Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 439

Report on PCA & Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation

Iluka Subdivision
Prepared for Stevens Holdings Pty Ltd

Report on PCA & Preliminary


Geotechnical Investigation
Iluka Subdivision
CGS2590

Prepared for
Stevens Holdings Pty Ltd
8 August 2015

CGS2590-002.0
8 August 2015

Cardno Geotech Solutions

Report on PCA & Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation


Iluka Subdivision
Prepared for Stevens Holdings Pty Ltd

Contact Information

Document Information

Cardno (NSW/ACT) Pty Ltd


Trading as Cardno Geotech Solutions
ABN 95 001 145 035

Prepared for

Stevens Holdings Pty Ltd

Project Name

Iluka Subdivision

Job Reference

CGS2590

4/5 Arunga Drive, Beresfield NSW 2322


PO Box 4224, Edgeworth NSW 2285
Australia

File Reference

CGS2590-002.0

Date

8 August 2015

Version Number

Effective Date

06/08/15

Date Approved:

06/08/15

Telephone: 02 4949 4300


Facsimile: 02 4966 0485
International: +61 2 4949 4300
geotech@cardno.com.au
www.cardno.com.au

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

Cardno Geotech Solutions

ii

Report on PCA & Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation


Iluka Subdivision
Prepared for Stevens Holdings Pty Ltd

Table of Contents
1

Introduction

Proposed Development and Site Description

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

Preliminary Contamination Assessment

14

6.1
6.2
6.3

14
14
15
15
15

Criteria for Contamination Assessment


Potential Areas and Contaminants of Concern
Comment on Laboratory Chemical Test Results
6.3.1
Quality Assurance / Quality Control
PCA Conclusions

Preliminary Geotechnical Comments

16

7.1
7.2

16
16
17
17
17
17
17
18
18
18
19
19
19
20

7.3

Aerial Photography Review


Clarence Valley Council Records (S149(2) Certificate)
Historical and Title Searches

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

Cardno Geotech Solutions

iii

Report on PCA & Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation


Iluka Subdivision
Prepared for Stevens Holdings Pty Ltd

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

Aerial Photography Review

Table 5-1

Summary of Compaction and CBR Test Results

Table 5-2

Results of Laboratory Analysis for Heavy Metals, results in mg/kg

10

Table 5-3

Results of Laboratory Analysis for Asbestos in Soil

13

Table 6-1

Identified Areas and Contaminants of Concern

15

Table 7-1

Design Traffic

18

Table 7-2

Pavement material specification and compaction requirements

19

CGS2590-002.0
8 August 2015

Cardno Geotech Solutions

iv

Report on PCA & Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation


Iluka Subdivision
Prepared for Stevens Holdings Pty Ltd

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.

Proposed Development and Site Description

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

Cardno Geotech Solutions

Report on PCA & Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation


Iluka Subdivision
Prepared for Stevens Holdings Pty Ltd

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

Aerial Photography Review

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

Cardno Geotech Solutions

Report on PCA & Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation


Iluka Subdivision
Prepared for Stevens Holdings Pty Ltd

Table 3-1

Aerial Photography Review

Date

Reference

October
1958

Woodburn 327
5168
Run 3 4M
Scale 1:22,000
B/W

Comments

> The site comprises vegetated bushland.


On Site

> 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.

> General surrounds are predominantly vegetated bushland.


> Iluka Road to the east appears to be unsealed.
Off Site

> Several possible residential dwellings situated closely to the south


west of the site.

> Iluka township situated in relatively close proximity to Clarence River


further to south west of the site.
25 August
1966

Woodburn 1442
5183
Run 4M
Scale 1:15,500
B/W

> Generally consistent with the 1958 aerial photograph.


On Site

aerial photograph.

> Iluka Road to the east appears to be sealed.


Off Site

27 August
1978

Woodburn 1843
157
Run 11
Scale 1:25,000
B/W

> Vegetation appears to be slightly denser than observed in 1958

> 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.

> Vegetation appears to have been cleared from the site.


> Access tracks clearly visible and consistent with 1958 and 1966
On Site

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

> Residential development under construction immediately to the


south-west of the site, with sections of Micalo Street, Elizabeth
Street (running parallel with site) and Hammond Street under
construction.

> Residential development under construction further to the south


west of the site, with several internal roads and cul-de-sacs
constructed.

CGS2590-002.0
8 August 2015

Cardno Geotech Solutions

Report on PCA & Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation


Iluka Subdivision
Prepared for Stevens Holdings Pty Ltd

Date

Reference

14 April
1989

Woodburn NSW
3654 74
Run 7
Scale 1:40,000
B/W

Comments

> Site covered by vegetation.


> Areas of disturbance in the south western portion between the
access tracks previously observed, generally comprising 3 areas in
the size range of 10-15 10-15 m.

> Access track in observed in central / eastern portion in 1958 aerial


On Site

photograph appears to be unused and covered by vegetation.

> Additional access track that traverses north west to south east
through the central / south eastern site portion, intersecting with
Iluka Road in the east.

> Approximately 10 m wide strip cleared of vegetation extending from


the Elizabeth Street road alignment in a south east direction to Iluka
Road which runs through the south eastern corner of the site.

> Residential developments extend through to Elizabeth Street to the


Off Site

south west of the site and several dwellings constructed in


residential development previously noted further to the south west.

> 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

> Areas of disturbance noted in 1989 aerial photograph covered in


vegetation excluding one isolated area approximately 15 15 m in
size.

> Generally consistent with 1989 aerial photograph.


> Golf course development includes sealed car park, prominent
fairway and green structures.
Off Site

> Sealed section of Hickey Street extending from Iluka Road in the
east through to the golf club house.

> Additional residential development situated further to the north west


of the site.
3 May
2001

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)

> Generally consistent with 1996 aerial photograph.


On Site

> Isolated area of disturbance noted in 1996 aerial photograph


predominantly covered in vegetation.

Off Site

Generally consistent with 1996 aerial photograph.

> Generally consistent with 2001 aerial photograph.


On Site

> Vegetation appears thicker across the site, and access tracks

Off Site

Generally consistent with 2001 aerial photograph.

On Site

Generally consistent with 2004 aerial photograph.

Off Site

Generally consistent with 2004 aerial photograph.

On Site

Generally consistent with 2011 imagery.

previously noted are not as easily distinguishable as in previous


aerial photographs reviewed.

Cardno Geotech Solutions

Report on PCA & Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation


Iluka Subdivision
Prepared for Stevens Holdings Pty Ltd

Date

Reference

15 July
2012

DigitalGlobe
(Google earth)

5 October
2013

3.2

DigitalGlobe
(Google earth)

Comments

Off Site

Generally consistent with 2011 imagery, with construction compound


type structure and detention basin evident immediately to the north west
of the site / Hickey Street road reserve. Based on consultation with local
residents it is understood the compound was used by Ledonne
Constructions Pty Ltd civil engineering contractors during construction
of the Iluka Sewerage Scheme project for Clarence Valley Council /
NSW Public Works.

On Site

Generally consistent with 2012 imagery.

Off Site

Generally consistent with 2012 imagery, with construction compound


removed.

Clarence Valley Council Records (S149(2) Certificate)

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

Cardno Geotech Solutions

Report on PCA & Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation


Iluka Subdivision
Prepared for Stevens Holdings Pty Ltd

Several points mentioned above have been summarised and the complete S149(2) certificate should be
referenced which is attached in Appendix C.

3.3

Historical and Title Searches

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

Sampling and Contamination Procedures

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

Cardno Geotech Solutions

Report on PCA & Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation


Iluka Subdivision
Prepared for Stevens Holdings Pty Ltd

> 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
>

Four (4) tests for asbestos fibres.

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

Cardno Geotech Solutions

Report on PCA & Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation


Iluka Subdivision
Prepared for Stevens Holdings Pty Ltd

> 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

Laboratory Test Results

5.4.1

Geotechnical Laboratory Results

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

Summary of Compaction and CBR Test Results

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

Field Moisture Content


Standard Optimum Moisture Content
Standard Maximum Dry Density (Standard compaction)
California Bearing Ratio

Environmental Testing Results

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

Cardno Geotech Solutions

Report on PCA & Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation


Iluka Subdivision
Prepared for Stevens Holdings Pty Ltd

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

Cardno Geotech Solutions

Report on PCA & Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation


Iluka Subdivision
Prepared for Stevens Holdings Pty Ltd

Table 5-2

Results of Laboratory Analysis for Heavy Metals, results in mg/kg


Material Description
Location

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

Silt & Clay

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

NEPM (2013) EIL for Urban Residential/Public Open Space

100
2

100

NSW EPA, Guidelines for Assessing Service Station Sites , 1994

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)

Contaminant Exceedance Indicators:


Bold - Indicates exceedance of NEPM (2013) HIL A criteria values - National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure 1999 (April 2013)
Italics - Indicates exceedance of NEPM (2013) EIL criteria values for Residential A land-use - National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure 1999 (April 2013)
Underline - Indicates exceedance of criteria values NSW EPA Guidelines for Assessing Service Station Sites for sensitive land-use
Indicates exceedance of the General Solid Waste Criteria Values w ithout TCLP testing - NSW DECCW, Waste Classification Guidelines, Part 1: Classifying Waste, 2009
Indicates exceedance of the Restricted Solid Waste Criteria Values w ithout TCLP testing - NSW DECCW, Waste Classification Guidelines, Part 1: Classifying Waste, 2009

CGS2590-002.0
8 August 2015

Cardno Geotech Solutions

10

Report on PCA & Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation


Iluka Subdivision
Prepared for Stevens Holdings Pty Ltd

Figure 5-1 Results of Laboratory Analysis for TPH/BTEX, results in mg/kg


Material Description
Location

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

Silt & Clay

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

NEPM (2013) HSL A & B - Sand from 0 m to <1 m bgl

NC

NC

45

110

NC

NC

0.5

160

55

40

NEPM (2013) HSL A & B - Silt from 0 m to <1 m bgl

NC

NC

40

230

NC

NC

0.6

390

NL

95

NEPM (2013) HSL A & B - Clay from 0 m to <1 m bgl

NC

NC

50

280

NC

NC

0.7

480

NL

110

NEPM (2013) HSL A & B - Sand from 1 m to <2 m bgl

NC

NC

70

240

NC

NC

NL

0.5

220

NL

60

NEPM (2013) HSL A & B - Silt from 1 m to <2 m bgl

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

NSW EPA, Guidelines for Assessing Service Station Sites , 1994

65

1000

Guideline Values

NEPM (2013) HSL A & B - Clay from 1 m to <2 m bgl


NEPM (2013) EIL for Urban Residential/Public Open Space
3

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)

Contaminant Exceedance Indicators:


Bold - Indicates exceedance of NEPM (2013) HIL A criteria values - National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure 1999 (April 2013)
Italics - Indicates exceedance of NEPM (2013) EIL/ESL criteria values for Residential A Land-use - National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure 1999 (April 2013)
Underline - Indicates exceedance of criteria values NSW EPA Guidelines for Assessing Service Station Sites for sensitive land-use
Double Underline - Indicates exceedance of NEPM (2013) Management Limits for Residential A Land-use - National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure 1999 (April 2013)
Indicates exceedance of the General Solid Waste Criteria Values w ithout TCLP testing - NSW DECCW, Waste Classification Guidelines, Part 1: Classifying Waste, 2009
Indicates exceedance of the Restricted Solid Waste Criteria Values w ithout TCLP testing - NSW DECCW, Waste Classification Guidelines, Part 1: Classifying Waste, 2009

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

Cardno Geotech Solutions

1
NC

NC

Notes to Table

CGS2590-002.0
8 August 2015

Report on PCA & Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation


Iluka Subdivision
Prepared for Stevens Holdings Pty Ltd

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

Silt & Clay

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

NSW EPA, Guidelines for Assessing Service Station Sites , 1994

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)

Contaminant Exceedance Indicators:


Bold - Indicates exceedance of NEPM (2013) HIL A criteria values - National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure 1999 (April 2013)
Italics - Indicates exceedance of NEPM (2013) EIL/ESL criteria values for Residential A land-use - National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure 1999 (April 2013)
Underline - Indicates exceedance of criteria values NSW EPA Guidelines for Assessing Service Station Sites for sensitive land-use
Indicates exceedance of the General Solid Waste Criteria Values w ithout TCLP testing - NSW DECCW, Waste Classification Guidelines, Part 1: Classifying Waste, 2009
Indicates exceedance of the Restricted Solid Waste Criteria Values w ithout TCLP testing - NSW DECCW, Waste Classification Guidelines, Part 1: Classifying Waste, 2009

CGS2590-002.0
8 August 2015

Cardno Geotech Solutions

12

Report on PCA & Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation


Iluka Subdivision
Prepared for Stevens Holdings Pty Ltd

Acronyms for Tables Table 5-2 to Figure 5-2 above.


Acronyms:
As

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)

NSW DECCW (2009)

NSW DECCW, Waste Classification Guidelines, Part 1: Classifying Waste, 2009

NSW EPA (1994)

NSW EPA, Guidelines for Assessing Service Station Sites, 1994

HIL

Health-based Investigation Levels

EIL

Ecological Investigation Level

ACL

Added Contaminant Limit

ABC

Ambient Background Concentration

NC

No Criteria

NT

Not Tested

ND

Not Detected

Table 5-3

Results of Laboratory Analysis for Asbestos in Soil

Location

Date
Sampled

Material Description

Sample Location
Comment

ES003

09/06/2015

Brown compressed fibrous


chipboard

ES004

09/06/2015

SAND (topsoil)

ES015

09/06/2015

Grey compressed fibre cement


fragments

ES014

09/06/2015

SAND (topsoil)

Topsoil sampled below


ES003
Topsoil sampled below
ES015

Dimension / Sample
Weight (g)

Asbestos Detected

200

No asbestos detected at reporting


limit of 0.1g/kg

40

No asbestos detected at reporting


limit of 0.1g/kg

297

Chrysotile asbestos detected

35

No asbestos detected at reporting


limit of 0.1g/kg

Notes to Table
Bold indicates asbestos detected

CGS2590-002.0
8 August 2015

Cardno Geotech Solutions

13

Report on PCA & Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation


Iluka Subdivision
Prepared for Stevens Holdings Pty Ltd

Preliminary Contamination Assessment

It should be appreciated that the assessment was preliminary in nature and was limited in scope.

6.1

Criteria for Contamination Assessment

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

Potential Areas and Contaminants of Concern

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

Cardno Geotech Solutions

14

Report on PCA & Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation


Iluka Subdivision
Prepared for Stevens Holdings Pty Ltd

Table 6-1

Identified Areas and Contaminants of Concern

Area of Concern

Contaminants of Potential Concern (COPC)

Possible asbestos containing materials in dumped


fibrous sheeting observed and soil beneath the
sheeting.

Asbestos

Potential contamination in soil beneath steel trailer


frame, rubber tyre and fridge.

Heavy Metals, TRH & PAH

Potential contamination in soil beneath cottonseed


oil drum.

Heavy Metals, TRH, PAH, OCP & OPP

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

Comment on Laboratory Chemical Test Results

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

Quality Assurance / Quality Control

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

Cardno Geotech Solutions

15

Report on PCA & Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation


Iluka Subdivision
Prepared for Stevens Holdings Pty Ltd

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.

Preliminary Geotechnical Comments

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

Cardno Geotech Solutions

16

Report on PCA & Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation


Iluka Subdivision
Prepared for Stevens Holdings Pty Ltd

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

Cardno Geotech Solutions

17

Report on PCA & Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation


Iluka Subdivision
Prepared for Stevens Holdings Pty Ltd

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 Ways 1 to 7 (inclusive)

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

Wearing Surface (mm)

40 mm AC (1) (2)

Basecourse (mm)

150 (3)

Subbase (mm) (4)

150 (3)

Select (mm)

Street 1

40 mm AC (1) (2)
150 (3)
150 (3)

Total Thickness (mm)


Design Traffic (ESA)

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

Materials and Compaction Specification

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

Cardno Geotech Solutions

18

Report on PCA & Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation


Iluka Subdivision
Prepared for Stevens Holdings Pty Ltd

Table 7-2

Pavement material specification and compaction requirements

Pavement Course

Material Specification

Compaction Requirements

Wearing Course
Asphaltic Concrete

Material complying with Council design


specifications

As per Council and supplier


specifications

Basecourse
High quality crushed rock

Material complying with Council


specifications and a CBR 80%

Min 98% Modified (AS1289 5.2.1) or


Min 102% Standard (AS1289 5.1.1)

Subbase
Subbase quality crushed
rock or crusher dust

Material complying with Council


specifications and a CBR 30%

Min 98% Modified (AS1289 5.2.1) or


Min 102% Standard (AS1289 5.1.1)

Select
Crushed rock or gravel

CBR 10%

Min 100% Standard (AS1289 5.1.1)

Subgrade
or replacement

Minimum CBR 10%

Min 100% Standard (AS1289 5.1.1)

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

Cardno Geotech Solutions

19

Report on PCA & Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation


Iluka Subdivision
Prepared for Stevens Holdings Pty Ltd

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

Cardno Geotech Solutions

20

Report on PCA & Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation


Iluka Subdivision
Prepared for Stevens Holdings Pty Ltd

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

Cardno Geotech Solutions

21

Report on PCA & Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation


Iluka Subdivision
Prepared for Stevens Holdings Pty Ltd

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

Cardno Geotech Solutions

22

Report on PCA & Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation


Iluka Subdivision
Prepared for Stevens Holdings Pty Ltd

Iluka Subdivision

APPENDIX

A
DRAWINGS

CGS2590-002.0
8 August 2015

Cardno Geotech Solutions

23

NOTES:

LOT 971
DP 876936

Image adapted from google earth aerial imagery.

LOT 93
DP 1105124

LEGEND:
LOT 7020
DP 1114873

Approximate test pit locations and numbers

TP04

HICKE
Y STRE

LOT 64
DP 41701

ET

Approximate test bore locations and numbers

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:

Stevens Holdings Pty Ltd

PROJECT NO:

CGS2590

DRAWING NO: 1
FILE REF:

2590-002-d1

DRAWN BY: DGB


OFFICE: 4/5 Arunga Drive, Beresfield NSW 2322
DATE: 8 July 2015

CHECKED BY:

NORTH

NOTES:

LOT 971
DP 876936

Draft subdivision layout adapted from drawing titled 'MASTERPLAN'

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

Approximate test pit locations and numbers

LOT 64
DP 41701

Y STRE

ET
TP05

AW
AY

Approximate test bore locations and numbers

HICKE
Y STRE
ET

Approximate boundaries as adapted


from SIX Maps

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:

DRAFT SUBDIVISION LAYOUT


PCA & PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
PROPOSED SUBDIVISION - ELIZABETH STREET, ILUKA

CLIENT:

Stevens Holdings Pty Ltd

PROJECT NO:

CGS2590

DRAWING NO: 2
FILE REF:

2590-002-d2

DRAWN BY: DGB


OFFICE: 4/5 Arunga Drive, Beresfield NSW 2322
DATE: 8 July 2015

CHECKED BY:

NORTH

NOTES:

LOT 971
DP 876936

Image adapted from google earth aerial imagery.

LOT 93
DP 1105124

LEGEND:
LOT 7020
DP 1114873

Approximate location of environmental


sample taken from test pit

HICKE

LOT 64
DP 41701

Y STRE

Approximate location of environmental


sample taken from test bore

ET
TP05

HICKE
Y STRE
ET

Approximate location of environmental


surface sample

SITE

Approximate boundaries as adapted


from SIX Maps

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:

ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE LOCATIONS


PCA & PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
PROPOSED SUBDIVISION - ELIZABETH STREET, ILUKA

CLIENT:

Stevens Holdings Pty Ltd

PROJECT NO:

CGS2590

DRAWING NO: 3
FILE REF:

2590-002-d3

DRAWN BY: DGB


OFFICE: 4/5 Arunga Drive, Beresfield NSW 2322
DATE: 8 July 2015

CHECKED BY:

NORTH

Report on PCA & Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation


Iluka Subdivision
Prepared for Stevens Holdings Pty Ltd

Iluka Subdivision

APPENDIX

B
AERIALS

CGS2590-002.0
8 August 2015

Cardno Geotech Solutions

24

Report on PCA & Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation


Iluka Subdivision
Prepared for Stevens Holdings Pty Ltd

Iluka Subdivision

APPENDIX

C
149 CERTIFICATES

CGS2590-002.0
8 August 2015

Cardno Geotech Solutions

25

Report on PCA & Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation


Iluka Subdivision
Prepared for Stevens Holdings Pty Ltd

Iluka Subdivision

APPENDIX

D
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS

CGS2590-002.0
8 August 2015

Cardno Geotech Solutions

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:

Report on PCA & Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation


Iluka Subdivision
Prepared for Stevens Holdings Pty Ltd

Iluka Subdivision

APPENDIX

E
ENGINEERING LOGS

CGS2590-002.0
8 August 2015

Cardno Geotech Solutions

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.

Field testing may be conducted as a means of assessment


of the in-situ conditions of materials encountered.

Method

Field testing

Test Pitting: excavation/trench


BH
Backhoe bucket

SPT

Standard Penetration Test (blows/150mm)

HP/PP

Hand/Pocket Penetrometer

EX

Excavator bucket

Existing excavation

Dynamic Penetrometers (blows/150mm)

Natural Exposure: existing natural rock or soil exposure


Manual drilling: hand operated tools
HA
Hand Auger
Continuous sample drilling
PT

Push tube

Hammer drilling
AH

Air hammer

AT

Air track

Spiral flight auger drilling


AS
AD/V

Large diameter short spiral auger


Continuous spiral flight auger: V-Bit

AD/T

Continuous spiral flight auger: TC-Bit


Washbore (mud drilling)

RR

Rock roller
63mm diamond-tipped core barrel
52mm diamond-tipped core barrel

NQ

47mm diamond-tipped core barrel

Concrete coring
DT

Diatube

Sampling is conducted to facilitate further assessment of


selected materials encountered.
Sampling method
Disturbed sampling
B

Bulk disturbed sample

Disturbed sample

ES

Environmental soil sample

Undisturbed sampling
SPT

Standard Penetration Test sample

U#

Undisturbed tube sample (#mm diameter)

Water samples
EW

Environmental water sample

Perth Sand Penetrometer

Vane Shear

PBT

Plate Bearing Test

If encountered with SPT or dynamic penetrometer testing,


refusal (R), virtual refusal (VR) or hammer bouncing (HB)
may be noted.
The quality of the rock can be assessed be the degree of
fracturing and the following.
Rock quality description
TCR

RQD

Rotary core drilling


HQ
NMLC

Dynamic Cone Penetrometer

PSP
VS

Rotary non-core drilling


WS

DCP

Total Core Recovery (%)


(length of core recovered divided by the length
of core run)
Rock Quality Designation (%)
(sum of axial lengths of core greater than
100mm long divided by the length of core run)

Notes on groundwater conditions encountered may include.


Groundwater
Not Encountered Excavation is dry in the short term
Not Observed

Groundwater observation not possible

Seepage

Groundwater seeping into hole

Inflow

Groundwater flowing/flooding into hole

Perched groundwater may result in a misleading indication


of the depth to the true water table. Groundwater levels
are likely to fluctuate with variations in climatic and site
conditions.
Notes on the stability of excavations may include.
Excavation conditions
Spalling
Unstable

Material falling into excavation, may be


described as minor or major spalling
Collapse of the majority, or one or more
face, of the excavation

Explanatory Notes - General Soil Description


The methods of description and classification of soils used in this report are based on Australian Standard 1726 Geotechnical
Site Investigations Code. In practice, if the material can be remoulded by hand in its field condition or in water it is described
as a soil. The dominant soil constituent is given in capital letters, with secondary textures in lower case. In general,
descriptions cover: soil type, strength / relative density, moisture, colour, plasticity and inclusions.
Soil types are described according to the dominant particle
size on the basis of the following assessment.

The moisture condition of soil is described by appearance


and feel and may be described in relation to the Plastic
Limit (PL) or Optimum Moisture Content (OMC).

Soil Classification

Particle Size

CLAY

< 0.002mm

Moisture condition and description

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

Soil types are qualified by the presence of minor


components on the basis of field examination or grading.
Description

Percentage of minor component

Trace

< 5% in coarse grained soils


< 15% in fine grained soils

With

5% to 12% in coarse grained soils


15% to 30% in fine grained soils

The strength of cohesive soils is classified by engineering


assessment or field/laboratory testing as follows.
Strength

Symbol

Undrained shear strength

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

Cohesionless soils are classified on the basis of relative


density as follows.

Moist
Wet

Cohesive soils; hard, friable, dry of plastic limit.


Granular soils; cohesionless and free-running
Cool feel and darkened colour: Cohesive soils can
be moulded. Granular soils tend to cohere
Cool feel and darkened colour: Cohesive soils
usually weakened and free water forms when
handling. Granular soils tend to cohere

The plasticity of cohesive soils is defined as follows.


Plasticity

Liquid Limit

Low plasticity

35%

Medium plasticity

> 35% 50%

High plasticity

> 50%

The structure of the soil may be described as follows.


Zoning

Description

Layer

Continuous across exposure or sample

Lens

Discontinuous layer (lenticular shape)

Pocket

Irregular inclusion of different material

The structure may include; defects such as softened zones,


fissures, cracks, joints and root-holes; and coarse grained
soils may be described as strongly or weakly cemented.
The soil origin may also be noted if possible to deduce.
Soil origin and description
Fill

Man-made deposits or disturbed material

Topsoil

Material affected by roots and root fibres

Colluvial soil

Transported down slopes by gravity

Aeolian soil

Transported and deposited by wind

Alluvial soil

Deposited by rivers

Lacustrine soil

Deposited by lakes

Relative Density

Symbol

Density Index

Marine soil

Deposits in beaches, bays, estuaries

Very Loose

VL

< 15%

Residual soil

Developed on weathered rock

Loose

15% to 35%

Medium Dense

MD

35% to 65%

Dense

65% to 85%

Very Dense

VD

> 85%

The origin of the soil generally cannot be deduced on the


appearance of the material and may be assumed based on
further geological evidence or field observation.

Explanatory Notes - General Rock Description


The methods of description and classification of rocks used in this report are based on Australian Standard 1726 Geotechnical
Site Investigations Code. In general, if a material cannot be remoulded by hand in its field condition or in water it is described
as a rock, is classified by its geological terms. In general, descriptions cover: rock type, degree of weathering, strength,
colour, grain size, structure and minor components or inclusions.
Sedimentary rock types are generally described according
to the predominant grain size as follows.

The defect spacing and bedding thickness of rocks,


measured normal to defects of the same set or bedding,
can be described as follows.

Rock Type

Description

CONGLOMERATE

Rounded gravel sized fragments


>2mm cemented in a finer matrix

Definition

Defect Spacing

Thinly laminated

< 6mm

SANDSTONE

Sand size particles defined by grain size


and often cemented by other materials
fine
0.06mm to 0.2mm
medium
0.2mm to 0.6mm
coarse
0.6mm to 2mm

Laminated

6mm to 20mm

Very thinly bedded

20mm to 60mm

Thinly bedded

60mm to 0.2m

Medium bedded

0.2m to 0.6m

SILTSTONE

Predominately silt sized particles

Thickly bedded

0.6m to 2m

SHALE

Fine particles (silt or clay) and fissile

Very thickly bedded

> 2m

CLAYSTONE

Predominately clay sized particles


Defects in rock mass are often described by the following.

The classification of rock weathering is described based on


definitions outlined in AS1726 as follows.

Terms
Joint

JT

Sheared zone

SZ

Term and symbol

Definition

Bed Parting

BP

Sheared surface

SS

Residual
Soil

Soil developed on extremely


weathered rock; mass structure and
substance are no longer evident
Weathered to such an extent that it
has soil properties
Strength usually changed and may
be highly discoloured. Porosity may
be increased by leaching, or
decreased due to deposition in pores
Slightly discoloured; little/no change
of strength from fresh rock
Rock shows no sign of decomposition
or staining

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

Rock material strength (distinct from mass strength which


can be significantly weaker due to the effect of defects)
can be defined based on the point load index as follows.
Term and symbol

Point Load Index Is50

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

For preliminary assessment and in cases where no point


load testing is available, the rock strength may be
assessed using the field guide specified by AS1726.

The shape and roughness of defects are described using


the following terms.
Planarity

Roughness

Planar

PR

Very Rough

VR

Curved

CU

Rough

RF

Undulating

Smooth

Irregular

IR

Polished

POL

Stepped

ST

Slickensides

SL

The coating or infill associated with defects can be


described as follows.
Definition

Description

Clean

No visible coating or infilling

Stain

No visible coating or infilling; surfaces


discoloured by mineral staining
Visible coating or infilling of soil or mineral
substance (<1mm). If discontinuous over
the plane; patchy veneer
Visible coating or infilling of soil or mineral
substance (>1mm)

Veneer

Coating

Graphics Symbols Index


CLAYS

GRAVELS

SEDIMENTARY ROCK

CLAY

GRAVEL

CONGLOMERATE

Silty CLAY

Clayey GRAVEL

BRECCIA

Sandy CLAY

Silty GRAVEL

SANDSTONE

Gravelly CLAY

Sandy GRAVEL

STONE
SILTSTONE

COBBLES & BOULDERS

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

PAVEMENT (Natural Gravels)

BASALT

Gravelly SAND

PAVEMENT (Crushed Rock)

TUFF

IGNEOUS ROCK

TESTBORE LOG

CLIENT : Stevens Holdings Pty Ltd


PROJECT : Geotech & PCA
LOCATION : Iluka Subdivision

HOLE NO : TB01
PROJECT REF : CGS2590
SHEET : 1 OF 1

EQUIPMENT TYPE : Hand Auger

METHOD :

DATE EXCAVATED : 10/6/15

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

LOCATION : See Drawing for location

TOPSOIL

TOPSOIL, SAND, fine to medium grained, grey, with root fibres


3
D
5

0.25m

AEOLIAN

SAND, fine to medium grained, grey, pale yellow


4

0.5

1.0

D-M

MD

1.5

GEOTECH_SOLUTIONS_03 LIBRARY.GLB Log CGS_TESTHOLE_LOG_02 CGS_2590_ILUKA_SUBDIVISION.GPJ 23/07/2015 12:19 8.30.003

2.00m

2.0

Testbore TB01 terminated at 2.00 m

2.5

3.0

WATER / MOISTURE

SAMPLES & FIELD TESTS

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

See Explanatory Notes for


details of abbreviations
& basis of descriptions.

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

CARDNO GEOTECH SOLUTIONS


File: CGS2590 TB01 Page 1 OF 1

TESTBORE LOG

CLIENT : Stevens Holdings Pty Ltd


PROJECT : Geotech & PCA
LOCATION : Iluka Subdivision

HOLE NO : TB02
PROJECT REF : CGS2590
SHEET : 1 OF 1

EQUIPMENT TYPE : Hand Auger

METHOD :

DATE EXCAVATED : 10/6/15

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

LOCATION : See Drawing for location

TOPSOIL

TOPSOIL, SAND, fine to medium grained, grey, with root fibres

0.30m

AEOLIAN

SAND, fine to medium grained, pale yellow

0.5
0.60m
ES

D-M

1.0

1.50m
D

1.50m

1.5

SAND, fine to medium grained, orange, trace fine coal fragments

GEOTECH_SOLUTIONS_03 LIBRARY.GLB Log CGS_TESTHOLE_LOG_02 CGS_2590_ILUKA_SUBDIVISION.GPJ 23/07/2015 12:19 8.30.003

1.70m
ES

2.00m

2.00m

2.0

Testbore TB02 terminated at 2.00 m

2.5

3.0

WATER / MOISTURE

SAMPLES & FIELD TESTS

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

See Explanatory Notes for


details of abbreviations
& basis of descriptions.

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

CARDNO GEOTECH SOLUTIONS


File: CGS2590 TB02 Page 1 OF 1

TESTBORE LOG

CLIENT : Stevens Holdings Pty Ltd


PROJECT : Geotech & PCA
LOCATION : Iluka Subdivision

HOLE NO : TB03
PROJECT REF : CGS2590
SHEET : 1 OF 1

EQUIPMENT TYPE : Hand Auger

METHOD :

DATE EXCAVATED : 10/6/15

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

LOCATION : See Drawing for location

TOPSOIL

TOPSOIL, SAND, fine to medium grained, grey, with root fibres


D

0.25m

AEOLIAN

SAND, fine to medium grained, grey, pale yellow

0.5

1.0

D-M

GEOTECH_SOLUTIONS_03 LIBRARY.GLB Log CGS_TESTHOLE_LOG_02 CGS_2590_ILUKA_SUBDIVISION.GPJ 23/07/2015 12:19 8.30.003

1.5

2.00m

2.0

Testbore TB03 terminated at 2.00 m

2.5

3.0

WATER / MOISTURE

SAMPLES & FIELD TESTS

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

See Explanatory Notes for


details of abbreviations
& basis of descriptions.

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

CARDNO GEOTECH SOLUTIONS


File: CGS2590 TB03 Page 1 OF 1

TESTBORE LOG

CLIENT : Stevens Holdings Pty Ltd


PROJECT : Geotech & PCA
LOCATION : Iluka Subdivision

HOLE NO : TB04
PROJECT REF : CGS2590
SHEET : 1 OF 1

EQUIPMENT TYPE : Hand Auger

METHOD :

DATE EXCAVATED : 10/6/15

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

LOCATION : See Drawing for location

TOPSOIL

TOPSOIL, SAND, fine to medium grained, grey, with root fibres, trace
roots

1
D
2

0.30m

AEOLIAN

SAND, fine to medium grained, pale orange-yellow


5

0.5

MD

1.0

D-M

10

1.5

GEOTECH_SOLUTIONS_03 LIBRARY.GLB Log CGS_TESTHOLE_LOG_02 CGS_2590_ILUKA_SUBDIVISION.GPJ 23/07/2015 12:19 8.30.003

10

2.00m

2.0

Testbore TB04 terminated at 2.00 m

2.5

3.0

WATER / MOISTURE

SAMPLES & FIELD TESTS

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

See Explanatory Notes for


details of abbreviations
& basis of descriptions.

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

CARDNO GEOTECH SOLUTIONS


File: CGS2590 TB04 Page 1 OF 1

TESTBORE LOG

CLIENT : Stevens Holdings Pty Ltd


PROJECT : Geotech & PCA
LOCATION : Iluka Subdivision

HOLE NO : TB05
PROJECT REF : CGS2590
SHEET : 1 OF 1

EQUIPMENT TYPE : Hand Auger

METHOD :

DATE EXCAVATED : 10/6/15

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

LOCATION : See Drawing for location

TOPSOIL

TOPSOIL, SAND, fine to medium grained, grey, with root fibres, trace
roots
D

0.30m

AEOLIAN

SAND, fine to medium grained, pale orange-yellow

0.5

1.0

D-M

GEOTECH_SOLUTIONS_03 LIBRARY.GLB Log CGS_TESTHOLE_LOG_02 CGS_2590_ILUKA_SUBDIVISION.GPJ 23/07/2015 12:19 8.30.003

1.5

2.00m

2.0

Testbore TB05 terminated at 2.00 m

2.5

3.0

WATER / MOISTURE

SAMPLES & FIELD TESTS

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

See Explanatory Notes for


details of abbreviations
& basis of descriptions.

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

CARDNO GEOTECH SOLUTIONS


File: CGS2590 TB05 Page 1 OF 1

TESTBORE LOG

CLIENT : Stevens Holdings Pty Ltd


PROJECT : Geotech & PCA
LOCATION : Iluka Subdivision

HOLE NO : TB06
PROJECT REF : CGS2590
SHEET : 1 OF 1

EQUIPMENT TYPE : Hand Auger

METHOD :

DATE EXCAVATED : 10/6/15

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

LOCATION : See Drawing for location

TOPSOIL

TOPSOIL, SAND, fine to medium grained, grey, with root fibres


D

0.25m

AEOLIAN

SAND, fine to medium grained, grey, pale yellow

0.5

1.0

D-M

GEOTECH_SOLUTIONS_03 LIBRARY.GLB Log CGS_TESTHOLE_LOG_02 CGS_2590_ILUKA_SUBDIVISION.GPJ 23/07/2015 12:19 8.30.003

1.5

2.00m

2.0

Testbore TB06 terminated at 2.00 m

2.5

3.0

WATER / MOISTURE

SAMPLES & FIELD TESTS

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

See Explanatory Notes for


details of abbreviations
& basis of descriptions.

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

CARDNO GEOTECH SOLUTIONS


File: CGS2590 TB06 Page 1 OF 1

TESTPIT LOG

CLIENT : Stevens Holdings Pty Ltd


PROJECT : Geotech & PCA
LOCATION : Iluka Subdivision

HOLE NO : TP01
PROJECT REF : CGS2590
SHEET : 1 OF 1

EQUIPMENT TYPE : 6t Excavator

METHOD : 450mm toothed bucket

DATE EXCAVATED : 10/6/15

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

LOCATION : See Drawing for location

TOPSOIL

TOPSOIL, SAND, fine to medium grained, pale grey, with roots and root
fibres

1
D
2

0.30m

AEOLIAN

SAND, fine to medium grained, pale grey, trace root fibres


D
0.50m
B

MD

0.50m

0.5

SAND, fine to medium grained, pale orange

1.00m

1.0

D-M

1.5

GEOTECH_SOLUTIONS_03 LIBRARY.GLB Log CGS_TESTHOLE_LOG_02 CGS_2590_ILUKA_SUBDIVISION.GPJ 23/07/2015 12:19 8.30.003

2.00m

2.0

Testpit TP01 terminated at 2.00 m

2.5

3.0

WATER / MOISTURE

SAMPLES & FIELD TESTS

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

See Explanatory Notes for


details of abbreviations
& basis of descriptions.

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

CARDNO GEOTECH SOLUTIONS


File: CGS2590 TP01 Page 1 OF 1

TESTPIT LOG

CLIENT : Stevens Holdings Pty Ltd


PROJECT : Geotech & PCA
LOCATION : Iluka Subdivision

HOLE NO : TP02
PROJECT REF : CGS2590
SHEET : 1 OF 1

EQUIPMENT TYPE : 6t Excavator

METHOD : 450mm toothed bucket

DATE EXCAVATED : 10/6/15

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

LOCATION : See Drawing for location

TOPSOIL

TOPSOIL, SAND, fine to medium grained, grey, with root fibres

0.30m

AEOLIAN

SAND, fine to medium grained, pale yellow, trace root fibres

0.5

0.80m
ES

Major spalling of excavation at 0.9 to


2.0m

1.0

D-M

GEOTECH_SOLUTIONS_03 LIBRARY.GLB Log CGS_TESTHOLE_LOG_02 CGS_2590_ILUKA_SUBDIVISION.GPJ 23/07/2015 12:19 8.30.003

1.5

1.80m
ES

2.00m

2.0

Testpit TP02 terminated at 2.00 m

2.5

3.0

WATER / MOISTURE

SAMPLES & FIELD TESTS

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

See Explanatory Notes for


details of abbreviations
& basis of descriptions.

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

CARDNO GEOTECH SOLUTIONS


File: CGS2590 TP02 Page 1 OF 1

TESTPIT LOG

CLIENT : Stevens Holdings Pty Ltd


PROJECT : Geotech & PCA
LOCATION : Iluka Subdivision

HOLE NO : TP03
PROJECT REF : CGS2590
SHEET : 1 OF 1

EQUIPMENT TYPE : 6t Excavator

METHOD : 450mm toothed bucket

DATE EXCAVATED : 10/6/15

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

LOCATION : See Drawing for location

TOPSOIL

TOPSOIL, SAND, fine to medium grained, pale grey, with roots and root
fibres

1
D
2

0.30m

AEOLIAN

SAND, fine to medium grained, pale yellow, trace tree roots


2

0.50m
B

0.5

MD

1.00m

1.0

D-M

13

PSP refusal on tree root at 1.35 m


VR

GEOTECH_SOLUTIONS_03 LIBRARY.GLB Log CGS_TESTHOLE_LOG_02 CGS_2590_ILUKA_SUBDIVISION.GPJ 23/07/2015 12:19 8.30.003

1.5

2.00m

2.0

Testpit TP03 terminated at 2.00 m

2.5

3.0

WATER / MOISTURE

SAMPLES & FIELD TESTS

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

See Explanatory Notes for


details of abbreviations
& basis of descriptions.

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

CARDNO GEOTECH SOLUTIONS


File: CGS2590 TP03 Page 1 OF 1

TESTPIT LOG

CLIENT : Stevens Holdings Pty Ltd


PROJECT : Geotech & PCA
LOCATION : Iluka Subdivision

HOLE NO : TP04
PROJECT REF : CGS2590
SHEET : 1 OF 1

EQUIPMENT TYPE : 6t Excavator

METHOD : 450mm toothed bucket

DATE EXCAVATED : 10/6/15

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

LOCATION : See Drawing for location

TOPSOIL

TOPSOIL, SAND, fine to medium grained, pale grey-brown, with roots


and root fibres

Test pit located adjacent dumped


concrete on surface. Concrete
excavated in various locations and
generally <100 mm thickness.

5
0.45m

AEOLIAN

SAND, fine to medium grained, pale orange

0.5

1.0

7
D-M

MD - D
8

1.5

GEOTECH_SOLUTIONS_03 LIBRARY.GLB Log CGS_TESTHOLE_LOG_02 CGS_2590_ILUKA_SUBDIVISION.GPJ 23/07/2015 12:19 8.30.003

10

2.00m

2.0

Testpit TP04 terminated at 2.00 m

2.5

3.0

WATER / MOISTURE

SAMPLES & FIELD TESTS

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

See Explanatory Notes for


details of abbreviations
& basis of descriptions.

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

CARDNO GEOTECH SOLUTIONS


File: CGS2590 TP04 Page 1 OF 1

TESTPIT LOG

CLIENT : Stevens Holdings Pty Ltd


PROJECT : Geotech & PCA
LOCATION : Iluka Subdivision

HOLE NO : TP05
PROJECT REF : CGS2590
SHEET : 1 OF 1

EQUIPMENT TYPE : 6t Excavator

METHOD : 450mm toothed bucket

DATE EXCAVATED : 10/6/15

LOGGED BY : DGB

CHECKED BY :

0.05m
ES

0.05m

HAND
PENETROMETER
(kPa)

FILL

FILL, Silty SAND, fine to medium grained, brown

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

LOCATION : See Drawing for location

FILL, Clayey SAND, fine to medium grained, dark orange, with gravels
M

7
0.30m

AEOLIAN

SAND, fine to medium grained, pale orange with grey bands


9

0.50m
B

0.5

1.00m

1.0

AEOLIAN

SAND, fine to medium grained, pale grey

D-M

11

1.30m

GEOTECH_SOLUTIONS_03 LIBRARY.GLB Log CGS_TESTHOLE_LOG_02 CGS_2590_ILUKA_SUBDIVISION.GPJ 23/07/2015 12:19 8.30.003

1.5

2.00m

2.0

Testpit TP05 terminated at 2.00 m

2.5

3.0

WATER / MOISTURE

SAMPLES & FIELD TESTS

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

See Explanatory Notes for


details of abbreviations
& basis of descriptions.

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

CARDNO GEOTECH SOLUTIONS


File: CGS2590 TP05 Page 1 OF 1

TESTPIT LOG

CLIENT : Stevens Holdings Pty Ltd


PROJECT : Geotech & PCA
LOCATION : Iluka Subdivision

HOLE NO : TP06
PROJECT REF : CGS2590
SHEET : 1 OF 1

EQUIPMENT TYPE : 6t Excavator

METHOD : 450mm toothed bucket

DATE EXCAVATED : 10/6/15

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

LOCATION : See Drawing for location

TOPSOIL

TOPSOIL, SAND, fine to medium grained, pale orange, with roots and
root fibres
M

0.30m

AEOLIAN

SAND, fine to medium grained, grey to dark grey

0.5

1.00m
ES

Major spalling of excavation @ 0.5


to 2.0m

1.0

GEOTECH_SOLUTIONS_03 LIBRARY.GLB Log CGS_TESTHOLE_LOG_02 CGS_2590_ILUKA_SUBDIVISION.GPJ 23/07/2015 12:19 8.30.003

1.5

2.00m

2.0

Testpit TP06 terminated at 2.00 m

2.5

3.0

WATER / MOISTURE

SAMPLES & FIELD TESTS

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

See Explanatory Notes for


details of abbreviations
& basis of descriptions.

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

CARDNO GEOTECH SOLUTIONS


File: CGS2590 TP06 Page 1 OF 1

TESTPIT LOG

CLIENT : Stevens Holdings Pty Ltd


PROJECT : Geotech & PCA
LOCATION : Iluka Subdivision

HOLE NO : TP07
PROJECT REF : CGS2590
SHEET : 1 OF 1

EQUIPMENT TYPE : 6t Excavator

METHOD : 450mm toothed bucket

DATE EXCAVATED : 10/6/15

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

LOCATION : See Drawing for location

TOPSOIL

TOPSOIL, SAND, fine to medium grained, grey to brown-grey, trace silt,


with roots and root fibres

4
M
4

0.25m

AEOLIAN

SAND, fine to medium grained, pale grey


6

0.50m
B

0.5

Major spalling @ 0.5 to 2.0m

1.0

5
1.50m

1.5

GEOTECH_SOLUTIONS_03 LIBRARY.GLB Log CGS_TESTHOLE_LOG_02 CGS_2590_ILUKA_SUBDIVISION.GPJ 23/07/2015 12:19 8.30.003

2.00m

2.0

Testpit TP07 terminated at 2.00 m

2.5

3.0

WATER / MOISTURE

SAMPLES & FIELD TESTS

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

See Explanatory Notes for


details of abbreviations
& basis of descriptions.

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

CARDNO GEOTECH SOLUTIONS


File: CGS2590 TP07 Page 1 OF 1

Report on PCA & Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation


Iluka Subdivision
Prepared for Stevens Holdings Pty Ltd

Iluka Subdivision

APPENDIX

F
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

CGS2590-002.0
8 August 2015

Cardno Geotech Solutions

28

Cardno Geotech Solutions

Laboratory:

Geotech Solutions Newcastle

ABN: 95 001 145 035

Phone:

02 4949 4300

Address:

Email:

james.young@cardno.com.au

Unit 4, 5 Arunga Drive

Website:

www.cardno.com.au

Fax:

02 4966 0485

Beresfield NSW 2322

CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO REPORT


Client:

Stevens Holdings

Report Number:

15689/R/1019-1

Client Address:

PO Box 3171, Erina

Project Number:

15689/P/2590

Project:

Iluka Subdivision

Lot Number:

Location:

Iluka Subdivision

Internal Test Request: 15689/T/595

Component:

Client Reference/s:

Area Description:

Report Date / Page:

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 Limit Start

Material Type

Material Limit End

Client Reference

Compactive Effort

Standard

Material Description

SAND, pale orange

Sample Location

Maximum Dry Density (t/m):

1.59

Optimum Moisture Content (%):

22.0

Field Moisture Content (%):

4.6

Sample Percent Oversize (%)

0.0

Oversize Included / Excluded

Excluded

Target Density Ratio (%):

0.50-1.00

100

Target Moisture Ratio (%):

100

Placement Dry Density (t/m):

1.59

Placement Dry Density Ratio (%):

100.0

Placement Moisture Content (%):

21.8

Placement Moisture Ratio (%):


Test Condition / Soaking Period:

100.0
Soaked / 4 Days

CBR Surcharge (kg)

4.5

Dry Density After Soak (t/m):

1.61

Moisture (top 30mm) After Soak (%)

Moisture (remainder) After Soak (%)

21.8

CBR Swell (%):

-1.0

Minimum CBR Specification (%):


CBR Value @ 2.5mm (%):

50

Remarks

The results of the tests, calibrations and/or measurements included in this


document are traceable to Australian/national standards.
Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025

Accreditation Number:

15689
Approved Signatory: Ian Piper
Form ID: W7Rep Rev 1

Page 1 of 4

Cardno Geotech Solutions

Laboratory:

Geotech Solutions Newcastle

ABN: 95 001 145 035

Phone:

02 4949 4300

Address:

Email:

james.young@cardno.com.au

Unit 4, 5 Arunga Drive

Website:

www.cardno.com.au

Fax:

02 4966 0485

Beresfield NSW 2322

CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO REPORT


Client:

Stevens Holdings

Report Number:

15689/R/1019-1

Client Address:

PO Box 3171, Erina

Project Number:

15689/P/2590

Project:

Iluka Subdivision

Lot Number:

Location:

Iluka Subdivision

Internal Test Request: 15689/T/595

Component:

Client Reference/s:

Area Description:

Report Date / Page:

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 Limit Start

Material Type

Material Limit End

Client Reference

Compactive Effort

Standard

Material Description

SAND, pale yellow

Sample Location

Maximum Dry Density (t/m):

1.60

Optimum Moisture Content (%):

22.0

Field Moisture Content (%):

5.2

Sample Percent Oversize (%)

0.0

Oversize Included / Excluded

Excluded

Target Density Ratio (%):

0.50-1.00

100

Target Moisture Ratio (%):

100

Placement Dry Density (t/m):

1.60

Placement Dry Density Ratio (%):

100.0

Placement Moisture Content (%):

21.9

Placement Moisture Ratio (%):


Test Condition / Soaking Period:

100.0
Soaked / 4 Days

CBR Surcharge (kg)

4.5

Dry Density After Soak (t/m):

1.61

Moisture (top 30mm) After Soak (%)

Moisture (remainder) After Soak (%)

21.9

CBR Swell (%):

-0.5

Minimum CBR Specification (%):


CBR Value @ 2.5mm (%):

80

Remarks

The results of the tests, calibrations and/or measurements included in this


document are traceable to Australian/national standards.
Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025

Accreditation Number:

15689
Approved Signatory: Ian Piper
Form ID: W7Rep Rev 1

Page 2 of 4

Cardno Geotech Solutions

Laboratory:

Geotech Solutions Newcastle

ABN: 95 001 145 035

Phone:

02 4949 4300

Address:

Email:

james.young@cardno.com.au

Unit 4, 5 Arunga Drive

Website:

www.cardno.com.au

Fax:

02 4966 0485

Beresfield NSW 2322

CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO REPORT


Client:

Stevens Holdings

Report Number:

15689/R/1019-1

Client Address:

PO Box 3171, Erina

Project Number:

15689/P/2590

Project:

Iluka Subdivision

Lot Number:

Location:

Iluka Subdivision

Internal Test Request: 15689/T/595

Component:

Client Reference/s:

Area Description:

Report Date / Page:

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 Limit Start

Material Type

Material Limit End

Client Reference

Compactive Effort

Standard

Material Description

SAND, pale orange

Sample Location

Maximum Dry Density (t/m):

1.59

Optimum Moisture Content (%):

23.5

Field Moisture Content (%):

5.3

Sample Percent Oversize (%)

0.0

Oversize Included / Excluded

Excluded

Target Density Ratio (%):

0.50-1.30

100

Target Moisture Ratio (%):

100

Placement Dry Density (t/m):

1.59

Placement Dry Density Ratio (%):

100.0

Placement Moisture Content (%):

23.4

Placement Moisture Ratio (%):


Test Condition / Soaking Period:

100.0
Soaked / 4 Days

CBR Surcharge (kg)

4.5

Dry Density After Soak (t/m):

1.60

Moisture (top 30mm) After Soak (%)

Moisture (remainder) After Soak (%)

23.4

CBR Swell (%):

-0.5

Minimum CBR Specification (%):


CBR Value @ 2.5mm (%):

60

Remarks

The results of the tests, calibrations and/or measurements included in this


document are traceable to Australian/national standards.
Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025

Accreditation Number:

15689
Approved Signatory: Ian Piper
Form ID: W7Rep Rev 1

Page 3 of 4

Cardno Geotech Solutions

Laboratory:

Geotech Solutions Newcastle

ABN: 95 001 145 035

Phone:

02 4949 4300

Address:

Email:

james.young@cardno.com.au

Unit 4, 5 Arunga Drive

Website:

www.cardno.com.au

Fax:

02 4966 0485

Beresfield NSW 2322

CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO REPORT


Client:

Stevens Holdings

Report Number:

15689/R/1019-1

Client Address:

PO Box 3171, Erina

Project Number:

15689/P/2590

Project:

Iluka Subdivision

Lot Number:

Location:

Iluka Subdivision

Internal Test Request: 15689/T/595

Component:

Client Reference/s:

Area Description:

Report Date / Page:

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 Limit Start

Material Type

Material Limit End

Client Reference

Compactive Effort

Standard

Material Description

SAND, pale grey

Sample Location

Maximum Dry Density (t/m):

1.64

Optimum Moisture Content (%):

21.0

Field Moisture Content (%):

4.6

Sample Percent Oversize (%)

0.0

Oversize Included / Excluded

Excluded

Target Density Ratio (%):

0.50-1.50

100

Target Moisture Ratio (%):

100

Placement Dry Density (t/m):

1.64

Placement Dry Density Ratio (%):

100.0

Placement Moisture Content (%):

21.1

Placement Moisture Ratio (%):


Test Condition / Soaking Period:

100.0
Soaked / 4 Days

CBR Surcharge (kg)

4.5

Dry Density After Soak (t/m):

1.64

Moisture (top 30mm) After Soak (%)

Moisture (remainder) After Soak (%)

21.1

CBR Swell (%):

-0.5

Minimum CBR Specification (%):


CBR Value @ 2.5mm (%):

70

Remarks

The results of the tests, calibrations and/or measurements included in this


document are traceable to Australian/national standards.
Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025

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

Sample log in details:


Your Reference:
No. of samples:
Date samples received / completed instructions received

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

vTPH C6 - C 10 less BTEX (F1)

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

vTPH C6 - C 10 less BTEX (F1)

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

svTRH (C10-C40) 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 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

TRH >C10 - C 16 less Naphthalene


(F2)

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

TRH >C10 - C 16 less Naphthalene


(F2)

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

Benzo(a)pyrene TEQ calc (zero)

mg/kg

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

Benzo(a)pyrene TEQ calc(half)

mg/kg

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

Benzo(a)pyrene TEQ calc(PQL)

mg/kg

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

Total Positive PAHs

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

Benzo(a)pyrene TEQ calc (zero)

mg/kg

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

Benzo(a)pyrene TEQ calc(half)

mg/kg

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

Benzo(a)pyrene TEQ calc(PQL)

mg/kg

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

Total Positive PAHs

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

Organochlorine Pesticides 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

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

Organochlorine Pesticides 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

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

Acid Extractable metals 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

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

Acid Extractable metals in soil

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

Sample mass tested

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

Mass / Dimension of Sample

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

Determination of various metals by ICP-AES.

Metals-021 CVAAS

Determination of Mercury by Cold Vapour AAS.

Inorg-008

Moisture content determined by heating at 105+/-5 deg C for a minimum of 12 hours.

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

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 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

104 || 104 || RPD: 0

LCS-6

112%

Spike Sm#

Spike %
Recovery

QUALITY CONTROL

UNITS

PQL

METHOD

Blank

Duplicate
Sm#

svTRH (C10-C40) 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

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

Base ll Duplicate ll %RPD

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

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

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#

Acid Extractable metals


in soil

Duplicate results

Spike Sm#

Spike %
Recovery

Base ll Duplicate ll %RPD

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

Base + Duplicate + %RPD

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#

svTRH (C10-C40) in Soil

CGS2590
Duplicate

Spike Sm#

Spike % Recovery

Base + Duplicate + %RPD

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

Base + Duplicate + %RPD

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

Base + Duplicate + %RPD

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

Base + Duplicate + %RPD

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

Base + Duplicate + %RPD

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

Acid Extractable metals in


soil

Base + Duplicate + %RPD

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.

Asbestos ID was analysed by Approved Identifier:


Asbestos ID was authorised by Approved Signatory:

INS: Insufficient sample for this test


NA: Test not required
<: Less than

Envirolab Reference:
Revision No:

129424
R 00

Lulu Scott, Paul Ching


Paul Ching

PQL: Practical Quantitation Limit


RPD: Relative Percent Difference
>: Greater than

NT: Not tested


NA: Test not required
LCS: Laboratory Control Sample

Page 22 of 23

Client Reference:

CGS2590

Quality Control Definitions


Blank: This is the component of the analytical signal which is not derived from the sample but from reagents,
glassware etc, can be determined by processing solvents and reagents in exactly the same manner as for samples.
Duplicate : This is the complete duplicate analysis of a sample from the process batch. If possible, the sample
selected should be one where the analyte concentration is easily measurable.
Matrix Spike : A portion of the sample is spiked with a known concentration of target analyte. The purpose of the matrix
spike is to monitor the performance of the analytical method used and to determine whether matrix interferences exist.
LCS (Laboratory Control Sample) : This comprises either a standard reference material or a control matrix (such as a blank
sand or water) fortified with analytes representative of the analyte class. It is simply a check sample.
Surrogate Spike: Surrogates are known additions to each sample, blank, matrix spike and LCS in a batch, of compounds
which are similar to the analyte of interest, however are not expected to be found in real samples.
Laboratory Acceptance Criteria
Duplicate sample and matrix spike recoveries may not be reported on smaller jobs, however, were analysed at a frequency
to meet or exceed NEPM requirements. All samples are tested in batches of 20. The duplicate sample RPD and matrix
spike recoveries for the batch were within the laboratory acceptance criteria.
Filters, swabs, wipes, tubes and badges will not have duplicate data as the whole sample is generally extracted
during sample extraction.
Spikes for Physical and Aggregate Tests are not applicable.
For VOCs in water samples, three vials are required for duplicate or spike analysis.
Duplicates: <5xPQL - any RPD is acceptable; >5xPQL - 0-50% RPD is acceptable.
Matrix Spikes, LCS and Surrogate recoveries: Generally 70-130% for inorganics/metals; 60-140%
for organics (+/-50% surrogates) and 10-140% for labile SVOCs (including labile surrogates), ultra trace organics
and speciated phenols is acceptable.
In circumstances where no duplicate and/or sample spike has been reported at 1 in 10 and/or 1 in 20 samples
respectively, the sample volume submitted was insufficient in order to satisfy laboratory QA/QC protocols.
When samples are received where certain analytes are outside of recommended technical holding times (THTs),
the analysis has proceeded. Where analytes are on the verge of breaching THTs, every effort will be made to analyse
within the THT or as soon as practicable.

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.

Preliminary Contamination Assessment and Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation


submittedunderseparatecover.

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.

Street 10 is proposed to be located adjacent to Park 2 in the western portion of site. A


minimum8mwidecarriagewayisproposedtoensureadequateAssetProtectionZonesare
providedtoaffectedlotsontheeasternsideofstreet10.Accesstolotsisproposedtobe
prohibitedfromRoad10.

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.

The proposed residential subdivision is to be developed in Stages as demonstrated on the


StagingPlanattachedatAppendix2.

Lotswillbereleasedbasedondemand.TheStagingPlanhashadregardtothelocationof
existingservicesandtheefficientextensionofsuchservices.

Lot7020DP1114873asindicatedontheSiteLocationPlanattachedatAppendix1hasbeen
identifiedfromapropertysearchwiththeNSWDepartmentofPrimaryIndustriesLands,
whichindicatesthisLot7020wasCrownpublicroadclosed9March1990.Thesearchnotes
itwasintendedatthetimetoaddthelandtotheadjoiningreservetothenorthforlease
purposes.

TheLotiscurrentlyCrownLandwithinReserve751379forFuturePublicRequirements.

It is intended the consent of the relevant NSW Government Departments be obtained to


reopenthisLot7020asroad.

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

j) to manage the coastal zone in accordance with the principles of ecologically


sustainabledevelopment(withinthemeaningofsection6(2)oftheProtectionofthe
EnvironmentAdministrationAct1991),and
k) to ensure that the type, bulk, scale and size of development is appropriate for the
locationandprotectsandimprovesthenaturalscenicqualityofthesurroundingarea,
and
l) toencourageastrategicapproachtocoastalmanagement.

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.

g) measures to conserve animals (within the meaning of the Threatened Species


ConservationAct1995)andplants(withinthemeaningofthatAct),andtheirhabitats,

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.

(n) the conservation and preservation of items of heritage, archaeological or historic


significance,

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

b) To set out procedures for notification and advertising of development applications in


residentialzones.
c) Toensurethatthereisadequateprovisionforcarparkingfacilitiesandforthesafeand
convenientcirculationofallformsofvehicles,pedestriansandbicyclesintheresidential
areas.
d) Toprovidecontrolsforerosionandsedimentcontrol.
e) Toprovidecontrolstomanagewaterinasustainableway.
f) Toprovidesubdivisionandengineeringstandards.
g) Toprovidecontrolsforadvertisingstructures.
h) To ensure that development in flood prone areas is compatible with the flooding
characteristicsofthesiteandisdesignedsothatthelikelihoodofdamagetobuildings,
stockandequipmentfromfloodwaterisminimized.

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.

(e) To incorporate sustainable water management options into development to decrease


demandsoninfrastructureandontheenvironment.

TheproposedstormwaterqualityandquantitytechniquesareinkeepingwithSections3
and 4 of the Clarence Valley Sustainable Water Requirements. Information for
Applicants documentation, which outlines Residential Single Lot and Residential
SubdivisionscaleSustainableWaterManagementtechniques.

(f) Facilitiesmustbedesignedtominimisemaintenance

The proposed stormwater treatment measures will be designed in accordance with


Section 7 of the Clarence Valley Sustainable Water Requirements. Information for
Applicants documentation, which outlines the maintenance requirements for both
privatelyownedandregional(ResidentialSubdivisionscale)devices.

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

Construction documentation for each type of erosion and sediment control


device;
Specificationanddocumentationforanylandscapingworks.

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:

(a) To provide engineering standards for development and subdivision in residential


zones.
(b) Toensurethatsubdivisionrelatestothecharacteristicsofasiteorlocality.
(c) Toensuresubdivisionofresidentiallandthatisadequatelyserviced.
(d) Toensureroaddesignissafeandsuitableforresidentialdevelopment.

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;

A 500sqm block has a proposed width of approximately 12.5m and a length of


40m,
A720sqmblockhasaproposedwidthof18mandalength40m.

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

Stormwater management and drainage systems should be an integral part of the


subdivision design. Stormwater management, open space networks and habitat
corridorsshouldbeintegrated.Stormwatershouldbemanagedsothereisminimal
ornoimpactonthenaturalenvironment.

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.

As noted above the development incorporates an integrated stormwater


management system within the street layout, open space network and habitat
corridor.LocalandRegionalsystemsareproposedtobeimplementedasdiscussed
inSection4.3.2ofthisSEE.

4.3.4.7

StreetPlanting

Thesubdivisionwillbeprovidedwithalandscapestrategywhichwillhaveregardto;

(i)

the existing vegetation to be retained as part of the ecological


recommendationstoenhancebiodiversity;

(ii)

new plantings for recognised and identified fauna movements corridors as


recommendedintheecologicalstudy;

(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;

Footpaths Intended to be provided within Street 1 and to be a combined bicycle


pathwaytoconnecttotheexistingpathwayinElizabethStreetandMicaloStreet;

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.

All in accordance with CV Sustainable Water Requirements Information for


Applicants.

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.

Sewerage System Council advises the sewerage system at Iluka is a Pressure


Sewer System. Council also confirms capacity is available in the Iluka pressure
sewersystemfortheproposeddevelopmentofthelandforsome162lots.

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.

Telecommunications conduits and services to be provided to service each


allotment within the land to be underground except where existing services are
providedoverheadonadjacentexistingservices.

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

As noted throughout this Statement of Environmental Effects the development of the


proposed lot layout has been an interactive process. Based on Flora and Fauna Impact
AssessmentandBushfireManagementrecommendations,theproposedlotlayouthasbeen
adjusted to ensure fauna movement corridors are created and that significant vegetation
whereitoccursonsiteisretainedintheproposedparkland.

StormwaterManagementwillbecriticaltoensuringthatthereisnoadverseimpactonthe
littoralrainforestlocatedtotheeastofthesite,norontheretainedvegetationtothewest
ofthesite.

It is considered that the implementation of appropriate conditions of consent will be


sufficienttoensurethatanyimpactonthenaturalenvironmentisminimal.

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

TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT REPORT

FOR
PROPOSED

RESIDENTIAL

SUBDIVISION
AT

ILUKA ROAD

ILUKA

28 AUGUST 2015

BJ Bradley & Associates


Consulting Civil and Traffic Engineers
P O Box 2030
Gateshead Business Centre
GATESHEAD NSW 2290
Phone and Fax:
02 49485212
Mobile:
0412 490 859

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

EXISTING USE OF SITE

The site of the proposed subdivision is currently undeveloped rural land.


The land is covered with trees and shrubs.

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 ILUKA ROAD

Traffic volumes on the Iluka Road have been obtained courtesy of Clarence Valley
Council as follows:

Near Woody Head Turnoff

2012 AADT 1,775

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

195 vph Say 200 vph


262 vph Say 270 vph

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

Estimated Existing Traffic


AM Peak
30 Trips

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

TRAFFIC ENVIRONMENT ON ILUKA ROAD

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 INTERSECTION OF HICKEY STREET /


ILUKA ROAD

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)

> 400 metres


> 400 metres

AS2890.1 recommends the following sight distances at car parking exits:


Road Frontage Speed
(km/h)

Minimum Sight Distance


(metres)

Desirable Sight Distance


(metres)

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

TRAFFIC GENERATION POTENTIAL

RTA Guidelines for Traffic Generating Developments suggest the following traffic
generation rates for residential properties:

Daily Generation
Weekday peak hour generation

= 9.0 trips per dwelling


= 0.85 trips per dwelling

The traffic generation likely to result from the proposed subdivision when fully
developed, would therefore be:

10.0

162 lots @ 9.0 per lot

= 1,458 trips per day.

162 lots @ 0.85 per lot

= 137.7 trips per hour

Say

138 trips per hour

ACCESS TO PROPOSED SUBDIVISION

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

ORIGIN / DESTINATION CONSIDERATIONS

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

POTENTIAL TRAFFIC FLOWS FROM PROPOSED SUBDIVISION

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

(Approximately 36 trips likely to utilize Micalo Street)

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

(Approximately 48 trips likely to utilize Micalo Street)


NUMERALS IN BOLD FONT REPRESENT TRAFFIC GENERATED
BY THE PROPOSED 162-LOT SUBDIVISION

DIAGRAMS NOT TO SCALE

Note *:

SIDRA requires a nominal value of 1 to perform simulations, and that


has been used even though the volumes would likely be zero in the
weekday peak periods.

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:

Level of Service for Unsignalised Intersections Controlled


by Stop or Give Way Signs.
Average Delay
Level of
Operational Conditions
per vehicle
Service
(secs)
0 to 14
A
Good
15 to 28
B
Acceptable delays and spare capacity
29 to 42
C
Satisfactory but accident study required
43 to 56
D
Near capacity and accident study required
57 to 70
E
At capacity and requires other control mode
> 70
F
Unsatisfactory and requires other control mode

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:

Approximate Average Delays for Each Movement Access


on the Iluka Road Existing Traffic AM Peak

Movement

Average Delay
(secs / vehicle)
Existing Traffic

Level of
Service

Level of
Service

Average Delay
(secs / vehicle)
Existing Traffic
plus subdivision
traffic
7.0

Northbound on Iluka Road


left into Hickey Street
Northbound through on Iluka
Road
Northbound on Iluka Road
right into Buff Beach Road
Buff Beach Road left into
Iluka Road
Buff Beach Road through to
Hickey Street
Buff Beach Road right into
Iluka Road
Southbound on Iluka Road
left into Buff Beach Road
Southbound through on Iluka
Road
Southbound on Iluka Road
right into Hickey Street
Hickey Street left into Iluka
Road
Hickey Street through to Buff
Beach Road
Hickey Street left into Iluka
Road
Overall Average Delays

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:

Approximate Average Delays for Each Movement Access


on the Iluka Road 2015 Traffic PM Traffic

Movement

Average Delay
(secs / vehicle)
Existing Traffic

Level of
Service

Level of
Service

Average Delay
(secs / vehicle)
Existing Traffic
plus subdivision
traffic
7.0

Northbound on Iluka Road


left into Hickey Street
Northbound through on Iluka
Road
Northbound on Iluka Road
right into Buff Beach Road
Buff Beach Road left into
Iluka Road
Buff Beach Road through to
Hickey Street
Buff Beach Road right into
Iluka Road
Southbound on Iluka Road
left into Buff Beach Road
Southbound through on Iluka
Road
Southbound on Iluka Road
right into Hickey Street
Hickey Street left into Iluka
Road
Hickey Street through to Buff
Beach Road
Hickey Street left into Iluka
Road
Overall Average Delays

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

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION

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)

There will be no individual driveways to Iluka Road.

c)

Traffic volumes on Iluka Road in the vicinity of the proposed subdivision


are quite low, with an AADT of approximately 2,000 vehicles per day,
equivalent to approximately 200 vehicles two-way in the weekday peaks,
as indicated by Clarence Valley Council.

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)

The SIDRA simulations indicate that turning facilities would not be


required on Iluka Road as the turning and through volumes will be quite
low, and sight distance is excellent in both directions along Iluka Road.

g)

SIDRA simulations indicate that the traffic generated by the proposed


subdivision will have a negligible impact on the operation of the
intersection of Hickey Street / Iluka Road / Buff Beach Road.

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.

B J Bradley BE Grad Dip Man MIE Aust

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

Demand Flows Deg. Satn


Total
HV
veh/h
%
v/c
South: Iluka Road south
1
L2
22
0.0
0.086
2
T1
140
1.0
0.086
3
R2
1
0.0
0.086
Approach
163
0.9
0.086
East: Buff Beach Road east
4
L2
1
0.0
0.003
5
T1
1
0.0
0.003
6
R2
1
0.0
0.003
Approach
3
0.0
0.003
North: Iluka Road north
7
L2
1
0.0
0.036
8
T1
60
1.0
0.036
9
R2
6
0.0
0.036
Approach
67
0.9
0.036
West: Hickey Street west
10
L2
1
0.0
0.004
11
T1
1
0.0
0.004
12
R2
2
0.0
0.004
Approach
4
0.0
0.004
All Vehicles
237
0.8
0.086

Average
Delay
sec

Level of
Service

95% Back of Queue


Vehicles Distance
veh
m

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

Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay (HCM 2000).


Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay per movement
Minor Road Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all vehicle movements.
NA: Intersection LOS and Major Road Approach LOS values are Not Applicable for two-way sign control since the average
delay is not a good LOS measure due to zero delays associated with major road movements.
SIDRA Standard Delay Model is used. Control Delay includes Geometric Delay.
Gap-Acceptance Capacity: SIDRA Standard (Akelik M3D).

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

Demand Flows Deg. Satn


Total
HV
veh/h
%
v/c
South: Iluka Road south
1
L2
2
0.0
0.033
2
T1
60
1.0
0.033
3
R2
1
0.0
0.033
Approach
63
1.0
0.033
East: Buff Beach Road east
4
L2
1
0.0
0.003
5
T1
1
0.0
0.003
6
R2
1
0.0
0.003
Approach
3
0.0
0.003
North: Iluka Road north
7
L2
1
0.0
0.075
8
T1
140
1.0
0.075
9
R2
1
0.0
0.075
Approach
142
1.0
0.075
West: Hickey Street west
10
L2
6
0.0
0.029
11
T1
1
0.0
0.029
12
R2
22
0.0
0.029
Approach
29
0.0
0.029
All Vehicles
237
0.8
0.075

Average
Delay
sec

Level of
Service

95% Back of Queue


Vehicles Distance
veh
m

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

Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay (HCM 2000).


Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay per movement
Minor Road Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all vehicle movements.
NA: Intersection LOS and Major Road Approach LOS values are Not Applicable for two-way sign control since the average
delay is not a good LOS measure due to zero delays associated with major road movements.
SIDRA Standard Delay Model is used. Control Delay includes Geometric Delay.
Gap-Acceptance Capacity: SIDRA Standard (Akelik M3D).
HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation.

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

Demand Flows Deg. Satn


Total
HV
veh/h
%
v/c
South: Iluka Road south
1
L2
24
0.0
0.087
2
T1
140
1.0
0.087
3
R2
1
0.0
0.087
Approach
165
0.8
0.087
East: Buff Beach Road east
4
L2
1
0.0
0.003
5
T1
1
0.0
0.003
6
R2
1
0.0
0.003
Approach
3
0.0
0.003
North: Iluka Road north
7
L2
1
0.0
0.049
8
T1
60
1.0
0.049
9
R2
26
0.0
0.049
Approach
87
0.7
0.049
West: Hickey Street west
10
L2
77
0.0
0.060
11
T1
1
0.0
0.060
12
R2
5
0.0
0.060
Approach
83
0.0
0.060
All Vehicles
338
0.6
0.087

Average
Delay
sec

Level of
Service

95% Back of Queue


Vehicles Distance
veh
m

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

Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay (HCM 2000).


Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay per movement
Minor Road Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all vehicle movements.
NA: Intersection LOS and Major Road Approach LOS values are Not Applicable for two-way sign control since the average
delay is not a good LOS measure due to zero delays associated with major road movements.
SIDRA Standard Delay Model is used. Control Delay includes Geometric Delay.
Gap-Acceptance Capacity: SIDRA Standard (Akelik M3D).
HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation.

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

Demand Flows Deg. Satn


Total
HV
veh/h
%
v/c
South: Iluka Road south
1
L2
5
0.0
0.035
2
T1
60
1.0
0.035
3
R2
1
0.0
0.035
Approach
66
0.9
0.035
East: Buff Beach Road east
4
L2
1
0.0
0.003
5
T1
1
0.0
0.003
6
R2
1
0.0
0.003
Approach
3
0.0
0.003
North: Iluka Road north
7
L2
1
0.0
0.120
8
T1
140
1.0
0.120
9
R2
77
0.0
0.120
Approach
218
0.6
0.120
West: Hickey Street west
10
L2
14
0.0
0.039
11
T1
1
0.0
0.039
12
R2
24
0.0
0.039
Approach
39
0.0
0.039
All Vehicles
326
0.6
0.120

Average
Delay
sec

Level of
Service

95% Back of Queue


Vehicles Distance
veh
m

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

Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay (HCM 2000).


Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay per movement
Minor Road Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all vehicle movements.
NA: Intersection LOS and Major Road Approach LOS values are Not Applicable for two-way sign control since the average
delay is not a good LOS measure due to zero delays associated with major road movements.
SIDRA Standard Delay Model is used. Control Delay includes Geometric Delay.
Gap-Acceptance Capacity: SIDRA Standard (Akelik M3D).
HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation.

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)

28th August 2015


Prepared By:
Building Code & Bushfire
Hazard Solutions Pty Limited
Tel:
Fax:

(02) 9457 6530


(02) 9457 6532

PO Box 124
Berowra NSW 2081
ABN 19 057 337 774
www.bushfirehazardsolutions.com.au

Lot 99 Hickey Street, Iluka

160072

Contents
Page No.
List of Abbreviations

1.0

Introduction

2.0

Purpose of Report

3.0

Scope of Report

4.0

Referenced Documents and Persons

5.0

Compliance Table and Notes

4-5

6.0

Aerial view of the subject allotment

6-7

7.0

Bushfire Hazard Assessment

8.0

Site and Bushfire Hazard Determination

14 - 15

9.0

Recommendations

16 - 17

10.0

Conclusion

18 - 19

11.0

Annexure

List of referenced documents and attachments

Attachments

Building Code & Bushfire Hazard Solutions Pty Limited

8 - 13

19

Page 1 of 19

Lot 99 Hickey Street, Iluka

160072

List of Abbreviations:
APZ

Asset Protection Zone

AS3959

Australian Standard 3959 2009 as amended.

BAL

Bushfire Attack Level

BCA

Building Code of Australia

BPMs

Bushfire Protection Measures

BPLM

Bushfire Prone Land Map

Council

Clarence Valley Council

DA

Development Application

EP&A Act

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act - 1979

ESD

Ecologically Sustainable Development

FRNSW

Fire & Rescue NSW

IPA

Inner Protection Area

NCC

National Construction Code

NP

National Park

NSP

Neighbourhood Safer Places

OPA

Outer Protection Area

PBP

Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006

ROW

Right of Way

RF Act

Rural Fires Act - 1997

RFS

NSW Rural Fire Service

SEPP

State Environmental Planning Policy

SFPP

Special Fire Protection Purpose

SWS

Static Water Supply

WSP

Western Sydney Parklands

Building Code & Bushfire Hazard Solutions Pty Limited

Page 2 of 19

Lot 99 Hickey Street, Iluka

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.

2.0 Purpose of Report


The purpose of this Bushfire Assessment Report is to provide the owners, the Rural Fire Service
and Council with an independent bushfire hazard determination together with appropriate
recommendations for both new building construction and bushfire mitigation measures considered
necessary having regard to construction within a designated bushfire prone area.
The recommendations contained within this report may assist in forming the basis of any specific
construction conditions and/or bushfire mitigation measures that Council and/or the NSW Rural
Fire Service may elect to place within any consent conditions issued for the subject Development
Application.

3.0 Scope of this Report


The scope of this report is limited to providing a bushfire hazard assessment and
recommendations for the subject site. Where reference has been made to the surrounding lands,
this report does not purport to directly assess those lands; rather it may discuss bushfire impact
and/or progression through those lands and possible bushfire impact to the subject site.

4.0 Referenced Documents and Persons


Comments provided are based on the requirements of the NSW Environmental Planning and
Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act), the Rural Fires Act 1997, the Rural Fires Regulation 2013, the
RFS document known as Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006 for the purposes of bushfire
hazard determination and Australian Standard 3959 2009 titled Construction of buildings in
bushfire-prone areas as amended for building/structural provisions.
A company representative has made a site inspection of the subject property and surrounding
area. The Masterplan prepared by JCD A+U (project no 1460, dwg no I.30, issue A, dated 22nd
August 2015) has been relied upon for this assessment.
The 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) were also taken into consideration.

Building Code & Bushfire Hazard Solutions Pty Limited

Page 3 of 19

Lot 99 Hickey Street, Iluka

160072

5.0 Compliance Tables & Notes


The following tables sets out the projects compliance with Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006
for residential subdivision as dictated by Appendix 2 Planning for Bush Fire Protection
2006.
Park 1

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 realigned fire trail


(9m)

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.

Building Code & Bushfire Hazard Solutions Pty Limited

Page 4 of 19

Lot 99 Hickey Street, Iluka

160072

Asset Protection Zones Compliance


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).
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.
The subject development demonstrates compliance with the minimum required Asset Protection
Zones under PBP. The available APZs consist of grounds within the subject property, the proposed
re-aligned Elizabeth Street Fire Trail and Iluka Road.

Construction Level Compliance


No new dwellings are proposed as part of this DA. Those new allotments that are mapped as
Bushfire Prone Land following this subdivision may require further assessment under the housing
Codes SEPP or s79BA of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1997 at the time of any
future application for the construction of any new dwellings on these newly created allotments.
It should be noted that the proposed Asset Protection Zones have been increased so that no new
dwelling will be required to exceed BAL 29 construction under AS3959 2009.

Access and Services


Guideline Ref.

Proposed Development Determinations


The subject site has street frontage to Hickey Street to the north, Iluka Road to
the east and Elizabeth Street partially to the southwest.

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

Where possible new transmission lines should be underground.

Evacuation

Evacuation will be possible by utilising existing and proposed road


infrastructure.

Building Code & Bushfire Hazard Solutions Pty Limited

Page 5 of 19

Lot 99 Hickey Street, Iluka

160072

6.0 Aerial view of the subject allotments

N
Subject
site

Image 01: Aerial view of


the subject allotment

N
Subject site

Image 02: Aerial view of


the development area

Building Code & Bushfire Hazard Solutions Pty Limited

Page 6 of 19

Lot 99 Hickey Street, Iluka

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

Lot 99 Hickey Street, Iluka

160072

7.0 Bushfire Hazard Assessment


7.01 Preface
Properties considered to be affected by possible bushfire impact are determined from the local
Bushfire Prone Land Map as prepared by Council and or the Rural Fire Service. All property
development within affected areas is subject to the conditions detailed in the document Planning
for Bush Fire Protection - 2006 (PBP). Set back distances for the purpose of creating Asset
Protection Zones (APZs) must be applied and any buildings must then conform to corresponding
regulations detailed in Australian Standard 3959 2009 Construction of buildings in bushfire prone
areas.
Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006, (PBP) formally adopted on the 1st March 2007 and
amended May 2010 (Appendix 3) provides for the protection of property and life (including firefighters and emergency service personnel) from bushfire impact.
The thrust of the document is to ensure that developers of new properties or sub-divisions include
the constraints associated with the construction of buildings in bushfire prone areas within their
proposed development sites. PBP is applicable to proposed development inside determined
Category 1 or 2 areas and also inside a buffer zone radius of 100m from a Category 1 bushfire
area or 30m from a Category 2 bushfire area.
The document also acknowledges infill developments associated with re-development of existing
properties and allows some higher levels of building safety where the increased set backs (APZs)
may not be achievable.
The subject development relates to the subdivision of one allotment for residential purposes. To
accord with PBP the subdivision is classified as integrated development and assessed as a 100B
application under the Rural Fires Act 1997.

Subject site

Image 04: Extract from Clarence Valley Councils Bushfire Prone Land Map
Building Code & Bushfire Hazard Solutions Pty Limited

Page 8 of 19

Lot 99 Hickey Street, Iluka

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

Photograph 01: View west along Hickey Street

Approximate
location of the
subject
allotment

Image 05: Extract from street-directory.com.au

Building Code & Bushfire Hazard Solutions Pty Limited

Page 9 of 19

Lot 99 Hickey Street, Iluka

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

Photograph 02: View southeast from within Iluka Nature Reserve

Building Code & Bushfire Hazard Solutions Pty Limited

Page 10 of 19

Lot 99 Hickey Street, Iluka

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

Lot 99 Hickey Street, Iluka

160072

7.05 Slope and Topography


The slope that would most significantly affect bushfire behaviour must be assessed for at least 100
metres from the available building footprints. The subject site and surrounding area was found to
be relatively flat with minor undulations around existing natural drainage channels. A review of
topographic imagery of the subject area found there is no discernible fall.
The slope that would most significantly influence bushfire behaviour was determined onsite using
an inclinometer to be:
0 degrees and up slope within the hazard to the northwest and Park 2
1 degree down slope within the hazard to the east and south and Park 1

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

7.05 Asset Protection Zones


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 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 available APZs consist of grounds within the subject property, the proposed re-aligned
Elizabeth Street Fire Trail (9 metre width) and Iluka Road.
Building Code & Bushfire Hazard Solutions Pty Limited

Page 12 of 19

Lot 99 Hickey Street, Iluka

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.

7.06 Fire Fighting Water Supply


Hydrants are available along Elizabeth Street and existing public roads to the southwest for the
replenishment of attending fire services. The hydrant system will be extended along the new
internal roads to service the proposed residential allotments. The sizing, spacing and pressures of
this system must comply with AS2419.1-2005.

7.07 Property Access Fire Services & Evacuation


The subject site has street frontage to Hickey Street to the north, Iluka Road to the east and
Elizabeth Street partially to the southwest.
The formed portion Hickey Street will be extended as part of the proposal for the length of the
development to a complying turning circle.
The proposed residential development will have two (2) vehicle access points form Hickey Street
and one (1) from Elizabeth Street. The proposed internal roads will be two way providing a
minimum carriageway of 8 metres, exceeding the requirements for Public Roads. Proposed street
10 being a perimeter road will provide a minimum carriageway of 8 metres.
While it is noted that proposal includes two dead-end roads, these roads were found to not exceed
200 metres in length and including complying turning circles.
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.
As the most distant external point of all future dwellings will be located within 70 metres of a public
road that supports the operational use of fire-fighting vehicles (hydrants) the Property Access
provisions detailed in section 4.1.3(2) of PBP are not applicable.
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 Crown Land, immediately
adjacent the subject site. It will 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 will provide a 9 metre wide
cleared area adjacent the subject site.
Comprehensive access to the bushfire hazards is available via Iluka Road, Bluff Road, Hickey
Street, Elizabeth Street, Elizabeth Street Fire Trail, Iluka Golf Course and other existing trails and
roads for attending fire services undertaking fire suppression or hazard reduction activities. This
access will be further enhanced as a result of the proposed development within the upgrade/ realignment of the Elizabeth Street Fire Trail, upgrade to Hickey Street and construction of the
proposed internal perimeter road (street 10).

Building Code & Bushfire Hazard Solutions Pty Limited

Page 13 of 19

Lot 99 Hickey Street, Iluka

160072

8.0 Site & Bushfire Hazard Determination


8.01 Planning for Bush Fire Protection - 2006
Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006 (PBP) is applicable to those lands determined as being
within a bushfire prone area in accordance with a local Bushfire Prone Land Map as provided by
the Rural Fire Service and Council.
The most appropriate method of determining site bushfire hazard under the terms of PBP is to
consider the site in a singular form.
Bushfire prone areas are defined as those areas;
within or within 100m of high or medium bushfire hazards; or
within or within 30m of low bushfire hazards.

8.02 Australian Standard AS 3959 2009 Construction of


buildings in bushfire prone areas
Australian Standard 3959 2009 Construction of buildings in bushfire-prone areas provides for
six (6) levels of building construction these being BAL - Low, BAL - 12.5, BAL - 19, BAL - 29, BAL 40 and BAL - FZ. The Australian Standard 3959 specifies construction standards for buildings
within various Bushfire Attack Levels as determined by the Planning for Bush Fire Protection
2006 document. The NSW Rural Fire Service will not accept deemed to satisfy provisions for BAL
Flame Zone and therefore have a NSW variation to the listed standard provisions of BAL FZ under
AS3959 - 2009.

8.03 Correlation between bushfire impact and AS3959


Bushfire Attack
Level
Low

Maximum radiant heat impact


(kW/m2)

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

8.04 Site Specific Bushfire Hazard Determination


All property development must be assessed on an individual basis as broad-brush approaches of
documents such as PBP may not be applicable in every instance. The proposed development
located at Hickey Street, Iluka was assessed against the requirements of Planning for Bush Fire
Protection 2006 noting the following:
a) Proposed water supplies and access provisions will comply with PBP 2006.
b) As a result of the subject development Hickey Street and the Elizabeth Street Fire Trail will
be upgraded.
c) The proposed development will result in a lower bushfire threat to the overall township of
Iluka.
d) Recommendations to maintain the Asset Protection Zones within the subject site will be
included.
Building Code & Bushfire Hazard Solutions Pty Limited

Page 14 of 19

Lot 99 Hickey Street, Iluka

160072

8.05 Viable Construction Method


The objectives of Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006 are for the protection of life including
fire fighters. Provided these objectives can be met the construction of buildings is feasible and both
the Rural Fire Service and Council should be in a position to consider such applications.
No new dwellings are proposed as part of this DA. Those new allotments that are mapped as
Bushfire Prone Land following this subdivision may require further assessment under the housing
Codes SEPP or s79BA of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1997 at the time of any
future application for the construction of any new dwellings on these newly created allotments.
It should be noted that the proposed Asset Protection Zones have been increased so that no new
dwelling will be required to exceed BAL 29 construction under AS3959 2009.

Building Code & Bushfire Hazard Solutions Pty Limited

Page 15 of 19

Lot 99 Hickey Street, Iluka

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.

Asset Protection Zones


1. 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.
2. All APZs shall be managed as an Inner Protection Area as outlined within
section 4.1.3 and Appendix 5 of Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006 and the
NSW Rural Fire Service's document Standards for asset protection zones.
3. That any new landscaping is to comply with Appendix 5 Landscaping and
Property Maintenance under Planing for Bushfire Protection 2006.

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

Lot 99 Hickey Street, Iluka

160072

Gas:

Reticulated or bottled gas is installed and maintained in accordance with AS


1596 and the requirements of relevant authorities. Metal piping is to be used.
All fixed gas cylinders are kept clear of all flammable materials to a distance
of 10 metres and shielded on the hazard side of the installation.
If gas cylinders need to be kept close to the building, the release valves are
directed away from the building and at least 2 metres away from any
combustible material, so that they do not act as a catalyst to combustion.
Connections to and from gas cylinders are metal.
Polymer sheathed flexible gas supply lines to gas meters adjacent to
buildings are not used.

Water:

That the new hydrant sizing, spacing and pressures must comply with
AS2419.1 2005.

Building Code & Bushfire Hazard Solutions Pty Limited

Page 17 of 19

Lot 99 Hickey Street, Iluka

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

G. D. Design in Bushfire Prone Areas.


Certificate IV Fire Technology
Fire Protection Association of Australia BPAD L3 Certified Practitioner
Certification number BPAD9400

G. D. Design in Bushfire Prone Areas.


Certificate IV Fire Technology
Ass Dip Applied Science
Manager - Bushfire Section
Fire Protection Association of Australia BPAD L3 Certified Practitioner
Certification number BPD PA-09399

Building Code & Bushfire Hazard Solutions Pty Limited

Page 18 of 19

Lot 99 Hickey Street, Iluka

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)

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act - 1979

b)

Rural Fires Act 1997 as amended

c)

Planning for Bush Fire Protection- 2006

- NSW Rural Fire Services &


Planning NSW

d)

Construction of buildings in bushfire prone areas

- AS 3959 2009 (as amended) Standards


Australia

e)

Clarence Valley Councils Bushfire Prone Land Map

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:

Asset Protection Zone Overlay

Attachment 02:

Bushfire Design Modelling

Building Code & Bushfire Hazard Solutions Pty Limited

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
)

Building Code &


Bushfire Hazard Solutions
(Pty. Limited) ABN 19 057 337 774
PO Box 124, Berowra NSW 2081
Telephone: (02) 9457 6530 Facsimile: (02) 9457
6532
www.bushfirehazardsolutions.com.au

LEGEND
APZ (IPA) MINIMUM SETBACK

CONSTRAINTS OVERLAY

REFERENCE
NO.

160072

ADDRESS

LOT 99 HICKEY STREET, ILUKA NSW, 2466

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

NBC Bushfire Attack Assessment Report V2.1


AS3959 (2009) Appendix B - Detailed Method 2

Print Date:

24/08/2015

Assessment Date:

10/08/2015

Site Street Address:

Hickey Street, Iluka

Assessor:

Stuart McMonnies; Building Code & Bushfire Hazard Solutions Pty Ltd

Local Government Area:

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:

Park 1, East & South - Appendix 2

Vegetation Information
Vegetation Type:

Forest

Vegetation Group:

Vegetation Slope:

1 Degrees

Vegetation Slope Type: Downslope

Surface Fuel Load(t/ha): 20

Forest and Woodland

Overall Fuel Load(t/ha): 25

Site Information
0 Degrees

Site Slope Type:

Level

APZ/Separation(m):

18

100

Flame Temp(K)

1090

95

Relative Humidity(%):

25

Heat of Combustion(kJ/kg 18600

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

Peak Elevation of Receiver(m): 7.23

Level of Construction: BAL 29

Fire Intensity(kW/m):

26572

Radiant Heat(kW/m2): 29

Flame Angle (degrees):

58

Maximum View Factor:

0.448

Inner Protection Area(m):

18

Outer Protection Area(m):

Flame Length(m):

16.37

Rate Of Spread (km/h): 2.06


Transmissivity:

0.852

Run Description:

Park 1, East & South - AS3959

Vegetation Information
Vegetation Type:

Forest

Vegetation Group:

Vegetation Slope:

1 Degrees

Vegetation Slope Type: Downslope

Surface Fuel Load(t/ha): 25

Forest and Woodland

Overall Fuel Load(t/ha): 35

Site Information
0 Degrees

Site Slope Type:

Level

APZ/Separation(m):

22

100

Flame Temp(K)

1090

95

Relative Humidity(%):

25

Heat of Combustion(kJ/kg 18600

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

Peak Elevation of Receiver(m): 9.06

Level of Construction: BAL 29

Fire Intensity(kW/m):

46500

Radiant Heat(kW/m2): 29

Flame Angle (degrees):

55

Maximum View Factor:

0.452

Inner Protection Area(m):

15

Outer Protection Area(m):

Flame Length(m):

20.91

Rate Of Spread (km/h): 2.57


Transmissivity:

0.844

Page 2 of 2

APPENDIX5
PROPOSEDLANDSCAPEPLANS

W:\!!PROJECTFILES!!\ACTIVEPROJECTS\ILUKA\02TownPlanning\SEE\SEEIluka151015.docx

Flora and Fauna Impact Assessment


Lot 99 DP 823635
Hickey Street
Iluka
Clarence Valley LGA
For: Shallharbour Unit Trust
(Stevens Group)
REF: CVC 14-695
October 2015

Keystone Ecological Pty Ltd


ABN 13 099 456 149
PO Box 5095 Empire Bay NSW 2257
Telephone 1300 651 021
Email office@keystone-ecological.com.au

Flora and Fauna


Impact Assessment
Lot 99 DP 823635
Hickey Street
Iluka
Clarence Valley LGA

REF: CVC 14 - 695


October 2015

Author:

Elizabeth Ashby and Ashleigh McTackett


This document may be cited as:

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:

PO Box 5095 Empire Bay NSW 2257


(02) 4368 1106
office@keystone-ecological.com.au
13 099 456 149

Cover photograph: Asplenium australasicum Birds


Nest Fern growing low on an Acacia disparrima
subsp. disparrima. Epiphytes are commonly low on
the trunks, presumably protected from salt-laden
winds.
Photo: E. Ashby, October 2014

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

FLORA SURVEY AND RESULTS ........................................................................................................ 12


Survey Methods ............................................................................................................................ 12
Survey Limitations ....................................................................................................................... 13
Floristic Composition .................................................................................................................. 14
Weeds........................................................................................................................................... 14
Vegetation Types ......................................................................................................................... 15
Threatened Species and Communities......................................................................................... 19

3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5

FAUNA SURVEY AND RESULTS ...................................................................................................... 23


Survey Methods ........................................................................................................................... 23
Survey Limitations ...................................................................................................................... 24
Survey Results ............................................................................................................................. 24
Habitat Value and Connectivity .................................................................................................. 27
Threatened Species ..................................................................................................................... 29

4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7

IMPACT AND AMELIORATION ........................................................................................................ 31


Vegetation Clearing ..................................................................................................................... 31
Habitat Fragmentation ............................................................................................................... 32
Loss of Fauna Habitat ................................................................................................................ 33
Displacement of Fauna ............................................................................................................... 34
Asset Protection Zones ............................................................................................................... 35
Light Pollution ............................................................................................................................ 35
Indirect Impacts and Runoff ....................................................................................................... 35

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

Commonwealth Listed Matters of NES ...................................................................................... 45


Iluka Nature Reserve ......................................................................................................................................... 46
H irundapus caudacutus White-throated Needletail ............................................................................... 47
Merops ornatus Rainbow Bee-eater ............................................................................................................. 47
Rhipidura rufifrons Rufous Fantail ............................................................................................................... 49
Phascolarctos cinereus Koala .......................................................................................................................... 50

STATE ENVIRONMENT PLANNING POLICY 44 .......................................................................... 53

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................ 54

REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................................. 57
FIGURES........................................................................................................................................................ 60
PHOTOGRAPHS ........................................................................................................................................... 72
APPENDIX 1 - FLORA DETAILS................................................................................................................. 89
APPENDIX 2 FAUNA DETAILS ............................................................................................................... 96
APPENDIX 3 SEVEN PART TESTS ........................................................................................................ 126

Flora and Fauna Impact Assessment


Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW

INTRODUCTION

1.1

Background and Objectives

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 Site and the Proposal

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

Flora and Fauna Impact Assessment


Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW

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

Flora and Fauna Impact Assessment


Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW

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

Flora and Fauna Impact Assessment


Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW

1.3

Plan showing the extent of Swamp Sclerophyll Forest, prepared by Steve


Brailsford Surveying and based on advice from ecologist Mark Fitzgerald, dated
19/08/05;
Site Analysis Plan, prepared by JCD, dated 5 September 2014;
Masterplan, prepared by JCD, dated 22nd August 2015;
Report on PCA and Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, prepared by Cardno,
dated 8 August 2015; and
Bushfire Hazard Assessment Report, prepared by Building Code and Bushfire
Hazard Solutions, dated 28th August 2015.

Legislative Context and Scope

1.3.1 Commonwealth Legislation


The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (1999) (EPBC Act)
is a nationally applicable Act that is administered by the Department of Sustainability,
Environment, Water, Population and Communities. This Act requires approval for actions
that are likely to have a significant impact on matters of National Environmental
Significance (NES).
There are seven matters of NES that are triggers for Commonwealth assessment and
approval. These are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

World Heritage properties;


National Heritage places;
Ramsar wetlands of international importance;
Nationally threatened species and communities;
Migratory species;
Nuclear actions; and
Commonwealth marine environment.

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

Flora and Fauna Impact Assessment


Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW

If, following a referral, it is determined that an action is likely to have a


significant impact, and approval is therefore required, the action is called a
'controlled action'. The proposal will then undergo a formal assessment and
approval process, and cannot proceed unless approval is granted.
If it is determined that an action is not likely to have a significant impact,
then the action is not a controlled action. Approval under the EPBC Act is
not required and the action may proceed, subject to obtaining any other
necessary permits or approvals.

1.3.2 State Legislation


The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act (1979) (EPA Act) sets out seven
factors in Section 5A that require consideration in terms of the likely significance of the
impact of an action. This Section 5A Assessment is informally known as a seven part test.
For the purposes of this Act and, in particular, in the administration of sections 78A, 79C
(1) and 112, these seven factors must be taken into account in deciding whether there is
likely to be a significant effect on threatened species, populations or ecological
communities, or their habitats as listed under the Threatened Species Conservation (TSC)
Act (1995) and Fisheries Management (FM) Act (1996).

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

Flora and Fauna Impact Assessment


Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW

1.3.3 Regional / Local


The Draft Koala Plan of Management (2010) is relevant to the populations of Koalas in
the Ashby, Woombah and Iluka localities. It is consistent with the state-wide Recovery
Plan for the Koala and its aims are to ensure that the current extent of Koala habitat is
maintained and improved (not reduced) and to mitigate processes that are limiting the
occupancy rates and / or population sizes of Koalas.
Although this plan has not been adopted by Council, it provides guidance regarding the
local distribution and abundance of Koalas, as well as a number of planning and design
responses considered by Council as appropriate.

The Clarence Valley Council Biodiversity Management Strategy (Wright 2010)


addresses the biodiversity conservation issues across the Clarence Valley LGA at a
landscape scale, and provides a strategic planning document to assist in development
decisions. It details the significant biodiversity of the region and identifies areas
considered to contribute to local and regional wildlife corridors. It signals an intention to
prevent loss of habitat within those corridors, and requires unavoidable impacts to be
offset through BioBanking agreements or similar. Although endorsed by Council, these
objectives have no standing until adopted into the Local Environmental Plan; this has not
yet occurred.
However, it provides insight into the conservation and planning strategies considered by
Council as appropriate.

1.4

Review of Relevant Past Studies

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

Flora and Fauna Impact Assessment


Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW

The vegetation mapping undertaken established a boundary between disturbed Wattle


and Banksia tall open-closed woodland [sic] 1 and less disturbed vegetation along the
western boundary. It was suggested that this western fringe of vegetation is made up of
two endangered ecological communities (EECs) - Swamp Sclerophyll Forest and Littoral
Rainforest.

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

Woodland has, by definition, an open canopy.


What was known as Acacia aulococarpa Brush Ironbark Wattle in this area is now classified as Acacia
disparrima subsp. disparrima Brush Ironbark Wattle, which is very common on coastal sands. The taxon that
is now recognised as Acacia aulococarpa Salwood has a highly restricted distribution in the Grafton district
and occurs in sclerophyll woodland on sandstone geology. The two species are very similar and easily
confused. Source: The Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust (6th October 2015). PlantNET - The Plant
Information Network System of The Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust, Sydney, Australia.
http://plantnet.rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au.
1
2

Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14-695 October 2015

Flora and Fauna Impact Assessment


Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW

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

Flora and Fauna Impact Assessment


Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW

Broad-leaved White Mahogany, Corymbia gummifera Red Bloodwood and Callitris


macleayana Brush Cypress Pine.

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

Flora and Fauna Impact Assessment


Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW

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

Ibid. [pp 7].

Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14-695 October 2015

10

Flora and Fauna Impact Assessment


Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW

shown as being within an area of developed terrain.

Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14-695 October 2015

11

Flora and Fauna Impact Assessment


Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW

FLORA SURVEY AND RESULTS

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:

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.
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.

Preliminary interpretation of aerial photography, available vegetation mapping and the


preliminary reports prepared by Fitzgerald (2005) indicate the presence of three main
vegetation types:

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

Flora and Fauna Impact Assessment


Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW

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

Flora and Fauna Impact Assessment


Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW

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.

This is a relatively depauperate result for an area of bushland of almost 20 hectares in


extent. However, this is probably a result of a combination of factors including the severity
of past land uses, fire history (probably both severe and frequent), the absence of sub-soil
moisture, a nutrient-poor substrate, the presence of salt-laden winds and the
overwhelming presence of Lantana camara Lantana and other weeds.
By contrast, the numbers of families represented are high and diverse. These 108 species
are representative of 56 families. The top 5 dominant families account for 26% of the
species: Myrtaceae (11 species), Lauraceae (5 species), Rubiaceae (4 species, 1 of which is
exotic), Poaceae (4 species, 2 of which are exotic) and Orchidaceae (4 species, 1 of which
is exotic). The majority of families (31) are represented on site by a single species alone.

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:

a weed must have potential to cause harm to people,


a weed must be able to be controlled by reasonable means,
a weed must have the potential to spread within an area and to other areas, and
the control of a weed must provide a benefit to the community over and above the
cost of implementing the control program.

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

Flora and Fauna Impact Assessment


Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW

The following listed Noxious Weeds, WONS or transformer species were all recorded on
or immediately adjacent to the site during survey:

2.5

Asparagus aethiopicus Asparagus Fern Class 4 Noxious Weed (control


requirement: The plant must not be sold, propagated or knowingly distributed),
WONS, and transformer weed on the NSW north coast. This species was a common
component of the moister vegetation in the western part of the site;
Asparagus densiflorus Asparagus Fern - Class 4 Noxious Weed (control
requirement: The plant must not be sold, propagated or knowingly distributed).
This species was a common component of the moister vegetation in the western
part of the site;
Bryophyllum delagoense Mother of Millions Class 3 Noxious Weed (control
requirement: The plant must be fully and continuously suppressed and destroyed
and the plant must not be sold, propagated or knowingly distributed). This species
occurred in discrete patches but was very dense where it occurred;
Cinnamomum camphora Camphor Laurel - Class 4 Noxious Weed (control
requirement: The growth of the plant must be managed in a manner that
continuously inhibits the ability of the plant to spread and the plant must not be
sold, propagated or knowingly distributed). This species was uncommon;
Delairea odorata Cape Ivy transformer weed on the NSW north coast. This
species occurred in a dense infestation along the southern edge of the site;
Ipomoea cairica Coastal Morning Glory - transformer weed on the NSW north
coast. This species was uncommon;
Lantana camara Lantana - Class 4 Noxious Weed (control requirement: The
growth of the plant must be managed in a manner that continuously inhibits the
ability of the plant to spread), WONS and transformer weed on the NSW north
coast. This species was by far the most abundant species on site, dominating the
understorey and scrambling into the canopy. In the 7 sampling quadrats its cover
was recorded as 70%, 60%, 40%, 60%, 10%, 25% and 90% and these quadrats
were unconsciously located where the Lantana coverage was relatively low so that
access was possible;
Ochna serrulata Mickey Mouse Plant - transformer weed on the NSW north coast.
This species was common in the moister parts of the site in its western parts;
Schefflera actinophylla Umbrella Tree - transformer weed on the NSW north coast.
This species occurred across the entire site but was most common in the moister
western part; and
Senna pendula var. glabrata - transformer weed on the NSW north coast. This
species was not common and located only in the western part of the site during
survey.

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

Flora and Fauna Impact Assessment


Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW

Vegetation type 1: Low Wattle Woodland.


Area: 12.01 hectares (62% of the site).

Distribution: Predominantly in the eastern half of the site.

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.

Dominant species: Acacia disparrima subsp. disparrima Salwood is the overwhelmingly


dominant species in the canopy; few other trees are present. The understorey is sparse in
places but is generally dominated by Lantana camara Lantana and Melinis minutiflora
Molasses Grass. Epiphytes are common low on the tree trunks.

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

Flora and Fauna Impact Assessment


Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW

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%

Lantana camara scrambling over


Lantana camara
Melinis minutiflora
Pteridium esculentum

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

Flora and Fauna Impact Assessment


Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW

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.

Dominant species: The tree canopy is a mixture of myrtaceous species (particularly


Corymbia intermedia Pink Bloodwood, Lophostemon confertus Brush Box, Melaleuca
quinquenervia Broad-leaved Paperbark) with occasional Acacia maidenii. A mid layer of
small trees are generally present, many of which are rainforest species (e.g. Mischocarpus
pyriformis Yellow Pear-fruit. The moist understorey is very diverse, with many species of
vines, palms and epiphytes. However, it is not a closed forest and also contains dense
infestations of Lantana camara Lantana.
Weeds: The overwhelmingly dominant weeds species is Lantana camara Lantana,
occurring as dense thickets in the mid storey and scrambling up into the tree canopy.
Asparagus aethiopicus Asparagus Fern and Schefflera actinophylla Umbrella tree are more
common in this vegetation type than elsewhere, and they are both known transformer
species.
Disturbance: Although it was not cleared in the 1960s as was the rest of the site, this
vegetation type is not devoid of disturbance impacts. However, as it is a relatively intact
ecosystem, the impacts of the disturbances shared with the rest of the site are not so
severe.
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14-695 October 2015

18

Flora and Fauna Impact Assessment


Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW

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

Threatened Species and Communities

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

Flora and Fauna Impact Assessment


Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW

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:

Generally a closed forest structure;


Structure and composition are strongly influenced by proximity to the ocean (e.g.
may take on the structure of a dense wind-pruned thicket in very exposed
situations);
Plant species are predominantly rainforest species;
Vines may be a major component;
Canopy is dominated by rainforest species but may have scattered emergents of
sclerophyllous species (e.g. Banksia integrifolia Coast Banksia, Eucalyptus
tereticornis Forest Red Gum);
Occurs on sand dunes and on soils derived from underlying rocks;
Generally occurs within 2 kilometres of the sea; and
Comprises the rainforest alliance described by Floyd (1990) as the Cupaniopsis
anacardioides Acmena spp. alliance.

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

Flora and Fauna Impact Assessment


Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW

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.

Typically a closed canopy of trees, but may have temporary gaps


through windfall.
Usually has several layers of vegetation.
Typically tall trees in the canopy to 25 metres or emergents.
Range of plant life forms.
Plants with drought-tolerant and succulent features.
Lichen-encrusted tree trunks.
Low diversity of ground ferns and epiphytes.
Feather palms, fan palms and large-leaved epiphytes generally
rare.
Species are mainly rainforest species.
Minimum patch size of 0.1 hectares
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14-695 October 2015

Vegetation of the subject site

Dunes removed from site between


1966 and 1978.

Canopy structure typical of open


forest and woodland.

These features common.

Only 20 of the species recorded can


be considered rainforest species.

21

Flora and Fauna Impact Assessment


Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW
Feature
Cover of transformer weed species is 70% or less.

Of the native species on the site. at least 25% are on the


indicative plant list for the bioregion
OR

At least 30% of the canopy cover provided by one or more of the


rainforest canopy species in the indicative list (excluding Banksia
and Eucalyptus).

Vegetation of the subject site

The cover of Lantana alone is 90% in


places.

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

Flora and Fauna Impact Assessment


Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW

FAUNA SURVEY AND RESULTS

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.

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 fauna within the locality.

4. The Atlas of Living Australia (http://www.ala.org.au/) was interrogated for all


threatened fauna species recorded within 10 kilometres of the subject site. As well
as records held by the OEH Wildlife Atlas, this online database also contains
records from other institutions (such as the Australian Museum and State Forests
of NSW) that may not otherwise be displayed.

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

Flora and Fauna Impact Assessment


Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW

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

It is an acknowledged limitation that, no matter how much effort or expertise is employed,


not all species that use a site will be recorded during ecological survey. For many fauna
species, this is due to their mobility, cryptic nature and unpredictable movement
throughout their habitat. In addition, migratory species may be present on the site at some
times of the year, and absent at others. In addition to ecological reasons, environmental
factors (such as weather, drought and bushfire) may impact on the type and number of
species recorded within a site at any one time.

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

Flora and Fauna Impact Assessment


Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW

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.

Egernia major Land Mullet


Eulamprus quoyii Eastern Water Skink
Sphenomorphus tympanum Water Skink
Amphibolurus muricatus Jacky Lizard
Varanus varius Lace Monitor
Vermicella annulata Bandy Bandy Snake

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

Flora and Fauna Impact Assessment


Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW

7. Coracina lineata Barred Cuckoo-shrike Vulnerable species (NSW);


8. Rhipidura rufifrons Rufous Fantail Migratory (Commonwealth); and
9. Daphoenositta chrysoptera Varied Sittella Vulnerable species (NSW).

No nocturnal bird species were identified during field surveys.


Mammals

Mammals were represented by arboreal, terrestrial and volant species with up to 23


species recorded (7 being exotic). However, only 21 of those species are considered to
occur, or potentially occur, on the subject site as 2 of the exotic species found in predator
scats (Sheep or Goat) were obviously not from the site.

Arboreal species

1. Trichosurus vulpecula Common Brushtail Possum was recorded in 2 hair funnels


and in a Dog scat, but not otherwise observed.
2. Pseudocheirus peregrinus Common Ringtail Possum was observed during
spotlighting in the dense Lantana understorey in the centre of the site. No dreys
were found but are likely to occur in that dense understorey.
3. The threatened Phascolarctos cinereus Koala was recorded in a single image from
a terrestrial camera trap on 14th October 2014 (see Figure 11 for location). The
animal was photographed moving across the ground in a northerly direction (see
Table 2.7 in Appendix 2). This species was not recorded otherwise during this
survey, but scats of this species were identified by Fitzgerald (2005) somewhere
on site.

Terrestrial species

Small, medium and large terrestrial mammals were recorded on site, none of which are
listed threatened species:

1. Perameles nasuta Long-nosed Bandicoot recorded in a single camera trap image;


2. Rattus tunneyi Pale field Rat recorded in several camera trap images and from a
number of terrestrial hair funnels;
3. Rattus rattus Black Rat recorded in a Fox scat;
4. Macropus giganteus Eastern Grey Kangaroo observed nearby on the golf course,
its scats and resting areas observed on site, and recorded by several cameras;
5. Wallabia bicolor Swamp Wallaby multiple images of the species occurring on
site were captured during camera trapping; it was not otherwise recorded;
6. Ovis aries Sheep or Capra hircus Goat a jaw sample of one of these species
occurred in a predator scat;
7. Canis familiaris Dog scats observed on site and recorded in a camera image;
8. Vulpes vulpes European Red Fox - scats observed on site and recorded in a camera
image;
9. Felis catus Cat observed in the local area and likely to occur on site; and

Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14-695 October 2015

26

Flora and Fauna Impact Assessment


Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW

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.

Nyctophilus bifax Eastern Long-eared Bat threatened species;


Saccolaimus flaviventris Yellow-bellied Sheathtail-bat threatened species;
Tadarida australis White-striped Freetail-bat;
Mormopterus norfolkensis Eastern Freetail-bat threatened species;
Miniopterus australis Little Bentwing threatened species;
Scotorepens greyii Little Broad-nosed Bat; and
Vespadelus pumilus Eastern Forest Bat.

Habitat Value and Connectivity

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

Flora and Fauna Impact Assessment


Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW

Brush Box (Dec-Jan), Banksia integrifolia Coast Banksia (winter), Eucalyptus


tereticornis Forest Red Gum (Aug-Oct) and Eucalyptus propinqua Small-fruited
Grey Gum (Jan-Mar), Melaleuca quinquenervia Broad-leaved Paperbark (autumnwinter) being the highest value species in this regard.
Although not abundant, many of the tree species, palms and vines on site also
provide fruits known to be exploited by animals such as Fruit-doves and Flyingfoxes.

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

Flora and Fauna Impact Assessment


Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW

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):

Crinia tinnula Wallum Froglet


Litoria olongburensis Olongburra Frog
Saproscincus oriarus (a rainforest skink)
Ixobrychus flavicollis Black Bittern
Pandion cristatus Eastern Osprey
Phaps elegans Brush Bronzewing
Gavicalis fasciogularis MangroveHoneyeater
Syconycteris australis Common Blossom Bat
Pteropus alecto Black Flying-fox
Nyctophilus bifax Northern Long-eared Bat
Melomys burtoni Grassland Melomys

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.

Dromaius novaehollandiae Emu;


Lophoictinia isura Square-tailed Kite;
Ptilinopus regina Rose-crowned Fruit-dove;
Calyptorhynchus lathami Glossy Black-Cockatoo;
Glossopsitta pusilla Little Lorikeet;
Hirundapus caudacutus White-throated Needletail;
Merops ornatus Rainbow Bee-eater;
Coracina lineata Barred Cuckoo-shrike;
Carterornis leucotis White-eared Monarch;
Daphoenositta chrysoptera Varied Sittella;
Rhipidura rufifrons Rufous Fantail;

Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14-695 October 2015

29

Flora and Fauna Impact Assessment


Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW

12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.

Phascolarctos cinereus Koala;


Pteropus poliocephalus Grey-Headed Flying-fox;
Syconycteris australis Common Blossom-bat;
Mormopterus norfolkensis Eastern Freetail-bat;
Nyctophilus bifax Eastern Long-eared Bat;
Miniopterus australis Little Bentwing-bat; and

The potential impact of the proposal will be addressed for all the above species.

Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14-695 October 2015

30

Flora and Fauna Impact Assessment


Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW

IMPACT AND AMELIORATION

A general principle of environmental management is to, in order of preference:


1.
2.
3.
4.

Avoid the impacts;


Minimise the impacts;
Mitigate the impacts; and
Compensate for residual impacts once all of the above options have been
exhausted.

The proposal has been developed as an iterative process by a multi-disciplinary


consultant team made up of ecologists, bushfire specialists and planners. Preliminary
investigations were undertaken in order to identify early any absolute ecological
constraints, thus giving rise to the pattern of the retained vegetation along the western
boundary.
Detailed ecological survey revealed other environmental values of the site and so the
proposed layout was altered significantly in order to better accommodate those species.
The street layout has been specifically designed in order to minimise road trauma for
fauna and also provide the opportunity to establish movement corridors.

4.1

Vegetation Clearing

Clearing of vegetation is inevitable for the proposed development.

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 on site predevelopment

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

Flora and Fauna Impact Assessment


Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW

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

Flora and Fauna Impact Assessment


Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW

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

Loss of Fauna Habitat

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.

The development is concentrated in severely weed-infested vegetation that has been


transformed by past clearing, sand removal, repeated fire and ecosystem-changing
weeds. By contrast, the retained corridor along the western boundary contains fewer
weeds; the moist swales produce higher nutrient leaves as forage for Koalas; and it
supports many large and live hollow-bearing trees, thus providing this important
breeding and roosting habitat long into the future.
Most of the hollow-bearing trees located on site were in large dead trees, presumably
killed by a very hot fire. Not all hollow-bearing trees were located, moving around the site
was very difficult due to the overwhelming infestations of Lantana camara Lantana.

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

Flora and Fauna Impact Assessment


Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW

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.

As the existing vegetation is relatively young being largely made up of regrowth


following the last set of fires they do not contain many hollows. When the dead stags
inevitably further decay and fall, it will likely leave a resource gap with a critical absence
of this important breeding resource until the remaining trees naturally form hollows.

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

Signage to inform residents of the likely presence of Koalas;


Traffic calming devices including speed bumps, road narrowing points and
combination raised pedestrian crossings;
Educational material and signage in relation to restrictions of domestic pets;
Planting of food tree species (such as Eucalyptus tereticornis Forest Red Gum,
Corymbia intermedia Pink Bloodwood) vegetation in road verges, central medians
and roundabouts;
Plantings to link to retained vegetation corridors; and
Open style fencing that will not impede Koala movement.

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.

Therefore, a fauna handling protocol where animal welfare is paramount is to be followed


during felling of hollow-bearing trees. The trees may need to be felled in sections or gently
pushed to the ground to avoid injuring resident fauna. This must be done under
supervision of an ecologist or wildlife carer so that resident fauna may be relocated into
nest boxes erected in the retained bushland.
Hollow sections of trees are to be relocated into retained bushland as terrestrial habitat.

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

Flora and Fauna Impact Assessment


Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW

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

Asset Protection Zones

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

A study of microchiropteran bat activity among different sites in parklands of Adelaide


(Scanlon 2006, Scanlon and Petit 2008) found that dark parks were more important for
bat diversity and activity (six species groups in the darkest park) than were artificially lit
parkland areas (three species groups in the flood-lit park). Chalinolobus gouldii Goulds
wattled bat and Mormopterus species 4 (94% of calls) were advantaged in urban
parklands, being the only species recorded when lights were on at sports parks, whereas
five species groups occurred when the lights were off.
Street lighting is also known to interrupt natural foraging behaviour of the threatened
species Miniopterus schreibersii oceanensis Eastern Bentwing-bat (Hoye and Hall 2008).

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

Indirect Impacts and Runoff

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

Flora and Fauna Impact Assessment


Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW

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

Flora and Fauna Impact Assessment


Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW

IMPACT ASSESSMENT

For the purposes of the impact assessment the following terms of reference are used:

Subject site, site lands within the subject allotment;


Local area lands within 2 kilometres of the subject site;
Broader study area lands within 10 kilometres of the subject site and includes
the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) Wildlife Atlas and Commonwealth
Department of Environment(DSEWPC) Protected Matters database search areas;
and
Region lands within 50 kilometres of the subject site.

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

Flora and Fauna Impact Assessment


Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW

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

Swamp Sclerophyll Forest

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.

The proposal is unlikely to result in a significant adverse impact to this endangered


ecological community.

5.2

Flora Species

5.2.1

Phaius australis Lesser Swamp Orchid

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.

The proposal is unlikely to result in a significant adverse impact to this threatened


species.
5.2.2

Acronychia littoralis Scented Acronychia

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

Flora and Fauna Impact Assessment


Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW

5.3

Birds

5.3.1

Dromaius novaehollandiae Emu

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.

The proposal is unlikely to have a significant adverse impact on this endangered


population.

5.3.2

Lophoictinia isura Square-tailed Kite

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

Flora and Fauna Impact Assessment


Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW

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

Ptilinopus regina Rose-crowned Fruit-Dove

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.

The proposal is unlikely to have a significant impact on this species.


5.3.4

Calyptorhynchus lathami Glossy Black-Cockatoo

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

Glossopsitta pusilla Little Lorikeet

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

Flora and Fauna Impact Assessment


Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW

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

Coracina lineata Barred Cuckoo-shrike

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

Carterornis leucotis White-eared Monarch

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

Daphoenositta chrysoptera Varied Sittella

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

Flora and Fauna Impact Assessment


Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW

to do so in the post-development landscape outside of the development footprint. 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.

5.4

Mammals

5.4.1

Phascolarctos cinereus Koala

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.

This result prompted further comprehensive survey to be undertaken, including


saturation of the site with another 30 camera traps, additional spotlighting and scat
searches using the Spot Assessment Technique (sensu Phillips and Callaghan 2011) in 14
locations on and adjacent to the subject site (see Figure 10 and Table 2.6).
No further Koalas or evidence of Koalas were found. The few scratches observed on
smooth-barked trees may be evidence of other species recorded on site (e.g. Varanus
varius Lace Monitor, Trichosurus vulpecula Common Brushtail Possum)

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

Flora and Fauna Impact Assessment


Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW

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

Flora and Fauna Impact Assessment


Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW

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.

The proposal is judged therefore as unlikely to have a significant impact on this


threatened species.
5.4.2

Pteropus poliocephalus Grey-headed Flying-fox

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

Syconycteris australis Common Blossom Bat

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

Mormopterus norfolkensis Eastern Freetail-bat

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

Flora and Fauna Impact Assessment


Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW

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

Nyctophilus bifax Eastern Long-eared Bat

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.

The proposal is unlikely to have a significant impact on this threatened species.


5.4.6

Miniopterus australis Little Bentwing-bat

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

Commonwealth Listed Matters of NES

There are several Matters of National Environmental Significance on or near the site that
require consideration:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Gondwana Rainforests of Australia World Heritage Place - Iluka NR


Hirundapus caudacutus White-throated Needletail Migratory species
Merops ornatus Rainbow Bee-eater Migratory species
Rhipidura rufifrons Rufous Fantail Migratory species
Koala Vulnerable species

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

Flora and Fauna Impact Assessment


Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW

those impacts upon matter of National Environmental Significance (NES). These are
detailed below within each matter.
5.5.1

Iluka Nature Reserve

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:

one or more of the World Heritage values to be lost;


one or more of the World Heritage values to be degraded or damaged; or
one or more of the World Heritage values to be notably altered, modified, obscured
or diminished.

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

Flora and Fauna Impact Assessment


Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW

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

Hirundapus caudacutus White-throated Needletail

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

Merops ornatus Rainbow Bee-eater

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

Flora and Fauna Impact Assessment


Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW

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.

An action is likely to have a significant impact on a migratory species if there is a real


chance or possibility that it will:
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.

2. result in an invasive species that is harmful to the migratory species becoming


established in an area of important habitat for the migratory species; or
Response:
European Red Foxes dig up the breeding burrows of this species and this species was
recorded on site. Removal of dense weedy understorey will aid in the control of this
predator.

3. seriously disrupt the lifecycle (breeding, feeding, migration or resting behaviour)


of an ecologically significant proportion of the population of a migratory species.
Response:
There is no evidence to suggest that the individuals on site make up an ecologically
significant proportion of the population.
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14-695 October 2015

48

Flora and Fauna Impact Assessment


Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW

5.5.4

Rhipidura rufifrons Rufous Fantail

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.

2. result in an invasive species that is harmful to the migratory species becoming


established in an area of important habitat for the migratory species; or
Response:
The habitat loss and modification that will arise are not likely to introduce or favour
invasive species that will be harmful to this species or its habitat.
3. seriously disrupt the lifecycle (breeding, feeding, migration or resting behaviour)
of an ecologically significant proportion of the population of a migratory species.
Response:
There is no evidence to suggest that the individuals on site make up an ecologically
significant proportion of the population.
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14-695 October 2015

49

Flora and Fauna Impact Assessment


Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW

5.5.5

Phascolarctos cinereus Koala

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

Flora and Fauna Impact Assessment


Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW

6. modify, destroy, remove or isolate or decrease the availability or quality of habitat


to the extent that the species is likely to decline
Response:
The loss of habitat in the local area is only one of many processes that are contributing to
the decline of this species. Immigration, disease and mortality from road trauma have also
been implicated as very important factors and, in the absence of significant controls and
improvements to these, the retention of habitat will not halt the decline of the population.
Therefore, the proposal is an integrated package of actions that are designed to contribute
to the improvement of these processes by retention of the best quality habitat, retention
of identified links, enrichment of the remaining habitat through vegetation management,
creation of links through the residential landscape, traffic calming and dog control.
7. result in invasive species that are harmful to a vulnerable species becoming
established in the vulnerable species habitat
Response:
The vegetation on site has declined after it was cleared (and presumably sand mined)
sometime between 1966 and 1978, compounded by ferocious fires. Transformer weeds
are common across the subject site, with Lantana camara Lantana being the most
abundant. Now the vegetation across the majority of the site is altered and simplified with
very few primary food trees now occurring where once they should have been common.
The proposal will retain the best habitat (where clearing and mineral extraction has
probably not occurred) and improve the condition of the other areas to be retained by
weed control. This will remove invasive species and reverse some of the past harm.
8. introduce disease that may cause the species to decline, or
Response:
Infertility from Chlamydia is a contributing factor to the current decline in koala numbers.
Loss of habitat imposes stress on Koalas and during times of stress, Koalas are prone
to outbreaks of Chlamydia. However, the habitat on site is of very poor quality and does
not provide good quality forage. Other than the image of a single animal passing through,
there is no evidence of the site being used by this specie. Importantly, the absence of scats
beneath potential food trees during this comprehensive recent survey indicates no
foraging on site.

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

Flora and Fauna Impact Assessment


Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW

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

Flora and Fauna Impact Assessment


Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW

STATE ENVIRONMENT PLANNING POLICY 44

SEPP 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 conservation planning it has been
overtaken by specific Plans of Management in individual LGAs and by the Approved
Recovery Plan. However, this SEPP imposes a statutory obligation for consideration.

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

Flora and Fauna Impact Assessment


Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

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

Flora and Fauna Impact Assessment


Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW

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:

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

Flora and Fauna Impact Assessment


Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW

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

Flora and Fauna Impact Assessment


Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW

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

Flora and Fauna Impact Assessment


Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW

guide to best planning practice. Australian Koala Foundation / Univeristy of


Queensland
Menkhorst, P and Knight, F. (2001) A Field Guide to the Mammals of Australia. Oxford
University Press, Melbourne
Mitchell, P.B. (2002) NSW Ecosystems Study: Background and Methodology
(Unpublished)
Mitchell, P.B. (unpub). NSW ecosystems study: background and methodology.
Unpublished report to the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service, Hurstville.
Morand, D.T. (2001a) Soil Landscapes of the Woodburn 1: 100,000 Sheet Report.
Department of Land and Water Conservation, Sydney
Morand, D.T. (2001b) Soil Landscapes of the Woodburn 1: 100,000 Sheet Map.
Department of Land and Water Conservation, Sydney
Morcombe, M. (2000) Field guide to Australian Birds. Steve Parish Publishing
NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (1997) Broadwater National Park Bundjalung
National Park and Iluka Nature Reserve Plan of Management
Pennay, M., Law, B. and Reinhold, L. (2004) Bat calls of NSW: Region based guide to the
echolocation calls of Microchiropteran bats. NSW Department of Environment
and Conservation, Hurstville.
Phillips, S. and Callaghan, J. (2011) The Spot Assessment Technique: a tool for
determining localised levels of habitat use by Koalas Phascolarctos cinereus.
Australian Zoologist 35(3):774-780
Pizzey, G. and Knight, F. (1997) A Field Guide to the Birds of Australia. Angus and Robertson
Scanlon, A.T. (2006) Factors affecting urban insectivorous bat activity and implications
for habitat management in the city of Adelaide, South Australia. Bachelor of
Applied Science Honours Thesis University of South Australia
Scanlon, A.T. and Petit, S. (2008) Effects of site, time, weather and light on urban bat
activity and richness: considerations for survey effort. Wildlife Research
35(8):821834
Scotts, D. (2003) Key habitats and corridors for forest fauna: A landscape framework for
conservation in north-east New South Wales. NSW NPWS Occasional Paper 32,
NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service, Sydney
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
Somerville, D. (2002) Honey and Pollen Flora. Agnote DAI-115. NSW Department of
Agriculture
Somerville, M. (2009a) Hunter, Central and Lower North Coast Vegetation Classification
and Mapping Project Volume 1: Vegetation Classification Technical Report.
Hunter-Central Rivers Catchment Management Authority, Tocal, NSW.
Specht, R.L., Specht, A., Whelan, M.B. and Hegarty, E.E. (1995) Conservation Atlas of Plant
Communities in Australia. Southern Cross University Press, Lismore
Strahan, R. (1994) Cuckoos, Nightbirds and Kingfishers of Australia. Angus and Robertson,
Sydney
Strahan, R. (1995) Photographic guide to the Mammals of Australia. Reed New Holland,
Australia.
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14-695 October 2015

58

Flora and Fauna Impact Assessment


Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW

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

Figure 5: Proposed layout.


Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14-695 October 2015

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

A1: Bloodwood / Apple Dry Sclerophyll Forest


A2: Swamp Sclerophyll Forest
A3: Wattle
A4: Brushbox Wet Sclerophyll Forest
A5: Forest Red Gum / Wattle Scerophyll Grassy Woodland
A6: Rainforest
A7: Banksia on Foredune

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

Figure 9: Flora survey activities undertaken for this study.

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

Photograph 6: Quadrat 3, Vegetation type 1.

Photograph 7: Quadrat 5, Vegetation type 1.

Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14-695 October 2015

76

Photographs

Photograph 8: Quadrat 4, Vegetation type 2.

Photograph 9: Quadrat 6, Vegetation type 2.

Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14-695 October 2015

77

Photographs

Photograph 10: Quadrat 7, Vegetation type 2.

Photograph 11: Quadrat 1, Vegetation type 2/3.

Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14-695 October 2015

78

Photographs

Photograph 12: Quadrat 2, Vegetation type 2/3.

Photograph 13: Dune intact at western edge of site. Looking west along HIckey Street.

Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14-695 October 2015

79

Photographs

Photograph 14: Banksia integrifolia provides important foraging resources.

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

Photograph 17: Hair funnel surveying for terrestrial mammals.

Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14-695 October 2015

83

Photographs

Photograph 18: Hair funnel surveying for arboreal mammals.

Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14-695 October 2015

84

Photographs

Photograph 19: Emu scats found on site.

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

Photograph 22: Cymbidium madidum on Acacia disparrima.

Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14-695 October 2015

87

Photographs

Photograph 23: Band Bandy found dead on Iluka Road.

Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14-695 October 2015

88

APPENDIX 1
FLORA DETAILS

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

Appendix 1: Flora Details

Vegetation type and quadrat

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

Appendix 1: Flora Details

Vegetation type and quadrat

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

Appendix 1: Flora Details

Vegetation type and quadrat

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

Notelaea longifolia forma intermedia


Cymbidium madidum
Cymbidium suave
Epidendrum radicans x secundum hybrid complex
Zeuxine oblonga
Passiflora herbertiana
Dianella caerulea
Bridelia exaltata
Pinus sp.*
Entolasia stricta
Melinis minutiflora*
Oplismenus aemulus
Paspalum urvillei*
Platycerium bifurcatum
Pyrrosia rupestris
Banksia integrifolia subsp. integrifolia
Banksia serrata
Persoonia stradbrokensis
Pomaderris vellea
Rubus rosifolius
Caelospermum paniculatum
Coffea arabica*
Morinda jasminoides
Pomax umbellata
Acronychia imperforata
Acronychia oblongifolia

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

Appendix 1: Flora Details

Vegetation type and quadrat

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

Appendix 1: Flora Details

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

Sophora tomentosa subsp. australis

Lauraceae

Endiandra hayesii

Cyperaceae

Cyperus aquatilis

Euphorbiaceae

Chamaesyce psammogeton

Juncaginaceae

Maundia triglochinoides

Menispermaceae

Tinospora tinosporoides

Orchidaceae

Diuris sp. aff chrysantha

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

Occurs on coastal heath.

No suitable habitat
on site.

Survey considerations

Occurs in ephemeral wet sites such as


No suitable habitat
roadside ditches and seepage area in
on site.
sandstone areas.
Occurs in grassy or shrubby open eucalypt No suitable habitat
forest at low altitudes on sandstone.
on site.

Likelihood to occur

Impact assessment

Low likelihood to occur.

No further impact
assessment required.

Low to no likelihood to occur.


Low likelihood to occur.

Occurs on coastal sand dunes.

No suitable habitat
on site.

Low to no likelihood to occur.

Occurs in freshwater wetlands.

No suitable habitat
on site.

Low to no likelihood to occur.

Occurs on coastal sand dunes.

It is a rainforest species occurring in cool,


moist sheltered valleys and gullies.

No suitable habitat
on site.
No suitable habitat
on site.

Common in subtropical rainforests, littoral No suitable habitat


rainforests on fertile, basalt soils.
on site.
Known only from a single location at Byron
No suitable habitat
Bay. Occurs in low-growing grassy heath
on site.
on clay soil.
Restricted to coastal areas including
No suitable habitat
littoral rainforest and lowland rainforest
on site.
on floodplain.
Occurs in swampy grassland or swampy
forest including rainforest, eucalypt or
paperbark forest, mostly in coastal areas;
as far south as Coffs Harbour.

Low likelihood to occur.

Suitable habitat on
site.

Found in transition zones between littoral


rainforest and swamp sclerophyll forest. Suitable habitat on
Usually occurs within 2km from the coast
site.
on sandy soils.

Low likelihood to occur.


Low likelihood to occur.
Low likelihood to occur.

Flowers Sep-Oct, but


identifiable all year.

Fruit (May to August)


required for certainty,
although leaf characters
are indicative.

Only 1 record identified within the broader


study area; from Iluka NR.
Low likelihood to occur.
This species was found north of the site next
to the golf course. Potential habitat for this
species occurs at the western end of the site
in swamp sclerophyll forest.
High likelihood to occur.
16 records were identified with the closest
and most recent being 3km south of the
subject site in 2012.
High 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 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

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

Diurnal habitat searches

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

Habitat searches and opportunistic


surveys undertaken during all diurnal
survey.
Call recording
Spotlighting and active listening
undertaken during all nocturnal
survey.

Habitat searches and opportunistic


surveys undertaken during all diurnal
survey.

97

Appendix 2: Fauna Details

Survey Effort
Fauna Group

Survey Technique

Nocturnal spotlight searches

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

Total 6.5 person hours.

Total of 44 person hours active


listening during all survey activities.

27th November 2014


28th November 2014
11th October 2014
12th October 2014

Recorded calls at dusk and dawn.


98

Appendix 2: Fauna Details

Survey Effort
Fauna Group

Nocturnal Birds

Survey Technique

Time spent
No of
Date
(person hours) people

Targeted Survey

1.5 hours

13th October 2014

1.5 hour

14th October 2014

16 hours

2
2
2
2
1
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

10th October 2014

Call broadcast

1 hour

6 hours
5 hours

0.5 hour

Terrestrial Mammals

Scats, tracks and signs


searches

9.5 hours
13 hours
1 hour
1 hour
1 hour
1 hour
1 hour

Predator scats, tracks and


signs searches
Camera traps
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 -695 October 2015

4 hours

0.5 hour
0.5 hour
5 hours

120 hours
384 hours

NA
NA

12th October 2014

Comment
Active listen undertaken during
targeted survey.
Calls broadcast of:
Powerful Owl
Barking Owl
Sooty Owl

11th October 2014


12th October 2014
13th October 2014
14th October 2014
15th October 2014
16th October 2014
11th

November 2014

25th

November 2014

12th
13th

November 2014
November 2014

Incidental survey during other


activities.

26th November 2014


27th November 2014
28th November 2014
13th October 2014

11th -16th October 2014


11th 27th November
2014

Targeted search for predator scats.


Total 120 hours (5 full days).

Total 384 hours (16 full days ).


99

Appendix 2: Fauna Details

Survey Effort
Fauna Group

Survey Technique

Koala Scat counts

Arboreal Mammals

Megachiropteran Bats
Microchiropteran Bats

Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 -695 October 2015

Targeted Call Broadcast


Hair Funnels
Spotlighting
Spotlighting
Call recording

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

27th November 2014


12th October 2014
14th October 2014

10th - 16th October 2014

Comment
Total of 14 person hours in Koala scat
survey with a total of 14 searches
undertaken.
Call broadcast of Koala

11th - 16th October 2014

Total 254 trap nights.

13th October 2014

Spotlighting along internal and


perimeter tracks.

12th - 16th October 214


14th October 2014
13th October 2014
14th

October 2014

Spotlighting along internal and


perimeter tracks.

13th 16th October 2014


Total 72 recording hours.
12th 15th November
2014

100

Appendix 2: Fauna Details

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

Appendix 2: Fauna Details

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

Eastern Water Skink

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

Bandy Bandy Snake


Emu

Observed

Observed dead on road nearby


Scats

Observed in local area

Great Egret

Observed in local area

Little Black Cormorant


Cattle Egret

Observed in local area

Observed in local area

White-necked Heron

Observed in local area

White-faced Heron

Observed in local area

Striated Heron

Australian White Ibis

Australian Wood Duck


Eastern Osprey

Lophoictinia isuraV
Haliaeetus leucogasterM

White-bellied Sea-eagle

Haliastur indus

Brahminy Kite

Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015

Observed

Little Pied Cormorant

Whistling Kite

Falco longipennis

Camera trap image

Square-tailed Kite

Australian Hobby

Observed in local area


Observed in local area

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

Observed at nest in local area

Yes

Observed in local area

No

Observed overhead

No

Yes
No

Yes
102

Appendix 2: Fauna Details


Fauna
Group
Birds

Scientific Name

Common Name

Type of Record

Site

Alectura lathami

Australian Brush-turkey

Nest mound observed;


Camera trap image
Observed in local area

Yes

Haemotopus fuliginosusV
Haemotopus
Charadrius
Arenaria
Calidris

longirostrisE

leschenaultiV,M

interpresM

ruficollisM

Sooty Oystercatcher

Australian Pied Oystercatcher

Observed in local area

Greater Sand-plover

Observed in local area

Ruddy Turnstone

Observed in local area

Red-necked Stint

Observed in local area

Limosa lapponicaM

Bar-tailed Godwit

Observed in local area

Sterna hirundoM

Common Tern

Observed in local area

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 in local area

Observed in local area


Observed nearby

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

Appendix 2: Fauna Details


Fauna
Group
Birds

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

Appendix 2: Fauna Details


Fauna
Group
Birds

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 Yellow Robin


Leaden flycatcher

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

Appendix 2: Fauna Details


Fauna
Group
Birds
Mammal
s

Scientific Name

Common Name

Type of Record

Site

Corvus coronoides

Australian Raven

Observed

Yes

Pseudocheirus peregrinus
Trichosurus vulpecula

Common Ringtail Possum

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

Eastern Long-eared Bat


Yellow-bellied Sheathtail-bat

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

Call recorded - possible

Freetail-bat

Little Bentwing-bat

Call recorded - definite

Broad-nosed Bat

Call recorded - possible

Eastern Forest Bat

Call recorded - definite


Hair sample;
Camera trap image
Hair in Fox scat

Little Broad-nosed Bat


Pale field Rat
Black Rat
Dog

European Red Fox


Cat

Rabbit
Sheep
Goat

Call recorded - definite


Call recorded - definite
Call recorded - possible

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Camera trap image


Scat;
Camera trap image
Observed in local area

Yes

Jaw fragment of one of these species in predator scat

No

Observed in local area

Yes
Yes
Yes

106

Appendix 2: Fauna Details

Table 2.4: Microbat call analysis sheet.

Microbat Call Analysis Data Sheet


Date(s):
Start time: Dusk
Night 1: 12-13/10/14
Night 2: 13-14/10/14
Finish time: Dawn
Night 3: 14-15/10/14

Location:
Hickey Street, Iluka

mobile and/or stationary


Habitat:
Dry Sclerophyll Forest and Swamp Sclerophyll Forest
Date
Species
12-13/ Oct/14

Nyctophilus bifax

Certainty of ID
definite/probable/possible
Possible

12-13/ Oct/14

Tadarida australis White-striped Freetail-bat

Possible

13-14/Oct/14

Miniopterus australis Little bent-wing bat

Definite

13-14/ Oct/14

Mormopterus sp.

Definite

13-14/ Oct/14

Vespadelus pumilus Eastern Forest Bat

Definite

14-15/ Oct/14

Mormopterus norfolkensis Eastern Freetail-bat

Definite

14-15/ Oct/14

Miniopterus australis Little bent-wing bat

Definite

14-15/ Oct/14

Saccolaimus flaviventris Yellow-bellied sheath-tailed bat

Definite

Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015

107

Appendix 2: Fauna Details


14-15/ Oct/14

Scotorepens sp.

Possible

14-15/ Oct/14

Scotorepens greyii Little Broad-nosed Bat

Possible

Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015

108

Appendix 2: Fauna Details

Table 2.5: Hollow-bearing trees on or immediately adjacent to the subject .


Tree
number

Tree species/ type / size

Hollow details

HBT 1

Dead stag, 40cm DBH

HBT 3

Dead stag

HBT 2
HBT 4

Dead stag, 55cm DBH

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

Dead stag, large tree


Dead stag, large tree

Lophostemon confertus
Brush Box
Dead stag, large tree

Lophostemon confertus
Brush Box, 100cm DBH

Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015

Location

Fate

Vertical spout + trunk and branch hollows,


20-30cm entry sizes

In footprint

Remove

Numebr of hollows of various sizes

In footprint
In footprint

Remove

Many hollows and cracks of various sizes


Basal hollow

3 branch hollows, 25 cm entry

3 large branch hollows


Broken trunk
Branch hollows (small entry)
Hollow in arboreal termite nest
Branch hollow (small entry)
Branch hollow, medium size
small branch hollow
Broken trunk
Medium branch hollow
Small hollow
Scratches on trunk
Branch hollow, medium size
small branch hollow

Small-medium trunk and branch hollows

In footprint
Park 1

In adjacent unformed road to west


Park 2 boundary

In adjacent unformed road to west


In adjacent unformed road to west

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

Appendix 2: Fauna Details

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

Trigger tree species


Corymbia intermedia
Pink Bloodwood
Corymbia intermedia
Pink Bloodwood
Corymbia intermedia
Pink Bloodwood
Corymbia intermedia
Pink Bloodwood
Corymbia intermedia
Pink Bloodwood
Corymbia intermedia
Pink Bloodwood
Eucalyptus tereticornis
Forest Red Gum
Lophostemon confertus
Brush Box
Eucalyptus tereticornis
Forest Red Gum
Corymbia intermedia
Pink Bloodwood
Corymbia intermedia
Pink Bloodwood
Eucalyptus propinqua
small-fruited grey gum
Eucalyptus propinqua
small-fruited grey gum
Corymbia intermedia
Pink Bloodwood

Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015

Numbers of tree species within search zone

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

Appendix 2: Fauna Details

Table 2.7: Camera trap results.


Area

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

Appendix 2: Fauna Details


7

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

Appendix 2: Fauna Details


15

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

Appendix 2: Fauna Details


20

No fauna detected.

21

Rodent

Whip bird

Eastern Yellow Robin

Brush Turkey

22

No fauna detected.

23

Eastern Grey Kangaroo

24

25

Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015

Swamp Wallaby

Eastern Grey
Kangaroo

114

Appendix 2: Fauna Details


26

Eastern Grey Kangaroo

27

Swamp Wallaby

28

Swamp Wallaby

29

No fauna detected.

30

Eastern Grey
Kangaroo

31

Eastern yellow robin

Koala
Swamp wallaby

Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015

115

Appendix 2: Fauna Details


32

Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015

Rattus tunneyi

Land mullet

116

Appendix 2: Fauna Details

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 carneipes Fleshfooted Shearwater


Fregata ariel
Lesser Frigatebird
Fregata minor
Great Frigatebird

Ardenna pacificus
Wedge-tailed Shearwater
Ardenna tenuirostris
Wedge-tailed Shearwater

Phaethon rubricauda Redtailed Tropicbird

Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015

V
E

Habitat Requirements

Suitability of Site

Occurs in range of forested habitats


where surface water gathers after rain.
An acid frog confined to coastal
sandplain wallum swamps.
Found only in acid paperbark swamps
and sedge swamps.

No suitable habitat on
site.
No suitable habitat on
site.
No suitable habitat on
site.

Terrestrial habitat restricted to tropical


beaches.

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.

Terrestrial habitat restricted to marine


No suitable habitat on
No likelihood to occur.
beaches.
site.
Occurs near coastal areas on low to mid
Only 1 record known from broader study area,
elevations of dry eucalypt forest and
Marginally suitable
Most active form mid 8km south on the other side fo the Clarence River
woodland. Found particularly in areas
potential habitat on site. spring to mid autumn.
in 2004.
with a well-developed litter layer and
Low likelihood to occur.
fallen timber to forage for their prey.
Occurs in predominantly open lowland
habitats, including grassland, heathland,
shrubland, woodland, forest, swamp and Suitable potential habitat
This population occurs on site with a number of
Detectable all year.
sedge communities, plantations, open
on site.
scats found.
farmland and occasionally littoral
rainforest.
Migratory species found over pelagic
No suitable habitat on
No likelihood to occur.
waters feeding on small fish.
site.
No suitable habitat on
Terrestrial habitat confined to offshore
No likelihood to occur.
islands.
site.
No suitable habitat on
Terrestrial habitat confined to Lord
No likelihood to occur.
Howe Island.
site.
No suitable habitat on
Terrestrial habitat confined to offshore
No likelihood to occur.
islands just north of the Antarctic circle.
site.
A migratory species found on remote
No suitable habitat on
No likelihood to occur.
islands and breeds in bushes, mangroves
site.
and on the ground.
A migratory species found in tropical
waters and breeding in mangroves and
bushes.
Breeds on offshore islands along NSW
coast. Absent from NSW from May to
August.
Breeds on offshore islands from SA to
Broughton Island, north of Newcastle.
After breeding, wholly absent from
Australia from May to September.
Terrestrial habitat confined to oceanic
islands.

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

Appendix 2: Fauna Details

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

Widespread, common and expanding.


Occurs in grasslands, wooded lands and No suitable habitat on or
wetlands. Most commonly found
near the site within the
foraging with livestock. Roosts in trees in
zone of influence.
or near lakes and swamps. Breeds in
colonies in wooded swamps.
Occurs in freshwater and estuarine
No suitable habitat on
wetlands.
site.
Lives on exposed reefs, rocky shores,
beaches, mudflats, islands. Roosts and
No suitable habitat on
nests in woodland, scrub adjacent to
site.
beaches.
No suitable habitat on
Inhabits permanent freshwater wetlands
site.
Frequents swamps and lakes throughout
much of the Australian mainland. Breeds
No suitable habitat on
in colonies with other waterbirds; nests
site.
in trees or shrubs growing in water.

Impact assessment

Recorded in the local area in suitable habitat


during survey.
Low to no likelihood to occur.

No further impact
assessment required.

No likelihood to occur.
No likelihood to occur.
No likelihood to occur.
No likelihood to occur.

Recorded in the local area in suitable habitat


during survey.
Observed nesting in artificial breeding sites
erected in the township and along the Clarence
River.
No likelihood to occur on site .

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.

Inhabit open woodland and forest,


preferring a mosaic of vegetation types, a
large population of birds as a source of
food, and permanent water, and are
often found in riparian habitats along or
near watercourses or wetlands. In NSW,
preferred habitats include mixed
Suitable potential habitat
subtropical rainforest, Melaleuca swamp
on site.
forest and riparian Eucalyptus forest of
coastal rivers. Breeding habitat within
1km of permanent water, often adjacent
to rivers or clearings. Usually one of the
tallest trees is selected for the nest
location.

Detectable all year.

Suitable potential habitat


on site.

Detectable all year.

Lives in a range of inland habitats,


especially along timbered watercourses
Marginally suitable
and in areas with less than 500mm of potential foraging habitat
rainfall. Specializes in eating large eggs,
on site.
including emu eggs.

Detectable all year.

Found in timbered habitats with a


particular preference for timbered
watercourses.

Likelihood to occur

Only 1 record from the broader study area,


dating from 1987, 5 km west of Iluka.
Low 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.

Only 5 records were identified with the closest


being 3km north east of the subject site in 1984
and the most recent being 8km west of the
Further impact
subject site in 1991.
assessment required.
This species was observed nearby during survey.
High likelihood to occur.
Only 1 record from the broader study area,
dating from 1981, in Iluka township.
Low likelihood to occur.

No further impact
assessment required.

118

Appendix 2: Fauna Details

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

Most commonly seen foraging over


water bodies or near coastal waters; will
Marginally suitable
occasionally forage over open country
potential nesting habitat
for carrion. Highly mobile and travels
on site.
long distances. Nests and roosts high in
trees in well-timbered country.
Found in tropical and temperate open
wooded country, particularly in arid and
semi-arid areas. Partly nomadic, in
No suitable habitat on
response to local conditions. Hunts low
site.
over the ground, favoured prey are
ground birds; will also take mice, rats,
rabbits and lizards.
Abundant in the northern tropics, but
very sparse across the southern part of
its range. Often forage in dry grassland,
No suitable habitat on
ploughed paddocks or desert claypans
site.
but dependent on wetlands, especially
shallow swamps.
Marginally suitable
Inhabits open forests and woodlands
potential habitat on site;
with a sparse grassy ground layer and
probably weed
fallen timber
infestations too dense.
Occurs on open, undisturbed beaches
No suitable habitat on
and estuaries
site.
No suitable habitat on or
Favours intertidal flats of inlets and bays, near the site within the
open beaches and sandbanks
zone of influence.
No suitable habitat on or
Occurs on rocky headlands and exposed near the site within the
reefs, beaches and muddy estuaries
zone of influence.
Occurs on beaches, harbours and
No suitable habitat on
estuaries with large intertidal sand flats
site.
or mudflats
Occurs mainly on sheltered sandy, shelly
No suitable habitat on
or muddy beaches or estuaries with
site.
large intertidal mudflats or sandbanks.
Estuaries, wave-washed rocks and reefs,
waterways in mangroves, tidal mudflats,
No suitable habitat on
beaches. Overwinters in southern
site.
hemisphere.
Found on rocky coasts with reefs and
platforms. Forages among rocks, shingles
and shallow pools.
Estuaries, channels among mangroves,
tidal flats, coral cays, flat exposed reefs,
flooded paddocks, occasionally sewage
farms, bare grasslands, sportsgrounds,
lawns. Winters in southern hemisphere.

Survey
considerations

Detectable all year.

Likelihood to occur

Impact assessment

Large number of records (>120) in the broader


study area.
Observed nesting in golf course to the north of
the subject site.
Low likelihood to occur on the subject site.

No further impact
assessment required.

Low likelihood to occur.

No further impact
assessment required.

No likelihood to occur.

No further impact
assessment required.

Only 3 records from the broder study area with


the closest and most recent being 1km west of
the subject site in 2010.
Low likelihood to occur.

No further impact
assessment required.

Observed in the local area during survey.


No likelihood to occur on site.

No further impact
assessment required.

No likelihood to occur.

Observed in the local area during survey.


No likelihood to occur on site.
No likelihood to occur.
No likelihood to occur.
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

Appendix 2: Fauna Details

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

Mainly coastal: sandspits, mudflats,


waterways in saltmarsh, mangroves;
No suitable habitat on
occasionally fresh or brackish lakes, bare
site.
grassland near water.
Tidal mudflats, saltmarsh, sandspits,
No suitable habitat on or
sandy or shell-grit beaches, shallow
margins of salt or freshwater lakes often near the site within the
far inland, sewage farms. Winters in
zone of influence.
southern hemisphere.
Tidal reefs and pools, weed-covered
rocks washed by surf, pebbly shores,
No suitable habitat on or
mudflats, occasionally inland shallow
near the site within the
waters, sewage farms or bare open
zone of influence.
ground near coast. Winters in southern
hemisphere.
Widespread in non-breeding season in
coastal Australasia, Melanesia and
Polynesia. Usually in coastal habitats
No suitable habitat on
(beaches, mudflats, sandflats,
site.
mangroves, saltmarsh, seagrass), though
occasionally in inland wetlands.
Occurs along coastal areas except for
No suitable habitat on
breeding sites which occur in tundra,
site.
often in drier areas.
Breeds in the Palaearctic. In Australia
No suitable habitat on
over summer, on coast and inland, in
estuaries, mudflats, mangrove swamps
site.
and lagoons.
Occurs in sheltered, coastal habitats with
large, intertidal mudflats / sandflats.
Often on sandy beaches with mudflats
No suitable habitat on
nearby, sandy spits and islets;
site.
sometimes on exposed reefs or rock
platforms. Migrates to Australia from
late Aug to early Sep.
Non-breeding migrant to Australia in the
warmer months. Found in dense cover in No suitable habitat on
any vegetation around wetlands, also
site.
saltmarsh and creek edges when
migrating.
Favours sheltered parts of coast
(estuarine sandflats, mudflats, harbours,
lagoons, saltmarshes, reefs) for feeding / No suitable habitat on
roosting. Occasionally seen in sewage
site.
farms or shallow freshwater lagoons.
Roosts on banks on sheltered sand, shell
or shingle beaches.
Usually found in sheltered bays,
No suitable habitat on or
estuaries and lagoons with large
near the site within the
intertidal mudflats and/or sandflats
zone of influence.
along coast.

Survey
considerations

Likelihood to occur

Impact assessment

No likelihood to occur.

No further impact
assessment required.

Observed in the local area during survey.


No likelihood to occur on site.

No further impact
assessment required.

Observed in the local area during survey.


No likelihood to occur on site.

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.

Observed in the local area during survey.


No likelihood to occur on site.

No further impact
assessment required.

120

Appendix 2: Fauna Details

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

Occurs on coastal mudflats, lagoons,


creeks and estuaries
Summer migrant, in Australia from
August to April. Commonly seen in fresh
or brackish wetlands such as rivers,
water meadows, sewage farms, drains,
lagoons and swamps.
Found on muddy edges or rocky shores
of coastal or inland wetlands, saline or
fresh. Breeds in Eurasia and part of the
population overwinters in Australia.
Summer migrant to Australia from the
Arctic. Prefers grassy edges of shallow
inland freshwater wetlands. Found also
on sewage farms, flooded fields,
mudflats, mangroves, beaches and rocky
shores.
Breeds in the Arctic and flies non-stop to
Australia. Feed in large flocks on the
coast in sandy estuaries with tidal
mudflats.
Tidal mudflats, estuaries, sewage farms;
occasionally on shallow river-margins,
brackish or salty inland lakes, flooded
pastures, airfields. Needs soft sand /
mud. Winters in southern hemisphere.
Breeds in Siberia and migrates to
Australia in warmer months. Forages in
shallow water of intertidal mudflats of
sheltered coasts. Roosts on beaches,
spits/islets, saltmarsh or on rocky shore.

No suitable habitat on
site.

Prefer shallow fresh to saline wetlands.


Found near the coast.

Found in coastal areas on low beaches of


firm sand, near reefs and inlets, along
tidal mudflats and bare open coastal
lagoons; individuals are rarely recorded
in near-coastal wetlands.
Coastal offshore waters, larger bays,
occasionally coastal inlets, lakes, usually
in storms. Overwinters in southern
hemisphere.
This species occurs in groups in the
pelagic zone. Breeding occurs on or near
islands on grass, rock or among coral
rubble.
Terrestrial habitat confined to offshore
islands.

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

Appendix 2: Fauna Details

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

Pezoporus wallicus wallicus


Eastern Ground Parrot

Bird

Tyto novaehollandiae
Masked Owl

Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015

Habitat Requirements

Suitability of Site

Offshore waters, beaches, reefs, bays,


No suitable habitat on or
tidal mudflats, lower reaches of larger
near the site within the
rivers with sandbars, sewage farms,
occasionally swamps near coast.
zone of influence.
Overwinters in southern hemisphere.
Large waters generally, fresh or salt
lakes, larger rivers, reservoirs, estuaries,
No suitable habitat on
tidal mudflats, beaches, shallow coastal
site.
waters.
Prefers sheltered coastal environments;
may occur several kms from the sea in
No suitable habitat on or
harbours, inlets and rivers. Nests in
small colonies in low dunes or on sandy near the site within the
beaches just above high tide mark near
zone of influence.
estuary mouths or adjacent to coastal
lakes and islands.

Survey
considerations

Occurs in rainforest.

Suitable potential habitat


on site.

Detectable when
feeding in suitable
habitat.

Occurs in rainforest.

Suitable potential habitat


on site.

Detectable all year.

Breeds in large hollow-bearing trees in


forest and forages on Allocasuarina
species.

Suitable potential habitat


on site.

Detectable all year.

Mostly in dry open eucalypt forests and


woodlands. Feeds on tree nectar and
pollen, particularly profusely-flowering
Suitable potential habitat
eucalypts, but also melaleucas and
on site.
mistletoes and mistletoe fruit. Nomadic,
movements probably related to food
availability.
Occurs in high rainfall coastal low
heathlands and sedgelands, that provide
No suitable habitat on
very dense cover (90% or more) and
site.
below one metre in height.
Occurs in forests, but often hunts along
forest edges such as roadsides.

Suitable foraging habitat


on site.

Detectable all year.

Likelihood to occur

Impact assessment

Observed in the local area during survey.


No likelihood to occur on site.

No further impact
assessment required.

Low to no likelihood to occur.

No further impact
assessment required.

Observed in the local area during survey.


No likelihood to occur on site.

No further impact
assessment required.

3 records from the broader study area were


identified with the closest being 1km east of the
subject site in 1979 and the most recent being
Further impact
5km north of the subject site in 1994. A large
assessment required.
number of rainforest flora species
High likelihood to occur.
79 records from the broader study area with the
closest being 1km east of the subject site in 1985
and the most recent being 8km west of the
Further impact
subject site in 2004.
assessment required.
This species was observed nearby in Iluka NR
and was heard on site.
High likelihood to occur.
10 records from the broader study area with the
closest and most recent being 3km east of the
subject site in 2012.
Further impact
Characteristicaly chewed cones were observed assessment required.
by Fitzgerald (2005) under an Allocasuarina
littoralis at the northern edge of the subject site.
12 records from the broader study area with the
closest being 1km east of the subject site in 1989
Further impact
and the most recent being 5km south of the
assessment required.
subject site in 2012.
High likelihood to occur.
Low likelihood to occur.

Detectable all year.

No further impact
assessment required.

Only 1 record from the broader study area being


3km west of the subject site in 1998. Much mor
No further impact
common in the hitterland forests.
assessment required.
Low likelihood to occur.

122

Appendix 2: Fauna Details

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.

Usually roosts in dense vegetation and


hunts for arboreal mammals across large
home range.

Suitability of Site

Survey
considerations

No suitable habitat on
site.
Marginally suitable
habitat on site.

Detectable all year.

Marginally suitable
habitat on site.

Detectable all year.

Almost exclusively aerial, flying over


most habitat types. Arrive from Siberia
No suitable habitat on
in spring and depart in autumn. Feed on
site.
edge of low pressure systems. Threats to
this species in Australia are negligible.
Non-breeding popn migrates from Asia
in spring and departs autumn along
either side of Gt Div Rge. Most of its time
Suitable potential habitat
spent feeding on the wing, high along
on site.
storm fronts. Roosts infrequently in
terrestrial habitats and terrestrial
habitat largely irrelevant.
Occurs in many habitats where there are
open areas for foraging, well-placed
Suitable potential habitat
perches to from which to forage, a water
on site.
source and breeding habitat such as
sandy creek banks.
Occurs in rainforest and large tracts of
eucalypt forest.

Suitable potential habitat


on site.

Detectable all year.

Occurs in rainforest, especially littoral


rainforest and swamp forest. Prefers the Suitable potential habitat
ecotone between open vegetation and
on site.
rainforest.

Detectable all year.

In NSW, occurs from upper Hunter


Valley to the western slopes in Box-Gum
Woodlands on the slopes, and BoxNo suitable habitat on
Cypress-pine and open Box Woodlands
site.
on alluvial plains. Central Coast record is
probably a misidentification or vagrant.
Found in eucalypt woodlands and
Suitable potential habitat
forests, preferring rough-barked trees or
on site.

Likelihood to occur

Impact assessment

Low likelihood to occur.

No further impact
assessment required.

Low to no likelihood to occur.

No further impact
assessment required.

Observed flying overhead during fauna surveys.


Low likelihood to use terrestrial habitats of the
subject site.

Further impact
assessment required.

5 records from the broader study area with the


closest being 1km south of the subject site in
No further impact
1981 and the most recent being 8km north west
assessment required.
of the subject site in 2009.
Moderate likelihood to occur.
4 records from the broader study area were
identified with the closest being 4km north of the
No further impact
subject site in 1980 and the most recent being
assessment required.
5km west of the subject site in 2012.
Moderate likelihood to occur.

Large number (>100) records from the broader


study with the closest being within 1km north of
the subject site in 1978 and the most recent
Further impact
being 4km south of the subject site in 2012.
assessment required.
This species was observed foraging and nesting
on site.
10 records from the broader study with the
closest being 1km south east of the subject site in
1979 and the most recent being 2km north of the
Further impact
subject site in 1992. This species was observed assessment required.
nearby at the time of survey.
High likelihood to occur.
50 records from the broader study with the
closest being less than 1km east of the subject
Further impact
site in 1993 and the most recent being 3km north
assessment required.
of the subject site in 2013.
High likelihood to occur.
Low likelihood to occur.

Detectable all year.

No further impact
assessment required.

8 records from the broader study with the closest


Further impact
being 1km south of the subject site in 1978 and assessment required.
123

Appendix 2: Fauna Details

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

Primary habitat in mangrove and


shrublands but may also range into
adjacent forests. Forages in mangroves.

No suitable habitat on
site.

Foraging habitat in flowering eucalypts,


particularly winter-flowering species;
camps in dense wet forest or rainforest
gullies.

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.

16 records from the broader study area with the


closest and most recent being 1km south of the
subject site in 2004. However, most records date
Occurs in a number of forest habitats but
from the 1970s and 1990s and have been
Suitable potential habitat
No further impact
requires large areas of relatively intact
Detectable all year.
generated by a community survey that often
on site.
assessment required.
forest.
generates records of uncertain dates. It is likely
that the local population of this species persists
only in very low numbers, if at all.
Low likelihood to occur.
Detectable all year, but 16 records from the broader study area with the
particularly in mating
closest being within 1km of the subject site in
Prefers dry sclerophyll open forest with
Marginally suitable
No further impact
season (May-July)
1991 and the most recent being 9km west of the
sparse ground cover.
potential habitat on site.
assessment required.
when males are
subject site in 2002.
seeking mates.
Low likelihood to occur.
Occurs in a range of forest, heath and
No suitable habitat on
No further impact
marshland where there is surface cover
Low likelihood to occur.
site.
assessment required.
and usually close to water.
A large number of records from the broader
study area (>315) as the Iluka population has
been well studied. Thought to be (at least
Further impact
Inhabits eucalypt woodlands and forests. Suitable habitat on site.
Detectable all year. functionally) extinct. The most recent record was
assessment required.
5km north west of the subject site in 2013. This
species was photographed on site by camera trap
during survey.
Favours tall mature eucalypt forest in
No suitable habitat on
No further impact
areas with high rainfall and nutrient rich
Low to no likelihood to occur.
site.
assessment required.
soils.
24 records within the broader study area with
Marginally suitable
the closest being less than 1km south of the
Inhabits Blackbutt- Bloodwood forests potential habitat on site.
No further impact
Detectable all year.
subject site in 2010 and the most recent being
with heath understorey in coastal areas.
Poor foraging habitat,
assessment required.
5km south of the subject site in 2012.
some denning sites.
Moderate likelihood to occur.
Only 1 record within the broader study area
Inhabits a variety of forests from tall,
being 5km west of the subject site (on the other
moist eucalypt forest to open woodland,
Marginally suitable
side of the Highway and the river), dating from
Further impact
with a tussock grass understorey. A
Detectable all year.
potential habitat on site.
2012. No records east of the hhighway and none assessment required.
dense cover of tall native grasses is the
on or near the Iluka peninsula.
preferred shelter.
Low likelihood to occur.
Detectable when
foraging habitat
fruiting and/or
flowering.

70 records within the broader study area with


the closest being 1km to the east in 1994 and the
Further impact
most recent being 4km to the south in 2012.
assessment required.
High likelihood to occur.

124

Appendix 2: Fauna Details

Fauna Group

Mammal

Scientific Name

Syconycteris australis
Common Blossom-bat

Status
TSC Act
(1995)

Status
EPBC
Act
(1999)

Suitability of Site

Roosts in littoral rainforest and feeds on


flowers (particularly Banksia) in
Suitable potential habitat
adjacent heathland and paperbark
on site.
swamps.

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

Detectable all year.

Likelihood to occur

21 records within the broader study area with


the closest being 1km to the east in 1990 and the
most recent being 6km to the south in 2006.
Further impact
A breeding population of this species occurs
assessment required.
adjacent to the subject site in Iluka NR.
High likelihood to occur.

2 records from within the broader study area


with the closest and most recent being 3km west
Suitable potential habitat
Detectable all year.
of the subject site in 2002.
on site.
This species was recorded foraging on site during
survey.
76 records within the broader study area with
the closest being 1km to the east in 1994 and the
Occurs in lowland subtropical rainforest
Marginally suitable
most recent being 2km to the south in 2008.
and wet and swamp eucalypt forest.
foraging and roosting
Detectable all year.
A large number of records are from Iluka NR.
Roosts in tree hollows, among epiphytes
potential habitat on site.
Possibly recorded foraging on the site during
and dense clumps of rainforest foliage.
survey.
High likelihood to occur.
Only 2 records from the broader study area 1998
Roosts in caves and forages above tree Suitable potential habitat Most active mid spring
and 2001.
canopies.
on site.
to mid autumn.
Low likelihood to occur.
35 records from the broader study area with the
closest being 1km east of the subject site in 1984
Roosts in caves and forages beneath tree
Suitable potential
Most active mid spring
and the most recent being 5km south of the
canopies.
foraging habitat on site.
to mid autumn.
subject site in 2012.
This species was recorded foraging on site during
survey.
Roosts in tree hollows and forages in
open understorey of dry open eucalypt
forests dominated by Spotted Gum,
No potential habitat on
boxes and ironbarks, and heathy coastal
Low likelihood to occur.
site.
forests where Red Bloodwood and
Scribbly Gum are common. Flies fast
below the canopy.
25 records from the broader study area with the
closest being 5km south west of the subject site
Forages over large bodies of water and
in 2003 and the most recent being 10km west of
Suitable potential
roosts in hollows or under old wooden
the subject site in 2015. No records of this
roosting habitat on site in
Detectable all year.
bridges, sometimes up to 10 km from
species from the Iluka peninsula and all known
the hollow-bearing trees.
foraging habitat.
roosting sites beneath bridges over the Clarence
River and its tributaries.
Low likelihood to occur.
Found in a variety of habitats from
woodland through to moist and dry
Marginally suitable
Only 6 records from the broader study area with
eucalypt forest and rainforest, though
potential habitat on site; Most active mid spring closest and most recent being 2km south of the
most commonly found in tall wet forest.
probably too cluttered
to mid autumn.
subject site in 2008.
Roosts in tree hollows and forages over
with Lantana.
Moderate likelihood to occur.
creeks and other corridors in forest.
Occur in dry sclerophyll forest and
woodland, roost in hollows and manmade structures.

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

Appendix 3: Seven Part Tests

Swamp Sclerophyll Forest


Swamp Sclerophyll Forest on Coastal Floodplains of the NSW North Coast, Sydney Basin
and South East Corner bioregions is listed as an Endangered Ecological Community under
the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act (1995). It is not listed under the schedules
of the Commonwealth Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act
(1999).

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).

The species composition of Swamp Sclerophyll Forest is primarily determined by the


frequency and duration of waterlogging and the texture, salinity nutrient and moisture
content of the soil. The species composition of the trees varies considerably, but the most
widespread and abundant dominant trees include Eucalyptus robusta Swamp Mahogany,
Melaleuca quinquenervia and, south from Sydney, Eucalyptus botryoides Bangalay and
Eucalyptus longifolia Woollybutt (OEH 2015a).

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

Appendix 3: Seven Part Tests

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.

(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

128

Appendix 3: Seven Part Tests

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.

(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 this
community on site therefore, will not impact on the long-term survival of this community.

(e) whether the action proposed is likely to have an adverse effect on critical habitat
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015

129

Appendix 3: Seven Part Tests

(either directly or indirectly),


Response:
No critical habitat has been declared for this endangered ecological community.

(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):

1. Undertake research to determine minimum fire frequency.


2. Collate existing information on vegetation mapping and associated data for this
EEC and identify gaps in knowledge. Conduct targeted field surveys and ground
truthing to fill data gaps and clarify condition of remnants.
3. Prepare identification and impact assessment guidelines and distribute to consent
and determining authorities.
4. Use mechanisms such as Voluntary Conservation Agreements to promote the
protection of this EEC on private land.
5. Liaise with landholders and undertake and promote programs that ameliorate
threats such as grazing and human disturbance.
6. Enhance the capacity of persons involved in the assessment of impacts on this EEC
to ensure the best informed decisions are made.
7. Undertake weed control for Bitou Bush and Boneseed at priority sites in
accordance with the approved Threat Abatement Plan and associated PAS actions.
8. Identify and prioritise other specific threats and undertake appropriate onground site management strategies where required.
9. Investigate the ecology of Swamp sclerophyll forest species with particular
emphasis on the importance of drying and wetting cycles in maintaining
ecosystem health.
10. Determine location, species composition and threats to remaining remnants to
assist with prioritising restoration works.
11. Collect seed for NSW Seedbank. Develop collection program in collaboration with
Botanic Gardens Trust - all known provenances (conservation collection).
12. Investigate seed viability, germination, dormancy and longevity (in natural
environment and in storage).

A number of specific recovery activities have also been identified (OEH 2015a):

1. Instigate pig, deer and goat control programs;


2. Ensure that the fire sensitivity of the community is considered when planning
hazard reduction and asset management burning;
3. Protect habitat by minimising further clearing of the community. This requires

Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015

130

Appendix 3: Seven Part Tests

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

Anderson, J. and Asquith, J. (2002) Findings of the coastal lowland forests/swamp


mahogany project: final report. Report to the NSW State Wetlands Advisory
Committee
Benson, D.H. (1986) The native vegetation of the Gosford Lake Macquarie 1:100 000
map sheets. Cunninghamia 1, 467-490
Benson, D.H. and Howell, J. (1994) The native vegetation of the Sydney 1:100 000 map
sheet. Cunninghamia 3, 679-788
Benson, D.H. and Howell, J. (1990) 'Taken for granted: the bushland of Sydney and its
suburbs.' Kangaroo Press, Sydney
Benson, D.H., Howell, J. and McDougall, L. (1996) 'Mountain devil to mangrove.' Royal
Botanic Gardens, Sydney
Boulton, A.J. and Brock M.A. (1999) 'Australian freshwater wetlands: processes and
management.' Gleneagles Publishing, Glen Osmond
Douglas, S. and Anderson, J. (2002) Eucalyptus robusta (Swamp Mahogany) communities
and their conservation status in New South Wales. Swamp mahogany project.
Central coast community environment network Inc
Goodrick, G.N. (1970) A survey of wetlands of coastal New South Wales. Technical
Memorandum No. 5. CSIRO, Canberra
Hughes, L. (2003) Climate change and Australia: trends, projections and impacts. Austral
Ecology 28, 423-443
IPCC (2001) Climate change 2001: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Report from
Working Group II. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva
Johnston, S.G., Slavich, P.G. and Hirst, P. (2003) Alteration of groundwater and sediment
geochemistry in a sulfidic backswamp due to Melaleuca quinquenervia
encroachment. Australian Journal of Soil Research 41, 1343-1367
Keith, D.A. (2002) 'A compilation map of native vegetation for New South Wales.' NSW
Biodiversity Strategy. NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service, Sydney

Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015

131

Appendix 3: Seven Part Tests

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

Appendix 3: Seven Part Tests

mapping for the southern Comprehensive Regional Assessment.' NSW National


Parks and Wildlife Service, Queanbeyan
Tindall, D., Pennay, C., Tozer, M.G., Turner, K. and Keith, D.A. (2004) Native vegetation map
report series. No. 4. Araluen, Batemans Bay, Braidwood, Burragorang, Goulburn,
Jervis Bay, Katoomba, Kiama, Moss Vale, Penrith, Port Hacking, Sydney, Taralga,
Ulladulla, Wollongong. NSW Department of Environment and Conservation and
NSW Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources, Sydney

Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015

133

Appendix 3: Seven Part Tests

Phaius australis Lesser Swamp Orchid


Phaius australis is listed as Endangered under Schedule 2 of the Threatened Species
Conservation Act (1995). This species is listed as Endangered under the Schedules of the
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (1999).

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

Appendix 3: Seven Part Tests

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.

(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
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

Appendix 3: Seven Part Tests

Response:
This question is not relevant to a threatened species.

(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 potential habitat on site is within the remnant swamp forest vegetation on the
western boundary. This area will be wholly retained and managed for conservation
purposes. No area of suitable potential habitat will be removed or modified 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:
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

Appendix 3: Seven Part Tests

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.

Minimise illegal collection;


Maintain appropriate fire regime;
Reduce and maintain weed densities at low levels;
Reduce and maintain feral pig densities at low levels; and
Track species abundance and condition over time.

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

Appendix 3: Seven Part Tests

Plan. Hurstville: NSW NPWS


Bishop, A. (1996) Field Guide to Orchids of New South Wales and Victoria. Sydney, NSW:
University of New South Wales Press.
Department of the Environment (2015) Phaius australis in Species Profile and Threats
Database,
Department
of
the
Environment,
Canberra.
(http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat)
Harden, G.J. (ed) (1993) Flora of New South Wales, Volume Four. Kensington, NSW:
University of NSW Press.
Harrison, D.K., H. Kwan and M.E. Johnston (2005) Molecular taxonomy of the Australian
swamp orchid (Phaius spp.).Proceedings of the International Society on
Horticulture in the Asian-Pacific Region. 694:121-124.
Jones, D.L., Hopley, T. and Duffy, S.M. (2010) Australian Tropical Rainforest Orchids.
Version 1.1 (http://keys.trin.org.au/key-server/data/08090a09-0d0e-410b860c-020705070e0e/media/Html/Phaius_australis.htm)
NSW Scientific Committee (2004) Phaius australis Common Swamp-orchid Endangered
species determination - final. DEC (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) Phaius australis Species Conservation Project
(http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/savingourspeciesapp/SearchResults.asp
x)
PlantNET (2015) The Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust, Sydney, Australia
(http://plantnet.rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au)
Redland City Council (no date) Lesser Swamp-orchid Phaius australis. Threatened species
of
the
Redlands.
(http://indigiscapes.redland.qld.gov.au/Plants/Documents/Lesser%20Swamporchid%20fact%20sheet.pdf)
Rupp, H.M.R. (1943) The Orchids of New South Wales. Sydney: Government Printers
Scientific Committee (2014) Approved conservation advice for Phaius australis Common
Swamp-orchid
Searle, J. and S. Maden (2006) Flora survey report South Stradbroke Island Management
Area. Environmental Planning and sustainable development section Gold Coast
City Council.
Sparshott, K.M. and P.D. Bostock (1993) An assessment of rare and threatened wetlands
flora and their habitats in National Estate interim listed areas on North Stradbroke
Island. Qld Herbarium, Dept. Environment and Heritage.
Sunshine Coast Regional Council (2009) Maroochy Regional Bushland Botanic Gardens Plants
and
Wildlife.
(http://www.sunshinecoast.qld.gov.au/sitePage.cfm?code=mrbbg-plantswildlife)
Weston, P.H. (1993) Orchidaceae, in G. J. Harden (Ed.) Flora of New South Wales Volume
4: 133-247. New South Wales University Press, Kensington

Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015

138

Appendix 3: Seven Part Tests

Acronychia littoralis Scented Acronychia


Achronychia littoralis is listed as Endangered under Schedule 2 of the Threatened Species
Conservation Act (1995). This species is also listed as Endangered under the Schedules of
the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (1999).

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

Appendix 3: Seven Part Tests

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.

(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
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.

(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:
Poor quality marginal potential habitat occurs on site in the 16.71 hectares to be cleared.

(ii) whether an area of habitat is likely to become fragmented or isolated from other
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015

140

Appendix 3: Seven Part Tests

areas of habitat as a result of the proposed action, and


Response:
The pattern of fragmentation of habitat will be marginally altered. Connectivity of habitat
within the site and with adjacent areas of bushland will be maintained by the retention
and conservation management of Parks 1, 2 and 3. The regional wildlife corridor is located
outside of the subject site and will not be impacted by the proposal. It is therefore
considered that the degree of increased fragmentation is not significant, particularly
considering that the site provides only potential habitat in a highly modified state.
(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 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

Appendix 3: Seven Part Tests

5. Track species abundance and condition over time.

The following recovery activities have also been identified for this species (OEH 2015a):
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

6.
7.
8.
9.

10.

Protect areas of known habitat from disturbance;


Protect remaining areas of habitat from clearing and development;
Control weeds in areas of known habitat;
Always stay on designated four-wheel drive tracks;
Regenerate areas of known habitat, including planting of local rainforest species
to protect Scented Acronychia from exposure to salt-laden winds;
Monitor population dynamics and threats of known populations;
Exclude domestic stock from known habitat;
Implement appropriate fire regime for habitat in which the species occurs;
Provide advice to consent and planning authorities about the location and
ecological requirements of the species; and
Maintain viable ex-situ collection.

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

Benwell, A. (1994) Scented Acronychia (Acronychia littoralis) on the Chinderah Bypass


Route. Supplementary Rep. Prepared for NSW Roads and Traffic Authority.
Unpubl.
Benwell, A. (1995) Description of the root system in a population of Scented Acronychia
(Acronychia littoralis) at Ozone St Chinderah.
Benwell, A. (1996) Chinderah Bypass. Scented Acronychia Acronychia littoralis - recovery
techniques and new insights into the biology of an endangered plant
Commonwealth Conservation Advice (2008) Approved Conservation Advice for
Acronychia littoralis Scented Acronychia under The Environmental Protection and
Biodiversity Conservation Act (1999)
Erskine, A. (2013) Coastal Propagation and Revegetation Manual. EnviTE Environment
(http://www.envite.org.au/wpcontent/uploads/2015/08/Coastal_propagation_and_revegetation_manual.pdf?
485c3a)
Floyd, A.G. (1989) Rainforest Trees of Mainland South-eastern Australia. Melbourne:
Inkata Press
Harden, G.J. (ed.) (2002) Flora of New South Wales, Volume Two - rev. edn. University of
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015

142

Appendix 3: Seven Part Tests

New South Wales Press, Sydney


Hartley, T. and Williams, J. (1983) A new species of Acronychia (Rutaceae) from Australia.
Brunonia 6:251-5
Horton, S (1997) Seeking Scented Acronychia - The search for Acronychia littoralis
between Iluka and Camden Haven
Hunter, J., Jay, A., Nicholson, N., Nicholson, H. and Horton, S. (1992) Species Recovery Plan:
Acronychia littoralis. Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service
NSW Department of the Environment (2015) Threatened species and ecological
communities. Species Profile and Threats Database Acronychia littoralis Scented
Acronychia (http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/)
NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) (1997) Acronychia littoralis ANCA
Endangered Species Program Annual Report - January 1997, endangered species
No. 200. Unpublished.
NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) (1998) Acronychia littoralis Endangered
Species Program Annual Report - April 1998, endangered species No. 200.
Unpublished.
NSW NPWS (2002) NSW Flora Fire Response Database, version 1.3a. NSW National Parks
and Wildlife Service
Office of Environment and Heritage (2015a) Threatened Species Profile
(http://www.threatenedspecies.environment.nsw.gov.au/tsprofile/)
Office of Environment and Heritage (2015b) Threatened species Acronychia littoralis
Scented
Acronychia
Priority
action
statement.
(http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/savingourspeciesapp/)
Peakall, R. (1994) Genetic analysis of four endangered rainforest plants. Prepared for
NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service.
Peakall, R. (1995) The extent of clonality in a roadside population of the rare and
endangered plant Acronychia littoralis and closely related congeners A.
imperforata and A. wilcoxiana. Prepared for NSW Roads and Traffic Authority.
Unpubl
Peakall, R. (1996) Patterns of genetic variation within populations of the rare and
endangered plant Acronychia littoralis and closely related congeners. Prepared for
NSW Roads and Traffic Authority. Unpublish
Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Service (2004) Endangered Plants - Case Studies.
Page(s) 2. The State of Queensland (Environmental Protection Agency), Brisbane
Ridgeway. A. (1995) The role of in situ seed banks and translocation in the conservation
of Acronychia littoralis. Hons. Thesis. Dept. Ecosystem Management, Univ. New
England. Unpubl
Rossetto, M. (2005) A simple molecular approach for identifying a rare Acronychia
(Rutaceae) provides new insights on its multiple hybrid origins. Biological
Conservation 121:35-43

Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015

143

Appendix 3: Seven Part Tests

Dromaius novaehollandiae Emu


The Emu population in the NSW North Coast Bioregion and Port Stephens LGA is listed as
Endangered under Schedule 1 of the Threatened Species Conservation Act (1995). This
species or population is not listed under the Schedules of the Environment Protection and
Biodiversity Conservation Act (1999).

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

Appendix 3: Seven Part Tests

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

Appendix 3: Seven Part Tests

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.

(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:
Approximately 16.71 hectares of poor quality potential habitat 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:
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

Appendix 3: Seven Part Tests

(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

Appendix 3: Seven Part Tests

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

Appendix 3: Seven Part Tests

Lophoictinia isura Square-tailed Kite


The Square-tailed Kite is listed as Vulnerable under Schedule 2 of the Threatened Species
Conservation Act (1995). This species is not listed under the Schedules of the
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (1999).

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

Appendix 3: Seven Part Tests

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.

(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
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.

(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

Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015

150

Appendix 3: Seven Part Tests

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

Appendix 3: Seven Part Tests

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.

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

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

Appendix 3: Seven Part Tests

Ptilinopus regina Rose-crowned Fruit-Dove


The Rose-crowned Fruit-Dove is listed as Vulnerable under Schedule 2 of the Threatened
Species Conservation Act (1995). This species is not listed under the Schedules of the
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (1999).

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.

(c) in the case of an endangered ecological community or critically endangered


ecological community, whether the action proposed:

Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015

153

Appendix 3: Seven Part Tests

(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.

(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:
Potential habitat of poor quality will be removed over 16.741 hectares.

(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.

(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 subject site provides poor quality habitat and as such cannot be regarded as
important to the long-term survival of a local population, as it represents a small fraction
of what is available in the home range of this highly mobile species.
(e) whether the action proposed is likely to have an adverse effect on critical habitat
(either directly or indirectly),

Response:

Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015

154

Appendix 3: Seven Part Tests

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-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):

1. Encourage landholders with littoral and floodplain rainforest remnants on their


property to enter into land management agreements (preferably in-perpetuity
covenants or stewardship agreements) that protect these areas from clearing,
grazing or other disturbances;
2. Implement bush regeneration within patches of rainforest habitat to remove
invasive weeds, taking particular care to compensate for camphor laurel removal
by planting winter-fruiting native laurels, figs and Elaeocarpaceae to avoid
significant reduction of existing food resources; and
3. Liaise with land managers with rainforest habitat to raise awareness about the
species' likely presence and sensitivity to disturbance (e.g. from timber harvesting
or hazard reduction burning).

The following recovery activities have also been identified for this species (OEH 2015a):
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Support local Landcare groups;


Protect remnant rainforest patches during burning off activities;
Retain forested corridors that link north-south and east-west migration routes;
Encourage and initiate weed control programs;
Ensure Camphor Laurel removal is accompanied by replacement with local native
laurel species;
6. Protect known and potential food trees;
7. Protect remnant stands of rainforest and moist forest from clearing or
development; and
8. Initiate and support rainforest regeneration projects.

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

Appendix 3: Seven Part Tests

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

Appendix 3: Seven Part Tests

Calyptorhynchus lathami Glossy Black-Cockatoo


The Glossy Black-Cockatoo is listed as Vulnerable under Schedule 2 of the Threatened
Species Conservation Act (1995). This species is not listed under the Schedules of the
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (1999). A population of this
species in the Riverina has been listed as an Endangered Population (NSW Scientific
Committee 1999) under the TSC Act (10995) due to considerable pressure form a number
of identified threats.

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

Appendix 3: Seven Part Tests

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.

(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,
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.

(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:
Approximately 16.71 hectares of bushland is to be removed. However, suitable foraging
trees were rare. For example, of the 420 trees sampled for the Koala scat survey, none
were Allocasuarina 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

Appendix 3: Seven Part Tests

the long-term survival of the species, population or ecological community in the


locality
Response:
Foraging resources such as provided in the subject site are probably more common in
bushland areas with a across the subject site and in local bushland. The small area to be
disturbed by the proposal does not constitute important habitat.
(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 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):

1. Reduce the impact of burning to retain diverse understorey species and in

Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015

159

Appendix 3: Seven Part Tests

2.
3.
4.

5.

particular to permit the regeneration of she-oaks.


Protect existing and future hollow-bearing trees for nest sites.
Retain and protect areas of native forest and woodland containing she-oaks.
Establish forested corridors linking remnant areas of habitat; include local sheoak species in bush revegetation works.
Report suspected illegal bird trapping and egg-collecting to the OEH.

The proposal will not interfere with these 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 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

Appendix 3: Seven Part Tests

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

Appendix 3: Seven Part Tests

Glossopsitta pusilla Little Lorikeet


The Little Lorikeet is listed as Vulnerable under Schedule 2 of the Threatened Species
Conservation Act (1995). This species is not listed under the Schedules of the
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (1999).

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).

This species is generally considered to be nomadic, moving in response to flowering


eucalypts (NSW Scientific Committee 2009). A long term study of a population on the
north western slopes revealed that they are resident from April to December and may
return to the nest area if some trees are flowering in the vicinity (Courtney and Debus
2006).

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

Appendix 3: Seven Part Tests

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

(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
Response:
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015

163

Appendix 3: Seven Part Tests

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.

(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:
Potential foraging habitat (particularly trees that produce copious nectar, such as Banksia
integrifolia Coast Banksia) in the 16.71 hectares of generally poor quality 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:
It is a highly mobile species and its ability to move through the landscape will not be
altered by 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:
As potential habitat, the site cannot be considered important to the long term survival of
a local population.
(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
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015

164

Appendix 3: Seven Part Tests

recovery plan or threat abatement plan,


Response:
This species has been assigned to the landscape species management stream by the
NSW Office of Environment and Heritage. The interim management actions identified for
this species include:

1. Encourage retention of old-growth and hollow-bearing trees through community


engagement and other mechanisms including PVPs, BioBanking and EIA; and
2. Avoid burning woodland with old-growth and hollow-bearing trees.

A number of recovery strategies have been identified (OEH 2015):

1. Retain large old trees, especially those that are hollow-bearing;


2. Ensure recruitment of trees into the mature age class so that there is not a lag
period of decades between the death of old trees and hollow formation in younger
trees;
3. Protect large flowering Eucalyptus trees throughout the habitats frequented by
this species. Manage remnant woodlands and forest for recovery of old-growth
characteristics;
4. Where natural tree recruitment is inadequate, replant local species to maintain
foraging habitat and breeding sites;
5. Reduce the abundance of feral Honeybees and limit the exploitation of nectar by
domestic bees where resources are spatially or temporally sparse (e.g. in years of
drought); and
6. Document nest sites and ensure their protection.

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

Appendix 3: Seven Part Tests

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

Appendix 3: Seven Part Tests

Coracina lineata Barred Cuckoo-shrike


The Barred Cuckoo-shrike is listed as Vulnerable under Schedule 2 of the Threatened
Species Conservation Act (1995). This species is not listed under the Schedules of the
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (1999).

The Barred Cuckoo-shrike (previously known as Yellow-eyed Cuckoo-shrike) is a dark


grey cuckoo-shrike with a yellow eye and heavily banded belly (Slater et al. 1995). This
species has a distributional range from Cape York to north east New South Wales
(September to March) and is a rare vagrant to Sydney (Slater et al. 1995). It is generally
uncommon in its range and rare in New South Wales (OEH 2015a).

It occurs in a variety of habitats including rainforest, eucalypt forests and woodlands,


clearings in secondary growth, swamp woodlands and timber along watercourses (OEH
2015a). Foraging habitat is defined as fruiting tree species in rainforest, wet sclerophyll
forest, vegetation remnants or isolated trees (OEH 2015a).

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

(c) in the case of an endangered ecological community or critically endangered


Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015

167

Appendix 3: Seven Part Tests

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
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

(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:
Scattered elements of foraging habitat are contained within the 16.71 hectares of highly
modified bushland to be removed or the proposal.

(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

Appendix 3: Seven Part Tests

(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-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):

1. Encourage landholders to enter land management agreements that promote the


retention of native forest, particularly along roads and watercourses, where the
species is known to occur; and
2. Conduct rainforest regeneration and restoration, specifically retaining and
planting individual native fruit-bearing trees, including figs and other rainforest
fruit trees, in habitat where the species is known to occur.

The following recovery activities have also been identified for this species (OEH 2015a):
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Retain areas of native forest;


Retain forest corridors particularly along roads and watercourses;
Retain individual native fruit-bearing trees as feed trees;
Initiate and support rainforest regeneration; and
Plant feed trees, including figs and other rainforest fruit trees.

This proposal is consistent with all of these 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.
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015

169

Appendix 3: Seven Part Tests

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

Appendix 3: Seven Part Tests

Carterornis leucotis White-eared Monarch


The White-eared Monarch is listed as Vulnerable under Schedule 2 of the Threatened
Species Conservation Act (1995). This species is not listed under the Schedules of the
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (1999).

The white-eared Monarch is a small, distinctively pied monarch-flycatcher that is


approximately the same size as Rhipidura fuliginosa Grey Fantail (OEH 2015a). They are
largely black above and pale grey below with a distinctive black and white face (OEH
2015a).

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

Appendix 3: Seven Part Tests

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

(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
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.

(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:
No potential habitat for this species will be removed for the proposed development.

(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

Appendix 3: Seven Part Tests

(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:
As potential habitat only, it cannot be regarded as important for the long term survival of
a local population of this species.
(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 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

Appendix 3: Seven Part Tests

2.
3.
4.

5.

6.
7.
8.

of known or potential habitat;


Control weeds in areas of known and potential habitat or on land bordering such
habitat;
Protect areas of known and potential habitat from clearing and further
fragmentation and isolation, including patches on private land in collaboration
with landholders;
Reconnect or enlarge patches of known and potential habitat, particularly using
corridors along rivers and creeks;
Protect habitat from inappropriate fire regimes and ensure habitat is protected in
during fire planning and in hazard reduction guidelines;
Report all records south of the Clarence River to the OEH;
Monitor populations and determine seasonal movements, if any, the food
requirements of the species and other basic aspects of ecology and biology to
better manage the species in NSW; and
Exclude stock from areas of potential and known habitat.

(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

Appendix 3: Seven Part Tests

Daphoenositta chrysoptera Varied Sittella


The Varied Sittella is listed as Vulnerable under Schedule 2 of the Threatened Species
Conservation Act (1995). This species is not listed under the Environment Protection and
Biodiversity Conservation Act (1999).

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

Appendix 3: Seven Part Tests

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.

(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
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.

(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:
Poor quality habitat across 16.71 hectares 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:
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

Appendix 3: Seven Part Tests

(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:
This species is regularly recorded in the expanses of reserved lands in the local area
Iluka Nature Reserve and Bundjalung National Park. These areas are well-connected and
managed for conservation, while the land of the subject site is in poor condition and
generally neglected. Recent research has established that individuals of this species move
over areas of at least 100 hectares during a 10 day period (Lindenmayer et al. 2010) and
so the vast majority of the habitat for the observed group of birds is within the reserved
lands.
(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. 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

Appendix 3: Seven Part Tests

intensity and duration of grazing; and


6. Control weeds in areas of known habitat.

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

Appendix 3: Seven Part Tests

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

Appendix 3: Seven Part Tests

Phascolarctos cinereus Koala


The Koala is listed as Vulnerable under Schedule 2 of the Threatened Species
Conservation Act (1995). This species is also listed as Vulnerable under the Schedules of
the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (1999). Specific
populations of Koalas in the Pittwater area of Warringah local government area and as
well for the Hawks Nest and Tea Gardens area of Great Lakes local government area have
been declared as endangered populations under the TSC Act (1995).

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

Appendix 3: Seven Part Tests

(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

Appendix 3: Seven Part Tests

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

Appendix 3: Seven Part Tests

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.

(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
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.

(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:
Very poor quality habitat in 16.71 hectares is to 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:
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

Appendix 3: Seven Part Tests

(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 on site can be classified as of a relatively low grade; such habitat is regarded
as able to support only low density populations of Koalas.
(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:
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:

Implement the objectives of SEPP 44 and the National Koala Conservation


Strategy for the conservation of koalas and koala habitat in NSW;
DECCW, together with DoP, will work with councils and catchment management
authorities to assist them in developing koala habitat protection measures for
incorporation in relevant local environmental plans (LEPs), and regional natural
resource and vegetation management plans;
Assess koala population dynamics and habitat use across the NSW range; and
DECCW, through collaboration with a wide range of researchers and conservation
partners, will coordinate and promote implementation of the recovery plan, with
a focus on using the NSW Priorities Action Statement as the primary information
and coordination tool.

Other recovery strategies identified by OEH (2015a) include:

Undertake feral predator control;


Apply low intensity, mosaic pattern fuel reduction burns in or adjacent to Koala
habitat;
Retain suitable habitat, especially areas dominated by preferred feed-tree species;
Identify road-kill blackspots and erect warning signs, reduce speed limits or
provide safe crossing points to reduce Koala fatalities;

Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015

184

Appendix 3: Seven Part Tests

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

Australian and New Zealand Environment Conservation Council (ANZECC)


(1998). National Koala Conservation Strategy. Canberra, ACT: Environment
Australia.
Curtin, A., Lunney, D. and Matthews, A. (2002) A survey of a low-density Koala population
in a major reserve system, near Sydney, New South Wales. Australian Mammalogy
23:135-144
Department of the Environment (2015). Phascolarctos cinereus combined populations of
Qld, NSW and the ACT in Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of the
Environment, Canberra.
Department of Environment and Climate Change (2008a) Recovery Plan for the Koala.
Department of Environment and Climate Change NSW, Sydney
Department of Environment and Climate Change (2008b) 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
Hindell, M.A. and Lee, A.K. 1990. Tree preferences of the koala In: Lee, A.K., Handasyde,
K.A. and Sanson, G.D. (eds) Biology of the Koala. Surrey Beatty and Sons, Sydney
Lee, A.K. and Carrick, F.N. (1989) Phascolarctidae, Chapter 31 In: D.W. Walton and B.J.
Richardson (eds) Fauna of Australia Vol 1B Mammalia. Australian Government
Publishing Service
Lunney, D., ONeill, LO., Matthews, A. and Shwerwin, W. (2002) Modelling mammalian
extinction and forecasting recovery: Koalas at Iluka NSW, Australia. National
Parks and Wildlife Service, Sydney.
Martin, R.W. (1995) Koala In: Strahan, R. (Ed.) The Mammals of Australia. Reed New
Holland, Australia
Martin, R.W., Handasyde, K.A. Krockenberger, A. (2008) Koala Phascolarctos cinereus In:
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015

185

Appendix 3: Seven Part Tests

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

Appendix 3: Seven Part Tests

Pteropus poliocephalus Grey-headed Flying-fox


The Grey-headed Flying-fox is listed as Vulnerable under Schedule 2 of the Threatened
Species Conservation Act (1995). This species is listed as Vulnerable under the Schedules
of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (1999).

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

Appendix 3: Seven Part Tests

communities, particularly as it coincides with the areas of greatest development. High


rates of mortality can result from result from losses of small areas of key winter habitat
(Eby and Lunney 2002). These losses are compounded by removal and fragmentation of
other resource patches used at other times.

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

Appendix 3: Seven Part Tests

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.

(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
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.

(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:
Poor quality habitat in 16.71 hectares 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, 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

Appendix 3: Seven Part Tests

(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:
As potential habitat only, it cannot be regarded as important habitat. Key winter habitat
occurs in the coastal Banksia communities of 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 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

Appendix 3: Seven Part Tests

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

Appendix 3: Seven Part Tests

crops to improve the understanding of the impact by assessing trends in the


species, sex, age and reproductive status of animals killed on crops.
Review and evaluate camp site management activities, summarising outcomes of
past experiences at controversial camps. Noise impacts on neighbours of camps
to be considered. For use in managing future conflicts with humans at flying-fox
camps.
Develop guidelines to assist land managers dealing with controversial flying-fox
camps.
Develop materials for public education and provide them to land managers and
local community groups working with controversial flying-fox camps,
highlighting species status, reasons for being in urban areas, reasons for decline
etc.
Assess the impacts Grey-headed Flying-fox camps have on water quality, and
publish results in a peer-reviewed journal.
Provide educational resources to improve public attitudes toward Grey-headed
Flying-foxes.
Monitor public attitudes towards flying-foxes.
Review and improve methods used to assess population size of Grey-headed
Flying-foxes.
Conduct periodic range-wide assessments of the population size of Grey-headed
Flying-foxes to monitor population trends.
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.
Investigate the differences in genetic relatedness, sex, age etc. between sedentary
and transient Grey-headed Flying-foxes.
Investigate between-year fidelity of Grey-headed Flying-fox individuals to
seasonal camps.
Investigate the genetic structure within Grey-headed Flying-fox camps, including
levels of relatedness within and between members of adult groups, occupants of
individual trees etc.
Investigate the patterns of juvenile Grey-headed Flying-fox dispersal and
mortality, allowing identification of the specific habitat requirements of juveniles.
Investigate the age structure and longevity of Grey-headed Flying-foxes.
Complete national recovery plan.
Grey-headed Flying-fox National Recovery Team to undertake an annual review
of the national recovery plan's implementation.

A number of specific recovery activities aim to recover the species through (OEH 2015a):

Protect roost sites, particularly avoid disturbance September through November.


Identify and protect key foraging areas.
Manage and enforce licensed shooting.
Investigate and promote alternative non-lethal crop protection mechanisms.
Identify powerline blackspots and implement measures to reduce deaths;
implement measures to reduce deaths from entanglement in netting and on

Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015

192

Appendix 3: Seven Part Tests

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

Appendix 3: Seven Part Tests

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

Appendix 3: Seven Part Tests

Syconycteris australis Common Blossom Bat


The Common Blossom Bat is listed as Vulnerable under Schedule 2 of the Threatened
Species Conservation Act (1995). This species is not listed under the Schedules of the
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (1999).

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

Appendix 3: Seven Part Tests

(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.

(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
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.

(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:
Poor quality potential foraging habitat will be removed across 16.71 hectares.

(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

Appendix 3: Seven Part Tests

to the long-term survival of the species, population or ecological community in the


locality,
Response:
The habitats within Iluka Nature Reserve and Bundjalung National Park are likely to be of
more importance top this species as they are in better condition, occur over a larger area
and are managed for conservation.
(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 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. Ensure a mosaic of nectar-producing trees and shrubs, esp. in coastal heath


paperbark swamp as well as rainforest roost habitat. Give high priority in PVP
assessments, or other assessment tools.
2. Prepare EIA guidelines which address the retention of a mosaic of nectarproducing trees and rainforest roost habitat.
3. Determine the effectiveness of PVP assessment, offsets and actions for bats.
4. Identify areas of private land that contain patches (including small) of littoral
rainforest as areas of HCV in planning instruments and land management tools
(e.g. LEP, Catchment Action Plans, PVPs).
5. Promote the conservation of these areas using measures such as incentive funding
to landholders, off-setting and biobanking, acquisition for reserve establishment
or other means. .
6. Develop and promote State-wide bat awareness programs for schools, CMAs,
landholders and industry groups etc.
7. Control coastal weed species eg Bitou Bush, but avoid aerial spraying during the
flowering season of important heath species as herbicides can directly collect in
flowers that are fed upon at night.
8. Initiate and support rainforest and heath regeneration projects where coastal
habitat has been cleared and fragmented.
9. Determine the extent of use of revegetation in development areas that are subject

Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015

197

Appendix 3: Seven Part Tests

10.

11.
12.
13.

to high ambient light levels. .


Identify critical foraging habitat in November when bats are breeding, but when
few heath species are flowering. .
Identify the impact on bats of weed-spraying at different times of the year.
Develop burning strategies that reduce impacts on preferred habitat in known
foraging areas.
Undertake long-term monitoring of select populations cross tenure.

A number of specific recovery activities have also been identified (OEH 2015a):

1. Control of serious coastal weed species such as Bitou Bush;


2. Protect areas of littoral rainforest, coastal heath and paperbark swamp;
3. Plant Common Blossom-bat feed trees such as local species of banksia,
bottlebrush and paperbark; and
4. Initiate and support rainforest and heath regeneration projects.

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

Appendix 3: Seven Part Tests

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

Appendix 3: Seven Part Tests

Mormopterus norfolkensis Eastern Freetail-bat


The Eastern Freetail-bat is listed as Vulnerable under Schedule 2 of the Threatened
Species Conservation Act (1995). This species is not listed under the Schedules of the
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (1999).

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

Appendix 3: Seven Part Tests

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.

(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
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.

(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:
Approximately 16.71 hectares of poor quality, cluttered foraging habitat will be removed,
as well as 14 dead hollow-bearing trees. The loss of potential roosting habitat will be
compensated for by the installation of replacement nest boxes.
(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
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015

201

Appendix 3: Seven Part Tests

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

Appendix 3: Seven Part Tests

farmland/forest interface and the urban/forest interface e.g. movement and


persistence across a range of fragment sizes.
6. Identify areas of private land that contain high densities of large hollow-bearing
trees as areas of high conservation value planning instruments and land
management negotiations e.g. LEP, CAPs, PVPs.
7. Promote the conservation of these private land areas using measures such as
incentive funding to landholders, off-setting and biobanking, acquisition for
reserve establishment or other means.

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

Appendix 3: Seven Part Tests

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

Appendix 3: Seven Part Tests

Nyctophilus bifax Eastern Long-eared Bat


Nyctophilus bifax is listed as Vulnerable under Schedule 2 of the Threatened Species
Conservation Act (1995). This species is not listed under the Schedules of the
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (1999).

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

Appendix 3: Seven Part Tests

the species is likely to be placed at risk of extinction,


Response:
The high quality vegetation at the western end of the subject site provides both foraging
habitat for this species and potential breeding sites (hollow-bearing trees). No hollowbearing trees will be removed from the habitat used by this species on site: this area will
be entirely retained and protected. In order to compensate for the loss of hollow-bearing
trees elsewhere on site in poor quality habitat, Parks 1, 2 and 3 will be enriched with bat
nest boxes, which may also be of advantage to 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

(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
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.

(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:
This species was only recorded foraging in the forest of the western boundary, which will
be entirely retained and protected in Park 2. As it is known to roost and forage within
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015

206

Appendix 3: Seven Part Tests

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.

(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:
No habitat for this species will be removed or modified.

(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

Appendix 3: Seven Part Tests

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):

1. Protect hollow-bearing trees and patches of rainforest and other dense


vegetation.
2. Reduce the use of pesticides and consider alternatives where available.
3. Assist with removal of weeds, particularly with Bitou Bush control in coastal
areas.
4. Protect known and potential habitat, particularly low elevation rainforest and
coastal scrub from clearing, fragmentation and isolation.
5. Reconnect and rehabilitate patches of known and potential habitat.

The proposal is consistent with recovery strategies 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.

Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015

208

Appendix 3: Seven Part Tests

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

Appendix 3: Seven Part Tests

Miniopterus australis Little Bentwing-bat


The Little Bentwing-bat is listed as Vulnerable under Schedule 2 of the Threatened
Species Conservation Act (1995). This species is not listed under the Schedules of the
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (1999).
The Little Bentwing-bat is distinguished from other bentwing-bats by its small size and
very long terminal joint in the third digit of the forelimb (Strahan 1995). This species has
a distinctively short muzzle and a domed head (Churchill 1998).

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

Appendix 3: Seven Part Tests

(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.

(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
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.

(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:
Poor quality foraging habitat will be removed in 16.71 hectares of weed-infested cluttered
regrowth.
(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 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

Appendix 3: Seven Part Tests

(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:
Important habitat to this species supports breeding habitat; no such habitat occurs within
50 kilometres of the 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 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):

Promote bats throughout the rural community as ecologically interesting and


important, but sensitive to disturbance at caves/disused mine tunnels.
Control foxes and feral cats around roosting sites, particularly maternity caves
and hibernation sites.
Prepare fire management plans for significant roost caves, disused mines,
culverts, especially maternity and winter roosts.
Exclude prescription burns from 100m from cave entrance, ensure smoke/flames
of fires do not enter caves/roosts in artificial structures.
Protect significant roosts and forest habitat within 10 km of roosts in PVP
assessments (offsets should include nearby remnants in high productivity) and
other environmental planning instruments.
Promote the conservation of these significant roost areas using measures such as
incentive funding to landholders, offseting and biobanking, acquisition for reserve
establishment or other means.
Determine the effectiveness of PVP assessment, offsets and actions for bats.
Prepare management plans for significant bat roosts especially all known
maternity colonies and winter colonies.
Identify and protect significant roost habitat in artificial structures (eg culverts,

Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015

212

Appendix 3: Seven Part Tests

old buildings and derelict mines).


Identify the susceptibility of the species to pesticides.
Undertake non-chemical removal of weeds (e.g. lantana, blackberry) to prevent
obstruction of cave entrances.
Establish a gateing design for disused mines across species range that will not
adversely impact species.
Restrict caving activity during critical times of year in important roosts used by
species, particularly maternity and hibernation roosts.
Restrict access where possible to known maternity sites. (e.g: signs).
Monitor the breeding success of maternity colonies in cave roosts over a number
of years to determine the viability of regional populations.
Undertake a regular census of maternity colonies (e.g. Willi Willi) and other key
roosts in network, especially where there are population estimates from banding
in the 1960s.
For roost caves vulnerable to human disturbance, monitor their visitation by
people, particularly during winter and spring/summer maternity season and in
school holidays.
Measure genetic population structure among cave roosts of maternity colonies to
estimate dispersal and genetic isolation, and vulnerability to regional population
extinction.
Study the effect of different burning regimes on cave disturbance and surrounding
foraging habitat.
Study the ecological requirements of maternity colonies and their environs and
migratory patterns.
Identify important foraging range and key habitat components around significant
roosts.
Identify types of winter roosts used by species. Winter roosts suspected to be
banana palms and tree hollows.
Search for significant roost sites and restrict access where possible. (e.g. gating of
caves). Significant includes maternity, hibernation and transient sites including in
artificial structures.
Compile register of all known roost sites in natural and artificial structures
including current and historical data and identify significance of roost, e.g.
maternity, hibernation, transient roost.
Control goats around roosting sites, particularly maternity caves and hibernation
sites.

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

Appendix 3: Seven Part Tests

entrances and ensure smoke/flames do not enter these roosts.


Control foxes, feral cats and goats around maternity caves, winter roosts and
other significant roost sites.
Ensure any fencing and gating of roosts is done in a bat friendly manner allowing
adequate entrance and exit space for all species using the roost.
Check with OEH before undertaking recreational caving activities.
Ensure adequate foraging habitat is retained when undertaking hazard reduction
activities, particularly during the breeding/reproduction season.
Ensure appropriate hygiene protocols are implemented when undertaking
research and survey work.

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

Churchill, S. (1998) Australian Bats. 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
Dwyer, P. D. (1995) Little Bentwing-bat. In: Strahan, R (Ed.) (1995) The Mammals of
Australia. Reed New Holland, Australia
Hoye, G.A. and Hall, L.S. (2008) Little Bent-winged Bat Miniopterus australis 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
NSW Scientific Committee (No Date) Little Bentwing-bat Vulnerable Species Listing.
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) Little Bentwing-bat Species Conservation
Project
(http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/savingourspeciesapp/SearchResults.aspx)

Strahan, R. (1995) A Photographic Guide to Mammals of Australia. New Holland, Sydney


Australia
Keystone Ecological
Ref: CVC 14 695 October 2015

214

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi