AP ENDIX F

FLORA AND FAUNA ASSESSMENT

DPS YASS Pry LtdSTATEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTSREF: 2650_SEE, - 375 MARKED TREE ROAD GUNDAROO

FLORA AND FAUNA ASSESSMENT

7-PART TEST OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNl

NaturalC

PROPOSED NEW BUILDING ENVELOPE

375 MARKED TREE ROAD

GUNDAROO, NSW, 2620.

Prepared by A1ison in IvinNatural Capital Ply Ltd

May 3" 2017.

AND

native vegetation specialists

P

FOR

NaturalCapital Ply LtdACN IOC 573462

C/- Gundarco PONSW 2620

Phone/Fax: 0262271423WWW. natural capital. comau

Owen Whitaker

Phone: 0262271423

Mobile: 0427944904

Email: owen whiiake, @naruialcapilal. comau

Ajison

Phone: 026227,427

Mobile : 041 1358527

Eniail: alison@naturalcapiial. coin. au

..

ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE. M 3, dIGNIFICANCE. May 3" 2017.

THE BRIEF

This Flora and Fauna Assessment ' 'applies to the proposed Building Enveio e with I , . . igni ICancepropose uilding Envelope within a 35ha bd' ' '

, ar e ree Road, Gundar002620, Lot 20 d 2 ,This Assessment meets the needs ofAct 1995 (and the amendments to this Act in 2002), Th E """ 'ons^rvatjo,

Impact Guidelines Policy Statement. ) it also mee ' ' e i9nificantBiodiversity Layer 2013 ' 0 ass Valley LEp

METHODOLOGYThe fi IdThe 't e Proposed BE was undertaken on May 3" 2017.

and vegetation communities jinmedja Oral speciesidentified and recorded g Proposed BE were also

FLORA AND FAUNAThe proposed Building Envelope (BE encom a

in in an ENV direction and 40m in the N/S direct' . I PP OXimateiyirection and 40m in the N/S direction. it 'y rom e ridge-top in a north and easterly directj . T Ia Ing'he Pro OSed B -Id- eaS er y direction. To the eastern~most side of

cable. Ing e cut laying a fibre-optic

e entire site has been cleared in the past, a d hcam aj ' . C - r, Perly has undertaken an annual controlvisit. , in situ on the day of the site

Beyond the proposed buildin enveloYellow-B are regenerating woodlands, with aYellowBox Red Gum Grassy Woodland (BGGw) , ' 00 '' S, With adee ( ) emerging wherever the soil isoils. g g on the skeletal, shale-based

ese newl^regenerating woodlands do not encro hrowih f' y I eginning to increase their floristjc biodjversit with thgrOwih of the grasses, foms a d h '"StiC biodiversity with the

de d O owing two pages provide a clear indication of thedegradation of the land

{

TEST OF

I

Looking down the slope of theEast. proposed Building Envelope, North I North

Looking North I North West down and across tri Building Envelope

2

\ .,

.,. >.\i %

" *^,*, 11' I '. I!~^ ,,, ^. .I ' I ' 'gS'

;'"j^I!! fi, .,^:I " - - ,

,

,

.

\ I

,

I" ,

,

.

.

\.

,

\. ..,.,

.

{,

st 30 ' P e S OPe of the proposed Building Envelope, which

,

.

.

,

I

\

.

.\

,*..

'I' \ ^..,*t::I'if"

I, . ^'-.;^ ~ ~~ ''~. .,

' ' I " , *'*' ^!:I'^ ' , ^ '^" I', *I, ,,

,,.

.

\

.

. '*

~, I ,." e^", '.,,. .

..:, ..

.

\

,.,

. . .J

,

^

I

. .

. ...,

.

.

abundance of th ' Proposed Building Envelope. Note theabundance of th, P Pose uilding Envelope. Note the

Note the yellow Fibre-optic Cable Pole laidBuilding Envelope, to the East I South East.

ug ou e proposed Building Envelope has been f

it would have once been a mer in of to ' 'ou ave once been a merging of two ecological coin 't' ,Red Gum Grassy Woodland (known as BGGVV) on the injd. I ' OX.urn rassy Woodland (known as BGGVV) on the inid-SIo 'e h

Eucalyptus mannii^>ra on the rockier, more skeletal 'I . Thcommunities are listed as a Threatened Ecological Coinmuni t b h ' "'state levels, and it is imperative that all possible cconserve the species comprising these communities, M . Pthroughout the entire property to do this, including the woodj d reProposed BE. urrounding the

in the last 100 years, the proposed BE together with th ,completely cleared of nearly all trees to make wa fo h 'stumps remain visible in the woodland surroundin thoriginal clearing of this land, there is extensive eviden th t thpersistently overgrazed, further reducing native biodiversit . Wth Iground, especially on the sloping ground with skeletal 'I ,perfect Opportunity to germinate, Set Seed, and spread. A t^ Y ' ' aoriginal common name for Serrated Tussock, Nasal/a tnbhotoma) s d h ' 'the region in the 1950's, it began to rapidly dominate thremains a serious noxious weed problem here toda .

it was not until the land came under new ownershi with M . P ,ago, that it had an opportunity to recover. With a new in, h ' p years

years ago, outside of the proposed

numbers were drastically reduced, and eventual I reino d;shrub planting programs were undertaken (see Appendix B); 'c t ISerrated Tussock were instigated, and all efforts wer d f 'slow task of healing itself. g'n eB 'Id' E management strategies, the site of the proposedthat has been recently poisoned. The site is currentl be'native forbs, that are also found in abundance in the sur d' ;Acacia meansii regeneration, and weed species in dudin S 'germinations, Common Stork's Bill Erod^^in cloutan'urn. , Flatweed H h ,Capeweed 6410totheca calendula) and Rose Briar (Rosa rubi in "'The overall impression of the site is of bare round ' hTussocks, other colonizing weed species and native forbs.

New Serrated Tussock Seedlings colonizin arts f th B

There is no structural diversity on the site, and every plant s eciclose to the ground, a result of Kangaroo and Wallab r rysoils with poor soil structure, and past clearing and razin r t'

However, surrounding the proposed BE site, there arspecies, of both the BBGW and Dry Sclerophyll ve etation fjof the canopy trees are yet old enough to develo the nest' h 11 ' 'improving bio-diversity, they are very healthy and growin well. Nsurrounding woodland will be directly impacted by an ro d b ' ' ' ' ,so the conservation value of the surrounding BBGW will c t' '

scattered Serrated

A young, healthy Yellow Box tree at the East Iproposed Building Envelope. This tree will not bbuilding.

~,,.. . .

.~\^ " ,,

. I ' ?, ', 12^., t* v, ^,:^^*, ^>. ',*=*,, . A ;,~ ,

These trees are some distance beyond the BE. Woodland , 'shrubs identified on the BE site also grow in the woodl d '

South-eastern edge of theremoved by the proposed

.

Mature Red Stringybark trees to the north f h proposed BE. Theyremain untouched, and the woodland forbs and shrubsgrasses,regenerating here

No threatened species of either Flora or Fauna were id t'fnor are they likely to utilize the site as part of their overall h b't '

There was very little evidence of faunal activity on the site dunn th f' I ' ' ,is the opinion of the consultant that no threatened faun I 'either on, or passing through, this site. There are no holl , f 11 , ,tussock grasses, or similar, to provide habitat shelter on th BE. T ' 'site are ants and termites. y p cies onin places, the bare ground is being colonized b c t , combination oflichens and algae, as the first step in healing de raded 'I. '

The Flora and Fauna species identified on the site ar I' t d ' ,with an approximation of their abundance ' '

in summary, due to the seriously degraded nature of this I ,nor vulnerable species living there nor likely to live ther ''th - - in Promise any existing biodiversity values. Undertaken

to adversely affect the nearby regenerating woodlands '

Each native forb and grass species growing on the BE 't ' 'growing in the adjoining woodlands, and are common d dthe region. ' P a roughout

.^

,A' ' I'l, , *,

.

'I

,

.

,

.

L

willare

ASSESSMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE - 7-PART Tin the case of a threatened species wh thproposed is likely to have an adverse eff tof the species such that a viable 10 I 'species is likely to be placed at risk of ext' t'

No threatened species were identified on site t ththe I'f 9 aC ion proposed will not adversely affectthe life c cje f P OPOse will not adversely affect

In the case of an endangered population wh th 'proposed is likely to have an adverse eff tof the species that constitutes the endsuch that a viable local population of thebe placed at risk of extinction

There are no populations of either endangered fl , 'on or nearby this site, consequently none will be t k '

c) I:n the case of an endangered ecological community orcriticalIy endangered ecological community, whether theaction proposedg

(i) 15 likely to have an adverse effect on thecological community such that its local.. inc ion, or

composition of the ecological coinmunit hoccurrence is likely to be placed at risk of ext' t'

it is not at all likely that the local Box-Gum Gr Wwill be placed at the risk of extinction, as ne'th ' 'species and structural composition will be s b t I 'affected by the proposed development '

^n relation to the habitat of a threatened 'or ecological community: '(i) The extent to which habitat is likel to b"') Wheth e action proposed, andfragmented or isolated from other areas of h b'of the proposed action and

a)

(~

b)

(.,

d)

8

,

On) The importance of the habitat to be re , ' 'fragmented or isolated to the 10n .t " 'species, population or ecological coinmunit hThere is no habitat available on this site fspecies, population or ecological coinmunit , s thremoval, fragmentation, or change to a habitat th t 'e) Whether the action proposed is likel to h adverseeffect on critical habitat (either directl or ' d'Although critical habitat is not present on thi 't , h ' 'of two potentially adverse and unintended effect f 'with woodland nearby - g a s ope,

a) One indirect biological effect of digging~u of th I dpipe~laying and driveways, is the potential t I "groundwater movement, which could of t' 11borne EUCalypt diseases such as Die-back d'cmnamomi). The engineers involved with the DA ~11 ' readdress these water-flow issues.

by Another adverse biological impact of the ro dimport of further unwanted weed seeds. W h-dprior to site entry, extreme care with an jin rt dsite, and vigilance on the part of the owne fbuilding, will be necessary to prevent thiimpact. am aging

f) Whether the action proposed is consistent with theobjectives or actions of a recovery plan or threat abatementplan,

Building a dwelling is not part of a recover thHowever, it could be argued that the relative I 'together with the stated lifestyle aim b th 'conserving and protecting the surrounding Box-G GDry Sclerophyll Woodland, could be said to be a thr ' I

g) Whether the action proposed constituteskey threatening process or is likel to Iof, or increase the impact of, a key threaten' .While it can be argued that any antivit b hactually, a threatening process, the erection of a 'efficient home on a small parcel of land that h bdegraded, is not a key threatening process '

\

9

A.

APPENDIX A

NOTE - Some Cryptograms are be innin t ', e eginning of the natural process of success'

mmon nameNarrow leaf NRock FernSmall Mat RShee s' BurrIV Goodeni

{

Cree in Ho

*

Gre GuineCotton FirewRas wortGrassland wBears' ear

Native Gera

Botanical Name

Da hne He aUrn Heath

(.-

Snow Poa

s ro enui o Ia

rin

B rittle G uin

Ss

ea

-smallsa jin s

Exotic I Weed SCommon Na

Abundance

Ia

Abundant

naus

Gassinia arcuata

FlabNeed

ark

Abundant

Serrated Tussock "

S

nUS

Serrated Tussoc

S

sonianus

arse

Wild S a g e

Sarse

en

Ca eweed

Sarse

Both

Common Storksbi

ecies identified on site

Moderatearse

Ribwort I Plantain

S

Shee s' Sorrel

Sarse

ooh/oa macra

Rose Briar

Moderatearse

a us

I es

EUCa/

Sparse2 Iants

ms macrorh nca

3 plants2 plants

Salvia verbenac

S arse

I era

Scattered

Rosa rubi

Few iants

Small clum

un an

Small clum

InOSa

n an

o era e, a Ive

U

ere

un an

ead

ca ere

Scattered

era e

10

BIRD

NATIVE ANIMALS IDENTIFIED ON SITE - VERT .

ustra ian RavensAUStral'

ON NAME

CurrawMAMM

astern Gre KanRed N

ZOOLOGICAL NAME

ermi es

NATIVE ANIMALS IDENTIFIED ON SITE

us

ns

aroo

Corvus coronoides

oc roaches

F

Mocro us

APPENDIX B

Species list of the I 5,000+ natiRoad, to . Species planted throughout 375 Marked Tree

Eucalyptus bridgesianaEucalyptus cinereaEucalyptus macrorhynchaEucalyptus manniit^reEucalyptus men^^oreEucalyptus polyanthemosAcacia dealbataAcacia 170ribundaAcacia longifoli^Acacia mealnsiiAllocasuarina ventcil/ataGasuarina cunninghernianaDo donea viseosaLoinandra longifo/I^Hardenbergia violaceaindi^of era austra/I^Bursaria spyhosaGrevillea (numerous sp)Call^^tomon (numerous sp)

I Icen

FD

u Ina

Unoble to ID s

in s

I onto us

Unoble to ID s

INTRODUCED ANIMALS identified ON SITE

SIGHTING

Unoble to ID s

our

Small mob2 FamiliesCallin

ecies

Or ctolo us CMniculus

ecies

- INVERTEBRATE SPECIES.

8

ecies

2

pes FootprintsFew scats

1.1

,

,

REFERENCES

Grassland Flora Eddy, Mallinson, Rehwinkel and Shar C 1998

Woodland Flora Sharp, Rehwinkel, Mallinson, Eddy FOG 2015

Australian Native Plants Wrigley and Fagg Collins 2005

Flora of the ACT Burbidge and Gray ANU Press 1970

DEC Threatened Species, Populations and EColo I C ' ' 2008

Identification Guidelines for Endangered EColo ical Co ' ' - 2007

NSW N PWS Fact-sheets series - Box~Gum Woodlands 2002

National Recovery PlanWhite Box - Yellow Box - Blakely's Red Gum Gras WGrassland DECCW

e'

*~ .

12