little if
at all to the foraging habitat of this species. The loss of a small area of woodland is unlikely
to place any extinction pressure at all on this species.
5.5.3
The Rainbow Bee-eater is listed as a Migratory species under the Schedules of the
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (1999), arising from Japan
Australia Migratory Bird Agreement. Its conservation status across its range in Australia
is secure.
This species is a distinctive and colourful medium sized bird, with a long slim curved bill
and a long tail.
It is found throughout mainland Australia, as well as eastern Indonesia, New Guinea and,
rarely, the Solomon Islands. In Australia it is widespread, except in desert areas, and
breeds throughout most of its range, although southern birds move north to breed. Birds
in temperate and sub-tropical Australia migrate as far north as New Guinea to breed.
When breeding, both males and females select a suitable nesting site in a sandy bank and
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14-695 October 2015
47
dig a long tunnel (average length: 89.4 cm) leading to a nesting chamber, which is often
lined with grasses. Both parents incubate the eggs and both feed the young, sometimes
with the assistance of auxiliaries.
There are over 340 records of this species held in the NSW Wildlife Atlas (BioNet October
2015) from the Clarence Valley LGA. The database contains records from all months.
Its habitat requirements are simply an elevated perch from which to watch for prey and
a ground substrate in which to dig their breeding burrow. Because their prey is entirely
caught on the wing they are not dependent on any vegetation type: most often found in
open forests, woodlands and shrublands, and cleared areas, usually near water, but also
on farmland with remnant vegetation and in orchards and vineyards. It will use disturbed
sites such as quarries, cuttings and mines to build its nesting tunnels.
This species was observed foraging along the open forest edges of the site and entering a
breeding burrow in the intact sand dune along the northern edge. This area will be
retained in Park 1.
48
5.5.4
This species occurs in the coastal areas from the Kimberley region in the north to Victoria
in the south and favours dense moist forests and scrub vegetation (Pizzey 1980). In the
southern part of its range it is strongly migratory, virtually disappearing from Victoria and
New South Wales by March April, arriving back in the southern states in the spring
(usually October) to breed (Pizzey 1980). Although usually found in forests, woodlands
and other woody vegetation with deep shade, it may be found in more open habitats or
urban areas during migration.
There are over 600 records of this species held in the NSW Wildlife Atlas (BioNet October
2015) from the Clarence Valley LGA. The database contains records from all months, but
it is generally absent May to July and most regularly and reliably recorded during the
breeding season.
This species was observed foraging across the site in pairs and as individuals. It was also
observed nesting in the vegetation at the western end of the site (see Figure 11).
An action has, will have, or is likely to have a significant impact on a migratory species if it
does, will, or is likely to:
1. substantially modify (including by fragmenting, altering fire regimes, altering
nutrient cycles or altering hydrological cycles), destroy or isolate an area of
important habitat for a migratory species;
Response:
Appropriate foraging habitat is common in the local area and some foraging habitat will
be retained by the proposal. The area of breeding habitat is within the area slated for
retention in Park 1.
49
5.5.5
An ecological profile of this species is provided in Appendix 3. This species was detected
on site in a single camera trap image; see section 5.4 for further discussion.
An action is likely to have a significant impact on a vulnerable species if there is a real
chance or possibility that it will:
1. lead to a long-term decrease in the size of an important population of a species
Response:
The Iluka Koala population is not, by definition, an important population: it is not
necessary for the species long-term revival and recovery, a key source population for
breeding or dispersal necessary to maintain genetic diversity or at a geographic limit.
2. reduce the area of occupancy of an important population
Response:
As it is not an important population by definition, this factor is irrelevant. However, the
area of habitat to be removed is unlikely to be of importance to the local population except
as a movement corridor. This function will remain.
3. fragment an existing important population into two or more populations
Response:
Connectivity of the potential habitat in the local area will be maintained by the layout:
retention of Parks 1 and 2 and landscaping of the development to facilitate Koala
movements.
4. adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of a species
Response:
The habitat on site is of very poor quality, being virtually devoid of primary or preferred
food tree species.
5. disrupt the breeding cycle of an important population
Response:
There is no evidence of breeding on site.
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14-695 October 2015
50
Thus the loss of the habitat on site is unlikely to significantly contribute to the stress and
underlying disease of the local Koala population.
9. interfere substantially with the recovery of the species.
Response:
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14-695 October 2015
51
Recovery of this species in the local area relies on a multi-faceted approach integrating
actions regarding habitat loss and degradation, movement corridors, disease, road trauma
and dog attacks. This proposal has incorporated all of the best practice design principles
developed for residential development in areas of Koala habitat. It is considered therefore
that it will not substantially interfere with the recovery of the species.
No further assessments are considered necessary pursuant to the EPBC Act (1999).
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14-695 October 2015
52
In regards to development applications, this policy applies to land that has or is a part of
a parcel of land of more than 1 hectare within listed LGAs, including the Clarence Valley
LGA. Moreover, before Council may grant consent to develop land to which SEPP 44
applies, it must satisfy itself whether or not the land is potential or core Koala habitat. If
it is deemed to be core habitat, then the development must conform to a Comprehensive
Koala Plan of Management or, in its absence, to a site-specific Koala Plan of Management.
The identification of Koala habitat that attracts protections under this SEPP depends on
the presence of (i) recognised Koala food trees and (ii) Koalas themselves.
Of the list of food trees provided within the SEPP for the North Coast region, only one was
found on site - Eucalyptus tereticornis Forest Red Gum and in low numbers.
Although an individual was observed in a camera trap image, no other evidence of this
species was found despite intensive and extensive survey. The Koala population at Iluka
is considered to be functionally extinct and is now only recorded very rarely.
The site does not contain core Koala habitat sensu SEPP 44 and so no further
consideration need be given to the provisions of this SEPP.
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14-695 October 2015
53
Keystone Ecological has undertaken a comprehensive Flora and Fauna Impact Assessment
of the likely impact of the subdivision and subsequent residential development at Lot 99
DP 823635 Hickey Street Iluka in the Clarence Valley Local Government Area, upon
nationally and state listed threatened flora and fauna and their habitat.
The proposal is to subdivide the site and create 162 residential lots and three reserved
areas (Parks 1 to 3). The internal road system will have wide verges and roundabouts,
allowing for significant plantings as part of a formal landscape plan. The street verges will
serve a number of purposes besides access, aesthetics and delivery of infrastructure,
including biodiversity corridors, water sensitive urban design features and bushfire
control. The reserved areas have been carefully located in order to capture the highest
value habitats as well as provide important corridors for the local movement of fauna. The
site is adjacent to, but not within, a recognised regional wildlife corridor.
Formal consideration has been given to the potential for impact on listed matters of
conservation significance that are known to occur or have a high likelihood to occur on
site:
Swamp Sclerophyll Forest occurs along the sites western edge and to be
wholly retained in Park 2;
Phaius australis Lesser Swamp Orchid not found on site but known from
vegetation directly to the north. Potential habitat in the Swamp Sclerophyll
Forest;
Acronychia littoralis Scented Acronychia not found on site but known to
occur in the local area;
Dromaius novaehollandiae Emu scats found across the site;
Lophoictinia isura Square-tailed Kite observed overhead. May forage on
the subject site;
Ptilinopus regina Rose-crowned Fruit-dove observed in the adjacent
Nature Reserve and heard on site. May forage on some of the fruits of the
occasional rainforest trees scattered across the site;
Calyptorhynchus lathami Glossy Black-Cockatoo evidence of foraging by
this species along the northern edge of the site was reported in 2005;
Glossopsitta pusilla Little Lorikeet the site provides potential foraging
and breeding habitat for this species;
Coracina lineata Barred Cuckoo-shrike observed nearby and the site
provides potential foraging habitat;
Carterornis leucotis White-eared Monarch not recorded during survey
but the site provides potential foraging habitat;
Rhipidura rufifrons Rufous Fantail regularly observed foraging across the
site during survey and a nest was recorded in the vicinity of the proposed
Park 2;
Daphoenositta chrysoptera Varied Sittella observed foraging in the
eastern part of the site in the area to be retained in Park 1;
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14-695 October 2015
54
Overall, the proposal will remove 16.71 hectares of highly modified Low Acacia Woodland
(10.55 hectares) and Open Forest and Woodland (6.16 hectares). These vegetation types
are highly modified by past clearing, repeated hot fires and the continued influence of
transformer weeds such as Lantana camara Lantana. The infestations of Lantana are
significant, being impenetrable in places.
While this represents the majority of the vegetation on site, the principles of avoiding,
minimising, mitigating and offsetting environmental impacts have been observed by the
following elements of the proposal and recommendations arising from this assessment:
1. The best quality habitat of the highest conservation value (Swamp Sclerophyll
Forest EEC) is to be retained and managed for conservation purposes.
2. This area will be further protected from the residential development by a buffer of
native vegetation.
3. The two large areas of retained vegetation have been located so as to maintain
connectivity for the species of most concern that were recorded on site, being
Dromaius novaehollandiae Emu and Phascolarctos cinereus Koala.
4. Potential adverse impacts on these species will be further mitigated by the
implementation of a landscape plan that includes the planting out of the wide
verges with native trees favoured by Koalas, such as Eucalyptus tereticornis Forest
Red Gum and Corymbia intermedia Pink Bloodwood.
5. Traffic calming measures will also be employed and the route of traffic flow
managed by road design. These measures will decrease the risk of road trauma.
6. Domestic pets are to be kept within fenced premises, especially at night.
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14-695 October 2015
55
7. The replacement with nest boxes of all hollow-bearing trees to be removed. Most
hollow-bearing trees on site are dead and at risk of falling over in the near future.
The proposal will allow for the replacement of this resource and thus avoid a
bottleneck for hollow-dependent fauna.
8. Felled hollow trees will be re-used as terrestrial habitat in the retained vegetation.
9. Vegetation clearing will be conducted under ecological supervision to protect
resident fauna from direct harm.
10. Clearing is to be conducted outside of the breeding season of important fauna
species, particularly Dromaius novaehollandiae Emu (December to end March).
11. Lighting is to be of a type that minimises spill and glare. This is important for
microchiropteran bats and other nocturnal species.
12. Water sensitive urban design principles are to be incorporated into the
development. This will minimise the potential indirect impacts to surrounding
bushland.
13. Vegetation management in the APZs is to entail the removal of only the aerial
parts of plants. This will serve as a soil conservation measure.
14. Dumping of garden refuse in bushland areas is to be prohibited.
15. Residents are to be encouraged to plant locally native species in their gardens and
particularly avoid heavy nectar-bearing plants (such as Grevillea) in order to
avoid dominance by the aggressive Noisy Miner.
16. All erosion and sediment controls are to be strictly observed during works.
The proposal is considered unlikely to result in a significant adverse impact for any
matters of import. Thus no further assessment is required: neither a Species Impact
Statement need be prepared under guidelines issued by the NSW Office of Environment
and Heritage nor a referral to the Commonwealth Department of Environment need be
pursued.
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14-695 October 2015
56
REFERENCES
Beadle, N.C.W. (1981) The vegetation of Australia. (Gustav Fischer: Stuttgart)
Beadle, N.C.W. and Costin, A.B. (1952) Ecological classification and nomenclature.
Proceedings of the Linnean Society of New South Wales 77: 61-82.
Bishop, T. (1996) Field Guide to the Orchids of New South Wales and Victoria. UNSW Press
Blakers, M., Davies, S.J.J.F. and Reilly, P.N. (1984) The Atlas of Australian Birds. Globe Press
Pty Ltd, Australia
Churchill, S. (1998) Australian Bats. Reed New Holland, Sydney
Clarence Valley Council (2010) Draft Comprehensice Koala Plan of Management for the
Ashby, Woombah and Iluka localities of he Clarence Valley LGA
Cogger, H. G. (2000) Reptiles and Amphibians of Australia. Reed New Holland, Sydney
Department of Environment and Heritage (2006) EPBC Act Policy Statement 1.1
Significant Impact Guidelines Matters of National Environmental Significance.
Commonwealth of Australia
Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (2009) Littoral Rainforest
and Coastal Vine Thickets of Eastern Australia. EPBC Policy Statement 3.9
EcoLogical Australia (2008). Editing Mitchell Landscapes, Final Report. A Report prepared
for the Department of Environment and Climate Change.
Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 Protected Matters
Search Tool [http://deh.gov.au/cgi_bin/erin/ert/epbc] accessed November 2009
Eurobodalla Shire Council (no date) Endangered Ecological Communities of the South East
Corner Fact Sheet 9 Littoral Rainforest
Fairley, A. (2004) Seldom Seen - Rare Plants of Greater Sydney. Reed New Holland:Sydney
Floyd, A.G. (1990) Australian Rainforests in New South Wales. Volumes 1-2 (Surrey Beatty
and Sons - NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service: Sydney).
Forestry Commission of NSW (1989) Forest Types in New South Wales. Research Note 17.
Gibbons, P. and Lindenmayer, D. (2002) Tree Hollows and Wildlife Conservation in
Australia. CSIRO:Victoria
Goldingay, R. L. (2011) Characteristics of tree hollows used by Australian arboreal and
scansorial mammals. Australian Journal of Zoology 59:277294
Harden, G. (1990) (ed) Flora of New South Wales Vol. 1 NSW University Press
Harden, G. (1991) (ed) Flora of New South Wales Vol. 2 NSW University Press
Harden, G. (1992) (ed) Flora of New South Wales Vol. 3 NSW University Press
Harden, G. (1993) (ed) Flora of New South Wales Vol. 4 NSW University Press
Higgins, P.J. (ed) (1999) Handbook of Australian, New Zealand and Antarctic Birds. Vol 4:
Parrots to Dollarbird (Oxford University Press)
Kavanagh, R.P. and Peake, P. (1993) Survey procedures for nocturnal forest birds: An
evaluation of the variability in census results due to temporal factors, weather and
technique. Pp. 86-100 in Australian Raptor Studies, ed. by P. Olsen. Royal
Australasian Ornithologists Union, Melbourne
Lunney D, ONeill L, Matthews A, Sherwin WB (2002) Modelling mammalian extinction
and forecasting recovery: koalas at Iluka (Australia). Biological Conservation 106:
101-113
McAlpine, C., Rhodes, J., Peterson, A., Possingham, H., Callaghan, J., Curran, T., Mitchell, D.,
and Lunney, D. (2007) Planning guidelines for koala conservation and recovery: A
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14-695 October 2015
57
58
Swan, G. (1990) A field Guide to Snakes and Lizards of New South Wales. Three Sisters
Publishing
Swan, G., Shea, G. and Sadlier, R. (2004) A Field Guide to Reptiles of New South Wales. Reed
New Holland, Sydney
Tame, T. (1992) Acacias of South East Australia. Kangaroo Press Pty Ltd, Kenthurst
Triggs, B. (1996) Tracks, Scats and Other Traces: A Field Guide to Australian Mammals.
Oxford University Press: Melbourne
Wright, R. (2010) Clarence Valley Council Biodiversity Management Strategy 2010
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14-695 October 2015
59
FIGURES
Figures
Figure 1: Topographic map showing the subject site (red) in relation to local features. Source map:
Department of Lands SIX Viewer.
Figure 2: Aerial photograph showing the subject site (red) and its re;lationship to vegetation and
development in the local area. Source: Department of Lands SIX Viewer.
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14-695 October 2015
61
Figures
Figure 3: Closer aerial photograph showing the subject site (red)and immediate surrounds. Source:
Department of Lands SIX Viewer.
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14-695 October 2015
62
Figures
1966
1996
1978
Figure 4: Series of aerial photographs from 1966, 1978 and 1996 showing the loss of vegetation and disturbance to the landform of the site and the regrowth of vegetation.
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14-695 October 2015
63
Figures
64
Figures
Figure 6: Zoning map showing the subject site (green hatch) as R2 Low Density Residential. Source Clarence Valley Council
(http://mapping.clarence.nsw.gov.au/Exponare/cvc_mapping_link.html).
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14-695 October 2015
65
Figures
B4
A7
A1
A2
B3
B1
A3
B2
A5
A6
B5
A4
B6
B7
B1: Wattle (Acacia aulacocarpa var. aulacocarpa) Dry Sclerophyll Forest and Woodland
B2: Forest Red Gum (Corymbia intermedia-Eucalyptus tereticornis) Dry Sclerophyll Forest and
Woodland
B3: Forest Red Gum / Wattle (Corymbia intermedia-Eucalyptus tereticornis-Acacia aulacocarpa
var. aulacocarpa) Dry Sclerophyll Forest and Woodland
B4: Banksia (Banksia integrifolia ssp integrifolia)Dry Sclerophyll Forest and Woodland
B5: Brush Box (Lophostemon confertus-Corymbia intermedia) Wet Scerophyll Forest
B6: Tuckeroo (Syzygium luehmannii-Acmena hemilampra) Littoral Rainforest
B7: Tuckeroo / Brush Box (Syzygium luehmannii-Acmena hemilampra-Lophostemon confertus)
Littoral Rainforest
Figure 7: Some of the more comprehensive vegetation mapping of the subject site and surrounds. A: CRAFTI Upper North East Floristics VIS 1108; B: Coastal Vegetation of
North East NSW VIS ID 3885. Source: Department of Lands SIX Maps Vegetation Channel.
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14-695 October 2015
66
Figures
Figure 8: Soil landscapes mapped on and near the site. A: mapping displayed on eSpade (http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/eSpadeWebapp/);
B: mapping by Morand (2001) showing the site within and area of developed terrain (diagonal stripes).
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14-695 October 2015
67
Figures
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14-695 October 2015
68
Figures
Figure 10: Fauna survey activities undertaken on site for this study. Diurnal tracks not shown for reasons of clarity.
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14-695 October 2015
69
Figures
RBE
HBT 6
HBT 8
HBT 9
N. bifax
HBT 7
2/3
HBT 12
HBT 11
RFT
HBT 5
HBT 10
2
HBT 4
HBT 3
HBT 14
HBT 13
HBT 2
HBT 21
HBT 1
Figure 11: Significant results of the flora and fauna survey and the impact of the proposed layout.
Vegetation types: 1 = Closed Wattle Woodland; 2 = Open Forest and Woodland; 2/3 = mosaic of Swamp Sclerophyll Forest / Open Forest and Woodland. HBT: Hollow-bearing tree. E: Emu scat. K: Koala photographed at a
camera trap. RFT: Rufous Fantail nest. RBE: Rainbow Bee-Eater nest. N.bifax: Anabat recording of Nyctophilus bifax. Purple: area within Park 1 that is to be managed as an APZ.
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14-695 October 2015
70
Figures
B
249
249
242
243
Figure 11: Fauna Key Habitats (A) and Fauna Corridors (B) recognised and mapped by OEH in relation to the subject site (red).
Regional Corridors: 6 = Iluka Nature Reserve; 8 = Clarence Nature Reserve; 9 = Iluka-Yaray; 242 = Tyndale Swamp; 243 = Clarence Estuary Nature
Reserve; 249 = Bundjalung.
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14-695 October 2015
71
PHOTOGRAPHS
Photographs
Photograph 1: Typical open area in the north eastern corner of the site. This area has
been severely impacted by fire and weeds, with a few regrowth native trees and vines.
Photograph 2: Swamp Sclerophyll Forest EEC along the sites western boundary with
large specimens of Melaleuca quinquenervia Broad-leaved Paperbark and vines, with
well-developed epiphytes low in the trees.
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14-695 October 2015
73
Photographs
Photograph 3: Swamp Sclerophyll Forest along the western boundary contain patches
of palms.
Photograph 4: Highly modified weedy vegetation to the east of the central track. This is
a favoured site for dumping furniture, garden waste and other rubbish.
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14-695 October 2015
74
Photographs
Photograph 5: The central track crossing the site from north to south is well used by
locals as a short cut to the golf course as well as by dog walkers.
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14-695 October 2015
75
Photographs
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14-695 October 2015
76
Photographs
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14-695 October 2015
77
Photographs
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14-695 October 2015
78
Photographs
Photograph 13: Dune intact at western edge of site. Looking west along HIckey Street.
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14-695 October 2015
79
Photographs
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14-695 October 2015
80
Photographs
Photograph 15: The central sandy track provided an opportunity to identify fauna by
their tracks.
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14-695 October 2015
81
Photographs
Photograph 16: Anabat located in the vegetation at the western end of the site.
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14-695 October 2015
82
Photographs
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14-695 October 2015
83
Photographs
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14-695 October 2015
84
Photographs
Photograph 20: Warning sign for Emus on Iluka Road next to the subject site.
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14-695 October 2015
85
Photographs
Photograph 21: Bait chambers at the camera trap where a Koala was photographed.
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14-695 October 2015
86
Photographs
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14-695 October 2015
87
Photographs
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14-695 October 2015
88
APPENDIX 1
FLORA DETAILS
Table 1.1: Flora species observed on the subject site by Keystone Ecological for this study. Cover abundance ratings (see text for details) are provided
for full floristic quadrats (Q1 to Q7), each of 400 m2. Species observed nearby those quadrats within the same vegetation type are shown as N. Species
observed in other parts of the site during random meander (RM) are indicated by x,. Additional species not found during survey but reported by Mark
Fitzgerald (2005) are indicated (x), but their locations are not known and may not have been observed on site.
Vegetation type and quadrat
Family
Scientific Name
Common Name
Acanthaceae
Amaranthaceae
Anacardiaceae
Apocynaceae
Araliaceae
Araliaceae
Arecaceae
Arecaceae
Arecaceae
Asparagaceae
Asparagaceae
Aspleniaceae
Asteliaceae
Asteraceae
Asteraceae
Bignoniaceae
Casuarinaceae
Commelinaceae
Commelinaceae
Commelinaceae
Convolvulaceae
Thunbergia alata*
Deeringia amaranthoides
Euroschinus falcatus var. falcatus
Parsonsia straminea
Polyscias elegans
Schefflera actinophylla*
Archontophoenix cunninghamiana
Livistona australis
Syagrus romanzoffiana*
Asparagus aethiopicus*
Asparagus densiflorus*
Asplenium australasicum
Cordyline stricta
Conyza sp.*
Delairea odorata*
Pandorea pandorana
Allocasuarina littoralis
Commelina cyanea
Tradescantia fluminensis*
Tradescantia zebrina*
Ipomoea cairica*
Black-eyed Susan
Ribbonwood
Common Silkpod
Black Pencil Cedar
Umbrella Tree
Bangalow Palm
Cabbage Tree Palm
Cocos Palm
Asparagus Fern
Asparagus Fern
Birds Nest Fern
Narrow-leaf Palm Lily
Cape Ivy
Wonga Vine
Black She-oak
Native Wandering Jew
Wandering Jew
Silvery Inch Plant
Blue Morning Glory
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 Ocober 2015
2/3 1 2 1 2 2 RM MF
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7
N
2
x
2 2
1
2 2
2
4b
2 4b
2
N
1 3
2 1
N
4b 4b 3
1 1 N
4b 4b
N 1
N
1
1
N
N 2
1
N
N
1 2 1 1 1
4b
N
x
90
Family
Scientific Name
Crassulaceae
Crassulaceae
Cupressaceae
Cyperaceae
Cyperaceae
Davalliaceae
Dennstaedtiaceae
Dilleniaceae
Dioscoreaceae
Dracaenaceae
Elaeocarpaceae
Ericaceae
Ericaceae
Euphorbiaceae
Euphorbiaceae
Euphorbiaceae
Fabaceae
Lamiaceae
Lamiaceae
Lauraceae
Lauraceae
Lauraceae
Lauraceae
Lauraceae
Lauraceae
Lomandraceae
Bryophyllum delagoense*
Bryophyllum pinnatum*
Callitris columellaris
Cyperus tetraphyllus
Isolepis sp.
Nephrolepis cordifolia
Pteridium esculentum
Hibbertia scandens
Dioscorea transversa
Sansevieria trifasciata
Elaeocarpus obovatus
Monotoca elliptica
Trochocarpa laurina
Breynia oblongifolia
Claoxylon australe
Glochidion ferdinandi var. ferdinandi
Senna pendula var. glabrata*
Clerodendrum tomentosum
Gmelina leichhardtii
Beilschmiedia obtusifolia
Cinnamomum camphorum*
Cryptocarya glaucescens
Endiandra discolor
Endiandra sieberi
Neolitsea australiensis
Lomandra filiformis var. filiformis
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 Ocober 2015
Common Name
2/3 1 2 1 2 2 RM MF
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7
Mother of Millions
N
Resurrection Plant
N
Coastal Cypress Pine
4b
2 2
Club-rush
1 2 2
Fish-bone Fern
x
Bracken
3 3 4b 3 2 1 1
Climbing Guinea-flower
N 1
1
Native Yam
2
Mother-In-Laws Tongue
N
Hard Quandong
N
Tree Broom-heath
2
N
Tree Heath
4b 2 1 1 1
Coffee Bush
2
1 1 1 1
Brittlewood
1
Cheese Tree
N
4b
1 N
Hairy Clerodendrum
x
White Beech
x
Blush Walnut
1
Camphor Laurel
x
Jackwood
2
Rose Walnut
1
Corkwood
1 1
Green Bolly Gum
1
Wattle Mat-rush
1
91
Family
2/3 1 2 1
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5
Lomandraceae
Lomandra longifolia
Spiky-headed Mat-rush 3 3 1
3
Luzuriagaceae
Eustrephus latifolius
Wombat Berry
2 2
Luzuriagaceae
Geitonoplesium cymosum
Scrambling Lily
1
Malvaceae
Commersonia bartramia
Brown Kurrajong
1
Malvaceae
Sterculia quadrifida
Red-fruited Kurrajong
Menispermiaceae Stephania japonica var. discolor
Snake Vine
3 3 1
Mimosaceae
Acacia disparrima subsp. disparrima
Salwood
2 5 4b 4b
Mimosaceae
Acacia maidenii
Maidens Wattle
4b 4b
N
Monimiaceae
Wilkiea huegeliana
Wilkiea
N 1
Moraceae
Ficus elastica*
Rubber Plant
N
Moraceae
Maclura cochinchinensis
Cockspur Thorn
2 N
Myrsinaceae
Myrsine variabilis
Myrtaceae
Acmena hemilampra
Broad-leaved Lilly Pilly N
Myrtaceae
Austromyrtus dulcis
Midgen Berry
Myrtaceae
Corymbia intermedia
Pink Bloodwood
5 4b
4b
Myrtaceae
Eucalyptus propinqua var. propinqua
Small Fruited Grey Gum
Myrtaceae
Eucalyptus tereticornis
Forest Red Gum
Myrtaceae
Leptospermum laevigatum
Coast Tea Tree
Myrtaceae
Leptospermum polygalifolium subsp. polygalifolium Lemon Scented Tea Tree
1
Myrtaceae
Lophostemon confertus
Brush Box
4b 4b
1 N
Myrtaceae
Melaleuca quinquenervia
Broad-leaved Paperbark 1 4b
Myrtaceae
Pilidiostigma glabrum
Plum Myrtle
Myrtaceae
Psidium cattleyanum var. cattleyanum*
Cherry Guava
Myrtaceae
Syzygium australe
Brush Cherry
1
Myrtaceae
Syzygium luehmannii
Small-leaved Lilly Pilly
4b
Ochnaceae
Ochna serrulata*
Mickey Mouse Plant
3 4b
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 Ocober 2015
Scientific Name
Common Name
2 2 RM MF
Q6 Q7
1 N
1
1
1
4b 4b
4b N
4b 1
N
4b
N
N
x
x
92
Family
Scientific Name
Common Name
Oleaceae
Orchidaceae
Orchidaceae
Orchidaceae
Orchidaceae
Passifloraceae
Phormiaceae
Phyllanthaceae
Pinaceae
Poaceae
Poaceae
Poaceae
Poaceae
Polypodiaceae
Polypodiaceae
Proteaceae
Proteaceae
Proteaceae
Rhamnaceae
Rosaceae
Rubiaceae
Rubiaceae
Rubiaceae
Rubiaceae
Rutaceae
Rutaceae
Snake Orchid
Crucific Orchid
Native Passionfruit
Flax Lily
Brush Ironbark
Wiry Panic
Molasses Grass
Basket Grass
Vasey Grass
Elkhorn Fern
Rock Felt Fern
Coast Banksia
Old Man Banksia
Woolly Pomaderris
Forest Bramble
Coffee
Pomax
Logan Apple
White Aspen
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 Ocober 2015
2/3 1 2 1 2 2 RM MF
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7
1 1
1
N
N
1
1
1
3 N
1
2 2
N
x
N
2
4a 4b 7 4b 4b 4b 6
1
N
3
1 1 1 1 1
N
2 2 1 4b 1
1
1
N
1
N
1
N
2
1
N 1
4b 3 1 2 2 4b 4b
x
93
Family
Scientific Name
Common Name
Sapindaceae
Sapindaceae
Smilacaceae
Solanaceae
Solanaceae
Verbenaceae
Vitaceae
Vitaceae
Vitaceae
Cupaniopsis anacardioides
Mischocarpus pyriformis
Smilax australis
Solanum nigrum*
Solanum seaforthianum*
Lantana camara*
Cayratia clematidea
Cissus hypoglauca
Cissus sterculiifolia
Tuckeroo
Yellow Pear-fruit
Lawyer Vine
Black Nightshade
Brazilian Nightshade
Lantana
Slender Grape
Water Vine
Long-leaf Water Vine
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 Ocober 2015
2/3
Q1 Q2
4b
2 1
3 3
2
2
6 6
1
2
N
1 2 1 2 2 RM MF
Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7
3
1 1 1 1 3
2 1
1 1
1
1
5 6 4b 4b 7
1 1
1
4b
94
Table 1.2: Flora species of conservation significance recorded within 10 km of subject site. E=Endangered, EPop=Endangered Population, Ext=Extinct, V=Vulnerable. Source: OEH Wildlife Atlas database, 2015.
Family
Scientific Name
Casuarinaceae
Allocasuarina defungens
Dilleniaceae
Hibbertia marginata
Fabaceae
Lauraceae
Endiandra hayesii
Cyperaceae
Cyperus aquatilis
Euphorbiaceae
Chamaesyce psammogeton
Juncaginaceae
Maundia triglochinoides
Menispermaceae
Tinospora tinosporoides
Orchidaceae
Orchidaceae
Peristeranthus hillii
Orchidaceae
Phaius australis
Rutaceae
Acronychia littoralis
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015
Statu
Status
s
TSC EPBC
Act
Act
(1995) (199
9)
E
Habitat requirements
Suitability of Site
No suitable habitat
on site.
Survey considerations
Likelihood to occur
Impact assessment
No further impact
assessment required.
No suitable habitat
on site.
No suitable habitat
on site.
No suitable habitat
on site.
No suitable habitat
on site.
Suitable habitat on
site.
No further impact
assessment required.
No further impact
assessment required.
No further impact
assessment required.
No further impact
assessment required.
No further impact
assessment required.
No Further impact
assessment required.
No Further impact
assessment required.
No Further impact
assessment required.
No further impact
assessment required.
Further impact
assessment required.
Further impact
assessment required.
95
APPENDIX 2
FAUNA DETAILS
Table 2.1: Fauna survey effort on site. Survey efforts included comprehensive survey of diurnal and nocturnal species with targeted surveying
undertaken for threatened species known to occur within the area.
Survey Effort
Fauna Group
Survey Technique
Diurnal searches
Amphibians
Nocturnal searches
Reptiles
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 -695 October 2015
Time spent
No of
Date
(person hours) people
40 minutes
1
11th November 2014
40 minutes
1
12th November 2014
40 minutes
1
13th November 2014
0.5 hours
1
25th November 2014
0.5 hours
1
26th November 2014
0.5 hours
1
27th November 2014
0.5 hours
1
28th November 2014
Overnight
NA 11th -12th October 2014
1 hour
1
11th November 2014
1 hour
1
12th November 2014
0.5 hours
1
13th November 2014
1 hour
1
25th November 2014
0.5 hours
1
26th November 2014
0.5 hours
1
27th November 2014
0.5 hours
1
28th November 2014
16 hours
2
10th October 2014
6 hours
2
11th October 2014
5 hours
2
12th October 2014
2 hours
2
13th October 2014
4 hours
1
14th October 2014
9 hours
3
15th October 2014
13 hours
2
16th October 2014
40 minutes
1
11th November 2014
40 minutes
1
12th November 2014
40 minutes
1
13th November 2014
0.5 hours
1
25th November 2014
Comment
97
Survey Effort
Fauna Group
Survey Technique
Diurnal Birds
Opportunistic searches
Time spent
No of
Date
(person hours) people
0.5 hours
1
26th November 2014
0.5 hours
1
27th November 2014
0.5 hours
1
28th November 2014
1 hour
2
12th October 2014
0.5 hour
2
14th October 2014
1 hour
1
11th November 2014
1 hour
1
12th November 2014
0.5 hour
1
13th November 2014
1 hour
1
25th November 2014
0.5 hour
1
26th November 2014
0.5 hour
1
27th November 2014
0.5 hour
1
28th November 2014
16 hours
2
10th October 2014
6 hours
2
11th October 2014
5 hours
2
12th October 2014
5 hours
2
13th October 2014
4 hours
1
14th October 2014
9.5 hours
3
15th October 2014
13 hours
2
16th October 2014
1 hour
1
11th November 2014
0.5 hour
1
12th November 2014
0.5 hour
1
13th November 2014
0.5 hour
1
25th November 2014
0.5 hour
1
26th November 2014
0.5 hour
Audio recording
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 -695 October 2015
0.5 hour
1 hour
1 hour
1
1
NA
NA
Comment
Survey Effort
Fauna Group
Nocturnal Birds
Survey Technique
Time spent
No of
Date
(person hours) people
Targeted Survey
1.5 hours
1.5 hour
16 hours
2
2
2
2
1
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Call broadcast
1 hour
6 hours
5 hours
0.5 hour
Terrestrial Mammals
9.5 hours
13 hours
1 hour
1 hour
1 hour
1 hour
1 hour
4 hours
0.5 hour
0.5 hour
5 hours
120 hours
384 hours
NA
NA
Comment
Active listen undertaken during
targeted survey.
Calls broadcast of:
Powerful Owl
Barking Owl
Sooty Owl
November 2014
25th
November 2014
12th
13th
November 2014
November 2014
Survey Effort
Fauna Group
Survey Technique
Arboreal Mammals
Megachiropteran Bats
Microchiropteran Bats
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 -695 October 2015
Time spent
No of
Date
(person hours) people
5 hours
1
12th November 2014
2 hours
1
26th November 2014
7 hours
1 hour
15 minutes
30 x hair funnels
over 6 nights
10 x hair funnels
over 5 nights
6 hair funnels
over 4 nights
1 hour
1 hour
1 hour
1 hour
36 hours
36 hours
1
2
1
NA
NA
NA
2
1
2
1
NA
NA
Comment
Total of 14 person hours in Koala scat
survey with a total of 14 searches
undertaken.
Call broadcast of Koala
October 2014
100
Table 2.2: Weather details taken from the most nearby weather station at Yamba on days of fauna
survey. Source: Bureau of Meteorology, 2014.
Temperature (0C)
Date
10/10/2014
11/10/2014
12/10/2014
13/10/2014
14/10/2014
15/10/2014
16/10/2014
11/11/2014
12/11/2014
13/11/2014
14/11/2014
15/11/2014
16/11/2014
17/11/2014
18/11/2014
19/11/2014
20/11/2014
21/11/2014
22/11/2014
23/11/2014
24/11/2014
25/11/2014
26/11/2014
27/11/2014
28/11/2014
Min
17.0
16.8
17.9
16.1
17.8
10.6
11.8
19.3
18.0
18.7
20.3
20.9
20.0
21.5
21.7
22.5
21.7
21.4
21.5
21.3
20.7
20.3
20.4
20.4
20.5
Max
23.9
25.8
26.3
26.5
28.3
24.9
25.2
24.8
21.7
26.2
30.3
34.8
27.2
26.3
28.1
27.8
28.2
28.3
26.6
28.6
28.2
27.2
25.1
25.5
26.6
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015
9am
19.4
21.3
21.8
22.2
23.1
15.7
18.0
22.0
19.4
20.7
25.9
30.2
24.5
24.5
25.7
24.9
23.5
25.2
25.8
25.9
24.8
24.5
23.4
22.9
24.2
3pm
22.2
24.3
24.2
25.1
27.0
21.7
22.7
23.1
21.4
24.0
27.8
28.0
24.6
25.9
26.2
25.5
27.1
27.6
26.2
25.3
24.5
26.6
22.6
24.6
25.4
Rain
(mm)
0.0
0
0
0
4.2
0
0
0
3.4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.6
7.0
0
0
0
0
0
6.6
0.6
0
Relative Humidity
(%)
9am
3pm
82
70
53
70
71
70
83
90
83
82
84
84
82
97
70
70
63
65
80
63
72
75
72
76
83
79
79
68
86
69
Wind Direction
9am
WSW
NW
N
NW
NNW
WNW
WSW
SSE
SSW
WSW
NNW
NW
N
SSE
N
E
NW
N
N
N
N
N
SSE
WSW
SE
3pm
ENE
NNE
NNE
N
W
ENE
NNE
SSE
SE
N
N
NNE
ESE
E
NNE
SE
NNE
N
ESE
N
N
NNE
SSE
SSE
ESE
Wind Speed
(kph)
9am
3pm
7
17
9
13
11
11
15
20
11
24
13
6
9
9
7
15
9
11
7
11
7
11
9
6
15
7
24
13
17
22
11
13
28
17
9
17
17
20
13
19
24
24
20
19
17
17
11
17
26
13
101
Table 2.3: Fauna recorded on and near the subject site. * = introduced. Species listed under TSC Act (1995) or EPBC Act (1999) are indicated in bold
with a superscript. Superscript abbreviations: V=Vulnerable; E=Endangered; EPop=Endangered Population; M=Migratory species. All species recorded
by Keystone Ecological unless otherwise noted. Site denotes whether a species was recorded on site or close enough to the subject site for that species
to be considered likely or able to use the habitats of the subject site.
Fauna
Group
Reptiles
Scientific Name
Common Name
Type of Record
Site
Varanus varius
Lace Monitor
Observed
Yes
Observed nearby
Yes
Egernia major
Eulamprus quoyii
Sphenomorphus tympanum
Amphibolurus muricatus
Vermicella annulata
Birds
Dromaius
novaehollandiaeEPop
Phalacrocorax melanoleucos
Phalacrocorax sulcirostris
Ardea alba
Ardea ibisM
Ardea pacifica
Butorides striatus
Egretta novaehollandiae
Threskiornis molucca
Chenonetta jubata
Pandion cristatusV
Haliastur sphenurus
Land Mullet
Water skink
Jacky Lizard
Observed
Great Egret
White-necked Heron
White-faced Heron
Striated Heron
Lophoictinia isuraV
Haliaeetus leucogasterM
White-bellied Sea-eagle
Haliastur indus
Brahminy Kite
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015
Observed
Whistling Kite
Falco longipennis
Square-tailed Kite
Australian Hobby
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Observed nearby
Observed at nest in local area;
Observed flying over
Observed in local area
Observed flying over
Observed nearby
Yes
Yes
No
Observed overhead
No
Yes
No
Yes
102
Scientific Name
Common Name
Type of Record
Site
Alectura lathami
Australian Brush-turkey
Yes
Haemotopus fuliginosusV
Haemotopus
Charadrius
Arenaria
Calidris
longirostrisE
leschenaultiV,M
interpresM
ruficollisM
Sooty Oystercatcher
Greater Sand-plover
Ruddy Turnstone
Red-necked Stint
Limosa lapponicaM
Bar-tailed Godwit
Sterna hirundoM
Common Tern
Vanellus miles
Masked Lapwing
Observed nearby
Larus novaehollandiae
Sternula
albifronsE,M
Columba leucomela
Geopelia humeralis
Leucosarcia melanoleuca
Macropygia amboinensis
Silver Gull
Little Tern
White-headed Pigeon
Bar-shouldered Dove
Wonga Pigeon
Observed
Observed nearby;
Camera trap image
Heard
Ocyphaps lophotes
Brown Cuckoo-Dove
Ptilinopus reginaV
Crested Pigeon
Rose-crowned Fruit-dove
Ptilinopus superbusV
Superb Fruit-Dove
Observed
Observed nearby in Iluka NR;
Heard on site
Heard on site
Streptopelia chinensis*
Spotted Dove
Observed
Little Corella
Observed nearby
Cacatua galerita
Cacatua sanguinea
Cacatua roseicapilla
Calyptorhynchus funereus
Calyptorhynchus lathamiV
Trichoglossus chlorolepidotus
Trichoglossus haematodus
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015
Sulphur-crested Cockatoo
Galah
Yellow-tailed Black-Cockatoo
Glossy Black-Cockatoo
Scaly-breasted Lorikeet
Rainbow Lorikeet
Observed nearby
Observed nearby
Observed nearby
Evidence of foraging activity on site documented by
Fitzgerald (2005)
Observed nearby
Observed
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
103
Scientific Name
Common Name
Type of Record
Site
Platycercus eximius
Eastern Rosella
Observed
Yes
Fan-tailed Cuckoo
Observed
Yes
Eudynamys scolopacea
Cacomantis flabelliformis
Chrysococcyx lucidus
Scythrops novaehollandiae
Podargus strigoides
Hirundapus
caudacutusM
Dacelo novaeguineae
Eastern Koel
Shining Bronze-Cuckoo
Channel-billed Cuckoo
Tawny Frogmouth
White-throated Needletail
Todiramphus sanctus
Laughing Kookaburra
Merops ornatusM
Rainbow Bee-eater
Eurystomus orientalis
Hirundo neoxena
Coracina
lineataV
Coracina novaehollandiae
Coracina papuensis
Coracina tenuirostris
Lalage sueurii
Rhipidura fuliginosa
Rhipidura leucophrys
Rhipidura rufifronsM
Colluricincla harmonica
Colluricincla megarhyncha
Falcunculus frontatus
Pachycephala pectoralis
Pachycephala rufiventris
Sphecotheres viridis
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015
Sacred Kingfisher
Dollarbird
Welcome Swallow
Barred Cuckoo-shrike
Heard nearby
Heard
Observed
Feather
Observed overhead
Observed
Observed nearby
Observed foraging;
Observed at nest
Observed nearby
Observed nearby
Observed nearby
Black-faced Cuckoo-shrike
Observed
Cicadabird
Observed
White-bellied Cuckoo-shrike
White-winged Triller
Grey Fantail
Willie Wagtail
Observed
Observed
Observed
Grey Shrike-thrush
Observed nearby
Observed foraging;
Observed at nest;
Camera trap image
Observed
Crested Shrike-tit
Observed
Rufous Fantail
Little Shrike-thrush
Golden Whistler
Rufous Whistler
Figbird
Observed
Observed
Observed at nest
Observed
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
104
Scientific Name
Common Name
Type of Record
Site
Oriolus sagittatus
Olive-backed Oriole
Yes
Superb Fairy-wren
Observed
Observed;
Camera trap image
Observed
Observed;
Camera trap image
Observed
Brown Thornbill
Observed
Yes
Eopsaltria australis
Myiagra rubecula
Psophodes olivaceus
Malurus cyaneus
Malurus lamberti
Acanthiza pusilla
Gerygone mouki
Sericornis frontalis
Daphoenositta
chrysopteraV
Anthochaera chrysoptera
Lichmera indistincta
Manorina melanocephala
Meliphaga lewinii
Phylidonyris nigra
Entomyzon cyanotis
Dicaeum hirundinaceum
Zosterops lateralis
Neochmia temporalis
Acridotheres tristis*
Sturnus vulgaris*
Sericulus chrysocephalus
Grallina cyanoleuca
Cracticus nigrogularis
Cracticus torquatus
Cracticus tibicen
Strepera graculina
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015
Eastern Whipbird
Variegated Fairy-wren
Brown Gerygone
White-browed Scrubwren
Observed
Observed
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Observed
Observed
Yes
Little Wattlebird
Observed
Yes
Noisy Miner
Observed
Yes
Varied Sittella
Brown Honeyeater
Lewins Honeyeater
White-cheeked Honeyeater
Blue-faced Honeyeater
Mistletoe Bird
Silvereye
Red-browed Finch
Common Myna
Common Starling
Regent Bowerbird
Australian Magpie-Lark
Pied Butcherbird
Grey Butcherbird
Australian Magpie
Pied Currawong
Observed
Observed
Observed
Observed nearby
Observed
Observed
Observed
Observed nearby
Observed nearby
Observed
Observed
Observed nearby
Observed
Observed
Observed nearby
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
105
Scientific Name
Common Name
Type of Record
Site
Corvus coronoides
Australian Raven
Observed
Yes
Pseudocheirus peregrinus
Trichosurus vulpecula
Perameles nasuta
Brushtail Possum
Phascolarctos cinereusV,V
Koala
Macropus giganteus
Wallabia bicolor
Nyctophilus
bifaxV
Saccolaimus
flaviventrisV
Tadarida australis
Mormopterus norfolkensisV
Mormopterus sp.
Miniopterus australisV
Scotorepens sp.
Scotorepens greyii
Vespadelus pumilus
Rattus tunneyi
Rattus rattus*
Canis familiaris*
Vulpes vulpes*
Felis catus*
Oryctolagus cuniculus*
Ovis aries*
Capra hircus*
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015
Long-nosed Bandicoot
Eastern Grey Kangaroo
Swamp Wallaby
Observed
Hair sample;
Hair in Dog scat
Camera trap image
Camera trap image;
Scats identified by Fitzgerald (2005)
Observed nearby;
Camera trap image
Camera trap image
Call recorded - possible
Call recorded - definite
White-striped Freetail-bat
Eastern Freetail-bat
Freetail-bat
Little Bentwing-bat
Broad-nosed Bat
Rabbit
Sheep
Goat
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
106
Location:
Hickey Street, Iluka
Nyctophilus bifax
Certainty of ID
definite/probable/possible
Possible
12-13/ Oct/14
Possible
13-14/Oct/14
Definite
13-14/ Oct/14
Mormopterus sp.
Definite
13-14/ Oct/14
Definite
14-15/ Oct/14
Definite
14-15/ Oct/14
Definite
14-15/ Oct/14
Definite
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015
107
Scotorepens sp.
Possible
14-15/ Oct/14
Possible
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015
108
Hollow details
HBT 1
HBT 3
Dead stag
HBT 2
HBT 4
HBT 8
Dead stag
Half dead tree
Eucalyptus tereticornis
Forest Red Gum
Dead stag
Lophostemon confertus
Brush Box
Dead stag
HBT 10
Dead stag
HBT 5
HBT 6
HBT 7
HBT 9
HBT 11
HBT 12
HBT 13
HBT 14
HBT 21
Dead stag
Lophostemon confertus
Brush Box
Dead stag, large tree
Lophostemon confertus
Brush Box, 100cm DBH
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015
Location
Fate
In footprint
Remove
In footprint
In footprint
Remove
In footprint
Park 1
Remove
Remove
Retain
Retain
Retain
Retain
Retain
In footprint
Remove
In footprint
Remove
In footprint
Remove
In footprint
Remove
In footprint
Remove
In footprint
Remove
109
Table 2.6: Koala scat survey results. Surveys were undertaken in accordance with the Spot Assessment Technique (SAT) utilised by the Australian Koala Foundation. The SAT is used to assess the Koala activity within the
immediate area surrounding a tree known to be utilised by the species or is considered to be of importance to the species conservation.
Date
Koala
Scat
Search
No.
12.11.14
KSS 1
12.11.14
KSS 3
12.11.14
12.11.14
12.11.14
12.11.14
12.11.14
27.11.14
27.11.14
KSS 2
KSS 4
KSS 5
KSS 6
KSS 7
KSS 8
KSS 9
26.11.14
KSS 10
27.11.14
KSS 12
26.11.14
27.11.14
27.11.14
KSS 11
KSS 13
KSS 14
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015
Lophostemon
confertus
Brush Box
Rainforest sp.
Acacia sp.
14
No
27
No
8
6
6
4
3
2
1
1
2
16
4
2
5
3
Banksia sp.
Melaleuca sp.
Eucalyptus
propinqua
Small-fruited
Grey Gum
Melaleuca
quinquenervia
Broad-leaved
Paperbark
Koala
scats
found
Yes/No
Corymbia
intermedia
Pink
Bloodwood
Eucalyptus
tereticornis
Forest Red Gum
22
12
8
4
18
28
19
6
No
4
1
13
No
17
26
23
26
No
No
No
No
No
No
2
1
No
No
5
No
No
110
Camera
number
1
Habitat shot
Fauna
No fauna detected.
No fauna detected.
Long-nosed Bandicoot
Swamp Wallaby
No fauna detected.
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015
Swamp Wallaby
Brush
Swamp Wallaby
111
No fauna detected.
No fauna detected.
No fauna detected.
11
Swamp Wallaby
12
No fauna detected.
13
Domestic dog
14
No fauna detected.
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015
112
No fauna detected.
16
17
Swamp Wallaby
Long-nosed Bandicoot
Wonga pigeon
Rufous fantail
Swamp Wallaby
Fox
18
No fauna detected.
19
No fauna detected.
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015
113
No fauna detected.
21
Rodent
Whip bird
Brush Turkey
22
No fauna detected.
23
24
25
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015
Swamp Wallaby
Eastern Grey
Kangaroo
114
27
Swamp Wallaby
28
Swamp Wallaby
29
No fauna detected.
30
Eastern Grey
Kangaroo
31
Koala
Swamp wallaby
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015
115
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015
Rattus tunneyi
Land mullet
116
Table 2.8: Fauna species of conservation significance recorded within 10 km of subject site. E = Endangered, EPop = Endangered Population, Ext = Extinct, V = Vulnerable, Source: OEH Wildlife Atlas database, 2015.
Fauna Group
Amphibian
Amphibian
Amphibian
Reptile
Reptile
Scientific Name
Litoria brevipalmata
Green-thighed Frog
Litoria olongburensis
Olongburra Frog
Crinia tinnula
Wallum Froglet
Caretta caretta
Loggerhead Turtle
Chelonia mydas
Green Turtle
Reptile
Cacophis harriettae
White-crowned Snake
Bird
Dromaius novaehollandiae
Emu population in the NSW
North Coast Bioregion and
Port Stephens local
government area
Bird
Bird
Bird
Bird
Bird
Bird
Bird
Bird
Bird
Phaethon lepturus
White-tailed Tropicbird
Status
TSC Act
(1995)
Status
EPBC
Act
(1999)
V
E
EPop
Thallasarche melanophris
Black-browed Albatross
Macronectes giganteus
Southern Giant Petrel
Ardenna pacificus
Wedge-tailed Shearwater
Ardenna tenuirostris
Wedge-tailed Shearwater
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015
V
E
Habitat Requirements
Suitability of Site
No suitable habitat on
site.
No suitable habitat on
site.
No suitable habitat on
site.
No suitable habitat on
site.
Survey
considerations
Likelihood to occur
Impact assessment
No likelihood to occur.
No further impact
assessment required.
No further impact
assessment required.
No further impact
assessment required.
No further impact
assessment required.
No further impact
assessment required.
No likelihood to occur.
No likelihood to occur.
No likelihood to occur.
No suitable habitat on
site.
No suitable habitat on
site.
No suitable habitat on
site.
No suitable habitat on
site.
No likelihood to occur.
No likelihood to occur.
No likelihood to occur.
No likelihood to occur.
No further impact
assessment required.
Further impact
assessment required.
No further impact
assessment required.
No further impact
assessment required.
No further impact
assessment required.
No further impact
assessment required.
No further impact
assessment required.
No further impact
assessment required.
No further impact
assessment required.
No further impact
assessment required.
No further impact
assessment required.
117
Fauna Group
Scientific Name
Status
TSC Act
(1995)
Status
EPBC
Act
(1999)
Bird
Ardea ibis
Cattle Egret
Bird
Ixobrychus flavicollis
Black Bittern
Ephippiorhynchus asiaticus
Black-necked Stork
Bird
Bird
Bird
Bird
Bird
Bird
Bird
Egretta sacra
Eastern Reef Egret
Plegadis falcinellus
Glossy Ibis
Pandion cristatus
Eastern Osprey
Erythrotriorchis radiates
Red Goshawk
Lophoictinia isura
Square-tailed Kite
Hamirostra melanosternon
Black-breasted Buzzard
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015
Habitat Requirements
Suitability of Site
Survey
considerations
Impact assessment
No further impact
assessment required.
No likelihood to occur.
No likelihood to occur.
No likelihood to occur.
No likelihood to occur.
No suitable habitat on or
Favours coastal areas and requires an
extensive area of open fresh, brackish or near the site within the
saline water for foraging.
zone of influence.
Likelihood to occur
No further impact
assessment required.
No further impact
assessment required.
No further impact
assessment required.
No further impact
assessment required.
Further impact
assessment required.
No further impact
assessment required.
No further impact
assessment required.
118
Fauna Group
Scientific Name
Status
TSC Act
(1995)
Status
EPBC
Act
(1999)
Bird
Haliaeetus leucogaster
White-bellied Sea-eagle
Bird
Circus assimilis
Spotted Harrier
Bird
Grus rubicunda
Brolga
Bird
Burhinus grallarius
Bush Stone-curlew
Bird
Bird
Bird
Bird
Bird
Bird
Bird
CritE
Haemotopus fuliginosus
Sooty Oystercatcher
Charadrius leschenaultia
Greater Sand-plover
Esacus neglectus
Beach Stone-curlew
Haemotopus longirostris
Australian Pied
Oystercatcher
Charadrius mongolus
Lesser Sand-plover
Tringa brevipes
Grey-tailed Tattler
Tringa incana
Wandering Tattler
Numenius phaeopus
Whimbrel
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015
Habitat Requirements
Suitability of Site
Survey
considerations
Likelihood to occur
Impact assessment
No further impact
assessment required.
No further impact
assessment required.
No likelihood to occur.
No further impact
assessment required.
No further impact
assessment required.
No further impact
assessment required.
No likelihood to occur.
No further impact
assessment required.
No further impact
assessment required.
No further impact
assessment required.
No further impact
assessment required.
No further impact
assessment required.
No suitable habitat on
site.
No likelihood to occur.
No further impact
assessment required.
No suitable habitat on
site.
No likelihood to occur.
No further impact
assessment required.
119
Fauna Group
Scientific Name
Status
TSC Act
(1995)
Status
EPBC
Act
(1999)
Bird
Numenius madagascariensis
Eastern Curlew
Bird
Calidris ruficollis
Red-necked Stint
Bird
Arenaria interpres
Ruddy Turnstone
Bird
Pluvialis fulva
Pacific Golden Plover
Bird
Pluvialis squatarola
Grey Plover
Bird
Tringa nebularia
Common Greenshank
Bird
Calidris tenuirostris
Great Knot
Bird
Gallinago hardwickii
Latham's Snipe
Bird
Limicola falcinellus
Broad-billed Sandpiper
Bird
Limosa limosa
Black-tailed Godwit
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015
Habitat Requirements
Suitability of Site
Survey
considerations
Likelihood to occur
Impact assessment
No likelihood to occur.
No further impact
assessment required.
No further impact
assessment required.
No further impact
assessment required.
No likelihood to occur.
No further impact
assessment required.
No likelihood to occur.
No further impact
assessment required.
No likelihood to occur.
No further impact
assessment required.
No likelihood to occur.
No further impact
assessment required.
No likelihood to occur.
No further impact
assessment required.
No likelihood to occur.
No further impact
assessment required.
No further impact
assessment required.
120
Fauna Group
Bird
Bird
Bird
Scientific Name
Xenus cinereus
Terek Sandpiper
Tringa stagnatilis
Marsh Sandpiper
Actitis hypoleucos
Common Sandpiper
Status
TSC Act
(1995)
Status
EPBC
Act
(1999)
Bird
Calidris acuminate
Sharp-tailed Sandpiper
Bird
Calidris canutus
Red Knot
Bird
Limosa lapponica
Bar-tailed Godwit
Bird
Calidris ferruginea
Curlew Sandpiper
Bird
Calidris melanotos
Pectoral Sandpiper
Bird
Calidris alba
Sanderling
Bird
Stercorarius parasiticus
Arctic Jaeger
Bird
Bird
Anous stolidus
Common Noddy
Onchyprion fuscata
Sooty Tern
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015
Habitat Requirements
Suitability of Site
No suitable habitat on
site.
Survey
considerations
Likelihood to occur
Impact assessment
No likelihood to occur.
No further impact
assessment required.
No suitable habitat on
site.
No likelihood to occur.
No further impact
assessment required.
No suitable habitat on
site.
No likelihood to occur.
No further impact
assessment required.
No suitable habitat on
site.
No likelihood to occur.
No further impact
assessment required.
No suitable habitat on
site.
No likelihood to occur.
No further impact
assessment required.
No suitable habitat on
site.
No likelihood to occur.
No further impact
assessment required.
No suitable habitat on
site.
No likelihood to occur.
No further impact
assessment required.
No suitable habitat on
site.
No likelihood to occur.
No further impact
assessment required.
No suitable habitat on
site.
No likelihood to occur.
No further impact
assessment required.
No suitable habitat on
site.
No likelihood to occur.
No further impact
assessment required.
No suitable habitat on
site.
No likelihood to occur.
No suitable habitat on
site.
No likelihood to occur.
No further impact
assessment required.
No further impact
assessment required.
121
Fauna Group
Scientific Name
Status
TSC Act
(1995)
Status
EPBC
Act
(1999)
Bird
Sterna hirundo
Common Tern
Bird
Sterna caspia
Caspian Tern
Bird
Sternula albifrons
Little Tern
Bird
Ptilinopus magnificus
Wompoo Fruit-dove
Bird
Ptilinopus regina
Rose-crowned Fruit-dove
Bird
Calyptorhynchus lathami
Glossy Black-Cockatoo
Bird
Glossopsitta pusilla
Little Lorikeet
Bird
Bird
Tyto novaehollandiae
Masked Owl
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015
Habitat Requirements
Suitability of Site
Survey
considerations
Occurs in rainforest.
Detectable when
feeding in suitable
habitat.
Occurs in rainforest.
Likelihood to occur
Impact assessment
No further impact
assessment required.
No further impact
assessment required.
No further impact
assessment required.
No further impact
assessment required.
122
Fauna Group
Scientific Name
Status
TSC Act
(1995)
Status
EPBC
Act
(1999)
Bird
Tyto longimembris
Eastern Grass Owl
Bird
Ninox connivens
Barking Owl
Bird
Ninox strenua
Powerful Owl
Bird
Apus pacificus
Fork-tailed Swift
Bird
Hirundapus caudacutus
White-throated Needletail
Bird
Merops ornatus
Rainbow Bee-eater
Bird
Coracina lineata
Barred Cuckoo-shrike
Bird
Carterornis leucotis
White-eared Monarch
Bird
Pomatostomus temporalis
Grey-crowned Babbler
Bird
Daphoenositta chrysoptera
Varied Sittella
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015
Habitat Requirements
Occur in areas of tall grass, including
swampy areas, grassy plains, swampy
heath, cane grass, or sedges on
floodplains.
Occurs in eucalypt woodland, open
forest, swamp woodlands and timbered
watercourses. Occasionally uses dense
vegetation for roosting. Breeds in
hollows in large old trees.
Suitability of Site
Survey
considerations
No suitable habitat on
site.
Marginally suitable
habitat on site.
Marginally suitable
habitat on site.
Likelihood to occur
Impact assessment
No further impact
assessment required.
No further impact
assessment required.
Further impact
assessment required.
No further impact
assessment required.
Fauna Group
Scientific Name
Status
TSC Act
(1995)
Status
EPBC
Act
(1999)
Bird
Lichenostomus fasciogularis
Mangrove Honeyeater
Mammal
Dasyurus maculatus
Spotted-tailed Quoll
Mammal
Phascogale tapoatafa
Brush-tailed Phascogale
Mammal
Planigale maculata
Common Planigale
Mammal
Phascolarctos cinereus
Koala
Mammal
Petaurus australis
Yellow-bellied Glider
Mammal
Petaurus norfolcensis
Squirrel Glider
Mammal
Aepyprymnus rufescens
Rufous Bettong
Mammal
Pteropus poliocephalus
Grey-Headed Flying-fox
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015
Habitat Requirements
mature trees with hollows or dead
branches.
Suitability of Site
No suitable habitat on
site.
Suitable potential
foraging habitat on site.
Survey
considerations
Likelihood to occur
the most recent being 9km north west of the
subject site in 2001.
Observed foraging on site.
Low likelihood to occur.
Impact assessment
No further impact
assessment required.
124
Fauna Group
Mammal
Scientific Name
Syconycteris australis
Common Blossom-bat
Status
TSC Act
(1995)
Status
EPBC
Act
(1999)
Suitability of Site
Mammal
Mormopterus norfolkensis
Eastern Freetail-bat
Mammal
Nyctophilus bifax
Eastern Long-eared Bat
Mammal
Miniopterus schreibersii
oceanensis
Eastern Bent-wing Bat
Mammal
Miniopterus australis
Little Bentwing-bat
Mammal
Chalinolobus nigrogriseus
Hoary wattled bat
Mammal
Myotis macropus
Large-footed Myotis
Mammal
Scoteanax rueppellii
Greater Broad-nosed Bat
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015
Habitat Requirements
Survey
considerations
Likelihood to occur
Impact assessment
Further impact
assessment required.
Further impact
assessment required.
No further impact
assessment required.
Further impact
assessment required.
No further impact
assessment required.
No further impact
assessment required.
No further impact
assessment required.
125
APPENDIX 3
SECTION 5A ASSESSMENTS
SEVEN PART TESTS
Swamp Sclerophyll Forest on Coastal Floodplains of the NSW North Coast, Sydney Basin
and South East Corner bioregions includes and replaces Sydney Coastal Estuary Swamp
Forest in the Sydney Basin bioregion Endangered Ecological Community.
This community is associated with humic clay loams and sandy loams, on waterlogged or
periodically inundated alluvial flats and drainage lines associated with coastal floodplains
(NSW Scientific Committee 2011). It occurs typically as open forests to woodlands,
although partial clearing may have reduced the canopy to scattered trees or scrub. The
understorey may contain areas of fernland and tall reedland or sedgeland which in turn
may also form mosaics with other floodplain communities and often fringe wetlands with
semi-permanent standing water (NSW Scientific Committee 2011).
Swamp Sclerophyll Forest on Coastal Floodplains generally occurs below 20 metres ASL,
often on small floodplains or where the larger floodplains adjoin lithic substrates or
coastal sand plains (NSW Scientific Committee 2011).
Other trees may be scattered throughout at low abundance or may be locally common at
few sites, including Callistemon salignus Sweet Willow Bottlebrush, Casuarina glauca
Swamp Oak and Eucalyptus resinifera subsp. hemilampra Red Mahogany, Livistona
australis Cabbage Palm and Lophostemon suaveolens Swamp Turpentine (OEH 2015a).
A layer of small trees may be present, including Acacia irrorata Green Wattle, Acmena
smithii Lilly Pilly, Elaeocarpus reticulatus Blueberry Ash, Glochidion ferdinandi Cheese
Tree, Melaleuca linariifolia and M. styphelioides. Shrubs include Acacia longifolia,
Dodonaea triquetra, Ficus coronata, Leptospermum polygalifolium subsp. polygalifolium
and other Melaleuca species. Occasional vines include Parsonsia straminea, Morinda
jasminoides and Stephania japonica var. discolor.
The groundcover is composed of abundant sedges, ferns, forbs, and grasses including
Gahnia clarkei, Pteridium esculentum, Hypolepis muelleri, Calochlaena dubia, Dianella
caerulea, Viola hederacea, Lomandra longifolia, Entolasia marginata and Imperata
cylindrica (OEH 2015a).
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015
127
Swamp Sclerophyll Forest has been extensively cleared and modified. Large areas that
formerly supported this community are occupied by exotic pastures grazed by cattle,
market gardens, other cropping enterprises and, on the far north coast, canefields. The
remaining area of Swamp Sclerophyll Forest on Coastal Floodplains is likely to represent
much less than 30% of its original range (NSW Scientific Committee 2011).
A small minority of the remaining area occurs on public land and the remaining stands
are severely fragmented by past clearing and further threatened by continuing
fragmentation and degradation, flood mitigation and drainage works, landfilling and
earthworks associated with urban and industrial development, pollution from urban and
agricultural runoff, weed invasion, overgrazing, trampling and other soil disturbance by
domestic livestock and feral animals including pigs, activation of 'acid sulfate soils',
removal of dead wood and rubbish dumping. Relatively few examples of Swamp
Sclerophyll Forest on Coastal Floodplains remain unaffected by weeds.
Small areas of Swamp Sclerophyll Forest on Coastal Floodplains of the NSW North Coast,
Sydney Basin and South East Corner bioregions are contained within existing
conservation reserves, including Bungawalbin, Tuckean and Moonee Beach Nature
Reserves, and Hat Head, Crowdy Bay, Wallingat, Myall Lakes and Garigal National Parks
(NSW Scientific Committee 2011).
This vegetation type occurs in the intact swales at the western edge of the site.
(a) in the case of a threatened species, whether the action proposed is likely to have
an adverse effect on the life cycle of the species such that a viable local population of
the species is likely to be placed at risk of extinction,
Response:
This question is not relevant to an endangered ecological community.
(b) in the case of an endangered population, whether the action proposed is likely to
have an adverse effect on the life cycle of the species that constitutes the endangered
population such that a viable local population of the species is likely to be placed at
risk of extinction,
Response:
This question is not relevant to an endangered ecological community.
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015
128
Response:
The proposed works will not remove any of this community or its habitat on site. It is to
be retained in its entirety and be subject to conservation management, with an emphasis
on weed control. It will be further protected from edge effects by the presence of a
substantial buffer of Low Acacia Woodland.
The proposal is unlikely to place the local occurrence of this community at risk of
extinction.
(ii) is likely to substantially and adversely modify the composition of the ecological
community such that its local occurrence is likely to be placed at risk of extinction,
Response:
No works are to occur in or close to the footprint with this vegetation community
remaining intact. Sediment and stormwater controls will also prevent degradation of its
habitat.
(d) in relation to the habitat of a threatened species, population or ecological
community:
(i) the extent to which habitat is likely to be removed or modified as a result of the
action proposed, and
Response:
The proposed works will not remove or modify any of the extent of this community on
site.
(ii) whether an area of habitat is likely to become fragmented or isolated from other
areas of habitat as a result of the proposed action, and
Response:
In the local area the connectivity of this vegetation will be maintained.
(e) whether the action proposed is likely to have an adverse effect on critical habitat
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015
129
(f) whether the action proposed is consistent with the objectives or actions of a
recovery plan or threat abatement plan,
Response:
OEH is currently developing a targeted approach for managing Ecological Communities.
In the interim, the following management actions have been identified for this community
(OEH 2015b):
A number of specific recovery activities have also been identified (OEH 2015a):
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015
130
recognition of the values of all remnants in the land use planning process,
particularly development consents, rezonings and regional planning;
4. Promote regeneration by avoiding prolonged or heavy grazing; and
5. Undertake restoration including bush regeneration, revegetation and weed
control, and promote public involvement in this restoration.
The entire occurrence of this community and surrounding vegetation on site will be
retained.
(g) whether the action proposed constitutes or is part of a key threatening process
or is likely to result in the operation of, or increase the impact of, a key threatening
process.
Response:
The proposed works contribute to the Key Threatening Process Clearing of Native
Vegetation, but not within the habitat of this community.
REFERENCES
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015
131
Keith, D.A. (2004) 'Ocean shores to desert dunes: the native vegetation of New South
Wales and the ACT.' NSW Department of Environment and Conservation, Sydney
Keith, D.A. and Scott, J. (2005) Native vegetation of coastal floodplains a broad
framework for definition of communities in NSW. Pacific Conservation Biology 11,
in press
Law, B.S. (1994) Nectar and pollen: dietary items affecting the abundance of the Common
blossum bat (Syconycteris australis) in NSW Australian Journal of Ecology 19, 425434
Law, B.S., Mackowski, C., Schoer, L. and Tweedie, T. (2002b) The flowering phenology of
myrtaceous trees and their relation to environmental and disturbance variables
in Northern New South Wales. Austral Ecology 25, 160-178
NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (1999). Forest ecosystem classification and
mapping for the upper and lower north east Comprehensive Regional Assessment.
NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service, Coffs Harbour
NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (2000) Vegetation Survey, Classification and
Mapping: Lower Hunter and Central Coast Region. Version 1.2. NSW National
Parks and Wildlife Service, Sydney
NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (2002) Native vegetation of the Wollongong
escarpment and coastal plain. NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service, Sydney
NSW Scientific Committee (2011) Swamp Sclerophyll Forest on Coastal Floodplains of the
NSW North Coast, Sydney Basin and South East Corner bioregions. Final
determination
Office of Environment and Heritage (2015a) Threatened Species Profile
(http://www.threatenedspecies.environment.nsw.gov.au/tsprofile/)
Office of Environment and Heritage (2015b) Swamp Sclerophyll Forest on Coastal
Floodplains of the NSW North Coast, Sydney Basin and South East Corner
bioregions
Species
Conservation
Project
(http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/savingourspeciesapp/SearchResults.asp
x)
Pressey, R.L. (1989a) Wetlands of the lower Clarence floodplain, northern coastal New
South Wales. Proceedings of the Linnean Society of NSW 111, 143-155
Pressey, R.L. (1989a) Wetlands of the lower Macleay floodplain, northern coastal New
South Wales. Proceedings of the Linnean Society of NSW 111, 157-168
Pressey, R.L. and Griffith, S.J. (1992) Vegetation of the coastal lowlands of Tweed shire,
northern New South Wales, species and conservation. Proceedings of the Linnean
Society of NSW 113, 203-243
Speight, J.G. (1990) Landform. In: 'Australian soil and land survey. Field handbook' Second
edition (Eds. RC McDonald, RF Isbell, JG Speight, J, Walker, MS Hopkins), pp9-57.
Inkata Press, Melbourne
Stevenson, M. (2003) Remote sensing and historical investigation of environmental
change and Melaleuca encroachment in Tuckean Swamp, north-eastern NSW.
Unpublished report. School of Environmental Science and Management, Southern
Cross University, Lismore
Thackway, R. and Creswell, I.D. (1995) (eds) 'An interim biogeographic regionalisation of
Australia: a framework for establishing the national system of reserves.'
Australian Nature Conservation Agency: Canberra
Thomas, V., Gellie, N. and Harrison, T. (2000) 'Forest ecosystem classification and
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015
132
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015
133
Phaius australis is one of the largest species of ground orchids in Australia (NSW Scientific
Committee 1998). Its flower stems can grow up to 2 metres tall and has large broad leaves
with a pleated like appearance (OEH 2015a).
It has had a problematic taxonomic history with the use of several names and the mixing
up of at least three taxa. A full account of the resolution of its taxonomy is provided by the
Commonwealth Department of the Environment (2015). All Phaius species in NSW are
now considered to be Phaius australis and probably occurs as far south as Lake Cathie (DE
2015).
Since European settlement, 95% of the original populations of this species in north east
NSW and south east Queensland have become extinct. Large populations persisted until
the mid 1970s on the Gold Coast and until the mid 1980s on the Sunshine Coast (Benwell
1994b, quoted in DE 2015). At the time of listing, there were approximately 180
individuals known to occur in the wild in SNW (NSW Scientific Committee 1998). In NSW,
populations are reserved in Broadwater, Yuraygir, and Bundjalung National Parks and in
an area zoned for environmental protection in the Ballina LGA.
This species occurs in swampy grasslands or swampy forest, including rainforest, and
typically at the margins (DE 2015). In NSW it is particularly known to grow in Melaleuca
quinquenervia swamps (PlantNet 2015), where it can form dense colonies (Jones et al.
2010). Other than Melaleuca quinquenervia Broad-leaved Paperbark, associated species
often include Corymbia intermedia Pink Bloodwood, Lophostemon confertus Brush Box,
Callitris columellaris and Banksia species (Redland City Council, no date) or rainforest
elements such as Archontophoenix cunninghamiana Bangalow Palm and Livistona
australis Cabbage Tree Palm (DE 2015).
It occurs on a range of soils, from acidic waterlogged peat (pH 4.2) to peaty-sand (pH 7.0)
(DE 2015). Soil parent materials include marine aeolian sand (most common), alluvium,
granite, metasediments, hailstone gravel and sandstone. Soil types on sand range from
shallow peat to humus/groundwater podzol (DE 2015).
It is thought that species in this genus are pollinated by bees but this species may also
self-pollinate (DE 2015). All orchids require a highly specialized fungal association to
germinate in the wild but nothing is yet known of the specific orchid mycorrhizal fungi
involved in this association (DE 2015).
In areas where other member of the Phaius genus occur (such as in south east
Queensland), survey must be conducted in the flowering season (spring) as they are only
distinguishable by characteristics of the flower (DE 2015).
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015
134
The most significant threat to this species is the illegal collection for horticulture or cut
flowers as orchid enthusiasts regard the species as being one of the most desirable for
collection. The threat of land clearing remains a major threat to the small population (OEH
2015a) as do fire and weed infestations (particularly Lantana camara Lantana) (DE
2015).
This species was not recorded on the subject site but was recorded from swamp forest
directly to the north by Fitzgerald (2005). Potential habitat for this species occurs on the
subject site in the Swamp Sclerophyll Forest along its western boundary.
(a) in the case of a threatened species, whether the action proposed is likely to have
an adverse effect on the life cycle of the species such that a viable local population of
the species is likely to be placed at risk of extinction,
Response:
Important aspects of the life cycle for this species are associated with the presence of
appropriate habitat and soil fungi. The presence of pollinators is not critical. Past lands
uses on this site have likely alienated all but the uncleared intact dune-swale sequence at
the western boundary where remnant Swamp Sclerophyll Forest persists. The high
intensity fires have also probably rendered much of the potential habitat on site
unsuitable.
The proposal is restricted to the highly modified parts, distant from the area of potential
habitat and so will not alter the life cycle triggers for this species.
(b) in the case of an endangered population, whether the action proposed is likely to
have an adverse effect on the life cycle of the species that constitutes the endangered
population such that a viable local population of the species is likely to be placed at
risk of extinction,
Response:
This question is not relevant to a threatened species.
(ii) is likely to substantially and adversely modify the composition of the ecological
community such that its local occurrence is likely to be placed at risk of extinction,
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015
135
Response:
This question is not relevant to a threatened species.
(ii) whether an area of habitat is likely to become fragmented or isolated from other
areas of habitat as a result of the proposed action, and
Response:
The proposed works will retain the area of potential habitat and its connectivity to
realised habitat to the north will be maintained. Therefore the proposed works will not
fragment or isolate habitat for this species.
(iii) the importance of the habitat to be removed, modified, fragmented or isolated to
the long-term survival of the species, population or ecological community in the
locality,
Response:
The proposed works will not remove or modify or fragment any of the extent of habitat
for this species on site. The proposal is unlikely to result in a significant adverse impact
to the long term survival of this threatened species.
(e) whether the action proposed is likely to have an adverse effect on critical habitat
(either directly or indirectly),
Response:
There has been no critical habitat declared for this species in NSW.
(f) whether the action proposed is consistent with the objectives or actions of a
recovery plan or threat abatement plan,
Response:
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015
136
This species has been addressed in a Recovery Plan (Benwell 1994) but due to it
containing information that may aid in its illegal collection, it is generally unavailable.
This species has been assigned to the site-managed management stream by the Office
of Environment and Heritage, as it is considered that this species can be successfully
secured by carrying out targeted conservation projects on specific sites. OEH have
nominated 5 such sites, the closest being on public land at Iluka (OEH 2015b), which is
probably the population in Bundjalung National Park.
The objectives of the management actions to be undertaken in this population are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
View and photograph native orchids but leave them in the wild;
Buy plants only from licensed nurseries;
Assist with the control feral pigs;
Protect areas of habitat from frequent fire;
Protect areas of habitat from pollution;
Fence off swampy areas to exclude stock;
Control weeds;
Protect areas of habitat from clearing, draining or development; and
Report any records to the DEC.
The following recovery activities have also been identified for this species (OEH 2015a)
The proposal retains the area of potential habitat with a vegetated buffer between it and
the proposed development. The proposal will remove weeds in the areas to eb cleared
and the retained vegetation is to be managed for conservation. These actions are
consistent with these recovery strategies.
(g) whether the action proposed constitutes or is part of a key threatening process
or is likely to result in the operation of, or increase the impact of, a key threatening
process.
Response:
The proposed works contribute to the Key Threatening Process Clearing of Native
Vegetation.
REFERENCES
Benwell, A.S. (1994) Swamp Orchids - Phaius australis, Phaius tancarvilleae Recovery
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015
137
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015
138
This species is a small tree growing to 6 metres tall with four-petalled yellowish flowers
produced in summer growing from the leaf and stem junction (OEH 2015a). Fruits that
are produced during summer have a flattened oval shape and are a creamy lemon colour
up to 20 millimetres in diameter, with four lobes separated by shallow fissures
(Commonwealth Conservation Advice 2008).
It occurs within 2 kilometres of the coast from Port Macquarie in the south to Fraser
Island in the north, on sand in humid areas with rainfall greater than 1,600 millimetres
(Commonwealth Conservation Advice 2008). This species is found in transition zones
between littoral rainforest and swamp sclerophyll forest; littoral and coastal cypress pine
communities and margins of littoral forest (Department of the Environment 2015). Over
40% of the known populations are in national parks and nature reserves (Department of
the Environment 2015), including the nearby Bundjalung National Park. The population
within the park near the Esk River is a proposed key site for the conservation of this
species (OEH 2015b).
There are two forms of this species, with one producing viable seeds and one that
reproduces vegetatively (OEH 2015a). All known populations of this species occur in
fragmented habitats susceptible to disturbance and are facing threats from development,
weeds (particularly Lantana camara Lantana), salt-laden wind burn and fires (NSW
Department of the Environment 2015).
This species was not recorded on the subject site during this or previous surveys.
Potential habitat for this species occurs on the subject site in the Open Forest and
Woodland and Low Acacia Woodland. This species was not recorded from the site and the
its potential habitat is within the most highly modified areas, being cleared in the past,
probably sand mined, repeatedly burnt in very hot fires and subsequently infested by
transformer weeds, particularly Lantana camara Lantana.
(a) in the case of a threatened species, whether the action proposed is likely to have
an adverse effect on the life cycle of the species such that a viable local population of
the species is likely to be placed at risk of extinction,
Response:
Little is known about the life cycle triggers for this species. It is very difficult to propagate
from seed and it is mooted that it may need to pass through the gut of a bird to trigger
germination (Erskine 2013). This species is also known to sucker, which may be a survival
mechanism after fire. The closely related Acronychia imperforata is known to resprout
after fire (NSW NPWS 2002).
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015
139
The known (presumably viable) local population occurs further north at the Esk River in
Bundjalung National Park.
The proposed development will remove most of the poor quality marginal habitat on site
while retaining the intact remnant vegetation and rehabilitating some of the other
vegetation in Parks 1, 2 and 3.
The proposal is not considered likely to significantly alter either of the factors identified
as having a likely impact on the life cycle of this species - fire and frugivores.
(b) in the case of an endangered population, whether the action proposed is likely to
have an adverse effect on the life cycle of the species that constitutes the endangered
population such that a viable local population of the species is likely to be placed at
risk of extinction,
Response:
This question is not relevant to a threatened species.
(ii) is likely to substantially and adversely modify the composition of the ecological
community such that its local occurrence is likely to be placed at risk of extinction,
Response:
This question is not relevant to a threatened species.
(ii) whether an area of habitat is likely to become fragmented or isolated from other
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015
140
Response:
The habitat on site cannot be considered to be important for the long term survival of a
local viable population as it provides potential habitat only and of highly modified, poor
quality bushland. The known local population occurs to the north near the Esk River in
Bundjalung National Park distant from the subject site.
(e) whether the action proposed is likely to have an adverse effect on critical habitat
(either directly or indirectly),
Response:
No critical habitat has been declared for this species.
(f) whether the action proposed is consistent with the objectives or actions of a
recovery plan or threat abatement plan,
Response:
This species has been assigned to the site managed species management stream under
the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH 2015b), as it is considered that this
species can be successfully secured by carrying out targeted conservation projects on
specific sites. Eight such sites have been identified for this species, none of which include
the subject site (OEH 2015b).
The nearest management site is the Esk River site, and its management and the objectives
of the management actions to be undertaken in this population are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Reduce and maintain weed densities at low levels (particularly Bitou Bush);
Exclude fire;
Minimise accidental damage on road / track edges;
Determine the area of occupancy; and
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015
141
The following recovery activities have also been identified for this species (OEH 2015a):
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
(g) whether the action proposed constitutes or is part of a key threatening process
or is likely to result in the operation of, or increase the impact of, a key threatening
process.
Response:
The proposed works contribute to the Key Threatening Process Clearing of Native
Vegetation.
REFERENCES
142
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015
143
The Emu is a large flightless bird that stands up to 1.9 m tall, with long legs and neck and
shaggy grey-brown to dark-brown or grey-black plumage on the upperparts and usually
paler underparts. This species can be seen singly, in pairs or in loose groups, some of
which consist of family groups (OEH 2015a).
This species formerly occurred throughout mainland Australia but is now generally
absent from densely settled regions, particularly the coastal regions (OEH 2015a). The
population is disjunct from other populations in the Sydney Basin and New England
Tableland Bioregion and represents the north-eastern limit of the species in NSW (NSW
Scientific Committee 2002). At the time of listing, the majority of the more recent records
were concentrated between Coffs Harbour and Ballina (NSW Scientific Committee 2002)
with occasional records inland of the coastal ranges.
Habitat modelling by DECCW (2010) shows that high quality habitat for this species
occurs north from Arrawarra to Yamba and inland to Grafton. Annual surveys conducted
by OEH have confirmed its range has continued to contract and it is now considered to be
absent from Broadwater National Park (after extensive fires) and restricted to three
areas: Yuraygir National Park south of the Clarence River, Bundjalung National Park north
of the Clarence River and in the Richmond River floodplain about 10 to 30 kilometres
inland of the coast in the Bungawalbin area (OEH 2015a). It is not known whether a
natural population continues to persist in the Port Stephens area (OEH 2015a).
On the NSW north coast, Emus occur in a range of predominantly open lowland habitats,
including grasslands, heathland, shrubland, open and shrubby woodlands, forest, and
swamp and sedgeland communities, as well as the ecotones between these habitats. They
also occur in plantations of tea-tree and open farmland, and occasionally in littoral
rainforest (OEH 2015a).
It is an omnivorous species, eating a wide range of seeds, fruits, other plant material and
insects (OEH 2015a). Their home ranges are very large, being from 5 to 10 square
kilometres (Blakers et al. 1984). These wide-ranging habits may play an important role in
dispersal of large seed (McGrath and Bass 1999).
Eggs are laid in late autumn and winter on a small platform of nesting material on the
ground, often at the base of some vegetation with good views to watch for predators (OEH
2015a). Parental care is exclusively provided by the male.
Major threats to this endangered population species arise from their low numbers and
isolation. Their habitat has been reduced and fragmented by agricultural and rural and
urban development and degraded by inappropriate fire regimes. Fires pose a direct risk
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015
144
to Emus during nesting season and predation by Foxes, Pigs and Dogs are also important
threats to chicks. Negative interactions with humans (hit by vehicles, poisoning and
shooting) also contribute to the endangered status of this species in this area (OEH
2015a).
The community survey of Iluka residents undertaken by OEH in the 1990s uncovered
many records of this species, including three from the subject site, the sightings dating
from the 1980s and 1990s. This species was recorded on site by the presence of a number
of scats. These were collected from the eastern and western ends of the site, the largest
concentration being in the remnant vegetation that is to be retained in Park 2.
(a) in the case of a threatened species, whether the action proposed is likely to have
an adverse effect on the life cycle of the species such that a viable local population of
the species is likely to be placed at risk of extinction,
Response:
This question is not relevant to an endangered population.
(b) in the case of an endangered population, whether the action proposed is likely to
have an adverse effect on the life cycle of the species that constitutes the endangered
population such that a viable local population of the species is likely to be placed at
risk of extinction,
Response:
Threats to this population include loss of habitat, inappropriate fire, predation and road
trauma. The proposal will remove 16.71 hectares of potential habitat, but the majority of
it is in very poor condition, being dominated by dense thickets of Lantana camara
Lantana; this is not good habitat for Emus. The highly modified poor condition habitat to
be removed represents less than 2% of its home range. Being nomadic, the majority of the
home range of the animals using the subject site would be reserved in Iluka Nature
Reserve and Bundjalung National Park.
Elements of the proposal will be of assistance to this species. This survey has established
the presence of important fauna in this area; and this has resulted in the local brigade of
the Rural Fire Service reviewing their plan to burn the site for hazard reduction. Fire
suppression will continue to be a high priority after residents move in. The conservation
management of the retained patches of bushland will provide improved habitat for this
species. Also, the retained parks have been sited so that they provide north-south and
east-west connectivity to other surrounding habitat.
(c) in the case of an endangered ecological community or critically endangered
ecological community, whether the action proposed:
(i) is likely to have an adverse effect on the extent of the ecological community such
that its local occurrence is likely to be placed at risk of extinction, or
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015
145
Response:
This question is not relevant to an endangered population.
(ii) is likely to substantially and adversely modify the composition of the ecological
community such that its local occurrence is likely to be placed at risk of extinction,
Response:
This question is not relevant to an endangered population.
(ii) whether an area of habitat is likely to become fragmented or isolated from other
areas of habitat as a result of the proposed action, and
Response:
The proposal includes retained vegetation specifically to act as wildlife corridors as well
as wide landscaped verges that can also serve as wildlife corridors.
(iii) the importance of the habitat to be removed, modified, fragmented or isolated to
the long-term survival of the species, population or ecological community in the
locality,
Response:
The areas of poor quality habitat to be removed would represent less than 2% of a 10
square kilometre home range. Also, the home range of the animal(s) that use the site
would encompass the reserved habitats in Iluka Nature Reserve and Bundjalung National
Park.
(e) whether the action proposed is likely to have an adverse effect on critical habitat
(either directly or indirectly),
Response:
No critical habitat has been declared for this endangered population.
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015
146
(f) whether the action proposed is consistent with the objectives or actions of a
recovery plan or threat abatement plan,
Response:
A Priority Action Statement (PAS) has been prepared for this endangered population
(OEH 2015b). The PAS identifies 20 broad strategies to help recover this species:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
Prepare a recovery plan due to high local cultural significance and icon status;
Incorporate information provided through Aboriginal community consultation;
Protect areas of known habitat from clearing or development;
Protect emu habitat on private land;
Discuss options with landholders for mitigating crop damage by emus;
Provide map of known occurrences to Rural Fire Service and seek inclusion of
mitigative measures on Bush Fire Risk Management Plan(s), risk register and/or
operation map(s);
Seek advice from local Aboriginal community elders on appropriate site
management regimes based on indigenous knowledge;
Control feral predators where predation has been identified as a problem and
encourage the restraint of domestic dogs in areas supporting emus;
Increase road signage and reduce speed limits in areas where emus routinely
cross roads;
Involve local Aboriginal communities in on-ground management activities;
Report any instances of illegal killing of emus to DEC;
Maintain annual emu surveys;
Investigate the causal relationship between identified threats and emu decline
and identify mitigation measures;
Involve local Aboriginal communities in surveys and monitoring programs;
Determine whether emus are still located in the Port Stephens LGA through
targeted surveys;
Report to DEC NEB any records of nesting emus or emus with chicks to DEC;
Report any sightings of emus outside the area between Evans Head and Red Rock
and the Bungawalbin area to DEC;
In the event of an emu sub-population being identified at Port Stephens,
implement relevant management actions;
Research genetic variation of these populations from other populations of the
Emu; and
Conduct public awareness campaigns to increase community participation in
reporting and protection of Emu population.
A number of specific recovery activities have also been identified (OEH 2015a):
1. Take care when driving through areas of known habitat to avoid collision with
birds, and use signage to notify drivers of the presence and risk of harm to Emus;
2. Control feral predators, and restrain domestic Dogs;
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015
147
3. Protect known and potential habitat from frequent fires, and protect nesting birds
from fire;
4. Protect areas of known and potential habitat from clearing or development;
5. Report records of Emus, especially nesting birds or chicks to the OEH; and
6. Report illegal killing of Emus to the OEH.
The proposal is largely consistent with the recovery actions for this endangered
population.
(g) whether the action proposed constitutes or is part of a key threatening process
or is likely to result in the operation of, or increase the impact of, a key threatening
process.
Response:
The proposed works contribute to the Key Threatening Process Clearing of Native
Vegetation.
REFERENCES
Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (2010) Northern Rivers Regional
Biodiversity Management Plan, National Recovery Plan for the Northern Rivers
Region
McGrath, R.J. and Bass, D. (1999) Seed dispersal by Emus on the New South Wales northeast coast. Emu 99:248-252
NSW Scientific Committee (2002) Emu population in the NSW North Coast Bioregion and
Port Stephens Local Government Area - endangered population listing. Final
Determination
Office of Environment and Heritage (2015a) Threatened Species Profiles
(http://www.threatenedspecies.environment.nsw.gov.au)
Office of Environment and Heritage (2015b) Dromaius novaehollandiae Emu Species
Conservation Project
(http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/savingourspeciesapp/SearchResults.aspx)
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015
148
The Square-tailed Kite is a medium sized raptor with long wings and tail which is often
seen soaring along treetops in open woodland areas throughout most of Australia (NSW
NPWS 1999). Records of the species throughout the state indicate that it is a regular
resident in the north, north east and along the major west-flowing river systems. It is a
summer breeding migrant to the south east, including the NSW south coast, arriving in
September and leaving by March (OEH 2015a).
It is found in a variety of habitats but shows a preference for timbered watercourses (OEH
2015a). Habitats include coastal forests and wooded lands of tropical and temperate
Australia (NSW NPWS 1999), but records also exist from along vegetated watercourses
and stony open country with chenopod shrubland further inland (OEH 2015a).
Sightings of Square-tailed Kites are almost always solitary and usually over forest or
woodlands, rarely over completely open country (Hollands 2003). This species is a
specialist canopy hunter, regularly taking passerines (particularly honeyeaters and
nestlings) and large insects from the outer foliage (NSW NPWS 1999). It forages over
coastal and subcoastal, eucalypt dominated forest and woodlands and inland riparian
woodland (NSW Scientific Committee 2009) and mallee communities that are rich in
passerines, as well as over adjacent heaths and other low scrubby habitats and in wooded
towns and appears to prefer a landscape that is structurally diverse (Garnett and Crowley
2000).
This species forms monogamous lifelong pairs and occupy huge territories of well over
100 square kilometres (Slater et al. 1995). Breeding is from July to February, and nests
are usually located in a fork or on a horizontal limb in a tree along or near a watercourse.
During winter, it often moves to coastal plains, where they feed on waterbirds on and
around permanent wetlands (Garnett and Crowley 2000).
Breeding is from July to February, with nest sites generally located along or near
watercourses, in a fork or on large horizontal limbs (OEH 2015a). It is known to tolerate
routine human activity, even when nesting (Bischoff et al. 2000).
Threats to this species include activities that reduce their prey (such as clearing, burning
and grazing), loss of nest sites, illegal egg collecting and shooting (OEH 2015a). However,
there is little evidence of a decline, with anecdotal reports of the reverse trend (Garnett
and Crowley 2000). The only documented evidence of decline is from the edge of its range
in South Australia (Garnett and Crowley 2000). Much of the native vegetation in the south
and east of the species range has been cleared for agriculture and while this is still
considered to be the major threat, in places, the species may have benefited from partial
clearance (Garnett and Crowley 2000).
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015
149
This species was recorded near the subject site. Potential foraging habitat occurs across
the subject site but it is generally unsuitable for nesting.
(a) in the case of a threatened species, whether the action proposed is likely to have
an adverse effect on the life cycle of the species such that a viable local population of
the species is likely to be placed at risk of extinction,
Response:
Important habitat features include the availability of prey and nest sites. The site is
unsuitable for breeding but potentially provides prey species (particularly small birds) in
the tree canopies. While most of the potential foraging habitat will be removed, it is in
very poor condition and would represent a small fraction of what is available to this highly
mobile species in its large home range.
(b) in the case of an endangered population, whether the action proposed is likely to
have an adverse effect on the life cycle of the species that constitutes the endangered
population such that a viable local population of the species is likely to be placed at
risk of extinction,
Response:
This question is not relevant to a threatened species.
(ii) is likely to substantially and adversely modify the composition of the ecological
community such that its local occurrence is likely to be placed at risk of extinction,
Response:
This question is not relevant to a threatened species.
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015
150
Response:
16.71 hectares of highly modified bushland will be removed.
(ii) whether an area of habitat is likely to become fragmented or isolated from other
areas of habitat as a result of the proposed action, and
Response:
This is a highly mobile species that can exploit widely-separated resources. The proposed
works will not significantly fragment the potential habitat for this species in the local area.
(iii) the importance of the habitat to be removed, modified, fragmented or isolated to
the long-term survival of the species, population or ecological community in the
locality,
Response:
The habitat in which this species has been recorded is very common in the local area and
is also very common in nearby reserves. The area of potential habitat to be disrupted by
the proposed works is minor in this context.
(e) whether the action proposed is likely to have an adverse effect on critical habitat
(either directly or indirectly),
Response:
No critical habitat has been declared for this species.
(f) whether the action proposed is consistent with the objectives or actions of a
recovery plan or threat abatement plan,
Response:
There is no recovery plan or threat abatement plan for this species. However, it has been
assigned to the Landscape species management stream under the NSW Office of
Environment and Heritage as it is distributed across a large area, is highly mobile and
threatened across the landscape by habitat loss and degradation (OEH 2015b). The
following management actions have been identified for this species as part of that process
(OEH 2015b):
1. Ensure implementation of management strategies that reduce disturbance of
riparian areas.
2. Identify and protect nest trees, and monitor reproduction.
3. Liaise with local field ornithologist to obtain data on the Square-tailed Kite in the
area.
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015
151
A number of specific recovery activities have also been identified (OEH 2015a):
1. Protect known habitat from fires of a frequency greater than that recommended
for the retention of biodiversity;
2. Retain and protect nesting and foraging habitat, particularly along watercourses;
and
3. Report suspected illegal bird shooting and egg-collecting to DEC.
(g) whether the action proposed constitutes or is part of a key threatening process
or is likely to result in the operation of, or increase the impact of, a key threatening
process.
Response:
The proposed works contribute to the Key Threatening Process Clearing of Native
Vegetation.
REFERENCES
Blakers, M., Davies, S.J.J.F. and Reilly, P.N. (1984) The Atlas of Australian Birds. Globe Press
Pty Ltd, Australia
Bischoff, T., Lutter, H. and Debus, S. (2000) Square tailed Kites breeding on the mid-north
coast of New South Wales. Australian Bird Watcher 18
Garnett, S. and Crowley, G. (2000) The Action Plan for Australian Birds. National Heritage
Trust
Hollands, D. (2003) Eagles, Hawks and Falcons of Australia. Bloomings Books, Melbourne
NSW Scientific Committee (2009) Square-tailed Kite Lophoictinia isura Review of
Current information in NSW. NSW Scientific Committee, Sydney.
NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (1999) Threatened Species Information
Square-tailed Kite
Office of Environment and Heritage (2015a) Threatened Species Profiles
(http://www.threatenedspecies.environment.nsw.gov.au)
Office of Environment and Heritage (2015b) Lophoictinia isura Square-tailed Kite Species
Conservation Project
(http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/savingourspeciesapp/SearchResults.aspx)
Pizzey, G., and Knight, F. (1997) Field Guide to the Birds of Australia. Harper Collins
Publishers, Hong Kong
Simpson, K. and Day, N. (1999) Field Guide to the Birds of Australia. Sixth Edition. Penguin
Books, Australia
Slater, P., Slater, P. and Slater, R. (1995) The Slater Field Guide to Australian Birds.
Lansdowne Publishing, Australia
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015
152
The Rose-crowned Fruit-Dove is a small and colourful (adult) or plain green pigeon
(juvenile) with a yellow belly and tail tip in adults (Slater et al. 1995). Males and females
have a rose crown with grey/lavender on the remainder of the head and breast. Females
are slightly paler in colour (Flegg 2002). This species is a common to rare resident in
rainforest, forest, mangroves and melaleuca forests from Cape Leveque in Western
Australia south to Newcastle in New South Wales (Slater et al. 1995). This species then
becomes rare further south (Flegg 2002). This species is notoriously difficult to sight in
the forest canopy, and is often located from falling fruit (Slater et al. 1995). This species
is less wary than other similar species (Flegg 2002). Nests consist of a flimsy twig
platform, often in a bush or low tree (Slater et al. 1995).
This species was heard calling once from the eastern end of the subject site during survey
and observed foraging in the adjacent Iluka Nature Reserve. Potential foraging habitat
occurs on the subject site in the soft-fruited trees that are scattered throughout the
vegetation at low densities.
(a) in the case of a threatened species, whether the action proposed is likely to have
an adverse effect on the life cycle of the species such that a viable local population of
the species is likely to be placed at risk of extinction,
Response:
Critical habitat features for this species include foraging resources and breeding sites. The
habitat on site is of poor quality, given the infestations of weeds and the low numbers of
food trees compared with the overwhelmingly dominant Acacia disparrima subsp.
disparrima Salwood. Given the proximity of good and reserved habitat in Iluka Nature
reserve, the loss of poor quality habitat on the subject site is unlikely to significantly
disrupt the life cycle of this species.
(b) in the case of an endangered population, whether the action proposed is likely to
have an adverse effect on the life cycle of the species that constitutes the endangered
population such that a viable local population of the species is likely to be placed at
risk of extinction,
Response:
This question is not relevant to a threatened species.
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015
153
(i) is likely to have an adverse effect on the extent of the ecological community such
that its local occurrence is likely to be placed at risk of extinction, or
Response:
This question is not relevant to a threatened species.
(ii) is likely to substantially and adversely modify the composition of the ecological
community such that its local occurrence is likely to be placed at risk of extinction,
Response:
This question is not relevant to a threatened species.
(ii) whether an area of habitat is likely to become fragmented or isolated from other
areas of habitat as a result of the proposed action, and
Response:
The habitat in the development area and its connection with other suitable habitat will
remain essentially unchanged for this highly mobile species.
Response:
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015
154
(f) whether the action proposed is consistent with the objectives or actions of a
recovery plan or threat abatement plan,
Response:
There is no recovery plan or threat abatement plan for this species. However, it
has been assigned to the landscape-managed management stream by the Office
of Environment and Heritage, as it is distributed across a large area, is highly
mobile and threatened across the landscape by habitat loss and degradation (OEH
2015b). The following management actions have been identified for this species
as part of that process (OEH 2015b):
The following recovery activities have also been identified for this species (OEH 2015a):
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
The exclusion of works from the Rainforest on the site satisfies a number of those actions,
namely 3, 6 and 7.
(g) whether the action proposed constitutes or is part of a key threatening process
or is likely to result in the operation of, or increase the impact of, a key threatening
process.
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015
155
Response:
The proposed works contribute to the Key Threatening Process Clearing of Native
Vegetation.
REFERENCES
Blakers, M., Davies, S.J.J.F. and Reilly, P.N. (1984) The Atlas of Australian Birds. Globe Press
Pty Ltd, Australia
Flegg, J. (2002) photographic Field Guide Birds of Australia. Second Edition. Reed New
Holland, Sydney
Garnett S., and Crowley, G. (2000) The Action Plan for Australian Birds. National Heritage
Trust
NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (2002) Threatened Species of the Upper North
Coast of NSW: Fauna. NPWS, Coffs Harbour
Office of Environment and Heritage (2015a) Threatened Species Profiles
(http://www.threatenedspecies.environment.nsw.gov.au)
NSW Scientific Committee (2008) Rose-crowned Fruit-Dove Threatened Species Listing.
Final Determination
Pizzey, G., and Knight, F. (1997) Field Guide to the Birds of Australia. Harper Collins
Publishers, Hong Kong
Simpson, K., and Day, N. (1999) Field Guide to the Birds of Australia. Sixth Edition.
Penguin Books, Australia
Slater, P., Slater, P. and Slater, R. (1995) The Slater Field Guide to Australian Birds.
Lansdowne Publishing, Australia
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015
156
The Glossy Black-Cockatoo is the smallest of the black cockatoo species in Australia. This
species is usually seen in pairs or sometimes with a single young. It breeds in autumn and
winter and requires large hollows for nesting.
It is reported to prefer dry forest types in intact, less rugged landscapes (NSW NPWS
1999) and is distributed mainly along the eastern half of NSW and the south eastern
corner of Queensland (Slater et al. 1995). In NSW, this species is recorded in highest
densities to the east of the Great Dividing range, however scattered records exist as far
west as the Riverina and Pilliga Scrub (Garnett and Crowley 2000).
It is a highly specialised feeder, requiring cones from specific Allocasuarina, including
Allocasuarina littoralis Black Sheoak and Allocasuarina torulosa Forest Sheoak (OEH
2015a) and Casuarina species (Garnett and Crowley 2000) and so impacts on these food
resources (such as from inappropriate fire regimes) may threaten this species. However
this species is well protected across the sandstone environments of the Sydney Basin and
no management actions are recommended within the Yengo and Parr areas (DECC 2008).
The Glossy Black Cockatoo is dependent on large hollow bearing eucalypts for nesting and
lay a single egg between March and May (OEH 2015a).
The presence of this species was inferred by the characteristically-chewed cones along
the northern boundary of the site in 2005. There was no evidence of this species on site
during the recent comprehensive survey.
(a) in the case of a threatened species, whether the life cycle of the species is likely to
be disrupted such that a viable local population of the species is likely to be placed at
risk of extinction
Response:
Critical habitat features for this species include foraging resources and breeding hollows.
Its preferred feeding tree (female Allocasuarina trees) were rarely observed. Therefore
only a relatively small area of foraging habitat will be disrupted and the hollow-bearing
trees are likely to be unsuitable. Therefore it is judged that the proposal is unlikely to
significantly disrupt the life cycle of this species.
(b) in the case of an endangered population, whether the action proposed is likely to
have an adverse effect on the life cycle of the species that constitutes the endangered
population such that a viable local population of the species is likely to be placed at
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015
157
risk of extinction,
Response:
An Endangered population of this species has been listed for the Riverina Local
Government Area. This does not coincide with Clarence Valley Local Government Area.
(ii) is likely to substantially and adversely modify the composition of the ecological
community such that its local occurrence is likely to be placed at risk of extinction,
Response:
This question is not relevant to a threatened species.
(ii) whether an area of habitat is likely to become fragmented or isolated from other
areas of habitat as a result of the proposed action, and,
Response:
The connectivity of the vegetation and habitats on site with off-site habitats will only be
minimally diminished. The regional wildlife corridor occurs to eth east of the site. The
development configuration will not significantly fragment or isolate potential habitat for
such a highly mobile species.
(iii) the importance of the habitat to be removed, modified, fragmented or isolated to
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015
158
Response:
No critical habitat has been declared for this species.
(f) whether the action proposed is consistent with the objectives or actions of a
recovery plan or threat abatement plan,
Response:
This species has been assigned to the Landscape species management stream under the
NSW Office of Environment and Heritage. A number of recovery strategies have been
identified (OEH 2015b).
1. Identify and map key breeding and foraging habitat, similar to the mapping done
at St Georges Basin.
2. Provide incentives for landholders to fence and manage key sites.
3. Assist landholders who wish to enter into voluntary conservation agreements at
key sites.
4. Prepare and distribute EIA guidelines to decision makers.
5. Periodically review IFOA prescriptions to ensure adequate protection of nesting
and foraging habitat.
6. Develop/encourage strategic planning approach for Glossy Black Cockatoo at the
local and regional level.
7. Encourage the restoration of foraging habitat that has been cleared or degraded
by previous impacts.
8. Increase landholder and public awareness and interest in Glossy Black Cockatoo
conservation and habitat management.
9. Utilise the Glossy Black Cockatoo as a flagship threatened species for woodland
and forest conservation education and awareness programs.
10. Continue existing monitoring programs (e.g. Goonoo population) and encourage
other community groups to develop a monitoring program of local populations.
The following recovery activities have also been identified for this species (OEH 2015a):
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015
159
2.
3.
4.
5.
(g) whether the action proposed constitutes or is part of a key threatening process
or is likely to result in the operation of, or increase the impact of, a key threatening
process.
Response:
The proposal contributes to the relevant Key Threatening Processes Clearing of Native
Vegetation and Loss of Hollow-Bering Trees.
REFERENCES
Clout, M.N. (1989) Foraging behaviour of Glossy Black Cockatoos. Australian Wildlife
Research 16:467-73
Department of Environment and Climate Change (2008) The Vertebrate Fauna of
Southern Yengo National Park and Parr State Conservation Area. Department of
Environment and Climate Change, Hurstville
Department of Environment and Conservation (2005) The Vertebrate Fauna of Northern
Yengo National Park. Department of Environment and Climate Change, Hurstville
Garnett, S. and Crowley, G. (2000) The Action Plan for Australian Birds. National Heritage
Trust
Higgins, P.J. (ed) (1999) Handbook of Australian, New Zealand and Antarctic Birds. Vol 4:
Parrots to Dollarbird (Oxford University Press)
NSW Scientific Committee (No Date) Glossy Black-Cockatoo Vulnerable Species Listing.
Final Determination
NSW Scientific Committee (1999) Glossy black-cockatoo population, Riverina Endangered Population Listing. Final Determination
NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (1999) Threatened Species Information Glossy
Black-Cockatoo
Office of Environment and Heritage (2015a) Threatened Species Profile
(http://www.threatenedspecies.environment.nsw.gov.au/tsprofile/)
Office of Environment and Heritage (2015b) Glossy Black Cockatoo Species Conservation
Project
(http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/savingourspeciesapp/SearchResults.asp
x)
Office of Environment and Heritage (2015c) Glossy Black Cockatoo Riverina population
Species
Conservation
Project
(http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/savingourspeciesapp/SearchResults.asp
x)
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015
160
Simpson, K. and Day, N. (1999) Field Guide to the Birds of Australia. Sixth Edition. Penguin
Books, Australia
Slater, P., Slater, P. and Slater, R. (1995) The Slater Field Guide to Australian Birds.
Lansdowne Publishing, Australia
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015
161
The Little Lorikeet is the smallest of the Lorikeets, with a black bill, bright green body and
red forehead and throat (Pizzey and Knight 1997). It may be confused with other small
lorikeets such as the Purple-crowned Lorikeet, but makes a distinctively lower-pitched
and buzzing call in flight (Higgins 1999).
It is known from coast and south eastern Australia from near Cairns in far north
Queensland to Adelaide (Pizzey and Knight 1997). In New South Wales it occurs in forests
and woodlands from the coast to the western slopes of the Great Dividing Range,
extending westwards to the vicinity of Albury, Parkes, Dubbo and Narrabri (Barrett et al.
2003). They occur mostly in dry open eucalypt forests and woodlands in old growth and
logged forest as well as in remnant patches and roadside vegetation (NSW Scientific
Committee 2009).
They usually forage in the tree canopies in small flocks and sometimes in the company of
other lorikeet species (Readers Digest 2002). Profusely-flowering eucalypts are favoured,
such as box species on the slopes and tablelands (Courtney and Debus 2006) and in
Eucalyptus robusta Swamp Mahogany and Eucalyptus pilularis Blackbutt on the Central
Coast (pers obs). Blossom of other trees are also used (e.g. Melaleuca species) and the
fruits of mistletoes are also sometimes eaten (NSW Scientific Committee 2009).
This species is an obligate hollow nester (Gibbons and Lindenmayer 2002) that are
usually located high in the trees (Pizzey 1980) but sometimes as low as 2 metres
(Courtney and Debus 2006) in living smooth-barked eucalypts. The entrances to these
nests are small (approximately 3 centimetres in diameter) and are kept open by the
lorikeets chewing at the growing bark (NSW Scientific Committee 2009). Hollows are
known to be used continuously, with one used for at least 29 years (Courtney and Debus
2006). The breeding season extends from May to September (Higgins 1999) or July to
January with a peak in October (Barrett et al. 2003).
Population trends are uncertain with evidence of decline in part of its range (e.g. in South
Australia, south west slopes and south coast of NSW) (NSW Scientific Committee 2009)
but there appeared to be a small increase across NSW according to latest Bird Atlas
(Barrett et al. 2003). The NSW Scientific Committee (2009) considers that the data
indicate a moderate state-wide reduction in population size over the past 15 years or
three generation lengths, a time frame equivalent to the life cycle of the species. Also,
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015
162
there are many examples of bird species that are threatened nationally whose initial
decline was first apparent in South Australia (Horton and Black 2006).
Threats to this species include loss of breeding sites and foraging resources due to land
clearing which is particularly relevant in the western districts where road-widening has
removed important patches of remnant woodland (NSW Scientific Committee 2009).
Observations of 50 nest hollows over 43 years noted a 40% loss (the majority caused by
humans) without a commensurate rate of hollow replacement (Courtney and Debus
2006).
This species was not recorded on the subject site during survey. However, it is known
form the local area and potential foraging habitat for this species is common across the
site, particularly in the high nectar-producing plants such as Banksia integrifolia Coast
Banksia. The hollow-bearing trees also provide potential nesting sites.
(a) in the case of a threatened species, whether the action proposed is likely to have
an adverse effect on the life cycle of the species such that a viable local population of
the species is likely to be placed at risk of extinction,
Response:
Losses of potential foraging habitat will be partially mitigated by the retention and
conservation management of the vegetation in the parks as well as by the use of native
trees in the streetscape. The loss of hollow-bearing trees will be offset by the installation
of nest boxes.
It is important to note that most of the hollow-bearing trees are dead trees and were
presumably killed by the same hot fire. Therefore, they are deteriorating at a similar rate
and are likely to fall at a similar time. In the absence of the development proposal, this
inevitable and sudden loss would not be ameliorated.
(b) in the case of an endangered population, whether the action proposed is likely to
have an adverse effect on the life cycle of the species that constitutes the endangered
population such that a viable local population of the species is likely to be placed at
risk of extinction,
Response:
This question is not relevant to a threatened species
163
(ii) is likely to substantially and adversely modify the composition of the ecological
community such that its local occurrence is likely to be placed at risk of extinction,
Response:
This question is not relevant to a threatened species.
(f) whether the action proposed is consistent with the objectives or actions of a
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015
164
The proposal is largely consistent with these recovery strategies it will retain the
remnant forest, manage retained areas for conservation and replace lost hollows with
nest boxes.
(g) whether the action proposed constitutes or is part of a key threatening process
or is likely to result in the operation of, or increase the impact of, a key threatening
process.
Response:
The proposal contributes to the relevant Key Threatening Processes Clearing of Native
Vegetation and Loss of Hollow-bearing Trees.
REFERENCES
Barrett, G., Silcocks, A., Barry, S., Cunningham, R. and Poulte, R. (2003) The New Atlas of
Australian Birds. Birds Australia:Melbourne
Blakers, M., Davies, S.J.J.F. and Reilly, P.N. (1984) The Atlas of Australian Birds. Globe Press
Pty Ltd, Australia
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015
165
Courtney, J. and Debus, S.J.S. (2006) Breeding habits and conservation status of the Musk
Lorikeet Glossopsitta concinna and Little Lorikeet G. pusilla in Northern New South
Wales. Australian Field Ornithology 23:109-124
French, K., Paterson, I., Miller, J. and Turner, R.J. (1993) Nectarivorous bird assemblages
in Box-Ironbark Woodlands in the Capertee Valley, New South Wales Emu
103:345-356
Garnett, S. and Crowley, G. (2000) The Action Plan for Australian Birds. National Heritage
Trust
Gibbons, P. and Lindenmayer, D. (2002) Tree Hollows and Wildlife Conservation in
Australia CSIRO:Victoria
Higgins, P.J. (ed), (1999) Handbook of Australian, New Zealand and Antarctic Birds.
Volume 4 - Parrots to Dollarbird. Oxford University Press
Horton, P. and Black, A.B. (2006) The Little Lorikeet in South Australia, with notes on the
historical status of other lorikeets. South Australian Ornithologist 34:229-243
IUCN (2008) Guidelines for using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria. Version 7.0.
(Standards and Petitions Working Group of the IUCN Species Survival Commission
Biodiversity Assessments Sub-committee: Switzerland)
NSW Scientific Committee (2009) Little Lorikeet Vulnerable Species Listing. Final
Determination
Office of Environment and Heritage (2015) Threatened Species Profile
(http://www.threatenedspecies.environment.nsw.gov.au/tsprofile/)
Pizzey, G. and Knight, F. (1997) Field Guide to the Birds of Australia. Harper Collins
Publishers, Hong Kong
Readers Digest (2002) Complete Book of Australian Birds. Readers Digest
Simpson, K. and Day, N. (1999) Field Guide to the Birds of Australia. Sixth Edition. Penguin
Books, Australia
Slater, P., Slater, P. and Slater, R. (1995) The Slater Field Guide to Australian Birds.
Lansdowne Publishing, Australia
Smyth, A., MacNally, R. and Lamb, D. (2002) Influence of forest management and habitat
structural factors on the abundances of hollow-nesting bird species in subtropical
Australian eucalypt forest. Environmental Management 30:547559
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015
166
They are active birds, frequently moving from tree to tree (OEH 2015a). They are usually
seen in pairs or small flocks (Simpson and Day 1999) foraging among foliage of trees for
insects and fruit. This species is mostly seen in native small-fruited fig trees (Slater et al.
1995).
This species was recorded foraging in the nearby Iluka Nature Reserve, and thus the
habitat features of the subject site are within its home range.
(a) in the case of a threatened species, whether the action proposed is likely to have
an adverse effect on the life cycle of the species such that a viable local population of
the species is likely to be placed at risk of extinction,
Response:
Important habitat features include forging and breeding habitat. The proposal will
remove some areas of potential foraging habitat, but in very poor condition with only
scattered fruiting rainforest trees. The reserved habitats managed for conservation
purposes within Iluka Nature Reserve and Bundjalung National Park are likely to be more
important for this species than the private lands in poor condition adjacent to them.
(b) in the case of an endangered population, whether the action proposed is likely to
have an adverse effect on the life cycle of the species that constitutes the endangered
population such that a viable local population of the species is likely to be placed at
risk of extinction,
Response:
This question is not relevant to a threatened species
167
(ii) is likely to substantially and adversely modify the composition of the ecological
community such that its local occurrence is likely to be placed at risk of extinction,
Response:
This question is not relevant to a threatened species
(ii) whether an area of habitat is likely to become fragmented or isolated from other
areas of habitat as a result of the proposed action, and
Response:
The proposal specifically contains retained vegetation located so that both north-south
and east-west connectivity of habitat is maintained. Moreover, this is a highly mobile
species that is unlikely to be prevented from accessing habitat within its home range by
the advent of the proposal.
(iii) the importance of the habitat to be removed, modified, fragmented or isolated to
the long-term survival of the species, population or ecological community in the
locality,
Response:
The habitat within the subject site is of poor quality, being highly modified, infested by
weeds and supporting only scattered individual rainforest trees, and most of a young age.
(e) whether the action proposed is likely to have an adverse effect on critical habitat
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015
168
(f) whether the action proposed is consistent with the objectives or actions of a
recovery plan or threat abatement plan,
Response:
There is no recovery plan or threat abatement plan for this species. However, it has been
assigned to the landscape-managed management stream by the Office of Environment
and Heritage, as it is distributed across a large area, is highly mobile and threatened
across the landscape by habitat loss and degradation (OEH 2015b). The key threats to the
viability of landscape-managed species are loss, fragmentation and degradation of
habitat, and widespread pervasive factors such as impacts of climate change and disease.
The following management actions have been identified for this species as part of that
process (OEH 2015b):
The following recovery activities have also been identified for this species (OEH 2015a):
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
(g) whether the action proposed constitutes or is part of a key threatening process
or is likely to result in the operation of, or increase the impact of, a key threatening
process.
Response:
The proposed works contribute to the Key Threatening Process Clearing of Native
Vegetation.
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015
169
REFERENCES
Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water NSW (2010) Border Ranges
Rainforest Biodiversity Management Plan - NSW and Queensland. (DECCW NSW,
Sydney)
Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water NSW (2010) Northern Rivers
Regional Biodiversity Management Plan.
Office of Environment and Heritage (2015a) Threatened Species Profile
(http://www.threatenedspecies.environment.nsw.gov.au/tsprofile/)
Office of Environment and Heritage (2015b) Barred Cuckoo-shrike Species Conservation
Project
(http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/savingourspeciesapp/SearchResults.asp
x)
Roderick, M. and Stuart, A. (2010) The status of threatened bird species in the Hunter
Region. The Whistler 4: 1-28
Schodde, R. and Mason, I.J. (1999) The Directory of Australian Birds. (CSIRO Publishing,
Melbourne)
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015
170
This species is endemic to coastal lowlands and the eastern slopes of the Great Dividing
Range of eastern Australia known to occur from the Cape York Peninsula to north eastern
NSW (OEH 2015a). The White-eared Monarch lives in a variety of habitats including
broadleaved thicket, shrubland (NSW Department of the Environment 2013), littoral
rainforest, dry sclerophyll forest, wet sclerophyll forest, as well as swamp forest (NSW
NPWS 2002). They appear to prefer the ecotone between rainforest and open vegetation
such as along roads (OEH 2015a).
They are observed high in the canopy and are highly active when foraging for insects,
characteristically fluttering around the outer foliage of rainforest trees (OEH 2015a). The
White-eared Monarch breeds from September to March nesting along the edge of patches
of rainforest, high in the canopy (Conole et al. 1995).
Recognised threats to this species include (OEH 2015a):
Clearing and increasing fragmentation and isolation of habitat, especially lowelevation subtropical rainforest, littoral rainforest and wet sclerophyll forest,
through agricultural, tourist and residential development or forestry activities;
Forest management that results in conversion of multi-aged forests to young,
even-aged stands;
Invasion of forests by weeds;
Inappropriate fire regimes that degrade habitat or allow invasion by weeds; and
Degradation or loss of habitat through grazing of stock.
This species was not recorded on the subject site during survey. Favoured habitat is the
ecotone from rainforest or swamp forest to adjacent open areas. The best potential
habitat for this species on site occurs in the swamp forest to be retained and managed for
conservation along the sites western edge.
(a) in the case of a threatened species, whether the action proposed is likely to have
an adverse effect on the life cycle of the species such that a viable local population of
the species is likely to be placed at risk of extinction,
Response:
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015
171
The best area of potential foraging habitat for this species on the subject site will not be
impacted by the proposal and in fact may be enhanced by rehabilitation and weed
management of the remnant and regrowth vegetation.
(b) in the case of an endangered population, whether the action proposed is likely to
have an adverse effect on the life cycle of the species that constitutes the endangered
population such that a viable local population of the species is likely to be placed at
risk of extinction,
Response:
This question is not relevant to a threatened species
(ii) is likely to substantially and adversely modify the composition of the ecological
community such that its local occurrence is likely to be placed at risk of extinction,
Response:
This question is not relevant to a threatened species.
(ii) whether an area of habitat is likely to become fragmented or isolated from other
areas of habitat as a result of the proposed action, and
Response:
This is a highly mobile species able to exploit widely separated resources. The proposal is
unlikely to prevent this species from accessing local habitat,
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015
172
(f) whether the action proposed is consistent with the objectives or actions of a
recovery plan or threat abatement plan,
Response:
This species has been assigned to the Partnership species management stream under
the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage. These are species that have less than 10%
of their distribution in NSW and so conservation may depend on partnership programs
with other states or territories. The following management actions have been identified
for this species as part of that process (OEH 2015b):
1. Monitor population;
2. Determine non-breeding seasonal movements and food requirements;
3. Ensure that Camphor Laurel removal is compensated for by replacement with
rainforest species;
4. Ensure protection of rainforest, wet and swamp sclerophyll forest is included in
fire planning and hazard reduction guidelines;
5. Exclude stock from lowland rainforest, wet sclerophyll and swamp sclerophyll
forest;
6. Develop local government biodiversity conservation strategies;
7. Prevent lowland rainforest, wet and swamp sclerophyll forest habitat loss and
fragmentation. Expand and reconnect habitat. Exclude grazing;
8. Address threats including loss of habitat, fragmentation and degradation; and
9. Liaise with relevant landholders and managers to protect, rehabilitate, enlarge
and reconnect habitat. Raise awareness of weed threats and need for
compensatory plantings.
A number of specific recovery activities have also been identified (OEH 2015a):
1. Plant locally occurring trees and shrubs in gardens or other land adjacent to areas
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015
173
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
(g) whether the action proposed constitutes or is part of a key threatening process
or is likely to result in the operation of, or increase the impact of, a key threatening
process.
Response:
The proposed works will contribute to the Relevant Key Threatening Process Clearing of
Native Vegetation.
REFERENCES
Conole, L.E., Baverstock, G.A. and Holmes, G. (1995) Southern breeding records of the
White-eared Monarch Monarcha leucotis. Sunbird 25(3): 60-62
NSW Department of the Environment (2013) Australian Faunal directory Carterornis
leucotis. Australian Biological Resources Study, Canberra. Available at:
(http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/abrs/onlineresources/fauna/af
d/taxa/Carterornis_leucotis)
NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (2002) Threatened Species of the Upper North
Coast of NSW: Fauna. (NSW NPWS, Coffs Harbour)
Office of Environment and Heritage (2015a) Threatened Species Profile
(http://www.threatenedspecies.environment.nsw.gov.au/tsprofile/)
Office of Environment and Heritage (2015b) Carterornis leucotis White-eared Monarch
Species
Conservation
Project
(http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/savingourspeciesapp/SearchResults.asp
x)
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015
174
It is a small songbird with a distinctive upturned bill. It is an active and acrobatic bird,
probing crevices in rough or decorticating bark, dead branches, standing dead trees, small
branches and twigs in the tree canopy for arthropods (NSW Scientific Committee 2010).
It is sedentary and found across most of mainland Australia (Higgins and Peter 2002;
Barrett et al. 2003). Habitats occupied include all but the treeless deserts and open
grasslands (NSW Scientific Committee 2010).
It builds a cup-shaped nest of plant fibres and cobwebs in an upright tree fork high in the
living tree canopy, and often re-uses the same fork or tree in successive years (NSW
Scientific Committee 2010).
The Varied Sittella's population size in NSW is uncertain but is believed to have
undergone a moderate reduction in population size on the basis of comparative atlas
surveys over the past several decades (NSW Scientific Committee 2010).
The apparent decline has been attributed to declining habitat cover and quality and its
sedentary nature makes cleared agricultural land a potential barrier to movement (NSW
Scientific Committee 2010).
Survival and population viability are sensitive to habitat isolation, reduced patch size and
habitat simplification, including reductions in tree species diversity, tree canopy cover,
shrub cover, ground cover, logs, fallen branches and litter (Watson et al. 2001; Seddon et
al. 2003). The Varied Sittella is also adversely affected by the dominance of Manorina
melanocephala Noisy Miner in woodland patches (Olsen et al. 2005).
Current threats include habitat degradation through small-scale clearing for fence lines
and road verges, rural tree decline, loss of paddock trees and connectivity, 'tidying up' on
farms, and firewood collection. Clearing of native vegetation, Loss of hollow-bearing
trees, and Removal of dead wood and dead trees are relevant listed Key Threatening
Processes.
This species was observed during survey, foraging on tree trunks in the area to be
retained in Park 1.
(a) in the case of a threatened species, whether the action proposed is likely to have
an adverse effect on the life cycle of the species such that a viable local population of
the species is likely to be placed at risk of extinction,
Response:
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015
175
This species requires well connected expanses of habitat with fallen and dead timber and
a complex understorey. The subject site provides such habitat features and can continue
to do so in the post-development landscape outside of the development footprint.
(b) in the case of an endangered population, whether the action proposed is likely to
have an adverse effect on the life cycle of the species that constitutes the endangered
population such that a viable local population of the species is likely to be placed at
risk of extinction,
Response:
This question is not relevant to a threatened species.
(ii) is likely to substantially and adversely modify the composition of the ecological
community such that its local occurrence is likely to be placed at risk of extinction,
Response:
This question is not relevant to a threatened species.
(ii) whether an area of habitat is likely to become fragmented or isolated from other
areas of habitat as a result of the proposed action, and
Response:
While this species is sedentary, it is highly mobile and its ability to move through the
landscape will not be altered by the proposal.
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015
176
(f) whether the action proposed is consistent with the objectives or actions of a
recovery plan or threat abatement plan,
Response:
There is no recovery plan or threat abatement plan for this species. This species has been
assigned to the landscape species management stream by the Office of Environment and
Heritage, as it is distributed across a large area, is highly mobile and threatened across
the landscape by habitat loss and degradation (OEH 2015b). The following management
actions have been identified for this species as part of that process (OEH 2015b):
1. Encourage habitat linkages through PVP process; and
2. Raise awareness about importance of microhabitats. Encourage retention of
intact foraging and breeding habitat through PVP process.
A number of specific recovery activities have also been identified (OEH 2015a):
1. Retain existing vegetation and remnant stands along roadsides and in paddocks;
2. Increase the size of existing remnants by planting trees and establishing buffer
zones;
3. Where remnants have lost connective links, re-establish links by revegetating
corridors or stepping stones;
4. Limit firewood collection and retain dead timber in open forest and woodland
areas;
5. Encourage regeneration of habitat by fencing remnant stands and managing the
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015
177
The proposal retains most of the area that provides potential habitat for this species and
fallen timber will be retained. The proposal is largely consistent with these recovery
strategies.
(g) whether the action proposed constitutes or is part of a key threatening process
or is likely to result in the operation of, or increase the impact of, a key threatening
process.
Response:
The proposal contributes to the Key Threatening Process Clearing of Native Vegetation.
REFERENCES
Barrett, G., Silcocks, A., Barry, S., Cunningham, R. and Poulter, R. (2003) The new atlas of
Australian birds. RAOU: Melbourne
Barrett, G.W., Silcocks, A.F., Cunningham, R., Oliver, D.L., Weston, M.A. and Baker, J. (2007)
Comparison of atlas data to determine the conservation status of bird species in
New South Wales, with an emphasis on woodland-dependent species. Australian
Zoologist 34:37-77
Blakers, M., Davies, S.J.J.F. and Reilly, P.N. (1984) The atlas of Australian birds. Melbourne
University Press: Melbourne
Debus, S.J.S. and Soderquist, T.R. (2008) Report for Review of Species for the NSW
Scientific Committee: Varied Sittella Daphoenositta chrysoptera
Higgins, P.J. and Peter, J.M. (Eds) (2002) Handbook of Australian, New Zealand and
Antarctic birds (vol. 6). Oxford University Press: Melbourne
IUCN (2008) Guidelines for using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria. Version 7.0.
Standards and Petitions Working Group of the IUCN Species Survival Commission
Biodiversity
Assessments
Sub-committee:
Switzerland.
http://intranet.iucn.org/webfiles/doc/SSC/RedList/RedListGuidelines.pdf
Lindenmayer, D., Bennett, A. and Hobbs, R. (2010) Temperate Woodland Conservation and
Management. CSIRO Publishing
NSW Scientific Committee (2010) Varied Sittella Vulnerable Species Listing. Final
Determination
Office of Environment and Heritage (2015a) Threatened Species Profiles
(http://www.threatenedspecies.environment.nsw.gov.au)
Office of Environment and Heritage (2015b) Daphoenositta chrysoptera Varied Sittella
Species
Conservation
Project
(http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/savingourspeciesapp/SearchResults.asp
x)
Olsen, P., Weston, M., Tzaros, C. and Silcocks, A. (2005) The state of Australia's birds 2005:
Woodlands and birds. Supplement to Wingspan 15:32 pp
Pizzey, G. and Knight, F. (2003) The Field Guide to the Birds of Australia 7th Edition.
Menkhorst, P. (ed). HarperCollins.
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015
178
Seddon, J.A., Briggs, S.V. and Doyle, S.J. (2003) Relationships between bird species and
characteristics of woodland remnants in central New South Wales. Pacific
Conservation Biology 9:95-119
Watson, J., Freudenberger D. and Paull, D. (2001) An assessment of the focal-species
approach for conserving birds in variegated landscapes in southeastern Australia.
Conservation Biology 15:1364-1373
Watson, J., Watson, A., Paull, D. and Freudenberger, D. (2003) Woodland fragmentation is
causing the decline of species and functional groups of birds in southeastern
Australia. Pacific Conservation Biology 8:261-270
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015
179
Controls are also in place under the Native Vegetation Act 2003 and the Environment
Planning and Assessment Act (1979), including the subordinate planning instrument
State Environmental Planning Policy No. 44 Koala Habitat Protection.
The Koala is a medium sized marsupial with large rounded ears, dense woolly coat, long
limbs with strong claws and a very short tail (Martin et al. 2008). It spends majority of its
time in tress only coming to the ground to move between trees (Smith 1979a). They can
gallop swiftly across the ground and, are also excellent swimmers (Martin 1995). This
species has an extensive, but disjunct distribution ranging from north-eastern
Queensland to the south-east corner of South Australia (Department of the Environment
2015, ANZECC 1998).
With very specific dietary ranges, Koalas are restricted to eucalypt forests and woodland
bearing certain favoured feed tree species (Martin 1995). They feed on foliage of more
than 70 species of eucalypt and 30 non-eucalypt species with preferred species selected
(OEH 2015a). In south eastern Australia, up to 24 species of Eucalyptus are known to be
eaten by Koalas (Lee and Carrick 1989) with regional preferences apparent. In the south,
preferred species include Eucalyptus viminalis Manna Gum, Eucalyptus ovatus Swamp
Gum and Eucalyptus globulus Tasmanian Blue Gum while in the north, red gums
(Eucalyptus tereticornis Forest Red Gum and Eucalyptus camaldulensis River Red Gum),
Grey Gums (Eucalyptus punctata Grey Gum and Eucalyptus propinqua Small-fruited Grey
Gum) and Eucalyptus microcorys Tallowwood are important (Martin et al. 2008).
The suitability of habitat for Koalas is highly influenced by a number of variables including
the size and species of trees, soil nutrients, climate, rainfall and disturbance history (NSW
NPWS 2003). There is considerable local and regional variation in preferences for feed
tree species (Martin and Handasyde 1995) and the food preferences may also change with
season (Lee and Carrick 1989).
A study by Lunney et al. (2002) identified a decline in the population of Koalas at Iluka in
the Clarence Valley LGA. The study identified major causes for the decline in the species
with threats of habitat loss, traffic and dogs being significantly due to urban development.
Other threats included fire, feral pigs and disease which causes low fertility within the
species (Lunney et al. 2002).
Due to the low nutritional value of their diet, Koalas are inactive for up to 20 hours a day
(Menkhorst and Knight 2001). They spend most of the day resting in trees and are most
active in the late afternoon and at night, which coincides with a peak in feeding behaviour
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015
180
(Hindell et al. 1985). They usually rest low in the fork of a tree and climb to the canopy at
night to feed (Martin et al. 2008).
Breeding occurs between October and May with females potentially producing one
offspring each year (McLean 2003). Cubs remain dependent on their mother until they
become independent at 12 months of age (Department of the Environment 2015) but will
still associate with her (such as feeding in the same tree) until dispersing to their own
territory (Martin et al. 2008). Males may not set up a new territory until 2 or 3 years of
age and females often breed in a home range adjacent to their natal site (Martin et al.
2008). Juveniles may continue to wander until up to 5 years of age (Eberhard 1978 quoted
in Lee and Carrick 1989).
Studies of Koalas on Kangaroo Island, South Australia, revealed that adults were generally
sedentary, using about 15 trees within a largely exclusive home range of 1 2.5 hectares.
However, home ranges may be much larger (up to 100 hectares) in poorer habitat such
as in semi-arid areas (Martin et al. 2008). The home ranges of some males may spatially
overlap those of females and they may also share some trees. Males do not defend
territories but males act aggressively to other males during the breeding season (Martin
et al. 2008). Adult males bellow loudly at this time to advertise their presence to other
males and receptive females in the vicinity (Martin et al. 2008).
The effects of disease on Koalas are of growing concern with Chlamydia being the most
well-known disease present in Koalas (Department of the Environment, 2015).
Chlamydia may limit the reproductive potential of Koala populations and in turn can
cause decline in the population. Other diseases that afflict this species include anaemia,
tick infections, malignant blood disease and pneumonia (Dickens 1978, quoted in Lee and
Carrick 1989). A new disease has also been recently discovered with Koala Retrovirus
(KoRV) thought to be responsible for numerous conditions including leukaemia and an
immunodeficiency syndrome (Tarlinton et al. 2005).
Historically, the principal predators of Koalas were likely to have been Aborigines and the
dingo (Lee and Carrick 1989). Today, the only known predators are Aquila audax Wedgetailed Eagle and Ninox strenua Powerful Owl, both of which are known to take juveniles
(Eberhard 1978, quoted in Lee and Carrick 1989).
Threats to the conservation of this species (in order of their general importance
throughout NSW) include habitat loss and fragmentation, habitat degradation, road kills,
dog attacks, fire, logging, disease, severe weather conditions, swimming pools and
overbrowsing (NSW NPWS 2003, DECC 2008a). Surveys across NSW indicate that, since
1949, Koala populations have been lost from many areas, particularly on the southern and
western edges of their distribution (Reed et al. 1990, quoted in NSW NPWS 2003). Despite
the presence of suitable habitat, Koalas still occur in fragmented populations perhaps
demonstrating the difficulty of recovery of populations in fragmented habitats suffering
ongoing threats (NSW NPWS 2003, DECC 2008a).
Food trees have been categorised as primary, secondary and supplementary based on the
measured level of use by Koalas (NSW NPWS 2003, DECC 2008a). Further, the potential
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015
181
value of habitat to Koalas has been determined by the relative abundance of primary,
secondary and supplementary food trees (NSW NPWS 2003, DECC 2008a).
This species was recorded in a single image from a terrestrial camera trap. The animal
was photographed moving across the ground in a northerly direction across the centre of
the site. As it was not in the canopy, it was not foraging. The head only was evident in the
photograph, so there is no information regarding the presence or absence of a joey. This
result prompted further comprehensive survey to be undertaken, but it was not recorded
otherwise during this survey, but scats of this species were identified by Fitzgerald (2005)
somewhere on site.
The leaves of some of the other canopy species on site are recognised food tree species for
Phascolarctos cinereus Koala, namely Eucalyptus tereticornis Forest Red Gum, Eucalyptus
propinqua Small-fruited Grey Gum and Corymbia intermedia Pink Bloodwood. However,
such a tree composition is defined as relatively low quality Koala habitat and is probably
only capable of supporting low density Koala populations (DECC 2008).
The Iluka Koalas were strongly associated with Eucalyptus tereticornis Forest Red Gum,
but this species of tree has not regenerated in the sand mining areas. The very low
numbers of this species on the subject site is further testament to that observation.
A modelling study of the Iluka population (Lunney et al. 2002) concluded that the decline
and eventual extinction of the Iluka population was inexorable, unless there was a major
influx of migrating Koalas and significant alterations to the factors influencing disease and
mortality. Thus, the provisions of corridors to and from known populations is important,
as are improvements in the condition of their habitat, and control of causes of mortality.
(a) in the case of a threatened species, whether the action proposed is likely to have
an adverse effect on the life cycle of the species such that a viable local population of
the species is likely to be placed at risk of extinction,
Response:
The development proposal will remove a substantial area of vegetation, but this is
demonstrably very poor habitat. The evidence indicates that the animal recorded on site
was moving through the site (and not foraging on the site), presumably to better habitat
to the north, where there is no evidence of sand mining and primary Koala food trees are
present. For example, both Eucalyptus tereticornis Forest Red Gum and Eucalyptus robusta
Swamp Mahogany (another primary food tree) occur on the golf course.
All possible design elements have been incorporated into the layout of the proposal in
order to accommodate this species. The best habitat (in Park 2) has been retained in its
entirety. This will also facilitate north-south movements as was observed on site. Other
potential habitat where Eucalyptus tereticornis Forest Red Gum was observed on site is to
be retained and rehabilitated in Park 1. This will also facilitate east-west movements.
The streetscapes are to be landscaped for Koalas in particular (using food trees and
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015
182
planted at intervals recommended by expert panel) and other threatening processes are
to be controlled (such as traffic and dogs). Thus, it is considered unlikely that the proposal
will place a viable local population at risk of extinction.
(b) in the case of an endangered population, whether the action proposed is likely to
have an adverse effect on the life cycle of the species that constitutes the endangered
population such that a viable local population of the species is likely to be placed at
risk of extinction,
Response:
This question is not relevant to a threatened species.
(ii) is likely to substantially and adversely modify the composition of the ecological
community such that its local occurrence is likely to be placed at risk of extinction,
Response:
This question is not relevant to a threatened species.
(ii) whether an area of habitat is likely to become fragmented or isolated from other
areas of habitat as a result of the proposed action, and
Response:
The configuration of retained and rehabilitated vegetation will facilitate the movements
of Koalas across the site and in the local area.
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015
183
Response:
No critical habitat has been declared for this species.
(f) whether the action proposed is consistent with the objectives or actions of a
recovery plan or threat abatement plan,
Response:
A number of objectives and strategies for this species have been detailed in the Recovery
Plan for the Koala (DECC 2008a). Of relevance to this proposal are the following recovery
actions:
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015
184
Protect populations close to urban areas from attacks by domestic dogs; and
Revegetate with suitable feed tree species and develop habitat corridors between
populations.
These objectives and strategies are served by this assessment process with survey
conducted for this species and recommendations made for minimisation of potential
impact and conservation of important habitat features. They are also partly satisfied by
the provision of survey data to the relevant authorities.
(g) whether the action proposed constitutes or is part of a key threatening process
or is likely to result in the operation of, or increase the impact of, a key threatening
process.
Response:
The proposal will contribute to the Key Threatening Process Clearing of Native
Vegetation.
REFERENCES
185
Van Dyck, S. and Strahan, R. (Eds.) The Mammals of Australia. Third edition. Reed
New Holland, Australia
McAlpine, C., Rhodes, J., Peterson, A., Possingham, H., Callaghan, J., Curran, T, Mitchell, D.
and Lunney, D. (2007) Planning guidelines for koala conservation and recovery a guide to best planning practice. Australian Koala Foundation and The University
of Queensland
Menkhorst, P and Knight, F. (2001) A Field Guide to the Mammals of Australia. Oxford
University Press, Melbourne Australia.
Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council (2009) National Koala Conservation
and Management Strategy 20092014. Department of the Environment, Water,
Heritage and the Arts, Canberra.
NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service 2003, Approved Recovery Plan for the Hawks Nest
and Tea Gardens Endangered Koala (Phascolarctos cinereus) Population, NSW
National Parks and Wildlife Service, Hurstville.
Office of Environment and Heritage (2012) Atlas of NSW Wildlife
(http://www.bionet.nsw.gov.au/)
Office of Environment and Heritage (2015a) Threatened Species Profile
(http://www.threatenedspecies.environment.nsw.gov.au/tsprofile/)
Office of Environment and Heritage (2015b) Koala in the Pittwater Local Government Area
Species
Conservation
Project
(http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/savingourspeciesapp/SearchResults.asp
x)
Office of Environment and Heritage (2015c) Koala, Hawks Nest and Tea Gardens
population
Species
Conservation
Project
(http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/savingourspeciesapp/SearchResults.asp
x)
Smith, M.T.A. (1979a) Behaviour of the Koala, Phascolarctos cinereus (Goldfuss) in
captivity. I. Non-social behaviour. Australian Wildlife Research 6: 117-128
Smith, M.T.A. (1979b) Behaviour of the Koala, Phascolarctos cinereus (Goldfuss), in
captivity. II. Parental and infantile behaviour. Australian Wildlife Research 6: 129140
Tarlinton, R., J. Meers, J. Hanger and P. Young (2005). Real-time reverse transcriptase PCR
for the endogenous koala retrovirus reveals an association between plasma viral
load and neoplastic disease in koalas. Journal of General Virology. 86:783-787.
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015
186
The Grey-headed Flying-fox is a large flying-fox with a white or greyish head, reddish
mantle around the neck and thick, shaggy fur extending to the ankles (Strahan 1995). This
species has a distribution along eastern coastal Australia from Rockhampton in
Queensland to western Victoria (Churchill 2008). The Grey-headed Flying-fox occurs in a
variety of habitats including subtropical and temperate rainforests, sclerophyll forests,
woodlands, as well as urban areas (OEH 2015a). It also frequents mangroves, paperbark
swamps and cultivated areas (Churchill 1998). It is usually seen in large, noisy colonies,
or in day camps usually placed close to water in gullies with dense forest canopies
(Tidemann 1995). This is a highly mobile species, and camps are regularly moved in
response to local food availability (Churchill 1998). Most births occur around October
(Strahan 1995).
They forage widely at night mainly for rainforest fruits and native blossoms (Strahan
1995), and this species is likely to be an important pollinator for many native species
(Tidemann 1995). Seventy-five percent of foraging forays are within 20 kilometres of the
camp but some individuals may commute 50 kilometres to a productive food sources
(Tidemann et al. 2008).
They have been recorded as feeding on 201 plant species of 50 families, with almost half
of these in the Myrtaceae (Churchill 2008) but the pollen and nectar of Eucalyptus,
Melaleuca and Banksia (Eby 2000) are their principal foods. Native figs are also important
and they also appear to eat the salt glands from mangrove trees (Churchill 2008).
The availability of native fruits, nectar and pollen varies over time and throughout the
range of the species. This species is highly nomadic in response to the uneven distribution
of their food plants, sometimes travelling hundreds of kilometres to find suitable
resources and / or feeding in domestic gardens, parks and orchards. Such characteristics
make it very difficult to define key habitat areas (Eby and Lunney 2002). Also, the areas
that offer foraging resources at any time are small and vary in location between years
(Eby and Lunney 2002).
Although variable, a general pattern of movement can be discerned. Almost half of the
eucalypt species used by the Grey-headed Flying-fox flower in summer and such summerflowering species are distributed throughout their range. Thus, in summer, this species is
generally widely dispersed.
However, the winter-flowering species they use are largely restricted to the woodlands
of the western slopes or the lowland coastal communities (Eby and Lunney 2002). Thus,
they are usually highly aggregated in winter, depending on where the nectar is flowing.
This winter convergence makes the species vulnerable to changes in these coastal
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015
187
Even in areas of remaining forest, nectar flow itself is impacted upon by dieback, drought,
fire, and local fluctuations in temperature and rainfall (Eby and Lunney 2002).
The spring also presents potential bottlenecks for this species as several key springflowering trees are primarily confined to relatively flat and fertile land such as has already
been extensively cleared and is still favoured by development (Eby and Lunney 2002).
This also coincides with the time of birth of young when there is an added nutritional
requirement and the females do not venture far from the maternity camp to feed.
These camps may contain tens of thousands animals, depending upon the abundance of
locally available food sources. They are generally located in close proximity (20 km or
less) to a regular food source, often in stands of riparian rainforest, Paperbark or
Casuarina forest (Eby 1995). Site fidelity is high and some camps in NSW have been used
for over a century (Eby 2000).
Being so highly mobile, connectivity of forest patches is not critical for this species to be
able to exploit different areas of vegetation. However, they are impacted by direct loss of
habitat as well as via long term changes on critical features such as nectar flow wrought
by dieback and other consequences of forest fragmentation.
The number of species of fruits and flowers exploited by this species is large, as befitting
its extraordinarily broad distribution along the east coast of Australia.
This species was not observed during survey but is likely to occur on site when
appropriate feed trees are in flower or fruit. The site is 50 kilometres straight-line
distance from the nearest large colony on Susan Island at Grafton. The large areas of
vegetated coastal dunes dominated by Banksia are recognised important foraging habitat
for this species, particularly in the winter months. The potential habitat on site is likely to
be of lesser importance but may still be exploited.
(a) in the case of a threatened species, whether the action proposed is likely to have
an adverse effect on the life cycle of the species such that a viable local population of
the species is likely to be placed at risk of extinction,
Response:
No critical life cycle features for this species were observed on or near the subject no
camps have been recorded from this area nor is there habitat on the site suitable for one.
The proposal will remove potential food trees, but similar and better foraging
opportunities exist for this species in adjacent habitat, most of which is reserved.
Therefore it is unlikely the proposal will place a viable local population at risk of
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015
188
extinction.
(b) in the case of an endangered population, whether the action proposed is likely to
have an adverse effect on the life cycle of the species that constitutes the endangered
population such that a viable local population of the species is likely to be placed at
risk of extinction,
Response:
This question is not relevant to a threatened species.
(ii) is likely to substantially and adversely modify the composition of the ecological
community such that its local occurrence is likely to be placed at risk of extinction,
Response:
This question is not relevant to a threatened species.
(ii) whether an area of habitat is likely to become fragmented or isolated from other
areas of habitat as a result of the proposed action, and
Response:
This is a highly mobile species, able to exploit widely separated resources and known to
feed in highly urbanised areas. The proposal is unlikely to interfere with its ability to move
through the landscape and / or access suitable habitat.
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015
189
Response:
No critical habitat has been declared for this species.
(f) whether the action proposed is consistent with the objectives or actions of a
recovery plan or threat abatement plan,
Response:
A draft recovery plan for this species has been released (DECCW 2009) within which 10
major recovery actions have been identified:
Identify and protect foraging habitat critical to the survival of Grey-headed Flyingfoxes across their range;
Enhance winter and spring foraging habitat for Grey-headed Flying-foxes;
Identify, protect and enhance roosting habitat critical to the survival of Greyheaded Flying-foxes;
Significantly reduce levels of deliberate Grey-headed Flying-fox destruction
associated with commercial horticulture;
Provide information and advice to managers, community groups and members of
the public that are involved with controversial flying-fox camps;
Produce and circulate educational resources to improve public attitudes toward
Grey-headed Flying-foxes, promote the recovery program to the wider
community and encourage participation in recovery actions;
Monitor population trends for the Grey-headed Flying-fox;
Assess the impacts on Grey-headed Flying-foxes of electrocution on powerlines
and entanglement in netting and barbed wire, and implement strategies to reduce
these impacts;
Oversee a program of research to improve knowledge of the demographics and
population structure of the Grey-headed Flying-fox; and
Maintain a National Recovery Team to oversee the implementation of the Greyheaded Flying-fox National Recovery Plan
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015
190
This species has been assigned to the landscape species management stream under the
NSW Office of Environment and Heritage. The following management actions have been
identified for this species as part of that process (OEH 2015b):
Set priorities for protecting foraging habitat critical to the survival of Grey-headed
Flying-foxes and generate maps of priority foraging habitat.
Protect and enhance priority foraging habitat for Grey-headed Flying-foxes, for
example through management plans, local environmental plans and development
assessments, and through volunteer conservation programs for privately owned
land.
Increase the extent and viability of foraging habitat for Grey-headed Flying-foxes
that is productive during winter and spring (generally times of food shortage),
including habitat restoration/rehabilitation works.
Establish and maintain a range-wide database of Grey-headed Flying-fox camps,
including information on location, tenure, zoning and history of use, for
distribution to land management/planning authorities, researchers and
interested public.
Improve knowledge of Grey-headed Flying-fox camp locations, targeting regional
areas and seasons where information is notably incomplete, such as inland areas
during spring and summer.
Protect roosting habitat critical to the survival of Grey-headed Flying-foxes, for
example through management plans, local environmental plans and development
assessments, and through volunteer conservation programs for privately owned
land.
Determine characteristics of roosting habitat for Grey-headed Flying-foxes,
exploring the roles of floristic composition, vegetation structure, microclimate
and landscape features, and assess the status of camps.
Enhance and sustain the vegetation of camps critical to the survival of Greyheaded Flying-foxes.
Develop and promote incentives to reduce killing of flying-foxes in commercial
fruit crops.
Identify the commercial fruit industries that are impacted by Grey-headed Flyingfoxes, to provide an information base for use by the various stakeholders.
Systematically document the levels of flying-fox damage to the horticulture
industry within the range of the Grey-headed Flying-fox.
Develop methods for rapid estimates of flying-fox damage on commercial crops,
allowing the long-term monitoring of industry-wide levels and patterns of flyingfox damage.
Develop and implement a grower-based program to monitor trends in damage to
commercial fruit crops by flying-foxes, and use the results to monitor the
performance of actions to reduce crop damage.
Develop methods to monitor landscape scale nectar availability trends, to
explain/potentially predict crop damage trends where crop protection is absent,
and promote importance of foraging habitat productive in seasons critical to the
horticulture industry.
Describe the species, age structure and demographics of flying-foxes killed in fruit
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015
191
A number of specific recovery activities aim to recover the species through (OEH 2015a):
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015
192
barbed-wire.
Increase public awareness/understanding about flying-foxes, and their
involvement in flying-fox conservation.
Monitor the national population's status and distribution.
Improve knowledge on demographics and population structure to better
understand ecological requirements of the species.
The survey and assessment process has identified that the site supports very little habitat
for this species and none of a critical nature. The proposal is largely consistent with these
recovery strategies.
(g) whether the action proposed constitutes or is part of a key threatening process or
is likely to result in the operation of, or increase the impact of, a key threatening
process.
Response:
The proposed works contribute to the Key Threatening Process Clearing of Native
Vegetation.
REFERENCES
Australasian Bat Society (2001) Diet list for the Grey-headed Flying-fox Pteropus
poliocephalus
Churchill, S. (1998) Australian Bats. Reed New Holland, Sydney Australia
Churchill, S. (2008) Australian Bats. Second edition. Reed New Holland, Sydney Australia
Department of Environment and Climate Change (2008) The Vertebrate Fauna of
Southern Yengo National Park and Parr State Conservation Area. Department of
Environment and Climate Change, Hurstville
Department of Environment and Conservation (2005) The Vertebrate Fauna of Northern
Yengo National Park. Department of Environment and Climate Change, Hurstville
Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (2009) Draft National Recovery
Plan for the Grey-headed Flying-fox Pteropus poliocephalus. Prepared by Dr Peggy
Eby. Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water NSW, Sydney
Office of Environment and Heritage (2015a) Threatened Species Profile
(http://www.threatenedspecies.environment.nsw.gov.au/tsprofile/)
Office of Environment and Heritage (2015b) Grey-headed Flying-fox Species
Conservation
Project
(http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/savingourspeciesapp/SearchResults.asp
x)
Eby, P. (1991) Seasonal movements of Grey-headed Flying-foxes, Pteropus poliocephalus
(Chiroptera: Pteropodidae), from two maternity camps in northern New South
Wales. Wildlife Research 18: 547-559
Eby, P. (1995) The biology and management of flying-foxes in NSW; Species management
report number 18. Llewellyn, L. (ed). NPWS, Hurstville
Eby, P. (2000) The results of four synchronous assessments of relative distribution and
abundance of Grey-headed Flying-fox Pteropus poliocephalus. In Proceedings of a
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015
193
Workshop to Assess the Status of the Grey-headed Flying-fox in New South Wales.
Richards, G. (ed). http://batcall.csu.edu.au/abs/ghff/ghffproceedings.pdf
Eby, P. (2000) A case for listing Grey-headed Flying-fox Pteropus poliocephalus as
threatened in NSW under IUCN criterion A2. In Proceedings of a Workshop to
Assess the Status of the Grey-headed Flying-fox in New South Wales
Eby, P. and Lunney, D. (2002) Managing the Grey-headed Flying-fox Pteropus
poliocephalus as a threatened species in NSW: adjusting to a long-term vision pp
273-284 in Managing the Grey-headed Flying-fox as a threatened Species in New
South Wales ed by P. Eby and D. Lunney, Royal Zoological Society of NSW, Mosman
Menkhorst, P and Knight, F. (2001) A Field Guide to the Mammals of Australia. Oxford
University Press, Melbourne Australia
NSW Scientific Committee (2001) Grey-headed Flying-fox Vulnerable Species Listing.
Final Determination
Strahan, R. (1995) A Photographic Guide to Mammals of Australia. New Holland, Sydney
Australia
Tidemann, C.R. (1995). Grey-headed Flying-fox. In: Strahan, R (Ed.) (1995) The Mammals
of Australia. Reed New Holland, Australia
Tidemann, C.R., Eby, P., Parry-Jones, K.A. and Nelson, J.E. (2008) Grey-headed Flying-fox
Pteropus poliocephalus In: Van Dyck, S. and Strahan, R. (Eds.) The Mammals of
Australia. Third edition. Reed New Holland, Australia
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015
194
Common Blossom bats are small megachiropteran bats with a specialised diet of nectar
and pollen (OEH 2015a). They can grow up to 6cm long (Australian Museum Online 2014)
and weigh approximately 19 grams (Nelson 1989). They have long muzzles and brush like
tongues (OEH 2015a) and commonly feed on the nectar and pollen of bottlebrush,
paperbark, banksia and gum tree blossoms (Australian Museum Online 2014).
They are found along coastal areas of eastern Australia from Hawks Nest NSW to Cape
York Peninsula in Queensland (OEH 2015a), roosting in Rainforest, wet eucalypt forest
and paperbark swamps (Australian Museum Online 2014). They roost solitarily from tree
branches, hidden by leaves (Australian Museum Online 2014).
This species shows strong fidelity to feeding sites, travelling up to 4 kilometres between
rainforest roosts and heathland feeding grounds on the NSW North Coast (Law and
Spencer 1995). Where the roosting habitat was more fragmented, commuting distances
were greater (Law and Spencer 1995). Roost sites shifted seasonally, from the more
exposed edges in spring and autumn to the protected rainforest interior in winter,
presumably as a response to cold (Law and Spencer 1995).
They are probably important pollinators, hovering like a hummingbird in front of flowers
when feeding (Australian Museum Online 2014).
This species is threatened by fragmentation and loss of feeding and roosting habitat and
weeds that suppress the regeneration of key food trees, such as coastal Banksias (OEH
2015a).
This species was not observed during survey but a breeding population is known to occur
in the adjacent Iluka Nature Reserve. It is a specialist feeder of nectar and pollen and
therefore requires high quality foraging habitat such as occurs in the Banksia-dominated
coastal dunes of the nearby reserves. It roosts hanging from tree branches, near to
foraging habitat.
(a) in the case of a threatened species, whether the action proposed is likely to have
an adverse effect on the life cycle of the species such that a viable local population of
the species is likely to be placed at risk of extinction,
Response:
The subject site provides potential habitat of lesser value than is available in the nearby
reserves, but the best potential habitat on site is within the swamp forest in the western
end of the site. This will be entirely retained and managed for conservation purposes.
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015
195
(b) in the case of an endangered population, whether the action proposed is likely to
have an adverse effect on the life cycle of the species that constitutes the endangered
population such that a viable local population of the species is likely to be placed at
risk of extinction,
Response:
This question is not relevant to a threatened species.
(ii) is likely to substantially and adversely modify the composition of the ecological
community such that its local occurrence is likely to be placed at risk of extinction,
Response:
This question is not relevant to a threatened species.
(ii) whether an area of habitat is likely to become fragmented or isolated from other
areas of habitat as a result of the proposed action, and
Response:
This is a highly mobile species able to traverse gaps in their habitat, travelling up to 4
kilometres to favoured feeding areas. The proposal is unlikely to prevent this species from
moving through the landscape. Also, the proposal specifically includes habitat retention
in a configuration such that retains north-south and east-west connectivity of habitat.
(iii) the importance of the habitat to be removed, modified, fragmented or isolated
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015
196
(f) whether the action proposed is consistent with the objectives or actions of a
recovery plan or threat abatement plan,
Response:
This species has been assigned to the Partnership species management stream under
the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage. These are species that have less than 10%
of their distribution in NSW and so conservation may depend on partnership programs
with other states or territories. The following management actions have been identified
for this species as part of that process (OEH 2015b):
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015
197
10.
11.
12.
13.
A number of specific recovery activities have also been identified (OEH 2015a):
The proposal does not impinge on roost sites or key foraging areas for this species. Thus
the proposal is largely consistent with the recovery actions for this species.
(g) whether the action proposed constitutes or is part of a key threatening process
or is likely to result in the operation of, or increase the impact of, a key threatening
process.
Response:
The proposed works contribute to the Key Threatening Process Clearing of Native
Vegetation.
REFERENCES
Australian Museum Online (2014) Animal Species: Common Blossom Bat. Australian
Museum. Available at (http://australianmuseum.net.au/common-blossom-bat)
Byron Biodiversity Conservation Strategy, 2004. Byron Shire Council, Mullumbimby
Churchill, S. (2008). Australian Bats Second Edition. Allen and Unwin, Crows Nest, NSW
DEC November 2004. Draft Threatened Species Survey and Assessment: Guidelines for
Development and Activities (Working Draft). Department of Environment and
Conservation (NSW), Hurstville, NSW
Department of Environment and Conservation 2005. Common Blossom bat profile.
www.threatenedspecies.environment.nsw.gov. au (accessed 23/11/2009)
Dodkin, M.J. and Gilmore, A.M. 1985. Species and ecosystems at risk. Pp. 33-52 in Love, A.
and Dyson, R. (eds), Bitou Bush and Boneseed A National Conference on
Chrysanthemoides monilifera. National Parks and Wildlife Service and
Department of Agriculture, NSW. Geiser, G. 1998. Cool bats. Nature Australia,
Winter1998: 56-63.
Geiser, F., Coburn, D.K., Kortner, G. and Law, B. 1996. Thermoregulation, energy
metabolism, and torpor in blossom-bats, Syconycteris australis (Megachiroptera).
Journal of Zoology 239: 583-90
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015
198
Hall, L. and Richards, G. 2000. Flying-foxes; Fruit and Blossom Bats of Australia. UNSW
Press, Sydney.
Law, B. S. 1996. Residency and site fidelity of marked populations of the common
blossom-bat Syconycteris australis in relation to the availability of Banksia
inflorescences in New South Wales, Australia. Oikos 77: 447-458.
Law, B. S. 2001. The diet of the common blossom-bat (Syconycteris australis) in upland
tropical rainforest and the importance of riparian areas. Wildlife Research 28:
619-626. Wildcare Australia. N.d. Flying Foxes. Accessed 8/12/09 from,
http://www.wildcare.org.au/html/flying_foxes.htm
Law, B.S. 1992. Physiological factors affecting pollen use by Queensland Blossom Bats
(Syconycteris australis). Functional Ecology 6: 257-264.
Law, B.S. 1993. Roosting and foraging ecology of the blossom bat, Syconycteris australis,
in north-eastern New South Wales: flexibility in response to seasonal variation.
Wildlife Research 20: 419-431.
Law, B.S. 1994a. Banksia nectar and pollen: dietary items affecting the abundance of the
common blossom bat, Syconycteris australis, in south-eastern Australia.
Australian Journal of Ecology 19: 425- 434.
Law, B.S. 1994b. Climatic limitation of the southern distribution of the common blossom
bat Syconycteris australis in New South Wales. Australian Journal of Ecology 19:
366-374.
Law, B.S. and Spencer, H.J. (1995) Common Blossom-bat Syconycteris australis. Pp. 423-5
in Strahan, R.(ed.) The Mammals of Australia. Reed Books, Sydney.
Nelson, J E. (1989) Pteropodidae. In Walton, D.W. and B.J. Richardson (eds.). Fauna of
Australia, Vol. 1B. Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra, ACT,
Australia. 852856.
Office of Environment and Heritage (2015a) Threatened Species Profile
(http://www.threatenedspecies.environment.nsw.gov.au/tsprofile/)
Office of Environment and Heritage (2015b) Common Blossom Bat Species Conservation
Project
(http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/savingourspeciesapp/SearchResults.asp
x)
Winkelman, J. R., Bonacorso, F. J. and Strickler, T. L. 2000. Home range of the southern
blossom bat Syconycteris australis, in Papua New Guinea. Journal of Mammalogy
81(2): 408-414.
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015
199
The Eastern Freetail-bat has dark brown to reddish brown fur on the back and is slightly
paler below. Like other freetail-bats it has a long (3 - 4 cm) bare tail protruding from the
tail membrane (OEH 2015a).
The Eastern Freetail-bat is an insectivore but nothing specific is known about its diet
(Churchill 1998, 2008). It is thought that they forage within a few kilometres of their roost
(Churchill 2008, Hoye et al. 2008).
It is found along the east coast from south eastern Queensland to southern NSW (OEH
2015a). Most records are from dry eucalypt forest and woodland, although a number have
been caught flying low over a rocky river through rainforest and wet sclerophyll forest
(Hoye et al. 2008). Research in coastal forests near Coffs Harbour have shown that it is
more active on upper slopes where the flyways are open and uncluttered, rather than
along creeks (Hoye et al. 2008).
Although it has been recorded roosting in the roof of a hut, under bark and the caps of
telegraph poles, it is more usually found in hollows in large mature trees (Churchill 2008).
All natural roost sites have been found in large mature eucalypts and they will use
paddock trees and remnant vegetation in farmland (Hoye et al. 2008). They will also roost
in artificial roosts, with a colony in NSW known to use the same boxes for over 5 years
(Churchill 2008).
Young are born in late November or early December and are free-flying by late January
(Hoye et al. 2008).
A survey of the fauna of the large sandstone-based reserves around the northern Sydney
fringe found that this species was infrequently recorded within these reserves and it is
thought that they may prefer the larger alluvial valleys and coastal plains (DEC 2005,
DECC 2008).
This species was recorded foraging on the subject site during survey.
(a) in the case of a threatened species, whether the action proposed is likely to have
an adverse effect on the life cycle of the species such that a viable local population of
the species is likely to be placed at risk of extinction,
Response:
The subject site provides both foraging habitat for this species and potential breeding
sites (hollow-bearing trees). Suitable hollows to be removed will be compensated for with
replacement nest boxes. The potential and realised habitat on site would only represent
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015
200
a very small proportion of what is available locally and regionally as this species is highly
mobile, able to exploit widely separated resources.
(b) in the case of an endangered population, whether the action proposed is likely to
have an adverse effect on the life cycle of the species that constitutes the endangered
population such that a viable local population of the species is likely to be placed at
risk of extinction,
Response:
This question is not relevant to a threatened species.
(ii) is likely to substantially and adversely modify the composition of the ecological
community such that its local occurrence is likely to be placed at risk of extinction,
Response:
This question is not relevant to a threatened species.
201
unlikely to prevent this species from moving around the landscape or accessing required
resources. Moreover, the proposal has been designed specifically so that north-south and
east-west wildlife corridors will remain.
(iii) the importance of the habitat to be removed, modified, fragmented or isolated to
the long-term survival of the species, population or ecological community in the
locality,
Response:
It is unlikely that the poor quality foraging habitat on site is an important resource for a
local population of this species. However, the loss of hollow-bearing trees has a greater
chance of adverse impact, although a study of roost sites used by this species found all in
living healthy trees (McConville and Law 2013). In the absence of the proposal, the
inevitable collapse of the dead standing hollow-bearing trees will result in a restriction of
roosting habitat on site. Thus, the proposed replacement strategy (enabled by the
proposal) may be essential for the long-term persistence of this species on site.
(e) whether the action proposed is likely to have an adverse effect on critical habitat
(either directly or indirectly),
Response:
No critical habitat has been declared for this species.
(f) whether the action proposed is consistent with the objectives or actions of a
recovery plan or threat abatement plan,
Response:
The Department of Environment and Conservation has a prepared Priority Action
Statement to promote the recovery of the species. A total of 19 priority actions have been
identified and dividing into priorities of High, medium and Low (OEH 2015b).
The following Priority Actions have been classified as being of high priority (OEH 2015b):
1. Ensure the largest hollow bearing trees, inc. dead trees and paddock trees, are
given highest priority for retention in PVP assessments. Offsets should include
remnants in high productivity.
2. Research the roosting ecology of tree-roosting bats. For example identifying the
attributes of key roosts.
3. Research the degree of long-term fidelity to roost trees and roosting areas in order
to assess their importance and the effects of their removal.
4. Prepare EIA guidelines which address the retention of hollow bearing trees
maintaining diversity of age groups, species diversity, structural diversity. Give
priority to largest hollow bearing trees.
5. Identify the effects of fragmentation in a range of fragmented landscapes i.e. the
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015
202
The following Priority Actions have been classified as being of medium and low priority
(OEH 2015b):
1. Develop and promote State-wide bat awareness programs for schools, CMAs,
landholders and industry groups etc.
2. Develop and promote State-wide bat awareness programs for schools, CMAs,
landholders and industry groups etc.
3. Ensure the Code of Practice for private native forestry includes adequate
measures to protect large, hollow-bearing trees and viable numbers of recruit
trees.
4. Identify important foraging range and key habitat components for this species.
5. Identify the susceptibility of the species to pesticides.
6. Better define species distribution through survey in coastal lowlands on- and offreserve.
7. Research the effect of different burning regimes.
8. Investigate the effectiveness of logging prescriptions.
9. Undertake long-term monitoring of populations cross tenure in conjunction with
other bat species to document changes.
10. Study the ecology, habitat requirements and susceptibility to logging and other
forestry practices of this little-known species.
11. Quantify any benefits of local bat populations to reducing the impact of insect
pests on commercial crops.
A number of specific recovery activities have also been identified (OEH 2015a):
1. Retain hollow-bearing trees and provide for hollow tree recruitment.\;
2. Retain foraging habitat; and
3. Minimise the use of pesticides in foraging areas.
The 14 dead standing hollow-bearing trees identified in the development footprint cannot
be retained. However, all such trees can be retained within the Parks 1, 2 and 3. These
stags have a short life expectancy and the proposal allows for the replacement of the
roosting resource, thus addressing an inevitable but otherwise ignored problem. The
proposal therefore is largely consistent with the recovery strategies.
(g) whether the action proposed constitutes or is part of a key threatening process
or is likely to result in the operation of, or increase the impact of, a key threatening
process.
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015
203
Response:
The proposal contributes to the relevant Key Threatening Processes Clearing of Native
Vegetation and Loss of Hollow-Bering Trees.
REFERENCES
Allison, F.R. and Hoye, G.A. (1995) Eastern Freetail-bat. In: Strahan, R (Ed.) (1995) The
Mammals of Australia. Reed New Holland, Australia
Churchill, S. (1998) Australian Bats. Reed New Holland, Sydney Australia
Churchill, S. (2008) Australian Bats: Second Edition. Allen and Unwin, Sydney Australia
Department of Environment and Climate Change (2008) The Vertebrate Fauna of
Southern Yengo National Park and Parr State Conservation Area. Department of
Environment and Climate Change, Hurstville
Department of Environment and Conservation (2005) The Vertebrate Fauna of Northern
Yengo National Park. Department of Environment and Climate Change, Hurstville
Office of Environment and Heritage (2015a) Threatened Species Profiles
(http://www.threatenedspecies.environment.nsw.gov.au)
Office of Environment and Heritage (2015b) Mormopterus norfolkensis Eastern Freetailbat
Species
Conservation
Project
(http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/savingourspeciesapp/SearchResults.asp
x)
Hoye, G.A., Law, B.S. and Allison, F.R. (2008) East-coast Free-tailed Bat Mormopterus
norfolkensis in Van Dyck, S. and Strahan, R. (eds) The Mammals of Australia Third
edition. Reed New Holland, Sydney
Menkhorst, P. and Knight, F. (2001) A Field Guide to the Mammals of Australia. Oxford
University Press, Melbourne Australia
McConville, A. and Law, B. (2013) Observations on the roost characteristics of the Eastcoast Free-tailed Bat Mormopterus norfolkensis in two different regions of New
South Wales. Australian Zooloogist 36(3):355-363
NSW Scientific Committee (No Date) Eastern Freetail-bat Vulnerable Species Listing.
Final Determination
Strahan, R. (1995) A Photographic Guide to Mammals of Australia. New Holland, Sydney
Australia
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015
204
It is a small to medium-sized long-eared bat that can be distinguished from the common
species by its fur colour, nose and penis morphology and ear size (OEH 2015a).
It occurs from Cape York south to northern NSW, and in NSW appears to be confined to
the coastal plain and adjacent ranges (OEH 2015a). Its southern limit is typically around
the Clarence River area, with some records as far south as Coffs Harbour (OEH 2015a).
Although restricted in its range, it can be locally common (OEH 2015a).
It has been found in lowland subtropical rainforest, as well as wet and swamp eucalypt
forest and adjacent moist eucalypt forests. A large number of records come from coastal
rainforest and patches of coastal scrub (OEH 2015a). Foraging habitat is listed as wet
forest types including rainforest, monsoon forest, riverine forests of paperbark,
sometimes in tall open forest, dry sclerophyll forest and woodlands.
It roosts in a number of microhabitats: tree hollows, the hanging foliage of palms, in dense
clumps of foliage of rainforest trees, under bark and in shallow depressions on trunks and
branches, among epiphytes, in the roots of strangler figs, among dead fronds of tree ferns
and less often in buildings (OEH 2015a).
Breeding habitat is more restricted, with maternity sites known only in tree hollows (OEH
2015a). A study on the population in Iluka Nature Reserve concluded that they do not
travel far and that the animals captured within the Nature Reserve probably do not
venture outside of it for is foraging or roosting needs (Lunney et al. 1995). Further study
of the thermal characteristics of roosts and hibernation in this same population in winter
revealed large individual differences in roost site selection, doubtless reflecting very
different microclimates (Stawski et al. 2009) and perhaps explaining different individual
daily torpor patterns.
It is not known to exhibit any migratory behaviour and is detectable all year (OEH 2015a).
Recognised threats to this species include land clearing, loss of breeding and roosting
sites, invasion of its habitat by weeds (particularly Bitou Bush) and the use of pesticides
(OEH 2015a).
Foraging calls of a Nyctophilus possibly this species were recorded foraging in the
moist forest of the western boundary. As it is known to forage in close proximity to roost
sites (particularly when breeding in the spring), the roost sites are also likely to be within
the moist forest of the western boundary.
(a) in the case of a threatened species, whether the action proposed is likely to have
an adverse effect on the life cycle of the species such that a viable local population of
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015
205
Response:
This question is not relevant to a threatened species
(ii) is likely to substantially and adversely modify the composition of the ecological
community such that its local occurrence is likely to be placed at risk of extinction,
Response:
This question is not relevant to a threatened species.
206
relatively small areas, it is likely that the population is restricted to the high quality
vegetation that occurs at the western boundary and beyond to the west.
(ii) whether an area of habitat is likely to become fragmented or isolated from other
areas of habitat as a result of the proposed action, and
Response:
The extent and configuration of the vegetation used by this species will remain essentially
unchanged.
(e) whether the action proposed is likely to have an adverse effect on critical habitat
(either directly or indirectly),
Response:
No critical habitat has been declared for this species.
(f) whether the action proposed is consistent with the objectives or actions of a
recovery plan or threat abatement plan,
Response:
This species has been assigned to the Partnership species management stream by the
NSW Office of Environment and Heritage. A number of recovery strategies have been
identified (OEH 2015b):
1. Ensure the largest hollow bearing trees are given highest priority for retention in
PVP assessments (offsets should include remnants in high productivity) and other
or other land assessment tools.
2. Prepare EIA guidelines that include retention of hollow bearing trees, maintain
diversity of age groups, species and structural diversity. Give priority to largest
hollow bearing trees and remnants on high productivity soils.
3. Protect and enhance areas of low elevation rainforest, wet eucalypt forest and
coastal scrub across the species' range.
4. Investigate the effectiveness of logging prescriptions.
5. Determine the effectiveness of PVP assessment, offsets and actions for bats.
6. Control of rainforest/edge weed species, particularly Bitou Bush in coastal areas
as provided for in the approved TAP.
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015
207
7. Initiate and support rainforest and wet eucalypt forest regeneration projects. .
8. Identify the effects of fragmentation on the species. For example, movement and
persistence across a range of fragment sizes.
9. Determine the viability of populations and extent of use of remnant vegetation
and revegetation in areas abutting coastal developments.
10. Assess the habitat requirements and susceptibility to logging and other forestry
practices.
11. Undertake long-term monitoring of populations cross tenure in conjunction with
other forest bat species to document changes.
12. Identify areas of private land that contain key habitat for the species (e.g. low
elevation rainforest and coastal scrub) as areas of High Conservation Value (HCV)
in planning instruments and land management negotiations.
13. Promote the conservation of these HCV private land areas using measures such as
incentive funding to landholders, off-setting and BioBanking, acquisition for
reserve establishment or other means.
14. Develop and promote bat awareness programs for schools, CMAs, landholders
and industry groups etc.
15. Quantify any benefits of local bat populations to reducing the impact of insect
pests on commercial crops.
16. Ensure the Code of Practice for private native forestry has adequate measures to
protect large, hollow-bearing trees, viable numbers of recruit trees and provide
protection for streamside vegetation. .
17. Identify important foraging range and key habitat components for this species.
18. Undertake a systematic survey of productive coastal river valleys to quantify the
importance of private land relative to public lands.
19. Identify the susceptibility of the species to pesticides.
20. Research the effect of different burning regimes in coastal scrub and wet eucalypt
forest inhabited by the species.
A number of specific recovery activities have also been identified (OEH 2015a):
(g) whether the action proposed constitutes or is part of a key threatening process
or is likely to result in the operation of, or increase the impact of, a key threatening
process.
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015
208
Response:
The proposal contributes to the relevant Key Threatening Processes Clearing of Native
Vegetation and Loss of Hollow-Bering Trees, but not the habitat of this threatened
species.
REFERENCES
Churchill, S. (2008) Australian Bats, second edition. Allen and Unwin publishing, Sydney.
Lunney, D., Barker, J., Leary, T., Priddel, D., Wheeler, R., OConnor, P. and Law, B. (1995)
Roost selection by the north Queensland long-eared bat Nyctophilus bifax in
Littoral Rainforest in the Iluka World Heritage Area, New South Wales. Australian
Journal of Ecology 20:532-537
Office of Environment and Heritage (2015a) Threatened Species Profile
(http://www.threatenedspecies.environment.nsw.gov.au/tsprofile/)
Office of Environment and Heritage (2015b) Nyctophilus bifax Eastern long-eared bat
Species
Conservation
Project
(http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/savingourspeciesapp/SearchResults.asp
x)
Stawski, C., Turbill, C. and Geiser, F. (2009) Hibernation by a free-ranging subtropical bat
(Nyctophilus bifax). J Comp Physiol B 179:433-441
Van Dyck, S. and Strahan, R. (2008) The Mammals of Australia, third edition. New Holland
publishers, Australia.
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015
209
These bats have a distribution running along the east coast of Australia from Cape York
to northern New South Wales (Churchill 1998). In tropical areas, it ranges from the coast
to higher elevations but further south it is largely restricted to the coast (Hoye and Hall
2008).
In the southern part of their range, Little Bentwing-bats may hibernate during winter
months (Churchill 1998) but are known to remain active through much of winter,
emerging to feed on many nights (Hoye and Hall 2008). It forages via aerial pursuit of
small insects (moths, wasps and ants) beneath the canopy of densely-vegetated habitats
including rainforest, paperbark swamps and wet and dry sclerophyll forest (Hoye and
Hall 2008).
This species roosts communally in caves or similar suitable spaces, often with
Miniopterus schreibersii oceanensis Eastern Bentwing-bat (Hoye and Hall 2008) and may
form mixed clusters in winter (OEH 2015a). Females gather in large maternity colonies in
summer (Menkhorst and Knight 2001), and only five such sites are known across
Australia (OEH 2015a). A single young is born in December (Strahan 1995) and males and
juveniles disperse in summer (OEH 2015a).
Non-breeding roost sites have included one observation of use of a tree hollow, but it is
not known whether this occurs regularly (Hoye and Hall 2008).
This species was recorded foraging on the subject site during survey. Foraging habitat for
this species occurs beneath the tree canopies in the less cluttered areas, along the tracks
and at the edges of the bushland-grassland interface.
(a) in the case of a threatened species, whether the action proposed is likely to have
an adverse effect on the life cycle of the species such that a viable local population of
the species is likely to be placed at risk of extinction,
Response:
Critical habitat features for this species are the caves used for roosting and breeding.
There are no such features on the subject site, the closest known nursery site being in the
coastal ranges west of Grafton. The area of potential foraging habitat to be removed si
relatively small in the context of what is available to this highly mobile species.
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015
210
(b) in the case of an endangered population, whether the action proposed is likely to
have an adverse effect on the life cycle of the species that constitutes the endangered
population such that a viable local population of the species is likely to be placed at
risk of extinction,
Response:
This question is not relevant to a threatened species.
(ii) is likely to substantially and adversely modify the composition of the ecological
community such that its local occurrence is likely to be placed at risk of extinction,
Response:
This question is not relevant to a threatened species.
Response:
This is a highly mobile species able to exploit widely separated resources. The proposal is
unlikely to prevent this species from moving around the landscape or accessing required
resources. Moreover, the proposal has been designed specifically so that north-south and
east-west wildlife corridors will remain.
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015
211
Response:
No critical habitat has been declared for this species.
(f) whether the action proposed is consistent with the objectives or actions of a
recovery plan or threat abatement plan,
Response:
This species has been assigned to the Landscape species management stream under the
NSW Office of Environment and Heritage as it is distributed across relatively large areas
and is subject to threatening processes that generally act at the landscape scale (e.g.
habitat loss or degradation) rather than at distinct, definable locations (OEH 2015b). The
following management actions have been identified for this species as part of that process
(OEH 2015b):
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015
212
A number of specific recovery activities have also been identified (OEH 2015a):
Protect known roosting and nursery sites and surrounding forest from
disturbance by restricting and/or monitoring access.
Retain stands of native vegetation, particularly within 10km of roosts.
Reduce use of pesticides within breeding and foraging habitat.
Undertake non-chemical weed control to prevent obstruction of maternity cave
and other roost entrances.
Exclude fire from 100m of maternity cave, winter roost or other significant roost
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015
213
The proposal is unlikely to interfere with the success of these recovery strategies.
(g) whether the action proposed constitutes or is part of a key threatening process
or is likely to result in the operation of, or increase the impact of, a key threatening
process.
Response:
The proposed works contribute to the Key Threatening Process Clearing of Native
Vegetation.
REFERENCES
214