Matthew Royal DF Partners C/- Sarah Houston, Urbis Pty Ltd Level 23, Darling Park Tower 2 201 Sussex Street Sydney NSW 2000 ABN 87 096 512 088 www.ecoaus.com.au Ref: 13SUTENV-0029 30 July 2014 Dear Matthew, RE: Ecological Constraints Advice and Strategy Master Plan and Neighbourhood Plan Avondale Road, Avondale Introduction This Ecological Constraints Advice and Strategy follows from the Avondale Workshop, 25 February 2014, to review the Master Plan and Neighbourhood Plan for the former Huntley Colliery, Avondale Rd, Avondale. A revised Neighbourhood Plan and Master Plan for the site have been prepared by Urbis, received 11 July 2014, and this report details the ecological constraints on the Neighbourhood Plan component of the proposal, in particular, constraints relevant to the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act). Ecological Constraints of Neighbourhood Plan A Biodiversity Risk Assessment has been prepared by ELA (2011), which included the area mostly encompassed by the proposed Neighbourhood and Master Plans. The Biodiversity Risk Assessment identified and mapped areas of high, medium and low ecological constraint (Figure 1) based on the following criteria: High constraint includes: o Endangered Ecological Communities (EECs) in good condition, with high floristic diversity and good recovery potential o Hollow bearing trees (HBTs) with a 50 m buffer o Known habitat for threatened flora o Riparian habitats Medium constraint includes: o EECs highly modified with lower floristic diversity, substantial weed infestation and low to moderate recovery potential o Regrowth vegetation devoid of HBTs or other habitat resources SUITE 4, 2-4 MERTON ST SUTHERLAND NSW 2232 PO BOX 12 SUTHERLAND NSW 1499 T 02 8536 8600 F 02 9542 5622 ARMIDALE BRISBANE CANBERRA COFFS HARBOUR DARW IN GOSFORD MUDGEE NAROOMA NEW CASTLE PERTH ST GEORGES BASIN SUTHERLAND SYDNEY W OLLONGONG
Low constraint o Highly modified vegetation with negligible recovery potential The ecological constraints have implications for the main development area, Cleveland Rd Site 1. It is apparent that Urbis have considered the Biodiversity Risk Assessment in preparing the Neighbourhood Plan, with building envelopes placed outside of the high constraint areas, the lowest density E4 Environmental Living zone (large lot) and associated Asset Protection Zones (APZ) located in the medium constraint area and R2 Low Density Residential zone (small lot) located in the area of low ecological constraint (Figure 3). Importantly, the high constraint area has been designated as E2 Environmental Conservation, where no lot layout or development is proposed. Whilst development of the E4 zone will result in impacts to the EEC, Illawarra Lowland Grassy Woodlands, listed under the TSC Act, the large lot layout allows for the avoidance of clearing some trees in this area. Cleveland Rd Site 2 and Avondale Road Site 1 are also proposed for R2 zoning, but have not been formally assessed in the field (Figure 3). Neither of these areas have previously had native vegetation mapped (NPWS 2002, Tozer et al. 2006) or are considered likely to retain extant native vegetation (Ryan Smithers pers. comm., author of ELA 2011), that might affect the proposed lot layout. Threatened species, populations and ecological communities A total of 19 threatened species have been either recorded in the broader Master Plan area (6 fauna and 3 flora), are considered likely (5 fauna) or have the potential to occur (5 fauna) to occur on site (ELA 2011). Whilst no threatened flora records are within the Neighbourhood Plan area, the threatened fauna records are highly mobile species (bats and owls) and have the equivalent likelihood of occurrence both north and south of Avondale Rd (Figure 1). No threatened populations have been recorded or are considered likely to occur with the Master Plan area. Two EECs have been mapped within the boundary of the Neighbourhood Plan; Illawarra Lowlands Grassy Woodland (ILGW) and Illawarra Sub-tropical Rainforest. The proposed Neighbourhood Plan will impact approximately 3.32 ha of ILGW EEC, entirely within Cleveland Rd Site 1 (Figure 4). Considerations There are three approaches that may be considered by Huntley Heritage to address ecological constraints under the TSC Act, these are: Traditional 7 part test Assessment of Significance (Section 5A, NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 [EP&A Act]) Biodiversity Banking (Biobanking) (Section 7A, TSC Act) Biodiversity Certification (Biocertification) (Section 7AA, TSC Act) Assessment of Significance (7 part test) The proposed removal of 3.32 ha of ILGW EEC must be assessed under the Assessment of Significance or 7- part test (s5a NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 [EP&A Act]), it is possible that this impact will be considered significant by Wollongong City Council, which will require the preparation of a Species Impact Statement (SIS). The SIS will be referred to the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) for consent. Page 2
The 19 threatened flora and fauna species known, likely or with potential to occur on site must also be addressed by the SIS, even though ELA (2011) did not consider any these impacts to be significant. Whilst it is acknowledged that the impacts to the ILGW EEC are within areas of medium constraint, this is a risk to the project timeframes and budget, with the preparation and assessment by WCC/OEH of an SIS taking up to 12 months, with a likely cost of around $100,000. ELA is aware of other projects in the West Dapto Urban Release Area (WDURA) that have required the preparation of an SIS for similarly sized footprints (though it is noted that your proposal retains most of the existing canopy and does not require the removal of any hollow bearing trees). It is also likely that OEH will issue Director-Generals Requirements which require impacts considered under an SIS to be addressed using Biobanking regardless. Risks Timeframes, cost, likely requirement to use a Biobanking approach to address final impacts. These are considered to be moderate to high risks. BioBanking BioBanking is a market based scheme that allows for the assessment of impacts to threatened species, populations and ecological communities listed under the TSC Act, by quantifying those impacts in terms of ecosystem credits and species credits. The quantum of each type of credit is then purchased on the open market from a Biobank owner, or from yourself if you establish your own Biobank. Biobanking also removes the Council s consent role for TSC Act issues, which no longer have to be assessed under s5a EP& A Act, but rather are assessed by OEH under s7aa of the TSC Act. The Neighbourhood Plan will impact on ILGW EEC, which under the BioBanking Scheme would require a number of ecosystem credits to be quantified, and then purchased and retired in the market. Species credits are generally required where there will be impacts to threatened flora and in some rare occasions fauna. Recently the Squirrel Glider (Petaurus norfolcensis) has been designated to a species credit under the Biobanking methodology (OEH 2014), and although this species is considered unlikely to occur onsite (ELA 2011), it is possible that an additional survey for this species may be requested by OEH. No further species credits requirements are considered likely. Risks associated with this option include approval of a Red Flag Variation (RFV) for the ILGW EEC, which must be prepared in accordance with certain criteria in the BioBanking Assessment Methodology (DECC 2008) and approved by the Chief Executive of the OEH. Whilst it cannot be certain that a RFV will be approved, we have received preliminary advice that similar sized RFVs within the WDURA are likely to be approved in the near future. Obtaining credits is also a risk with this pathway, although we understand that Huntley Heritage (Ken Tugrul and Rob Renshall) intend to register a Biobank Agreement over bushland in the broader Master Plan area (Figure 3 and Figure 5). If registered, this will account for all impacts from the Neighbourhood Plan and provide a surplus of credits, which may be traded in the market, or to offset future impacts from the development of the remainder of the Master Plan area (Table 1). Risks Approval of Biobanking Statement with RFV, possible additional survey for Squirrel Glider and obtaining credits. These are considered low to moderate risks. Page 3
Biocertification Biocertification is a landscape scale Biobanking style approach to addressing matters under the TSC Act, which likewise uses an ecosystem/species credit scenario to quantify and offset impacts to threatened biodiversity. Biocertification can only be pursued with the support of planning authorities (e.g. Council or Dept. of Planning and Environment), and is appropriate methodology for landscape scale rezoning rather than site by site DA assessments. Currently, the WCC is preparing to Biocertify the entire WDURA, which includes the Avondale Colliery site. Should this Biocertification of the WDURA be approved this will switch off the requirement for threatened biodiversity assessment in certified areas, similar to the current regime in place in Western Sydney. It is likely that a small Biodiversity Levy will be placed on development in the WDURA Biocertification area to fund the conservation outcomes of the Biocertification (i.e. future Biobank site and other management areas), and timeframes for approval of this approach are currently proposed to be mid to late 2015, but are more likely to push into early 2016. Risk: Timeframes and the approval of Biocertification process which is uncertain. This is considered a moderate to high risk. Recommendations That Huntley Heritage proceed with the preparation of a Biobanking Statement for the impacts from the Neighbourhood Plan, with the intention to create a Biobank Agreement over the E2 zoned lands in the Neighbourhood Land and the Master Plan area (Figure 5), to address issues pertaining to the TSC Act. Importantly, should Huntley Heritage proceed along a Biobanking pathway, Council will not be required to consider issues under the TSC Act, as they will be assessed by OEH. Should you wish to discuss any of the above further, I can be contacted at the below details. Yours sincerely, Lucas McKinnon Senior Ecologist Accredited Biobanking Assessor T +61 2 8536 8605 F +61 2 9542 5622 M +61 421 603 549 E lucasm@ecoaus.com.au Page 4
Figure 1: Avondale Master Plan, including current and future Neighbourhood Plan area s (north and south of Avondale Rd) Page 5
Figure 2: Ecological Constraints mapping from ELA (2011) Page 6
Figure 3: Proposed landuse in the Avondale Neighbourhood Plan Page 7
Figure 4: BioMetric Vegetation Types mapped within the Neighbourhood Plan area Page 8
Figure 5: Potential BioBank sites in the Master Plan area Page 9
Table 1: Credit requirement and generation potential Development Area Credit requirement Area of proposed Biobank Site Credit generation BioMetric Vegetation Type R2 E4 Area (ha) Low (per ha) High (per ha) Low (total) High (total) Neighbourhood Plan (ha) Master Plan (ha) Per ha Total Difference Forest Red Gum - Thin-leaved Stringybark grassy woodland on coastal lowlands, southern Sydney Basin 0.19 3.12 3.32 40 60 133 199 6.31 25.50 9.3 1 296 +97-163 1 9.3 credits per hectare is the standard credit generation utilised by OEH and is based on the average of all Biobank sites as at Octer 2010. Page 10