Blaxland Ridge flora:fauna report

Flora and fauna survey and assessment of Lot 48 DP 84810, 11 Edith Black Road, Blaxlands Ridge, New South Wales

Flora and fauna survey and assessment of Lot 48 DP 84810, 11 Edith Black Road, Blaxlands Ridge, New South Wales by Dr Trevor J. Hawkeswood [GradCertAncHist (Macq), BSc(Hons)(NE), BAppSc(EnvSc)(CSturt), BS & MS (AIM), MHSB & MHsM (IMHS) DipSc & DipArch (CMS), PhD (AIM, IMHS, BPI)] Director, T.J. Hawkeswood Scientific Consulting PO Box 842 Richmond NSW 2753 0423 498 942 [26 April 2017]

T.J. Hawkeswood Scientific Consulting

Page 1


Contents 1.0. Introduction! ! ! ! 2.0. Materials and Methods!! ! 3.0. Comments on the habitat etc !! 4.0. Fauna! ! ! ! ! 4.1. Reptiles and Amphibians !! 4.2. Birds!! ! ! ! 4.3. Mammals ! ! ! ! 5.0. Scheduled Species! ! ! 5.1. Flora!! ! ! ! 5.2. Fauna ! ! ! ! 6.0. Conclusions! ! ! ! 6.1. Flora!! ! ! ! 6.2. Fauna ! ! ! ! 7.0. References and Literature Cited! 8.0. Qualifications of the Author! ! Appendix 1. Plan and photographs! Appendix 2. 7-part tests of Significance! Appendix 3. Bat sonographs! ! ! ! ! ! !


! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

3 3 4 11 11 11 11 12 12 14 16! 16 17 21! 34 35 42 108!

Page 2

!


1.0. Introduction During December 2016 and January 2017, I undertook a flora and fauna survey of Lot 48 DP 84810, 11 Edith Black Road, Blaxlands Ridge, New South Wales (see Figs. 1,2). The survey was undertaken during the days of 16 December 2016 (1000-1420 hrs, EAST), 20 December 2016 (1130-1435 hrs, EAST), 1 January 2017 (1100 - 1530 hrs, Eastern Australian Summer Time, EAST) and 6 January 2017 (1130-1430 hrs, EAST). Night surveys were undertaken during the evening of 11 January 2017 (1730-2030 hrs, EAST) and 12 January 2017 (1830-2130 hrs, EAST). The results of the survey are reported below. The site is proposed to be subdivided into three rural residential Lots (see Fig. 1). Further description of this development is provided in the Statement of Environmental Effects (SEE) accompanying this DA (Hawkeswood, 2017). 2.0. Materials and Methods Methods for assessing and documenting the flora and fauna follow those listed in my previous environmental reports (viz. Hawkeswood, 2003-2005) and as outlined below. This report follows where applicable the DECC Threatened Species Assessment Guidelines (2008). Various horizontal and longitudinal transects were undertaken within the surveyed areas. Plants were listed in note books as the transects were walked and any unidentified or taxonomically difficult species were collected for further study and identification. Important floristic references used to verify/identify plants collected from the study site include the following: Anderson (1936), Auld & Medd (1992), Baker et al. (1985), Beadle et al. (1981), Benson & Howell (1990a), Bishop (1995), Blombery (1955, 1986), Brooker & Kleinig (1990), Burbidge (1966a,b), Burbidge & Gray (1970), Carolin & Tindale (1993), Child (1968), Costermans (1981), Cunningham et al. (1981), Fairley & Moore (1989), Harden (1990,1991,1992,1993), Jones (1988), Jones & Gray (1988), Lamp & Collett (1989), Lamp et al. (1990), Macoboy (1981), Macoboy & Blombery (1975), Nicholls (1969), Parsons (1971), Parsons & Cuthbertson (1992), Robinson (1991) & Rotherham et al. (1975). Hand searches for reptiles were undertaken in prospective hiding sites, such as under bark, under rocks, fallen branches or refuse such as cardboard or plastic sheets, inside and under logs and up trees. Generally field research and methods followed those reported in my other reports concerning reptile surveys (viz. Hawkeswood, 2003- 2005). Reptiles which were caught for identification/verification were identified using the key of Cogger (1996) as well as photographs and other data in the following references: Bustard (1970), Cogger (1996), Frauca (1973), Greer (1990), Griffith (1997), Hoser (1989), Jenkins & Bartell (1980), Schmida (1985), Swan (1990), Wilson & Knowles (1988 and Worrell (1963). Hand searches of potential frog refuge areas were undertaken during daylight hours. This involved searching through the vegetation alongside any area of water retention, upending large rocks or pieces of building rubble and other refuse (if present), rolling over logs, fallen branches or mats of vegetation and checking under any piece of ground cover which could serve as a frog refuge area. References used to identify/verify frogs included the following references: Anstis (1975), Barker & Grigg (1977), Brooks (1983), Clyne (1969), Cogger (1960, 1962, 1972, 1996), Griffith (1997), Hoser (1989), Kinghorn (1944), Kreft (1865), Moore (1957, 1961), Robinson (1998), Tyler (1982, 1992, 1994).


Page 3


Birds were observed mostly through binoculars as well as by unaided eye during the day during the observation period. Birds were also spotlighted at night. Birds were identified/ verified using the following references: Cayley (1986), Forshaw (1992), Frith (1982), Macdonald (1980), Rowley (1975), Simpson & Day (1993), Slater (1983a,b). Mammals were detected by checking for claw marks on smooth-barked trees and by searching for droppings on the ground. Bats were detected using ultrasound bat detectors set for 15-70 hertz. References used to check field determinations are as follows: Cronin (1991), Hall & Richards (1979), Ride (1970), Strahan (1983, 1992, 1996) and Triggs (1997). 3.0. Comments on the habitat type, general condition and plant species of the surveyed site The surveyed area is mostly vegetated with native vegetation of three main communities (see Fig. 1). Some of the property has been cleared in the last for a dwelling, gardens, storage areas (Figs. 4-6) and a medium-sized dam (Fig. 7). The area has suffered considerable fire damaging events. The trees of Eucalyptus crebra, E. fibrosa and E, eugenioides, and some native herbs and shrubs represent remnant Shale Sandstone Transitional Forest (SSTF) an EEC under the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act (1996)(see also Figs. 1-4,8). It is represented in the northern (highest-most) part of the property. A 7-part Test of Significance is provided in Appendix 2. There is no Cumberland Plain Woodland (CPW) or any other EEC within the surveyed area. The EEC is highly degraded and totally altered from its original condition. The remaining vegetation is mostly Sydney Sandstone Ridgetop Woodland (SSRW) dominated by Angophora costata, Syncarpia glomulifera and E. gummifera (Myrtaceae)(Figs. 9,10). In the deep gullies to the south there is Sydney Sandstone Gully Forest (SSGF). Most of the weeds on the site are associated with cleared areas around the dwelling, dam and fencelines (adjoining other properties). Table 1. List of the plant species observed within the surveyed site: Lot 48 DP 84810, 11 Edith Black Road, Blaxlands Ridge, New South Wales [* = introduced plant species] Family and species Filicopsida Adiantaceae ! Adiantum aethiopicum Dennstaedtiaceae ! Pteridium esculentum Dicksoniaceae ! Calochlaenia dubia Lindsaeaceae ! Lindsaea linearis ! Lindsaea microphylla Osmundaceae ! Todea barbara T.J. Hawkeswood Scientific Consulting

Page 4


Schizaeaceae ! Cheilanthes sieberi Magnoliopsida Dicotyledonae Amaranthaceae ! *Amaranthus nodifolius Apiaceae ! Actinotus helianthii ! Centella asiatica Araliaceae ! Platysace lineariifolia ! Polyscias sambucifolia Asteraceae ! *Aster subulatus ! *Bidens pilosa ! *Cirsium vulgaris ! *Conyza bonariensis ! Gnaphalium coarctatum ! *Hypochoeris radicata ! Ozothamnus diosmifolius ! *Senecio madagascariensis ! *Sonchus oleraceus Campanulaceae ! Wahlenbergia gracilis Cassythaceae ! Cassthya glabella Casuarinaceae ! Casuarina littoralis ! Casuarina torulosa Chenopodiaceae ! Einadia hastata Convolvulaceae ! Dichondra repens ! *Ipomoea purpurea Cunoniaceae ! Ceratopetalum gummiferum Crassulaceae ! *Bryophyllum delogoense T.J. Hawkeswood Scientific Consulting

Page 5


Dilleniaceae ! Hibbertia bracteata ! Hibbertia obtusifolia ! Elaeocarpaceae ! Elaeocarpus reticulatus Epacridaceae ! Epacris pulchella ! Leucopogon juniperinus ! Lissanthe strigosa ! Melichrus procumbens ! Monotoca elliptica Euphorbiaceae ! Breynia oblongifolia ! Phyllanthus hirtellus ! Poranthera microphylla Fabaceae ! Bossiaea obcordata ! Daviesia mimosoides ! Daviesia ulicifolia ! Desmodium brachypodum ! Dillwynia floribunda ! Glycine clandestina ! Gompholobium grandiflorum ! Hardenbergia violacea ! Hovea linearis ! Pultenaea blakelyi ! Pultenaea elliptica ! Pultenaea villosa Goodeniaceae ! Goodenia hederacea ! Scaevola ramossissima Haloragidaceae ! Gonocarpus teucrioides Lamiaceae ! *Rosmarinus officinalis ! *Thymus vulgaris Lobeliaceae ! Pratia purpurascens Loganiaceae ! Mitrasacme alsinoides Loranthaceae ! Dendropthoe vitellina T.J. Hawkeswood Scientific Consulting

Page 6


Malvaceae ! *Sida rhombifolia Mimosaceae ! Acacia falcata ! Acacia genistifolia ! Acacia linifolia ! Acacia floribunda ! Acacia parramattensis ! Acacia terminalis ! Acacia ulicifolia Moraceae ! *Ficus sp. ! *Morus alba Myrtaceae ! Angophora bakeri ! Angophora costata ! Angophora hispida ! Angophora floribunda ! Eucalyptus crebra ! Eucalyptus eugenioides ! Eucalyptus fibrosa ! Eucalyptus gummifera ! Eucalyptus piperita ! Kunzea ambigua ! Leptospermum myrtifolium ! Leptospermum polygalifolium ! Syncarpia glomulifera ! Syzygium sp. (planted) Oleaceae ! Notolaea longifolia ! *Olea europaea Phytolaccaceae ! *Phytolacca octandra Pittosporaceae ! Billardiera scandens ! Bursaria spinosa ! Pittosporum undulatum Plantaginaceae ! *Plantago lanceolata Primulaceae ! *Anagallis arvensis Proteaceae ! Banksia serrata T.J. Hawkeswood Scientific Consulting

Page 7


! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Banksia spinulosa Grevillea buxifolia Grevillea sp. Isopogon anemonifolius Lambertia formosa Lomatia silaifolia Macadamia integrifolia Persoonia linearis Persoonia levis Xylomelum pyriforme

Ranunculaceae ! *Ranunculus sp. Rosaceae ! *Prunus sp. ! *Pyrus pyrifolia Rubiaceae ! Pomax umbellata Rutaceae ! Boronia ledifolia ! *Citrus aurantiifolia ! *Citrus limon ! *Citrus X paradisii ! Eriostemon australasius Santalaceae ! Exocarpos cupressiformis Scrophulariaceae ! Veronica plebeia ! *Veronica picta Solanaceae ! *Capsicum sp. ! *Solanum nigrum ! Solanum prinophyllum Stackhousiaceae ! Stackhousia monogyna Stylidiaceae ! Stylidium graminifolium Thymelaeaceae ! Pimelea linifolia Typhaceae ! Typha orientalis T.J. Hawkeswood Scientific Consulting

Page 8


Verbenaceae ! *Lantana camara ! *Verbena bonariensis ! *Verbena officinale Monocotyledonae Aloaceae ! *Aloe sp. Asparagaceae ! *Asparagus officinalis ! *Myrsiphyllum asparagoides ! *Protoasparagus aethiopicus Commelinaceae ! Commelina juncea Cyperaceae ! Cyathochaeta diandra ! Cyperus brevifolius ! Cyperus eragrostis ! Cyperus gracilis ! Gahnia erythrocarpa ! Lepidosperma laterale ! Schoenoplectus mucronatus ! Schoenus ericitorum Iridaceae ! Patersonia sericea Liliaceae ! *Agapanthus africanus ! *Caesia parviflora ! Laxmannia gracilis ! Stypandra glauca ! Thysanotus sp. ! Tricoryne elatior Lomandraceae ! Lomandra filiformis ! Lomandra gracilis ! Lomandra longifolia ! Lomandra multiflora ! Lomandra obliqua Phormiaceae ! Dianella caerulea ! Dianella pruinina Poaceae ! *Andropogon virginicus T.J. Hawkeswood Scientific Consulting

Page 9


! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Anisopogon avenaceus Aristida vagans Austrostipa ramossissima *Avena sativa *Bromus uniloides *Chloris gayana *Cynodon dactylon Danthonia linkii *Digitaria sanguinalis Echinopogon caespitosus Entolasia stricta Eragrostis brownii *Eragrostis curvula *Eragrostis sp. *Erharta erecta Imperata cylindrica Microlaena stipoides Oplismenus aemulus Panicum simile *Panicum sp. (?) Paspalidium sp. *Paspalum dilatatum *Paspalum urvillei *Pennisetum clandestinum *Phyllostachys aurea *Setaria gracilis *Sorghum sp. *Sporobolus elongatus Stipa pubescens Themeda australis

Smilacaceae ! Smilax glyciphylla Xanthorrhoeaceae ! Xanthorrhoea media Comments: None of the flora species detected within the study area are presently listed on any Schedule of the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act (1995) nor on any Schedule of the Commonwealth Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (2000). The trees of Eucalyptus crebra, E. fibrosa and E, eugenioides, and some native herbs and shrubs represent remnant Shale Sandstone Transitional Forest (SSTF) an EEC under the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act (1996). A 7-part Test of Significance is provided in Appendix 1.


Page 10


4.0. Fauna of the surveyed area 4.1. Reptiles and Amphibians Delicate Skink (Lampropholis delicata, Scincidae) - several disturbed from leaf litter and from under pieces of bark and fallen branches. Copper-tailed Skink (Ctenotus taeniolatus, Scincidae) - several found sheltering under sandstone rocks. Red-bellied Black Snake (Pseudechis porphyriacus, Elapidae) - several seen basking on rocks and amongst nearby vegetation. (could be large breeding population in the area). Eastern Brown Snake (Pseudonaja guttatus, Elapidae) - one specimen observed moving over ground and into a mound of rocks. Common Eastern Toadlet (Crinia signifera, Myobatrachidae) - heard calling during the day and night from areas of moisture and from within the small dam of proposed Lot 2. Yellow-thighed Frog (Uperloia laevigata, Myobatrachidae) - many heard calling during the night surveys. 4.2. Birds During the study times, bird life was found to be somewhat scarce. A total of only 9 common species of bird were observed within the study area during the observation times, these being the following: Noisy Miner (Manorina melanocephala, Meliphagidae) Brown Thornbill (Acanthiza pusilla, Acanthizidae) Raven (Corvus coronoides, Corvidae) Kookaburra (Dacelo novaeguineae, Alcedinidae) Eastern Rosella (Platycercus eximius, Platycercidae) Willie Wagtail (Rhipidura leucophrys, Rhipiduridae) Grey Fantail (Rhipidura fuliginosa, Rhipiduridae) Grey Shrike Thrush (Colluricincla harmonica, Pachycephalidae) Brown Tree Creeper (Climacteris picumnus victoriae, Climacteridae) Sacred Kingfisher (Todiramphus sanctus, Alcedinidae) Eastern Whipbird (Psophodes olivaceus, Psophodidae) Grey Teal (Anas gracilis, Anatidae) Yellow Robin (Eopsaltria australis, Petroicidae) 4.3. Mammals Grey Kangaroo (Macropus giganteus, Macropodidae) - detected by droppings. Common Wombat (Vombatus ursinus, Vombatidae) - detected by droppings. Eastern False Pipistrelle (Falsistrellus tasmaniensis, Vespertilionidae) - detected by Anabat sonic recorder. Eastern Free-tailed Bat (Mormopterus norfolcensis, Molossidae) - detected by Anabat sonic recorder. The only other mammals detected were that of introduced species: evidence of a Feral Dog (Canis familiaris, Canidae), Feral Cat (Felis catus, Felidae), Feral Fox (Vulpes vulpes, Canidae)(extremely common). Feral animals are common in the area and have had an enormous detrimental effect on the environment. Comments: The two bat species above-mentioned are the only fauna species detected within the study area which are presently listed on any Schedule of the NSW Threatened T.J. Hawkeswood Scientific Consulting

Page 11


Species Conservation Act (1995) and/or the Commonwealth Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (2000). 7-part Tests of Significance are provided at the end of the report in Appendix 2. 5.0. Consideration of potential occurrence of Scheduled Plant and Animal Species on the subject site There are a number of species of plants of particular conservation concern which are known to occur in the general region of the subject site and I have considered such species in my assessment below. 5.1. Flora There are at least 9 plant species which were considered to have potential habitat within 1-5 kilometres of the subject property: Dillwynia tenuifolia, Pultenaea parvifolia (Fabaceae) and Grevillea juniperina (Proteaceae), Zieria involucrata (Rutaceae), Tetratheca glandulosa (Tremandraceae), Persoonia hirsuta (Proteaceae), Pimelea curviflora (Thymelaeaceae), Melaleuca deanei (Myrtaceae) and Velleia perfoliata (Goodeniaceae). All of these species of threatened plants have been listed either under the TSC Act (1995) or regarded as of conservation significance by being listed in ROTAP (see Briggs & Leigh, 1996). Recently most of them have also been listed on the schedules of the new Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (2000). Specific targeted searches were undertaken within the surveyed area in an endeavour to detect these species, but none were located within the surveyed area, possibly due to its degraded and rural nature. Nevertheless, these species are discussed below: Dillwynia tenuifolia (Fabaceae) is listed in Schedule 2 of the TSC Act (1995) as Vulnerable and is also classified in ROTAP as 2VCi which indicates that its total geographic range is less than 100 km, is considered vulnerable, with no information available on the size of reserved populations. It was not detected during the survey, nor was any potential habitat for this species present on the subject site. Pultenaea parvifolia (Fabaceae) is listed in Schedule 2 of the TSC Act (1995) as Vulnerable and is also classified in ROTAP as 2V which indicates that its total geographic range is not known, is considered vulnerable, and with no information available on the size of reserved populations. It was not detected during the survey, nor was any potential habitat for this species present on the subject site. Grevillea juniperina (Proteaceae) is listed in Schedule 2 of the TSC Act (1995) as Vulnerable. It was not detected during the survey, nor was any potential habitat for this species present on the subject site. Zieria involucrata (Rutaceae) is listed as an endangered species in Part 1 of Schedule 1 of the TSC Act (1995). It is restricted to less than 20 populations within the Sydney region between Yengo National Park in the north and Marramarra National Park in the south. The species also occurred in the Katoomba district, at least until the 1980's. The total population size is estimated to be approximately 3000 mature individuals. At least six populations occur within conservation reserves (Yengo National Park, Wollemi National Park, Marramarra National Park) and an additional three populations occur within Parr T.J. Hawkeswood Scientific Consulting

Page 12


State Conservation Area. The species is threatened by inappropriate fire regimes, weed invasion, and populations outside conservation reserves are threatened by clearing for urban development. It was not detected during the survey, nor was any potential habitat for this species present on the subject site. Tetratheca glandulosa (Tremandraceae) is listed in Schedule 2 of the TSC Act (1995) as Vulnerable. Small, spreading shrub which grows 20 - 50cm in height. Stems often become entwined among other small shrubs, sedges and grasses. Restricted to the following Local Government Areas: Baulkham Hills, Gosford, Hawkesbury, Hornsby, Ku-ring-gai, Pittwater, Ryde, Warringah, and Wyong. There are approximately 150 populations of this plant ranging from Sampons Pass (Yengo NP) in the north to West Pymble (Lane Cove NP) in the south. It was not detected within the surveyed area, nor was any potential habitat for this species present on the subject site. Persoonia hirsuta (Proteaceae) is listed in Schedule 1 of the TSC Act (1995) as Endangered and is also classified in ROTAP as 3KCi which indicates that its total geographic range is unknown but greater than 100 km, is considered to be either endangered, vulnerable or rare, with less than 1000 plants protected in reserves, and that there is no information available on the size of surviving populations. It was not detected during the survey, nor was any potential habitat for this species present on the subject site. Populations are currently protected in Brisbane Water National Park, Wollemi National Park, Dharug National Park, Ku-ring-gai National Park, Royal National Park, Sydney Harbour National Park, and Marramarra National Park. It was not detected within the surveyed area, nor was any potential habitat for this species present on the subject site. Pimelea curviflora (Thymelaeaceae) is listed in Schedule 2 of the TSC Act (1995) as Vulnerable. A much-branched subshrub or shrub 20 to 120cm high with hairy stems. Flowers are red to yellow, hairy and occur in terminal heads of 4 - 12 flowers. Leaves are 5 - 10 mm long, 2 - 4 mm wide, with a sparsely hairy lower surface. The curved fruit is 2 - 4 mm long.Confined to the coastal area of the Sydney and Illawarra regions. Populations are known between northern Sydney and Maroota in the north-west. New population discovered at Croom Reserve near Albion Park in Shellharbour LGA in August 2011. Formerly recorded around the Parramatta River and Port Jackson region including Five Dock, Bellevue Hill and Manly. It was not detected during the survey, nor was any potential habitat for this species present on the subject site. Melaleuca deanei (Myrtaceae) is listed in Schedule 2 of the TSC Act (1995) as Vulnerable. It is a shrub to 3 m high with fibrous, flaky bark. New stems are furry and white, though the mature stems are hairless. The smooth leaves are not paired. They are narrow, to 25 mm long and 6 mm wide, with pointed tips. The many white flowers form spikes to 6 cm long, on a furry stem. The five petals are less than 5 mm long; each is paired with a bundle of 17 - 28 stamens. The woody fruits are barrel-shaped, to 7 mm in diameter. Deane’s Paperbark occurs in two distinct areas, in the Ku-ring-gai/Berowra and Holsworthy/ Wedderburn areas respectively. There are also more isolated occurrences at Springwood (in the Blue Mountains), Wollemi National Park, Yalwal (west of Nowra) and Central Coast (Hawkesbury River) areas. It was not detected within the surveyed area, nor was any potential habitat for this species present on the subject site. Velleia perfoliata (Goodeniaceae) is listed in Schedule 2 of the TSC Act (1995) as Vulnerable. A small herb with light green, spoon-shaped leaves 10 - 12 cm long by 3 - 4 cm wide, radiating in a cluster from the base. It has fused leaf-like structures (bracteoles) that form a funnel below the flowering stalk which is up to 50 cm long. Flowers are yellow, T.J. Hawkeswood Scientific Consulting

Page 13


12 mm in length, with five petals, two pointing up and three down. Only known from the Hawkesbury district and upper Hunter Valley. It was not detected within the surveyed area, nor was any potential habitat for this species present on the subject site. I have provided 7-part Tests of Significance for each of these plant species in Appendix 2 of this report but none of them have any potential to occur on the subject property because of its highly disturbed and modified nature. 5.2. Fauna There are at least 25 species of fauna of particular conservation concern that are known to occur or to have occurred in the general region of the subject site (NPWS Wildlife Database) and these are listed below. All have been listed under the TSC Act (1995) as either Vulnerable or Endangered. Despite the known occurrence of a number of species of threatened fauna from the northwestern part of Sydney, none were considered to have any potential habitat on the subject property because of its largely degraded/rural nature dominated by weeds and introduced plants. Although none of these species have been recorded on the subject sites, some have been detected within 5-10 km. Some of these regionally significant species of fauna are discussed below: Molluscs The Cumberland Plains Woodland Snail (Meridolum corneovirens) has been detected in the hills and valley areas in western Sydney. The following items were examined for the presence of snails: 3 small bricks, 1 piece of carpet, 28 sandstone rocks, 2 small logs, 4 small log billet, 6 large log billets, 8 pieces of bark on ground. No snails were detected. Reptiles Two species of reptile of conservation significance, being listed on the Schedules of the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act (1995), are known from the Sydney Bioregion and within several km of the surveyed site, these being the Broad-headed Snake (Hoplocephalus bungaroides, Elapidae) and the Heath Monitor (Varanus rosenbergi kuringai, Varanidae). Varanus rosenbergi kuringai (Varanidae)(Heath Monitor) was not detected during the surveys but there is some suitable habitat for this species present on the subject property. Little has been recorded on the biology of this species. It is normally a diurnal and terrestrial species found in heathlands and dry sclerophyll fires and woodlands. It occurs from Wondabyne in the north and east of its range to the Canberra area. It feeds on insects, smaller reptiles, small mammals and birds. Populations are currently protected in Blue Mountains National Park, Dharug National Park, Marramarra National Park, Yengo National Park and Wollemi National Park. Hoplocephalus bungaroides (Elapidae)(Broad-headed Snake) was not detected on the site but there was some potential habitat for this species detected on the site, mostly in bushland well away from the building platforms. Habitat for this species is currently protected in Marramarra National Park and Dharug National Park. The snake occurs in sandstone habitats in open woodland and dry sclerophyll forest. It lives principally along T.J. Hawkeswood Scientific Consulting

Page 14


the ridges and plateaus, where it may be found sheltering beneath flat exfoliations of rock and crevices of boulders during the winter months, or in trees during the summer. Amphibians Two species of amphibian of conservation significance, being listed on the Schedules of the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act (1995), are known from the Sydney Bioregion and within a few km of the surveyed sites, these being the Red-crowned Toadlet (Pseudophryne australis, Myobatrachidae) and the Giant Burrowing Frog (Heleioporus australiacus, Myobatrachidae). The Red-crowned Toadlet, Pseudophryne australis, was not detected on the site but there is some suitable habitat for this species within the narrow ephemeral creek line to the weston the property. Populations are currently protected in Marramarra National Park and Dharug National Park. Another frog species of conservation concern within the Sydney Bioregion is the Giant Burrowing Frog, Heleioporus australiacus. The study site at Blaxlands Ridge does not possess any suitable habitat for the Giant Burrowing Frog. The habitats in which it has been detected previously do not occur within the study site (e.g. there are no creek or "hanging swamp" habitats associated with suitable forests). In addition, the disturbed and degraded nature of some of the property as well as effects from bushfires would most certainly preclude the existence of the species there. Birds The following bird species which have been listed on the Schedules of the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act (1995) have been purportedly recorded or are historically known from the north-western Sydney Region: Gould’s Storm Petrel (Pteradroma leucoptera, Procellariidae), Australasian Bittern (Botaurus policiloptilus, Ardeidae), Black Bittern (Ixobrychus flavicollis, Ardeidae), Eastern Osprey (Pandion cristatus, Accipitridae), Regent Honeyeater (Xanthomyza phrygia, Meliphagidae), Blackchinned Honeyeater (eastern subspecies) (Melithreptus gularis gularis, Meliphagidae), Brown Treecreeper (eastern subspecies) (Climacteris picumnus victoriae, Climacteridae), Diamond Firetail (Stagonopleura guttata, Fringillidae), Speckled Warbler (Pyrrholaemus sagittata, Pardalotidae), Hooded Robin (south-eastern form)(Melanodryas cucullata cucullata, Petroicidae), Flame Robin (Petroica phoenicia, Petroicidae), Scarlet Robin (Petroica boodang, Petroicidae), Black-tailed Godwit (Limosa limosa, Scolopacidae), Swift Parrot (Lathamus discolor, Psittacidae), Turquoise Parrot (Neophema pulchella, Psittacidae), Glossy Black Cockatoo (Calyptorhynchus lathami, Cacatuidae), Gang-gang Cockatoo (Callocephalon fimbriatum, Cacatuidae), Powerful Owl (Ninox strenua, Strigidae), Barking Owl (Ninox connivens, Strigidae) and the Masked Owl (Tyto novaehollandiae, Strigidae). A few of these species are potential visitors to the subject property but none were found at the time of the investigations. It is unlikely that any would breed on the site due to the lack of suitable habitat and predation by feral cats and foxes. In addition, only a few common species of bird were detected. Mammals The following ten mammal species, which have been listed on the Schedules of the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act (1995) have been recorded or are known from the T.J. Hawkeswood Scientific Consulting

Page 15


north-western Sydney Region and within 5 kilometres of the subject site: Spotted-tailed Quoll (Dasyurus maculatus, Dasyuridae), Koala (Phascolarctos cinereus, Phascolarctidae), Squirrel Glider (Petaurus norfolcensis, Petauridae), Large-eared Pied Bat (Chalinolobus dwyeri, Vespertilionidae) Yellow-bellied Sheathtail Bat (Saccolaimus flaviventris, Emballonuridae), Eastern Freetail Bat (Mormopterus norfolcensis, Molossidae), Common Bentwing-bat (Miniopterus schreibersii, Vespertilionidae), Eastern False Pipistrelle (Falsistrellus tasmaniensis, Vespertilionidae), Greater Broad-nosed Bat (Scoteanax rueppellii, Vespertilionidae), Grey-headed Flying Fox (Pteropus poliocephalus, Pteropodidae), and Southern Myotis (Myotis macropus, Vespertilionidae). Specific targeted searches were undertaken for threatened fauna and two of these species were detected (two bat species foraging at night, mostly in the SSRW and SSGF habitats) and it is considered most unlikely that many of the other species would inhabit or visit the proposed building areas or nearby areas where there has been disturbance. However, the presence of feral cats and foxes (and neighbouring dogs) may preclude their occurrence in some areas there in any case. 6.0. Conclusions 6.1. Flora Some of the surveyed area has been totally altered from its natural condition as a result of clearing and semi rural activities during past and more recent times. Most of the site (away from the building platform areas) however is in good condition although fires have ravaged the area during recent times. Within the surveyed area (see Fig. 1), the Shale Sandstone Transitional Forest (SSTF) is mostly concentrated in the north and west of the property. Much of this has been removed for the existing house and access roads, and dam. The proposed development will not have any major adverse effects on the survival of this community on the site because most of the community will be retained and some will regenerated (see accompanying Statement of Environmental Effects, Hawkeswood, 2017); see also 7-part Test of Significance (Appendix 2). The surveyed property does not possess any threatened plant species as presently defined under the New South Wales Threatened Species Conservation Act (1995) nor within any schedule of the Commonwealth Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (2000). There are also no ROTAP plants on the site (as defined by Briggs & Leigh, 1998). There is also no Cumberland Plain Woodland (CPW) within the surveyed area. No further 7-part tests of Significance or Species Impact Statements are required. Therefore, in my professional scientific opinion, I see no impediments, based on flora concerns, for the development of the surveyed area as proposed. 6.2. Fauna Molluscs No sign of the Cumberland Plains Woodland Snail (Meridolum corneovirens) was detected. It is regarded that the site is too open, unsuitable and hostile for the snail which became extinct a long time ago or was never there in the first place.


Page 16


Amphibians From my inspection, it appears that the surveyed area is generally unsuitable for most frog species, with only two common species being detected in and around the dam (Crinia signifera and Uperolia laevigata). However, the larger creekline to the far near the western boundary is suitable habitat for the Red-crowned Toadlet, but no toads have been detected. Dams are not suitable for the Red-crowned Toadlet. Reptiles The surveyed area is moderately suitable for reptiles, but only two common species were detected. It is possible that the Eastern Blue-tongue (Tiliqua scincoides, Scincidae) may occur on the subject land from time to time and that the site may also contain from time to time the Common Bearded Dragon (Pogona barbata, Agamidae) but no evidence of these two species on the site were obtained during the surveyed times. The Red-bellied Black Snake (Pseudechis porphyriacus, Elapidae) was detected on the property and there seems to be a breeding population of this snake on the subject property. Birds Several common and widespread bird species were actually observed on the surveyed property and it could be expected that other common species would move across the landscape quite readily. Some parts of the subject site away from the proposed building platforms and immediate areas do represent some suitable habitat for a few threatened bird species though. However, no rare bird species were detected during the surveys on the property. Mammals An examination of the surveyed property and environs indicates that all species of native ground-dwelling mammals that would have occupied this area at European settlement are now likely extinct here. Further, only two species of arboreal mammal, the Brush-tail Possum (Trichosurus vulpecula) and the Ring-tailed Possum (Pseudocheirus peregrinus), are known from the general area where they are probably moderately common. However, no evidence for possums occurring on the subject property property were found during the survey times but possums may occur in the area during more favourable times. The only other native mammals which probably still persist in the general area are a few species of small microbats. However, most of the trees remaining within the proposed development area have not developed any hollows that could be regarded as being suitable for roost sites and the paucity of decorticating bark would prevent all but the most superficial use as shelter sites. However, two endangered microbat species were detected using ultra sonic bat detector and these bats are most likely to live in the sheltered gullies in larger trees well away from the developmental area. No evidence for the Koala (Phascolarctos cinereus) occurring on the surveyed site was found. The subject site (and especially the proposed building platforms) appears not to contain any endangered species of fauna and does not appear to act as an important corridor for endangered wildlife. The cleared/ highly altered nature of some of the site would preclude numerous species of native fauna except for some birds, and the occasional reptile. In addition, feral cats and foxes are a concern on the property which would deter bats and other native mammals in many areas. T.J. Hawkeswood Scientific Consulting

Page 17


In my professional scientific opinion, I see no impediments, based on fauna concerns, to the development of the surveyed area as proposed. Hawkesbury Council Assessment Hawkesbury Council has a guideline form requiring how they will asses flora and fauna reports. These questions are outlined below to assist Council. Identification of site (study area) Response: Plans of the subject site are provided herein (Fig. 1) with the report showing areas with native vegetation and cleared areas as well as the boundaries of the subject property. This survey encompassed all areas which would be affected by the proposed subdivision. Transects walked both during the day and night are shown in Fig. 2. As no other areas outside the subject property will be affected by the proposal hence there was no need to undertake extra surveys outside the subject property. In addition many transects were taken between the trees studied for the tree report. Any further animal spieces were added to the list in Section 4.0 of this report. Description of the development Response: The site is proposed for a 3 lot subdivision. Further information on the development is entailed with the Statement of Environmental Effects (SEE) also submitted for this DA (Hawkeswood, 2017). Methodology Response: The methodology is described in the report. The methodology follows all Field Survey Methods and Assessment Guidelines of the NSW Government as stated on page 3 of my report where applicable. The property was surveyed using transects approximately one metre apart in east-west and north-south directions or approximate depending on the topography and the vegetation. A map (plan) showing approximate transects has been provided in Fig. 2. Habitat assessments have been undertaken and there is only one endangered ecological community detected, for which a 7-part Test of Significance was supplied. The vegetation of this EEC is highly disturbed and trees are widely infested with termites. There are many dead trees on the site. A plan (map) is provided showing the distribution of this vegetation type on the property (see Fig. 1). The times spent on this property are appropriate in terms of its condition and the amount of survey times. Some of the site is highly altered and agricultural in nature and not likely to support a diverse area of vertebrates or rare species of plants. Weather conditions during the survey times were either sunny and hot or overcast and humid without any wind. Survey methods have been outlined in the report. Numbers of transects were not counted as these were too large in number in any case - main transects are shown in Fig. 2. The site is not complicated and is easy to work in. Mr D. Hilton assisted during the night and day surveys. The qualifications and experience of Dr TJ Hawkeswood have been provided in the report (Section 7). Dr Hawkeswood has undertaken over 2500 reports in New South Wales since 1997 involving trees, flora and T.J. Hawkeswood Scientific Consulting

Page 18


fauna, environmental report reviews, weed management plans, bushland management plans and Land and Environment Court matters as well as reviewing other reports for clients throughout New South Wales. He is an internationally recognized biologist, botanist, zoologist and environmental scientist as well as a scientific author. During 2015-2016 over 450 reports in the Sydney Bioregion were produced by his business. Examples of recent projects completed and approved in New South Wales are presented on the international scientific website known as researchgate: https:// www.researchgate.net/profile/Dr_Trevor_Hawkeswood/contributions Identification of Species and Communities Response: The report lists all of the threatened fauna species (as far as I am aware) known from the Hawkesbury LGA and are likely to occur or to use the site. This list was drawn from National Parks and Wildlife Service Wildlife Data Atlas and other printed sources. No biobanking credit calculator was used to create this site. The fauna/flora list in this report has been approved previously many times by the Hawkesbury City Council. Council mapping was not checked because there is definitely an EEC on the property. Assessment of Significance Response: Only one endangered entity from the Schedules of the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act (1995)(Shale Sandstone Transitional Forest) for which a 7-part Test of Significance as per requirements of the EPA Act (1979) modified by the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act (1995) was provided in the report. Legislative Requirements Response: The report addresses the NSW Species Conservation Act (1995) and the EP A (1979) modified by the TSC Act (1995). Guidelines published by the Department of Environment and Climate Change have been followed where applicable. A 7-part Test of Significance has been provided in this report to satisfy the NSW TSC Act (1996). As regards the EPBC Act (2000), under this Act, action must be undertaken if either of the following two questions indicate that the action will have a significant impact on the environment, either endangered ecological communities or species etc. Is the proposed action likely to have a significant impact on a matter of national environmental significance? Is the proposed action likely to have a significant impact on the environment in general (for actions by Commonwealth agencies or actions on Commonwealth land) or the environment on Commonwealth land (for actions outside Commonwealth land). Response: A 7-part test of significance and other information has been provided. There will be no significant impact on any matter of environmental significance. The Shale Sandstone Transitional Forest (SSTF) on the property will not become extinct or adversely modified. The proposal will not have any significant impact on the environment in general. Therefore, no further provisions of the EPBC Act (2000) are required. Koala habitat Response: As noted in this report, no evidence for the Koala (Phascolarctos cinereus) occurring on the surveyed property was found, despite intensive searches. Hence the site T.J. Hawkeswood Scientific Consulting

Page 19


is not core koala habitat as defined by SEPP 44 Koala Habitat Protection. Therefore further provisions of the SEPP 44 are not applicable to the subject property. Conclusion Response: From my observations on the site and the result of the 7-part Test of Significance and the faunal and flora surveys, no Species Impact Statement is required for the proposal or site. Recommendation Response: It s recommended that the proposal be approved based on flora and fauna considerations. The proposal will have little or no effects on flora and fauna of the site or in nearby areas. Limitations Response: The flora and fauna survey was considered adequate for the type, condition and size of the subject property. Further fauna work could be undertaken but only a few further common bird species would be detected. Further field work is most unlikely to change the conclusions already reached. References Response: All references sited in the report have been listed in the reference section of the report (section 7.0 below).


Page 20


7.0. References and Literature Cited Adams, R. & Simmons, D. (1991). The invasive potential of Genista monspessulana (Montpellier Broom) in dry sclerophyll forest in Victoria. Victorian Naturalist, 108: 84-89. Adamson, D. & Buchanan, R. (1974). Exotic plants in urban bushland in the Sydney Region. Proceedings of the Weed Society of New South Wales, 65: 24-27. Amor, R.L. (1973). Ecology and control of blackberry (Rubus fruticosus L. .). I. Rubus spp. as weeds in Victoria. Weed Research, 13: 218-223. Amor, R.L. & Richardson, R.G. (1980). The biology of Australian weeds. 2. Rubus fruticosus L.Agg. Journal of the Australian Institute of Agricultural Science, 46: 87-97. Anderson, R.H. (1936). The Trees of New South Wales. A.J. Kent, Sydney. Anon. (1997). Tiger Quoll. (Our Australian Animals). NSW National Parks & Wildlife Service, Sydney. Anstis, M. (1975). Australian frogs- some adaptations and life histories. Herpetofauna, 7(2): 13-15. Auld, B.A. & Medd, R.W. (1992). Weeds. An Illustrated Botanical Guide to the Weeds of Australia. Inkata Press, Melbourne and Sydney. Auld, T.D. and Myerscough, P.J. (1986). Population dynamics of the shrub Acacia suaveolens (Sm.) Willd: seed production and pre-dispersal seed predation. Australian Journal of Ecology, 11: 219-234. Baker, M., Corringham, R. & Dark, J. (1985). Native Plants of the Lower Blue Mountains. Three Sisters Productions, Winmalee. Baldwin, M. (1975). Birds of the Inverell District, NSW. Emu 75, 113-120. Barker, J. & Grigg, G. (1977). A Field Guide to Australian Frogs. Rigby. Adelaide. Barrett, C. (1943). An Australian Animal Book. Oxford University Press, Melbourne & London. Barrett, G.W., Ford, H.A. and Recher, H.F. (1994). Conservation of woodland birds in a fragmented rural landscape. Pacific Conservation Biology 1, 245-256. Beadle, N.C.W. & Costin, A.B. (1952). Ecological classification and nomenclature. Proceedings of the Linnean Society of New South Wales, 77: 61-74. Beadle, N.C.W., Evans, O.D., Carolin, R.C. & Tindale, M.D. (1981). Flora of the Sydney Region. A.W. Reed & Co., Sydney. Benson, D.H. (1992). The natural vegetation of the Penrith 1:100 000 Map Sheet. Cunninghamia, 2: 541-596. Benson, D.H. & Fallding, H. (1981). Vegetation survey of Brisbane Water National Park and environs. Cunninghamia, 1: 79-113. Benson, D.H. & Howell, J. (1990a). Taken for granted: the bushland of Sydney and its suburbs. Kangaroo Press, Kenthurst. Benson, D.H. & Howell, J. (1990b). Sydney's vegetation 1788-1988: utilisation, degradation and rehabilitation. Proceedings of the Ecological Society of Australia, 16: 115-127. Benson, D.H. & Howell, J. (1994). The Natural Vegetation of the Sydney 1: 100 000 Sheet. Cunninghamia, 3: 679- 788.


Page 21


Benson, D.H., Howell, J. & McDougall, L. (1996). Mountain Devil to Mangrove. A Guide to the Natural Vegetation in the Hawkesbury-Nepean Catchment. Royal Botanic Gardens, Sydney. Benson., D.H. & McDougall, L. (1991). Rare Bushland Plants of Western Sydney. Royal Botanic Gardens, Sydney. Benson, D.H., Thomas, J. & Burkitt, J. (1990). The natural vegetation of Bents Basin State Recreation Area, New South Wales. Cunninghamia, 2: 223-262. Beruldsen, G. (1980). A Field Guide to Nests and Eggs of Australian Birds. Rigby Publishers, Sydney. Bishop, A.D. (1995). Field Guide to the Orchids of New South Wales and Victoria. University of New South Wales Press, Sydney. Blakers, M., Davies, S.J.J.F. & Reilly, P.N. (1984). The Atlas of Australian Birds. Royal Australasian Ornithologists Union & Melbourne University Press. Blombery, A.C. (1955). Native Australian Plants. Their Propagation and Cultivation. Angus & Robertson Publishers, Sydney. Blombery, A.M. (1986). Australian Native Plants. Australian Natural Science Library. Angus & Robertson Publishers, Sydney. Blombery, A.M. & Rodd, A.N. (1988). An informative, practical guide to Palms of the World; their cultivation, care & landscape use. Angus & Robertson Publishers, Sydney. Boland, D.J., Brooker, M.I.H., Chippendale, G.M., Hall, N., Hyland, B.P.M., Johnstone, R.D., Kleinig, D.A. & Turner, J.D. (1994). Forest Trees of Australia. CSIRO, Melbourne. Breeden, S. & Breeden, K. (1973). Wildlife of Eastern Australia. Book Club Associates, Sydney. Briggs, J.D. & Leigh, J.H. (1988). Rare or Threatened Australian Plants: 1988. Revised Edition. Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, Canberra. Briggs, J.D. & Leigh, J.H. (1996). Rare or Threatened Australian Plants. CSIRO & Australian Nature Conservation Agency. Brooks, A.J. (1983). Atlas of Australian Anura. Dept. of Zoology, University of Melbourne Publication No. 7. Brooker, M.I.H. & Kleinig, D.A. (1990). Field Guide to Eucalypts. Volume 1- South-eastern Australia. Inkata Press, Melbourne. Burbidge, N.T. (1966a). Australian Grasses. Volume 1. Australian Capital Territory and southern highlands of New South Wales. Angus & Robertson, Sydney. Burbidge, N.T. (1966b). Australian Grasses. Volume 2. Northern Tablelands of New South Wales. Angus & Robertson., Sydney. Burbidge, N.T. & Gray, M. (1970). Flora of the ACT. Australian National University Press, Canberra. Burton, T.C. & Martin, A.A. (1976). Analysis of hybridisation between Black-headed and White-backed Magpies in south-eastern Australia. Emu, 76: 30-36. Bustard, H.R. (1970). Australian Lizards. Collins, Sydney. Carolin, R. & Tindale, M. (1993). Flora of the Sydney Region from the Hunter to the Shoalhaven Rivers & Inland to the Great Divide. Reed Books, Sydney. Caughley, J. (1980). Native Quolls and Tiger Quolls. Pages 41-48. In: C. Haigh (ED.) Endangered Animals of New South Wales. New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service, Sydney. T.J. Hawkeswood Scientific Consulting

Page 22


Cayley, N.W. (1986). What Bird is That? Angus & Robertson Publishers, Sydney. Child, J. (1968). Trees of the Sydney Region. Periwinkle Books, Sydney. Churchill, S. (1998). Australian Bats. Reed New Holland Publishers, Sydney. Clements, A. (1983). Suburban development and urban changes in the vegetation of the northern Sydney region. Australian Journal of Ecology, 8: 307-319. Clyne, D. (1969). Australian Frogs. Lansdowne Press, Melbourne. Cogger, H.G. (1960). Frogs of New South Wales. Australian Museum, Sydney. Cogger, H.G. (1962). Frogs of Sydney. In: The Natural History of Sydney. Australian Museum, Sydney. Cogger, H.G. (1972). Field keys to the frogs and reptiles of the Central Coast of New South Wales. Part 1. Frogs and tortoises. Herpetofauna, 5(2): 10-14. Cogger, H.G. (1996). Reptiles and Amphibians of Australia. Reed Books, Sydney, 5th Edition. Cogger, H.G., Cameron, E.E. & Cogger, H.M. (1983). Zoological Catalogue of Australia. Volume 1. Amphibia and Reptilia. Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra. Costermans, L. (1981). Native Trees and Shrubs of south-eastern Australia. Rigby, Sydney. Cronin, L. (1991). Key Guide to Australian Mammals. Reed Books, Chatswood. Cunningham, G.M., Mulham, W.E., Milthorpe, P.L. & Leigh, J.H. (1981). Plants of Western New South Wales. Soil Conservation Service of New South Wales, Sydney. Debus, S.J.S. & Rose, A.B. (1994). The Masked Owl Tyto novaehollandiae in New South Wales. Australian Birds, 28: 40-59. Dunnett, G.M. (1964). A field study of local populations of the Brush-tailed Possum Trichosurus vulpecula in eastern Australia. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 142: 665-695. Eby, P. (1995). The biology and management of flying foxes in NSW. Species Management Report No. 18. NSW National Parks & Wildlife Service, Sydney. Egan, K., Farrell, J. and Pepper-Edward, D. (1997). Historical and seasonal changes in the community of forest birds at Longneck Lagoon Nature Reserve, Scheyville, New South Wales. Corella 21, 1-16. Elliot, W.R. & Jones, D.L. (1993). Encyclopaedia of Australian Plants Suitable for Cultivation. Vol. 3. Lothian, Melbourne. Eyre, T.J. & Schulz, M. (1996). Northern range extension of the Powerful Owl Ninox strenua. Australian Bird Watcher, 16: 296-298. Fairley, A. & Moore, P. (1989). Native Plants of the Sydney district. An Identification Guide. Kangaroo Press, Sydney. Fisher, A.M. (1997). The distribution and abundance of avifauna in the Bathurst landscape: implications for conservation and land management. Ph.D. Thesis, Charles Sturt University, Bathurst. Fletcher, J.J. (1889). Observations on the oviposition and habits of certain Australian Batrachians. Proceedings of the Linnean Society of New South Wales, 4: 357-387. Fletcher, J.J. (1890). Contributions to a more exact knowledge of the geographical distribution of Australian Batrachia. No. 1. Proceedings of the Linnean Society of New South Wales, 5: 667-676.


Page 23


Fletcher, J.J. (1894). Contributions to a more exact knowledge of the geographical distribution of Australian Batrachia, No. 4. Proceedings of the Linnean Society of New South Wales, 8: 524-533. Ford, H.A., Noske, S. and Bridges, L. (1986). Foraging of birds in eucalypt woodlands in north-eastern New South Wales. Emu 86, 168-179. Forshaw, J.M. (1992). Australian Parrots. Ure Smith Press, Sydney. Frauca, H. (1973). Australian Reptile Wonders. Rigby Ltd., Sydney. Frith, H.J. (1982). Pigeons and Doves of Australia. Rigby, Australia. Frith, H.J., McKean, J.L. & Braithwaite, L.W. (1976). Seasonal cycles and food of the doves Streptopelia chinensis and S. senegalensis in Australia. Emu, 76: 15-24. Gillespie, G.R. (1990). Distribution, habitat and conservation status of the Giant Burrowing Frog, Heleioporus australiacus (Myobatrachidae), in Victoria. Victorian Naturalist, 107: 144-153. Gillison, A.N. & Anderson, D.J. (1981). Vegetation Classification in Australia. Australian National University Press, Canberra. Goodacre, W.A. (1958). The Honey and Pollen Flora of New South Wales. Government Printer, Sydney. Greer, A.E. (1990). The Biology and Evolution of Australian Lizards. Surrey Beatty & Sons, Chipping Norton, Sydney. Griffith, K. (1997). Frogs and Reptiles of the Sydney Region. University of New South Wales Press, Sydney. Groves, R.H. (1981). Australian Vegetation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Hall, L.S. & Richards, G.C. (1979). Bats of Eastern Australia. Queensland Museum, Brisbane. Harden, G.,J. (Ed.)(1990, 1991, 1992, 1993). Flora of New South Wales. Volumes 1,2,3,4. University of New South Wales and Royal Botanic Gardens, Sydney. Harris, T.Y. (1938). Wild Flowers of Australia. Angus & Robertson Limited, Sydney. Harrison, L. (1922). On the breeding habits of some Australian frogs. Australian Zoologist, 3: 17-34. Hawkeswood, T.J. (1977). Pomax. Australian Plants, 9: 87-89. Hawkeswood, T.J. (2003a). Further observations on the flora and fauna and the significance of Stage 4, Timber Drive, Lisarow, New South Wales: 1-40. Hawkeswood, T.J. (2003b). Flora and fauna survey of Lots 41 and 42, Hillview Road, Rouse Hill, New South Wales: 1-18. Hawkeswood, T.J. (2003c). Flora and fauna assessment for Lot 2, DP 1023013, York Road, Kellyville, New South Wales: 1-11. Hawkeswood, T.J. (2003d). Flora and fauna assessment and tree report for proposed Lots 10 and 92, RMB 106, Windsor Road, Kellyville, New South Wales: 1-13. Hawkeswood, T.J. (2003e). Tree report for Lots 17 and 18 Section 14 DP 2097, 29 and 31 Pritchard Street, Thornleigh, New South Wales, with an 8-part test for the Gang-gang Cockatoo (Callocephalon fimbriatum) known to occur near the site: 1-25. Hawkeswood, T.J. (2003f). Comments on the row of conifer trees (Chamaecyparis lawsoniana, Cupressaceae) at 60-66 Kings Road, Castle Hill, New South Wales: 1. T.J. Hawkeswood Scientific Consulting

Page 24


Hawkeswood, T.J. (2003g). Flora and fauna assessment of part of Lot 12, DP 221923, 125 Fox Valley Road, Denham Court, New South Wales with comments on two trees on another part of the Lot: 1-3. Hawkeswood, T.J. (2003h). Flora and fauna survey of part of Lot 3, DP 859602, 190 Kenthurst Road, Kenthurst, New South Wales: 1-39. Hawkeswood, T.J. (2003i). Flora and fauna survey of a part of Lot 4 in DP 734262, McClymonts Road, Kenthurst, New South Wales: 1-26. Hawkeswood, T.J. (2003j). Flora and fauna survey of a part of Lot 11 in DP 244146, Bannerman Road, Glenhaven, New South Wales: 1-26. Hawkeswood, T.J. (2003k). Flora and fauna survey of a part of Lot 11 in DP 244146, Bannerman Road, Glenhaven, New South Wales: 1-52. Hawkeswood, T.J. (2003l). Flora and fauna survey of part of Lot 332, Kent Street, Bullaburra, New South Wales: 1-58. Hawkeswood, T.J. (2003m). Flora and fauna survey and tree report for proposed Lot 242, from Lot 1 DP 862749, 12 Cansdale Place, Kellyville, New South Wales: 1-15. Hawkeswood, T.J. (2003n). Flora and fauna survey of part of Lot 141, DP 752039, 64 Chilvers Lane, South Maroota, New South Wales: 1-41. Hawkeswood, T.J. (2003o). Tree report for Lot 31, DP 815474 & Lot 401, DP 1018616, 25A & 27A, Cook Street, Baulkham Hills, New South Wales: 1-21. Hawkeswood, T.J. (2003p). Appendix 1 Tree Schedule for 25A and 27A Cook Street, Baulkham Hills, New South Wales: 1-4. Hawkeswood, T.J (2003q). Tree report for the proposed subdivision of Lot 4 DP 845899 and Lot 3706 DP 1011620, 18 & 20 Franklin Road, Cherrybrook, New South Wales: 1-6. Hawkeswood, T.J. (2003r). 8-part test for the Cumberland Plain Woodland remnant at Lot 1, DP 518003, 42 Neich Road, Maraylya, New South Wales: 1-27. Hawkeswood, T.J. (2003s). Flora and Fauna Survey and Assessment of Lot 14, DP 208727, Conrad Road, Kellyville Ridge, New South Wales: 1-36. Hawkeswood, T.J. (2003t). Flora and fauna survey of part of Lot 7, DP 529067, Pellitt Lane, Round Corner, New South Wales: 1-39. Hawkeswood, T.J. (2003u). Comments on a Eucalyptus tree at 204 Marsden Road, Dundas Valley, New South Wales, with a recommendation for its removal: 1. Hawkeswood, T.J. (2003v). Tree report for 26-30 North Rocks Road, North Rocks, New South Wales: 1-13. Hawkeswood, T.J. (2003w). Flora and fauna survey and assessment of Lot 5, DP 233001, Old Stock Route Road, Pitt Town, New South Wales: 1 -26. Hawkeswood, T.J. (2003x). Flora and Fauna Survey and Assessment of Lot 4, Windsor Road, Mulgrave, New South Wales: 1-55. Hawkeswood, T.J. (2003y). Flora and fauna survey and assessment of part of Lot 8, DP 523392, Pellitt Lane, Round Corner, New South Wales: 1-38. Hawkeswood, T.J. (2003z). Flora and fauna survey and assessment of part of Lot 5, DP 532394, Pellitt Lane, Round Corner, New South Wales: 1-36.


Page 25


Hawkeswood, T.J. (2003aa). Flora and fauna survey and assessment of Lot 106, DP 1009723, John Radley Avenue, Dural, New South Wales: 1-41. Hawkeswood, T.J. (2003bb). 8-part test for the Cumberland Plain Woodland remnant at Lot 263, DP 880799, Ross Place, Wetherill Park, New South Wales with comments on and a list of the flora of the site: 1-20. Hawkeswood, T.J. (2003cc). Comments on the identity and health of trees before and after nearby sewer line deposition at 138-140 Reservoir Road, Blacktown, NSW: 1-2. Hawkeswood, T.J. (2003dd). Flora and Fauna Survey and Assessment of a portion of bushland behind 21 Redfield Road, East Killara, New South Wales: 1-28. Hawkeswood, T.J. (2003ee). 8-part test for the woodland remnant at Lot 2, DP 882674, John Hines Avenue, Minchinbury, New South Wales with comments on and a list of the flora of the site: 1-19. Hawkeswood, T.J. (2003ff). Flora and fauna survey and assessment of part of Lot 6, DP 5323943, Pellitt Lane, Round Corner, New South Wales: 1-37. Hawkeswood, T.J. (2003gg). Flora and fauna survey and assessment of Lots 1020 & 1021, DP 876671 & Lot 2, DP 576773, Glen Road, Castle Hill, New South Wales: 1-87. Hawkeswood, T.J. (2003hh). Flora and fauna survey and assessment of parts of Lot 8, DP 247243 & Lot 1, DP 561234, 80 Howes Road & 569 Singleton Road, Wilberforce, New South Wales: 1-147. Hawkeswood, T.J. (2003ii). Investigations on the flora and vegetation types of some sites within the Menai area, New South Wales: 1-44. Hawkeswood, T.J. (2003jj). Flora and fauna survey of Lots 8-10,19,31-33, DP 831158, Old Illawarra Road, Menai, New South Wales: 1-54. Hawkeswood, T.J. (2003kk). Flora and fauna survey of Lot 26, DP 834163, Samantha Riley Drive, Kellyville, New South Wales: 1-23. Hawkeswood, T.J. (2003ll). Flora and fauna survey and assessment of Lot 22, DP 811254, Bago Road, Wauchope, New South Wales : 1-66. Hawkeswood, T.J. (2004a). Tree report for Lot 14, DP 246780, 15 New Line Road, West Pennant Hills, New South Wales: 1-20. Hawkeswood, T.J. (2004b). Flora and fauna survey and assessment of part of Lots 29 and 30, DP 752039, Days Road, Maroota, New South Wales: 1-39. Hawkeswood, T.J. (2004c). Flora and fauna survey of Lot 14, DP 246780, 15 New Line Road, West Pennant Hills, New South Wales: 1-22. Hawkeswood, T.J. (2004d). Tree report for the proposed subdivision of Lot 1 DP 877908, 47-51 Aiken Road, West Pennant Hills, New South Wales: 1-10. Hawkeswood, T.J. (2004e). Flora and fauna survey and assessment of parts of Lot 102 DP 1052416, Lot 12 DP 713095 and Lot 1 DP 532126, Reedy Road, Cattai, New South Wales: 1-39. Hawkeswood, T.J. (2004f). Flora and Fauna Survey and Assessment of Lot 2, DP 590000, 788 Old Northern Road, Middle Dural, New South Wales: 1-37. Hawkeswood T.J. (2004g). Flora and fauna survey of a area for a proposed driveway and house building platform at the end of Addington Road, Hazelbrook, New South Wales: 1-45. Hawkeswood, T.J. (2004h). Flora and fauna survey and assessment of Eurama Vision Estate, Faulconbridge, New South Wales with considerations of endangered flora and fauna species: 1-103. T.J. Hawkeswood Scientific Consulting

Page 26


Hawkeswood, T.J. (2004i). Flora and fauna survey and assessment of part of proposed subdivision of Lot 2, DP 793703, Pitt Town Road, Kenthurst, New South Wales: 1-37. Hawkeswood, T.J. (2004k). Flora and fauna survey and assessment of part of proposed subdivision of Lot 2, DP 793703, Pitt Town Road, Kenthurst, New South Wales: 1-35. Hawkeswood, T.J. (2004l). Tree report for the proposed subdivision of Lot B DP 33301, 54B Beecroft Road, Beecroft, New South Wales: 1-18. Hawkeswood, T.J. (2004m). Letter: Trees at 6 Cherrybrook Road, West Pennant Hills, NSW:1-2. Hawkeswood, T.J. (2004n). Letter: Re: Sydney Blue Gum (Eucalyptus saligna, Myrtaceae) at 17C Cherrybrook Road, West Pennant Hills NSW: 1-2. Hawkeswood, T.J. (2004o). Tree report and SULE assessment for Lot 1, DP 959192 and Lot 1, DP 979474, 150- 152 Ocean Street, Narrabeen, New South Wales: 1-9. Hawkeswood, T.J. (2004p). Tree report for part of Lot 3414, DP 793540, 11 Tanglewood Place, West Pennant Hills, New South Wales: 1-12. Hawkeswood, T.J. (2004q). Flora and fauna survey of Lots 3 & 4, DP 22378, Tillock Street, Thornleigh, New South Wales: 1-25. Hawkeswood, T.J. (2004r). Tree report for part of Lot 5 DP 259725, 225 Pitt Town Road, Kenthurst New South Wales: 1-11. Hawkeswood, T.J. (2004s). Tree report for 52-54 Dobson Crescent & 62-68 Old Northern Road, Baulkham Hills, New South Wales: 1-11. Hawkeswood, T.J. (2004t). Further observations on the flora and fauna of Lot 1, DP 804046, Bago Road, Wauchope, New South Wales, with comments on a letter from the Department of Environment and Conservation concerning the subject site: 1-12. Hawkeswood, T.J. (2004u). Flora and fauna survey and assessment of Lot 22, DP 1007980, Old Northern Road, Canoelands, New South Wales: 1-61. Hawkeswood, T.J. (2004v). Report on proposed removal of several trees and infilling on part of 12-14 Cansdale Place, Castle Hill, New South Wales: 1-5. Hawkeswood, T.J. (2004w). Tree report and SULE assessment for Lot 11, DP 208727, 60 Conrad Road, Kellyville Ridge, New South Wales: 1-15. Hawkeswood, T.J. (2004x). Flora and fauna survey of Lot 2, DP 225401, Edwards Road, Rouse Hill, New South Wales: 1-55. Hawkeswood, T.J. (2004y). Additional appendix to the Eurama Vision report (Hawkeswood, 2004): 1-3. Hawkeswood, T.J. (2004z). Fauna report for part of Lot 3414, DP 793540, 11 Tanglewood Place, West Pennant Hills, New South Wales: 1-11. Hawkeswood, T.J. (2004aa). Flora and fauna survey of part of the fire trail off Pitt Town Road, Kenthurst, New South Wales: 1-4. Hawkeswood, T.J. (2004bb). Flora and fauna survey and assessment of part of proposed subdivision of Lot 2, DP 793703, Pitt Town Road, Kenthurst, New South Wales: 1-37. (different report to Hawkeswood, 2004i) Hawkeswood, T.J. (2004cc). Flora and fauna survey of Lot 6, DP 29321, 428 The Driftway, Londonderry, New South Wales: 1-48. Hawkeswood, T.J. (2004dd). Further flora and fauna survey and assessment of parts of Lot 102 DP 1052416, Lot 12 DP 713095 and Lot 1 DP 532126, Reedy Road, Cattai, New South Wales: 1-16. T.J. Hawkeswood Scientific Consulting

Page 27


Hawkeswood, T.J. (2004ee). Flora and fauna survey of parts of Lot 12 DP 26302, 97-103 Bennett Road, Londonderry, New South Wales with a 8-part test for two Cumberland Plain remnants surveyed: 1-36. Hawkeswood, T.J. (2004ff). Statement of Evidence, Land and Environment Court Proceedings No. 10562 of 2003: Christopher M. Edwards Solicitors & Accountants acting for Louisa Janzon vs. Hawkesbury City Council: 1-7. Hawkeswood, T.J. (2004gg). Further Statement of Evidence, Land and Environment Court Proceedings No. 10562 of 2003: Christopher M. Edwards Solicitors & Accountants acting for Louisa Janzon vs. Hawkesbury City Council : 1-3. Hawkeswood, T.J. (2004hh). Flora and fauna survey and assessment of Lot 1, DP 617888, Bago Road, Wauchope, New South Wales: 1-91. Hawkeswood, T.J. (2004ii). Flora and fauna survey and assessment of Lot 1, DP 640641, corner of Bago Road and King Creek Road, Wauchope, New South Wales: 1-50. Hawkeswood, T.J. (2004jj). Flora and fauna survey of Lot 102 and part of Lot 103, DP 840572, 40 Mount View Avenue, Hazelbrook, New South Wales: 1-49. Hawkeswood, T.J. (2004kk). Flora and fauna survey and assessment of part of Lot 41, DP 614720, Grose Road, Faulconbridge, New South Wales with considerations of endangered flora and fauna species: 1-91. Hawkeswood, T.J. (2005a). Tree report for the proposed subdivision of Lot B DP 33301, 54B Beecroft Road, Beecroft, New South Wales: 1-11. Hawkeswood, T.J. (2005b). Tree report for the proposed subdivision of Lot 82 DP 577380, 161B Copeland Road, Beecroft, New South Wales: 1-11. Hawkeswood, T.J. (2005c). Comments on trees and general vegetation within proposed road works on Second and Tenth Roads, Berkshire Park, New South Wales: 1-10. Hawkeswood, T.J. (2005d). Flora and fauna survey and assessment of Lot 1, DP 262159, Lot 5 DP 10720, Lot 2 DP 529914 & Lots 11 and 12 DP 777034, Gimberts Road, Morisset, New South Wales: 1-36. Hawkeswood, T.J. (2005e). Flora and fauna report with comments on trees for the proposed subdivision of Lot 59, DP 220657, 30 Vale Road, Thornleigh, New South Wales: 1-14. Hawkeswood, T.J. (2005f). 8-part Test for the endangered plant Pimelea curviflora ssp. curviflora (Thymelaeaceae) at Lot 22, DP 1007980, Old Northern Road, Canoelands, New South Wales: 1-8. Hawkeswood, T.J. (2005g). Tree report for the proposed subdivision of Lot 3, DP 29107, 8 Chunooma Road, Wahroonga, New South Wales: 1-10. Hawkeswood, T.J. (2005h). Flora and fauna survey and assessment of Lots 4,7,9,11, DP 262159, Lots 1,2,3 DP 10720 & Lots 35, 36 & 37, DP 9632, Gimberts Road and Mandalong Road, Morisset, New South Wales: 1-66. Hawkeswood, T.J (2005i). Flora and fauna survey of Lot 52, DP 834049, 352 Annangrove Road, Rouse Hill, New South Wales: 1-35. Hawkeswood, T.J. (2005j). Flora and fauna survey of Lots 14, 15 & 16, DP 1071664, Annangrove Road, Rouse Hill, New South Wales: 1-31. Hawkeswood, T.J. (2005k). Flora and fauna survey and assessment of Lots 2 and 3, DP 520826, 73 Lodges Road, Elderslie, New South Wales: 1-31 Hawkeswood, T.J. (2005l). Tree report and SULE assessment for Lot 2089, DP 717758, Corner of Hyatts and Bungalow Roads, Plumpton, New South Wales: 1-37. T.J. Hawkeswood Scientific Consulting

Page 28


Hawkeswood, T.J. (2005m). Letter: Re:Lot 1 DP 520826, Lodges Road, Elderslie, New South Wales: 1-2. Hawkeswood, T.J. (2005n). Letter: Re: Lot E, DP 413912, 8 Cranstons Road, Middle Dural, NSW: 1-2. Hawkeswood, T.J. (2005o). Flora and fauna survey and assessment of Lot 28, DP 31286, 7 Yaralla Crescent, Thornleigh, New South Wales: 1-35. Hawkeswood, T.J. (2017). Statement of Environmental Effects for Lot 48 DP 84810, 11 Edith Black Road, Blaxlands Ridge, New South Wales. Hermes, N. (1980). Endangered Parrots. Pages 61-65. In: C. Haigh (ED.) Endangered Animals of New South Wales. New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service, Sydney. Hersey, F. (1980). Broad-headed Snake Hoplocephalus bungaroides. Pages 38-40 In: C. Haigh (ED.) Endangered Animals of New South Wales. New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service, Sydney. Hindwood, K.A. (1947). Nesting habits of the Kookaburra or Laughing Jackass (Dacelo gigas). Emu, 47: 117130. Hindwood, K.A. (1966). Australian Birds in Colour. A.H. & A.W. Reed, Sydney. Hindwood, K.A. & McGill, A.R. (1958). The Birds of Sydney (County of Cumberland) New South Wales. Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales, Sydney. Hoser, R. (1989). Australian Reptiles and Frogs. Pierson & Co., Sydney. Hoskin, E. (1991). ʻBirds of Sydney 1770-1989ʼ. Surrey Beatty and Sons: Sydney. Jacobs, S.W.L. & Pickard, J. (1981). Plants of New South Wales. A Census of the cycads, conifers and angiosperms. National Herbarium of New South Wales. Royal Botanic Gardens, Sydney. Jenkins, R. & Bartell, R. (1980). A Field Guide to the Reptiles of the Australian High Country. Inkata Press, Melbourne. Jones, D.L. (1988). Native Orchids of Australia. Reed Books, Sydney. Jones, D.L. & Gray, B. (1988). Climbing Plants in Australia. A.H. & A.W. Reed, Sydney. Joss, J.M.P. & Minard, J.A. (1985). On the reproductive cycles of Lampropholis guichenoti and L. delicata (Squamata: Scincidae) in the Sydney Region. Australian Journal of Zoology, 33: 699-704. Keast, A. (1995). Habitat loss and species loss: the birds of Sydney 50 years ago and now. Australian Zoologist, 30: 3-25. King, D. & Green, B. (1979). Notes on the diet and reproduction of the Sand Goanna, Varanus gouldii rosenbergi. Copeia, 1: 64-70. Kinghorn, J.R. (1944). Frogs and toads. Australian Museum Magazine, 8: 271-276. Kreft, G. (1865). The frogs of Australia. Papers & Proceedings of the Royal Society of Tasmania, 1865: 16-20. Lamp, C.A. & Collett, F. (1989). Field Guide to Weeds in Australia. Inkata Press, Melbourne & Sydney. Lamp, C.A., Forbes, S.J. & Cade, J.W. (1990). Grasses of temperate Australia. A Field Guide. Inkata Press, Melbourne & Sydney. Leigh, J.H., Boden, R. & Briggs, J. (1984). Extinct and Endangered Plants of Australia. Macmillan, Melbourne. Lepschi, B.J. (1993). Food of some birds in eastern New South Wales: additions to Barker & Vestjens. Emu, 93: 195-199. T.J. Hawkeswood Scientific Consulting

Page 29


Littlejohn, M. & & Martin, A.A. (1967). The rediscovery of Heleioporus australiacus (Shaw)(Anura: Leptodactylidae) in eastern Victoria. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Victoria, 80: 31-36. Lunney, D. & Barker, J. (1986). Survey of reptiles and amphibians of the coastal forests near Bega, NSW. Australian Zoologist, 22: 1-9. Macdonald, J.D. (1980). Australian Birds: A Popular Guide to Bird Life. Reed Books, Sydney. Macnally, R.C. (1985). Habitat and microhabitat distributions in relation to ecological overlap in two species of Ranidella (Anura). Australian Journal of Zoology, 33: 329-338. Macoboy, S. (1981). What Flower is That? Lansdowne Press, Sydney. Macoboy, S. & Blombery, A. (1975). Australian Complete Book of Flowers. Paul Hamlyn, Sydney. Main, A.R. (1957). Studies in Australian Amphibia. I. The genus Crinia Tschudi in south-western Australia and some species from south-eastern Australia. Australian Journal of Zoology, 5: 30-55. Main, A.R. (1968). Ecology, systematics and evolution of Australian frogs. Advances in Ecological Research, 5: 37-86. Main, A.R. , Littlejohn, M.J. & Lee, A.K. (1959). Ecology of Australian frogs. In: Keast, A. (Ed.) Biogeography and Ecology in Australia. W. Junk, The Hague: 396-411. Major, R., Gowing, G. and Kendal, C. (1996). Nest predation in Australian urban environments and the role of the Pied Currawong, Strepera graculina. Australian Journal of Ecology 21, 399-409. Major, R., Christie, F. and Gowing, G. (1998). ʻThe Value of Remnant Vegetation for Birds in the New South Wales Wheatbeltʼ. Australian Museum: Sydney. Mason, J. (1977). Growing Australian Natives. Angus & Robertson Publishers, Sydney. McNabb. E.G. (1996). Observations on the biology of the Powerful Owl Ninox strenua in southern Victoria. Australian Bird Watcher, 16: 267-295. Mears, A.D. (1981). The extent, distribution and cost of control of the blackberry in New South Wales. Australian Weeds, 1(2): 18-19. Messel, H. & Butler, S.T. (1978). Australian Animals and their Environment. University of Sydney Press, Sydney. Moore, J.A. (1957). Frogs of the Sydney Region. Australian Museum Magazine, 12: 212-216. Moore, J.A. (1961). The frogs of eastern New South Wales. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 121: 149-386. Nelson, J.E. (1965). Movements of Australian flying foxes (Pteropodidae: Megachiroptera). Australian Journal of Zoology, 13: 53-74. Nicholls, W.H. (1969). Orchids of Australia. Thomas Nelson, Melbourne. Oliver, D., Ley, A., Ford, H. and Williams, B. (1999). Habitat of the Regent Honeyeater, Xanthomyza phrygia and the value of the Bundarra-Barraba region for the conservation of avifauna. Pacific Conservation Biology 5, 224- 239. Parish, S. (1997). First Field Guide to Australian Frogs and Reptiles. Steve Parish Publishing, Brisbane. Parry, V.A. (1970). Kookaburras. Lansdowne, Melbourne. Parry, V.A. (1973). The auxiliary social system and its effect on territory and breeding in Kookaburras. Emu, 73: 81-100. T.J. Hawkeswood Scientific Consulting

Page 30


Parsons, W.T. (1971). Noxious Weeds of Victoria. Inkata Press, Melbourne & Sydney. Parsons, W.T. & Cuthbertson, E.G. (1992). Noxious Weeds of Australia. Inkata Press, Melbourne & Sydney. Pizzey, G. (1999). The Graham Pizzey & Frank Knight Field Guide to the Birds of Australia. Harper Collins Publishers, Ryde. Pryor, L.D. & Johnson, L.A.S. (1975). A Classification of the Eucalypts. Australian National University Press, Sydney. Ratcliffe, F.N. (1932). Notes on the fruit bats (Pteropus spp.) of Australia. Journal of Animal Ecology, 1: 32-57. Read, J.L. (1994). The diet of three species of firetail finches in temperate South Australia. Emu 94, 1-8. Readers Digest (1976). Readers Digest Complete Book of Australian Birds. Readers Digest, Services Pty Ltd, Sydney. Reid, J. (1999). ʻThreatened and Declining Birds in the New South Wales Sheep-wheatbelt: Diagnosis, Characteristics and Managementʼ. Report to NSW NPWS: Sydney. Ride, W.D.L. (1970). A Guide to the Native Mammals of Australia. Oxford University Press, Melbourne. Roberts, P. (1993). Birdwatcher's Guide to the Sydney Region. Kangaroo Press, Sydney. Robinson, L. (1991). Field Guide to the Native Plants of Sydney. 2nd Edition. Kangaroo Press, Sydney. Robinson, M. (1998). Frogs of Australia. A Field Guide. Australian Museum, Sydney. Rose, S. & Fairweather, P.G. (1997). Changes in the floristic composition of urban bushland invaded by Pittosporum undulatum in northern Sydney, Australia. Australian Journal of Botany, 45: 123-148. Rotherham, E.R., Briggs, B.G., Blaxell, D.F. & Carolin, R.C. (1975). Flowers and Plants of New South Wales and Southern Queensland. A.H. & A.W. Reed, Sydney. Rowley, I. (1971). The genus Corvus (Aves: Corvidae) in Australia. CSIRO Wildlife Research, 15: 27-72. Rowley, I. (1971). Movements and longevity in ravens in south-eastern Australia. CSIRO Wildlife Research, 16: 49-72. Rowley, I. (1975). Bird Life. Collins, Brisbane. Rowley, I., Braithwaite, I.W. & Chapman, G.S. (1973). The comparative ecology of Australian corvids. III. Breeding seasons. CSIRO Wildlife Research, 18: 67-90. Rowley, I. & Vestjens, W.J.M. (1973). The comparative ecology of Australian corvids. V. Food. CSIRO Wildlife Research, 18: 131-155. Rymer, P.D., Morris, E.C., Richardson, B.J. (2002). The breeding system and population genetics of the vulnerable plant, Dillwynia tenuifolia (Fabaceae).Austral Ecology. 27, 241-248. Schmida, G. (1985). Cold-blooded Australians. Doubleday, Sydney. Schodde, R. and Mason, I.J. (1999) ʻThe Directory of Australian Birds: Passerinesʼ. CSIRO:Melbourne. Schlesinger, C.A. & Shine, R. (1994). Choosing a rock: perspectives of a bush-rock collector and a saxicolous lizard. Biological Conservation, 67: 49-56. Schulz, M. & de Oliviera, M.C. (1995). Microchiropteran fauna of Kroombit Tops, central Queensland, including a discussion on survey techniques. Australian Zoologist, 30: 71-77. Shine, R. (1977). Habitats, diets and sympatry in snakes: a study from Australia. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 55: 1118-1128. T.J. Hawkeswood Scientific Consulting

Page 31


Shine, R. (1983). Arboreality in snakes: ecology of the Australian elapid genus Hoplocephalus. Copeia, 1983: 198-205. Shine, R. (1987). Intraspecific variation in thermoregulation, movements and habitat use by Australian blacksnakes, Pseudechis porphyriacus (Elapidae). Journal of Herpetology, 21: 165-177. Shine, R. (1987). Reproductive mode may determine geographic distributions in Australian venomous snakes (Pseudechis, Elapidae). Oecologia, 71: 608-612. Shine, R. (1994). Australian Snakes A Natural History. Reed Books, Sydney. Shine, R. & Fitzgerald, M. (1989). Conservation and reproduction of an endangered species: the Broadheaded Snake, Hoplocephalus bungaroides (Elapidae). Australian Zoologist, 25: 65-67. Shine, R. & Lambeck, R. (1990). Seasonal shifts in the thermoregulatory behavior of Australian blacksnakes, Pseudechis porphyriacus. Journal of Thermal Biology, 15: 301-305. Shine, R., Webb, J.K., Fitzgerald, M. & Sumner, J. (1995). An ecological survey of the Broad-headed Snake, Hoplocephalus bungaroides (Serpentes: Elapidae). Final Report to the Endangered Species Unit, Australian Nature Conservation Agency & Threatened Species Unit, NSW National Parks & Wildlife Service. Simpson, K. & Day, N. (1993). Field Guide to the Birds of Australia. Penguin Books Australia, Girraween, New South Wales. Slater, P. (1983a). A Field Guide to Australian Birds. Volume 1. Non-passerines. Rigby Books, Sydney. Slater, P. (1983b). A Field Guide to Australian Birds. Volume 2. Passerines. Rigby Books, Sydney. Strahan, R. (1983)(Ed.) The Australian Museum Complete Book of Australian Mammals: A National Photographic Index of Australian Wildlife. Collins Angus & Robertson Publishers, Sydney. Strahan, R. (1992). (Ed.) Encyclopaedia of Australian Animals. Angus & Robertson, Sydney. Strahan, R. (1996)(Ed.) The Mammals of Australia. Reed Books, Sydney. Swan, G. (1990). A Field Guide to the Snakes and Lizards of New South Wales. Three Sisters Publications, Winmalee, New South Wales. Tilley, S. (1982). The diet of the Powerful Owl, Ninox strenua, in Victoria. Australian Wildlife Research, 9: 157- 175. Thomson, J.A. & Owen, W.H. (1904). A field study of the Australian Ringtail Possum Pseudocheirus peregrinus (Marsupialia: Phalangeridae). Ecological Monographs, 34: 27-52. Traill, B.J. (1995). Competition and co-existence in a community of forest vertebrates. Ph. D. Thesis, Monash University. Triggs, B. (1997). Tracks, scats and other traces; a field guide to Australian mammals. Oxford University Press, Melbourne. Troughton, E. (1946). Furred Animals of Australia. Angus & Robertson, Sydney. Tyler, M. (1982). Frogs. Collins, Sydney. Tyler, M. (1992). Encyclopaedia of Australian Animals. Frogs. Angus & Robertson Publishers, Sydney. Tyler, M.J. (1994). Australian Frogs: A Natural History. Reed Books, Sydney. Webb, G.A. (1983). Diet in a herpetological community on the Hawkesbury Sandstone Formation in the Sydney area. Herpetofauna, 14: 87-91. T.J. Hawkeswood Scientific Consulting

Page 32


Webb, G.A. (1987). A note on the distribution and diet of the Giant Burrowing Frog, Heleioporus australiacus (Shaw and Nodder, 1795)(Anura: Myobatrachidae). Herpetofauna, 17: 20-21. Webb, J.K. & Shine, R. (1994). Habitat use by the broad-headed snake, Hoplocephalus bungaroides. Final Research Report. School of Biological Sciences, University of Sydney, NSW. Wellington, C.R. (1996). Red-crowned Toadlet, another endangered frog? Environmental Fax Sheet, Series 4, No. 8: 1-2. Wheeler, D., Jacobs, S. & Norton, B. (1982). Grasses of New South Wales. The University of New England, Armidale. White, A.W., (1995). Disappearing frogs. Australian Zoologist, 30: 48-56. Williamson, I. & Bull, C.M. (1989). Life history variation in a population of the Australian frog Ranidella signifera: egg size and early development. Copeia, 1989: 349-356. Wilson, S. & Knowles, D.G. (1988). Australia's Reptiles: a photographic reference to the terrestrial reptiles of Australia. Collins Publishers, Sydney. Worrell, E. (1963). Reptiles of Australia: Crocodiles, Turtles, Tortoises, Lizards, Snakes. Angus & Robertson, Sydney. Wrigley, J.W. & Fagg, M. (1983). Australian Native Plants: A Manual for their propagation, cultivation and use in landscaping. Collins, Sydney.


Page 33


8.0. Qualifications of the Author Graduate Certificate of Ancient History (Macquarie University, New South Wales, 2016) Diploma of Science (College of Management Science, London, 2014) Diploma of Archaeology (College of Management Science, London, 2014) Bachelor of Science (Honours)(University of New England, New South Wales, 1975-1978) Bachelor of Applied Science (Environmental Science)(Charles Sturt University, New South Wales, 1992-1996) Bachelor of Science (American Institute of Metaphysics, USA, 2012-2014) Master of Science (American Institute of Metaphysics, USA, 2012-2014) Bachelor of Metaphysical Humanistic Science (Institute of Metaphysical Humanistic Science, USA, 2013) Master of Metaphysical Humanistic Science (Institute of Metaphysical Humanistic Science, USA, 2014) Doctor of Philosophy (American Institute of Metaphysics, USA, 2012-2014) Doctor of Metaphysics (Bliss-Parsons Institute, USA, 2013) Author of over 2500 papers, books and scientific reports on the Australian flora and fauna which have been accepted by the Australian and International Scientific Community Selection of approved projects are presented on the international scientific website: https:// www.researchgate.net/profile/Dr_Trevor_Hawkeswood/contributions


Page 34


Appendix 1. Plan and photographs


Page 35


Fig. 1. Plan of the subject property of Lot 48 DP 84810, 11 Edith Black Road, Blaxlands Ridge, New South Wales showing approximate areas of three plant communities on the site. Differentiation between communities on the ground is sometimes difficult to undertake as communities merge into each other. Blue area = Shale Sandstone Transitional Forest (SSTF); pink area = Sydney Sandstone Ridgetop Woodland (SSRW), green area = Sydney Sandstone Gully Forest (SSGF).


Page 36


Fig. 2. Plan of the subject property of Lot 48 DP 84810, 11 Edith Black Road, Blaxlands Ridge, New South Wales, showing approximate positions of the main ecological field transects undertaken for this report..


Page 37


Fig. 3. View looking towards the north-east showing the existing house and cleared nature of the area. (Photo: T.J. Hawkeswood).

Fig. 4. View looking towards the south showing the cleared nature of the area and dam in the background. (Photo: T.J. Hawkeswood).


Page 38


Fig. 5. View looking towards the north-east showing the existing house and cleared nature of the area. (Photo: T.J. Hawkeswood).

Fig. 6. View to the south-west showing remains of old house (chimney) and cleared, weed-infested area. (Photo: T.J. Hawkeswood)


Page 39


Fig. 7. View of the small dam behind the existing dwelling. It is proposed to infill and level this dam for the building platform of proposed Lot 2. (Photo: T.J. Hawkeswood).

Fig. 8. View to the west from behind the dam showing semi-cleared regrowth areas of sparse trees of the Shale Sandstone Transitional Forest (SSTF). (Photo: T.J. Hawkeswood).


Page 40


Fig. 9. View of sparse vegetation south of the dam. This is Sydney Sandstone Ridgetop Woodland with a sparse understorey of shrubs and herbs (mostly native grasses) (SSRW). (Photo: T.J. Hawkeswood).

Fig. 10. Another view of sparse vegetation south of the dam. This is Sydney Sandstone Ridgetop Woodland (SSRW). (Photo: T.J. Hawkeswood).


Page 41


Appendix 2. 7-part Tests for Shale Sandstone Transitional Forest regrowth remnants on the property (SSTF) and all endangered plants and animals known or recorded from the Hawkesbury Shire LGA.


Page 42


7-part Tests of Significance FLORA A. Shale Sandstone Transitional Forest Shale Sandstone Transitional Forest (SSTF) exists within the surveyed area as a sparse band of trees and grasses and a few shrubs of mostly scattered regrowth remnants of Eucalyptus eugenioides, E. crebra and E. fibrosa trees in the northern part of the property (Fig. 1). Some of the regrowth SSTF is proposed to be removed around/within building platform 1 (Lot 1) the but other habitat will be retained along boundaries and the western parts of the EEC (see Fig. 1) and an area in the north-western corner will be rehabilitated with SSTF species as per a VMP (Vegetation Management Plan). Trees removed for the access driveway will be replaced as per the VMP. (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. This is an ecological community and not a species so this part is not relevant. (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 This is an ecological community and not a species so this part is not relevant. (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 the risk of extinction, or (ii) is likely to be substantially and adversely modify the composition of the ecological community such that its local occurrence is likely to be placed at the risk of extinction (i) Most of the SSTF habitat will be retained and other open space areas rehabilitated so that the local occurrence of the community is not likely to be placed at the risk of extinction. (i) No major modifications of the community will occur. (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 and a result of the action proposed, and (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


Page 43


(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 (i) Numerous trees and some fauna habitat will be required to be removed for the proposal. (ii) No area of SSTF habitat will become fragmented as part of the proposal. (iii) The habitat to be removed is not important as the trees are mostly poor in health through termites, beetle borers and other factors. (e) Whether the action proposed is likely to have an adverse effect on critical habitat (either directly or indirectly) No critical habitat is listed for this ecological community. (f) Whether the action proposed is consistent with the objectives or actions of a recovery plan or threat abatement plan The proposal would be consistent with the objectives or actions of a recovery plan or threat abatement plan for this ecological community since not all will be removed for the subdivision and an area designated in the VMP will be rehabilitated as open space conservation area. (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 No action on the subject property constitutes a key threatening process for this ecological community. B. Dillwynia tenuifolia (Fabaceae) Dillwynia tenuifolia (Fabaceae) is listed in Schedule 2 of the TSC Act (1995) as Vulnerable and is also classified in ROTAP as 2VCi which indicates that its total geographic range is less than 100 km, is considered vulnerable, with no information available on the size of reserved populations. It was not detected during the survey, nor was any potential habitat for this species present on the subject site. A low spreading pea-flower shrub to a metre high. Its leaves are small and narrow (linear-terete, soft, 4-12mm long, with the tip often bent downwards). The wide orange-yellow and red pea-flowers are usually single, at or near the tips of the branches. Seed pods are brownish, egg-shaped, 4-5mm long with reticulate seeds. Both the singular orange flowers and the stem hairs distinguish it from the similar and more common yellow-flowered Dillwynia glaberrima and D. floribunda. The core distribution is the Cumberland Plain from Windsor and Penrith east to Dean Park near Colebee. Other populations in western Sydney are recorded from Voyager Point and Kemps Creek in the Liverpool LGA, Luddenham in the Penrith LGA and South Maroota in the Baulkham Hills Shire. Disjunct localities outside the Cumberland Plain include the Bulga Mountains at Yengo in the north, and Kurrajong Heights and Woodford in the Lower Blue Mountains. In western Sydney, may be locally abundant particularly within scrubby/ dry heath areas within Castlereagh Ironbark Forest and Shale Gravel Transition Forest on tertiary alluvium or laterised clays. May also be common in transitional areas where these communities adjoin Castlereagh Scribbly Gum Woodland. At Yengo, is reported to occur in disturbed escarpment woodland on Narrabeen sandstone. T.J. Hawkeswood Scientific Consulting

Page 44


(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. The proposal will not have any adverse effect on the life cycle of this species because the species is not found on this property and is therefore most unlikely to be placed at the risk of extinction by this proposal. (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 The entity under review is a species and not an endangered population so this part is not relevant. (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 the risk of extinction, or (ii) is likely to be substantially and adversely modify the composition of the ecological community such that its local occurrence is likely to be placed at the risk of extinction The entity under review is a species and not an ecological community so these sections are not relevant. (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 and a result of the action proposed, and (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 (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 (i) Very little habitat will be removed or modified as a result of this proposal. (ii) No area of habitat will become fragmented as part of the proposal. (iii) The habitat to be removed is not important as the trees are mostly poor in health through termites, beetle borers and other factors. (e) Whether the action proposed is likely to have an adverse effect on critical habitat (either directly or indirectly) No critical habitat is listed for this species.


Page 45


(f) Whether the action proposed is consistent with the objectives or actions of a recovery plan or threat abatement plan Recovery plans have been instigated by the NSW Government for this species. The proposal would be consistent with the objectives or actions of a recovery plan or threat abatement plan for this species since it will not be affected by the proposal (does not occur anywhere on the property). (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 No action on the subject property constitutes a key threatening process for this species. C. Pultenaea parviflora (Fabaceae) Pultenaea parvifolia (Fabaceae) is listed in Schedule 2 of the TSC Act (1995) as Vulnerable and is also classified in ROTAP as 2V which indicates that its total geographic range is not known, is considered vulnerable, and with no information available on the size of reserved populations. It was not detected during the survey, nor was any potential habitat for this species present on the subject site. Usually a small erect branching shrub to 1m, but up to 1.8 m when in competition with other shrubs. Leaves are alternate, 2 - 6 mm long, 1 -1 .5 mm wide, narrow to broad obovate to cuneate, with an obtuse to slightly notched apex. The upper surface may be paler, or the leaves may be concolorous. Stipules are about 2mm long. Flowers occur between August and November, witha peak in September. The flowers are produced towards the ends of the branches, clustered (dense to somewhat lax) and are 5 - 7 mm long, yellow and pea-like with reddish markings, single in leaf axils. The calyx is 4-5mm long, hairless, with long slender lobes and bracteoles about 4mm long. Fruit are eggshaped, 5mm long, maturing in December holding seeds which have an aril. Endemic to the Cumberland Plain. Core distribution is from Windsor to Penrith and east to Dean Park. Outlier populations are recorded from Kemps Creek and Wilberforce. (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. The proposal will not have any adverse effect on the life cycle of this species because the species is not found on this property and is therefore most unlikely to be placed at the risk of extinction by this proposal. (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 The entity under review is a species and not an endangered population so this part is not relevant. (c) In the case of an endangered ecological community or critically endangered ecological community, whether the action proposed; T.J. Hawkeswood Scientific Consulting

Page 46


(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 the risk of extinction, or (ii) is likely to be substantially and adversely modify the composition of the ecological community such that its local occurrence is likely to be placed at the risk of extinction The entity under review is a species and not an ecological community so these sections are not relevant. (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 and a result of the action proposed, and (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 (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 (i) Very little habitat will be removed or modified as a result of this proposal. (ii) No area of habitat will become fragmented as part of the proposal. (iii) The habitat to be removed is not important as the trees are mostly poor in health through termites, beetle borers and other factors.. (e) Whether the action proposed is likely to have an adverse effect on critical habitat (either directly or indirectly) No critical habitat is listed for this species. (f) Whether the action proposed is consistent with the objectives or actions of a recovery plan or threat abatement plan Recovery plans have been instigated by the NSW Government for this species. The proposal would be consistent with the objectives or actions of a recovery plan or threat abatement plan for this species since it will not be affected by the proposal (does not occur anywhere on the property). (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 No action on the subject property constitutes a key threatening process for this species. D. Grevillea juniperina (Proteaceae) Grevillea juniperina R. Br. subsp. juniperina: More or less erect to spreading dense divaricate shrub 0.5-1.5 m tall; major branches appearing subcolumnar (leaves clustered on short lateral branchlets); foliage dense. Adult leaves often dark green with paler veins, usually narrow, needle-like, 10-22 mm long, 0.6-0.8 mm wide, angularly deltoid to trigonous in cross-section; midvein and intramarginal veins usually very prominent; upper T.J. Hawkeswood Scientific Consulting

Page 47


surface with appressed hairs; margins strongly and angularly revolute; lower surface usually fully enclosed; juvenile leaves scarcely broader than adults. Flower colour: perianth red, yellow, pale orange, or rarely greenish; style similar to perianth or a little paler. Perianth subsericeous outside with biramous hairs only. Pistil (13-) 20-25 mm long.Grevillea juniperina R. Br. subsp. juniperina is confined to Western Sydney and is known from the area bounded approximately by St Marys - Londonderry - Prospect. It has been reported from the local government areas of Blacktown, Hawkesbury, Liverpool, Parramatta and Penrith, often persisting along roadsides.Grevillea juniperina R. Br. subsp. juniperina has a restricted range occurring on red sandy to clay soils - often lateritic on Wianamatta Shale and Tertiary alluvium in Cumberland Plain Woodland and Castlereagh Woodland. It occurs as localised, often small populations, often on road verges. A small population has been recorded from Castlereagh Nature Reserve. (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. The proposal will not have any adverse effect on the life cycle of this species because the species is not found on this property and is therefore most unlikely to be placed at the risk of extinction by this proposal. (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 The entity under review is a species and not an endangered population so this part is not relevant. (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 the risk of extinction, or (ii) is likely to be substantially and adversely modify the composition of the ecological community such that its local occurrence is likely to be placed at the risk of extinction The entity under review is a species and not an ecological community so these sections are not relevant. (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 and a result of the action proposed, and (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


Page 48


(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 (i) Very little habitat will be removed or modified as a result of this proposal. (ii) No area of habitat will become fragmented as part of the proposal. (iii) The habitat to be removed is not important as the trees are mostly poor in health through termites, beetle borers and other factors. (e) Whether the action proposed is likely to have an adverse effect on critical habitat (either directly or indirectly) No critical habitat is listed for this species. (f) Whether the action proposed is consistent with the objectives or actions of a recovery plan or threat abatement plan Recovery plans have been instigated by the NSW Government for this species. The proposal would be consistent with the objectives or actions of a recovery plan or threat abatement plan for this species since it will not be affected by the proposal (does not occur anywhere on the property). (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 No action on the subject property constitutes a key threatening process for this species. E. Zieria involucrata (Rutaceae) Zieria involucrata (Rutaceae) is listed as an endangered species in Part 1 of Schedule 1 of the TSC Act (1995). It is restricted to less than 20 populations within the Sydney region between Yengo National Park in the north and Marramarra National Park in the south. The species also occurred in the Katoomba district, at least until the 1980's. The total population size is estimated to be approximately 3000 mature individuals. At least six populations occur within conservation reserves (Yengo National Park, Wollemi National Park, Marramarra National Park) and an additional three populations occur within Parr State Conservation Area. The species is threatened by inappropriate fire regimes, weed invasion, and populations outside conservation reserves are threatened by clearing for urban development. It was not detected during the survey, nor was any potential habitat for this species present on the subject site. This species is a small, erect, sparse shrub, growing 1 – 2 metres in height. Branches and leaves are densely covered with hairs which form a soft, velvety covering (tomentum). When looked at under magnification most hairs appear star-shaped, although simple and two-forked hairs are also present. Leaves are opposite and consist of either a single leaflet or three leaflets, with both forms usually being present on the same branch (occasionally unifoliolate leaves only are present on a branch). Leaflets are dark green above, light greygreen below, oblong to elliptic to lance-shaped, 3 – 6 cm long and 6 – 15 mm wide. The flower clusters, consisting of 3 – 21 flowers, are shorter than the leaves and enclosed in numerous small, leaf-like bracts, 7 – 12 mm long, which are also covered in dense, white hairs. Flowers are white with pink tinges, and slightly hairy.Has a disjunct distribution north and west of Sydney, in the Baulkham Hills, Hawkesbury, Hornsby and Blue Mountains T.J. Hawkeswood Scientific Consulting

Page 49


local government areas. Recent records for the species come from 22 populations in the catchments of the Macdonald, Colo and Hawkesbury Rivers between Melon Creek and Mogo Creek in the north to Little Cattai Creek (Hillside) and Wheeny Creek (Colo) in the south and from a single population in the upper Blue Mountains north of Katoomba. In addition, historical records exist for at least two other localities in the eastern Blue Mountains: south of Springwood Valley Heights and north-west of Kurrajong. Occurs primarily on Hawkesbury sandstone. Also occurs on Narrabeen Group sandstone and on Quaternary alluvium. Found primarily in sheltered forests on mid- to lower slopes and valleys, e.g. in or adjacent to gullies which support sheltered forest, although some populations extend upslope into drier vegetation. (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. The proposal will not have any adverse effect on the life cycle of this species because the species is not found on this property and is therefore most unlikely to be placed at the risk of extinction by this proposal. (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 The entity under review is a species and not an endangered population so this part is not relevant. (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 the risk of extinction, or (ii) is likely to be substantially and adversely modify the composition of the ecological community such that its local occurrence is likely to be placed at the risk of extinction The entity under review is a species and not an ecological community so these sections are not relevant. (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 and a result of the action proposed, and (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 (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 T.J. Hawkeswood Scientific Consulting

Page 50


(i) Very little habitat will be removed or modified as a result of this proposal. (ii) No area of habitat will become fragmented as part of the proposal. (iii) The habitat to be removed is not important as the trees are mostly poor in health through termites, beetle borers and other factors. (e) Whether the action proposed is likely to have an adverse effect on critical habitat (either directly or indirectly) No critical habitat is listed for this species. (f) Whether the action proposed is consistent with the objectives or actions of a recovery plan or threat abatement plan Recovery plans have been produced for this species by the NSW Government. The proposal would be consistent with the objectives or actions of a recovery plan or threat abatement plan for this species since it will not be affected by the proposal (does not occur anywhere on the property). (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 No action on the subject property constitutes a key threatening process for this species. F. Tetratheca glandulosa (Tremandraceae) This is a small, spreading shrub which grows 20 - 50cm in height. Stems often become entwined among other small shrubs, sedges and grasses. Leaves are opposite 5 - 10 mm long and 1 mm wide with recurved (rolled under) margins. Leaf margins have small stiff hairs that give them a “toothed” appearance. The flower stalk and sepals (leaf-like structure at base of flower) are covered with dark-red gland-tipped hairs, which distinguishes T. glandulosa from other Tetratheca species. T. glandulosa flowers have four petals, which are dark pink, or occasionally pale pink. The flower stalk is 3 - 10 mm long and the petals are approximately 4.5 - 10.5 mm long.Restricted to the following Local Government Areas: Baulkham Hills, Gosford, Hawkesbury, Hornsby, Ku-ring-gai, Pittwater, Ryde, Warringah, and Wyong. There are approximately 150 populations of this plant ranging from Sampons Pass (Yengo NP) in the north to West Pymble (Lane Cove NP) in the south. The eastern limit is at Ingleside (Pittwater LGA) and the western limit is at East Kurrajong (Wollemi NP). There are historical collections of this species south to Manly, Willoughby and Mosman, however these populations are now extinct. The current northsouth range is approximately 65km.Associated with shale-sandstone transition habitat where shale-cappings occur over sandstone, with associated soil landscapes such as Lucas Heights, Gymea, Lambert and Faulconbridge. Topographically, the plant occupies ridgetops, upper-slopes and to a lesser extent mid-slope sandstone benches. Soils are generally shallow, consisting of a yellow, clayey/sandy loam. Stony lateritic fragments are also common in the soil profile on many of these ridgetops. Vegetation structure varies from heaths and scrub to woodlands/open woodlands, and open forest. Vegetation communities correspond broadly to Benson & Howell’s Sydney Sandstone Ridgetop Woodland (Map Unit 10ar). Common woodland tree species include: Corymbia gummifera, C. eximia, Eucalyptus haemastoma, E. punctata, E. racemosa, and/or E. sparsifolia, with an understorey dominated by species from the families Proteaceae, Fabaceae, and Epacridaceae. Flowers July-November however residual flowers may persist until late December. Flowering influenced by seasonal weather conditions and/or the microclimate T.J. Hawkeswood Scientific Consulting

Page 51


effects (eg. exposure) of each particular site. The age of individual plants is difficult to determine and the life span of the plant is unknown. Life expectancy is approximately six to ten years, however, based on field investigations which indicate that the plant resprouts from a woody root following fire, this may be an underestimate. The breeding system for this species is poorly known. In comparison to a similar species, Tetratheca juncea, it is expected that this plant is unable to self-pollinate due to the physical characteristics of the plant’s reproductive parts, and that a pollen vector (possibly a species of native bee) is required for successful pollination. Seedbank dynamics (fecundity, viability, dispersal, longevity, dormancy etc) for this species are poorly known. Juveniles appear to be uncommon within any given population, with the majority of plants usually consisting of resprouting adults. Resprouts from a woody root following fire, however the role fire plays in seed germination and persistence of the species is unclear. In a similar species, Tetratheca hirsuta, it has been shown that exposure of the seed to cold smoke and/or smoked water derived from burnt native vegetation promoted germination. Field observations following fire indicate that the plant is likely to be clonal. Tetratheca species are reported to be readily propagated by cuttings, however the long term survival of these plants is poorly known. (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. The proposal will not have any adverse effect on the life cycle of this species because the species is not found on this property and is therefore most unlikely to be placed at the risk of extinction by this proposal. (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 The entity under review is a species and not an endangered population so this part is not relevant. (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 the risk of extinction, or (ii) is likely to be substantially and adversely modify the composition of the ecological community such that its local occurrence is likely to be placed at the risk of extinction The entity under review is a species and not an ecological community so these sections are not relevant. (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 and a result of the action proposed, and T.J. Hawkeswood Scientific Consulting

Page 52


(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 (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 (i) Very little habitat will be removed or modified as a result of this proposal. (ii) No area of habitat will become fragmented as part of the proposal. (iii) The habitat to be removed is not important as the trees are mostly poor in health through termites, beetle borers and other factors. (e) Whether the action proposed is likely to have an adverse effect on critical habitat (either directly or indirectly) No critical habitat is listed for this species. (f) Whether the action proposed is consistent with the objectives or actions of a recovery plan or threat abatement plan Recovery plans have been produced for this species by the NSW Government. The proposal would be consistent with the objectives or actions of a recovery plan or threat abatement plan for this species since it will not be affected by the proposal (does not occur anywhere on the property). G. Pimelea curviflora (Thymelaeaceae) A much-branched subshrub or shrub 20 to 120cm high with hairy stems. Flowers are red to yellow, hairy and occur in terminal heads of 4 - 12 flowers. Leaves are 5 - 10 mm long, 2 - 4 mm wide, with a sparsely hairy lower surface. The curved fruit is 2 - 4 mm long. Confined to the coastal area of the Sydney and Illawarra regions. Populations are known between northern Sydney and Maroota in the north-west. New population discovered at Croom Reserve near Albion Park in Shellharbour LGA in August 2011. Formerly recorded around the Parramatta River and Port Jackson region including Five Dock, Bellevue Hill and Manly. Occurs on shaley/lateritic soils over sandstone and shale/sandstone transition soils on ridgetops and upper slopes amongst woodlands. Also recorded in Illawarra Lowalnd Grassy Woodland habitat at Albion Park on the Illawarra coastal plain. Flowers October to May. Has an inconspicuous cryptic habit as it is fine and scraggly and often grows amongst dense grasses and sedges. It may not always be visible at a site as it appears to survive for some time without any foliage after fire or grazing, relying on energy reserves in its tuberous roots. Likely to be fire tolerant species capable of resprouting following fire due to the presence of a tap root. Seedlings have been observed following fire. (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. The proposal will not have any adverse effect on the life cycle of this species because the species is not found on this property and is therefore most unlikely to be placed at the risk of extinction by this proposal.


Page 53


(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 The entity under review is a species and not an endangered population so this part is not relevant. (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 the risk of extinction, or (ii) is likely to be substantially and adversely modify the composition of the ecological community such that its local occurrence is likely to be placed at the risk of extinction The entity under review is a species and not an ecological community so these sections are not relevant. (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 and a result of the action proposed, and (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 (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 (i) Very little habitat will be removed or modified as a result of this proposal. (ii) No area of habitat will become fragmented as part of the proposal. (iii) The habitat to be removed is not important as the trees are mostly poor in health through termites, beetle borers and other factors. (e) Whether the action proposed is likely to have an adverse effect on critical habitat (either directly or indirectly) No critical habitat is listed for this species. (f) Whether the action proposed is consistent with the objectives or actions of a recovery plan or threat abatement plan Recovery plans have been produced for this species by the NSW Government. The proposal would be consistent with the objectives or actions of a recovery plan or threat abatement plan for this species since it will not be affected by the proposal (does not occur anywhere on the property).


Page 54


H. Melaleuca deanei (Myrtaceae) Deane’s Paperbark is a shrub to 3 m high with fibrous, flaky bark. New stems are furry and white, though the mature stems are hairless. The smooth leaves are not paired. They are narrow, to 25 mm long and 6 mm wide, with pointed tips. The many white flowers form spikes to 6 cm long, on a furry stem. The five petals are less than 5 mm long; each is paired with a bundle of 17 - 28 stamens. The woody fruits are barrel-shaped, to 7 mm in diameter. Deane’s Paperbark occurs in two distinct areas, in the Ku-ring-gai/Berowra and Holsworthy/Wedderburn areas respectively. There are also more isolated occurrences at Springwood (in the Blue Mountains), Wollemi National Park, Yalwal (west of Nowra) and Central Coast (Hawkesbury River) areas. The species grows in heath on sandstone. Flowers appear in summer but seed production appears to be small and consequently the species exhibits a limited capacity to regenerate. (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. The proposal will not have any adverse effect on the life cycle of this species because the species is not found on this property and is therefore most unlikely to be placed at the risk of extinction by this proposal. The species prefers rocky sandstone areas and there are no suitable sandstone outcrops for this species on the property. (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 The entity under review is a species and not an endangered population so this part is not relevant. (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 the risk of extinction, or (ii) is likely to be substantially and adversely modify the composition of the ecological community such that its local occurrence is likely to be placed at the risk of extinction The entity under review is a species and not an ecological community so these sections are not relevant. (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 and a result of the action proposed, and (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 T.J. Hawkeswood Scientific Consulting

Page 55


(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 (i) Very little habitat will be removed or modified as a result of this proposal. (ii) No area of habitat will become fragmented as part of the proposal. (iii) The habitat to be removed is not important as the trees are mostly poor in health through termites, beetle borers and other factors. (e) Whether the action proposed is likely to have an adverse effect on critical habitat (either directly or indirectly) No critical habitat is listed for this species. (f) Whether the action proposed is consistent with the objectives or actions of a recovery plan or threat abatement plan Recovery plans have been produced for this species by the NSW Government. The proposal would be consistent with the objectives or actions of a recovery plan or threat abatement plan for this species since it will not be affected by the proposal (does not occur anywhere on the property). I. Persoonia hirsuta (Proteaceae) The Hairy Geebung is best distinguished by its hairiness - long coarse hairs on flowers and branchlets and short stiff ones on the leaves. It is a spreading shrub with small leaves of variable shape. They are from 6 - 12 mm long, from oblong to narrow in shape and crowded along the stems; they are curled under at the edges. Groups of flowers grow into a leafy shoot. The tubular flowers are yellow or orange and about 1 cm long and also hairy. There are two subspecies - both are considered to be endangered. Persoonia hirsuta has a scattered distribution around Sydney. The species is distributed from Singleton in the north, along the east coast to Bargo in the south and the Blue Mountains to the west. Persoonia hirsuta has a large area of occurrence, but occurs in small populations, increasing the species' fragmentation in the landscape. The Hairy Geebung is found in sandy soils in dry sclerophyll open forest, woodland and heath on sandstone. It is usually present as isolated individuals or very small populations. It is probably killed by fire (as other Persoonia species are) but will regenerate from seed 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. The proposal will not have any adverse effect on the life cycle of this species because the species is not found on this property and is therefore most unlikely to be placed at the risk of extinction by this proposal. The species prefers rocky sandstone areas and there are no suitable sandstone outcrops for this species on the property. (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


Page 56


The entity under review is a species and not an endangered population so this part is not relevant. (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 the risk of extinction, or (ii) is likely to be substantially and adversely modify the composition of the ecological community such that its local occurrence is likely to be placed at the risk of extinction The entity under review is a species and not an ecological community so these sections are not relevant. (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 and a result of the action proposed, and (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 (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 (i) Very little habitat will be removed or modified as a result of this proposal. (ii) No area of habitat will become fragmented as part of the proposal. (iii) The habitat to be removed is not important as the trees are mostly poor in health through termites, beetle borers and other factors. (e) Whether the action proposed is likely to have an adverse effect on critical habitat (either directly or indirectly) No critical habitat is listed for this species. (f) Whether the action proposed is consistent with the objectives or actions of a recovery plan or threat abatement plan Recovery plans have been produced for this species by the NSW Government. The proposal would be consistent with the objectives or actions of a recovery plan or threat abatement plan for this species since it will not be affected by the proposal (does not occur anywhere on the property). (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 No action on the subject property constitutes a key threatening process for this species.


Page 57


J. Velleia perfoliata (Goodeniaceae) A small herb with light green, spoon-shaped leaves 10 - 12 cm long by 3 - 4 cm wide, radiating in a cluster from the base. It has fused leaf-like structures (bracteoles) that form a funnel below the flowering stalk which is up to 50 cm long. Flowers are yellow, 12 mm in length, with five petals, two pointing up and three down. Only known from the Hawkesbury district and upper Hunter Valley. Found in shallow depressions on Hawkesbury sandstone shelves, on rocky hill sides, under cliffs or on rocky/sandy soils along tracks and trails. Occurs on fairly shallow soils of sandy loam texture. Often found growing on moss and lichen mats formed on rock. Flowering variable and can occur in any season, though peaking generally in spring to early summer. Grows in heath and open forest over sandstone. Associated species include Angophora bakeri, Corymbia eximia, Backhousia myrtifolia, Eucalyptus sparsifolia, E. crebra, E. notabilis, Allocasuarina torulosa and Leptospermum attenuatum. 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. The proposal will not have any adverse effect on the life cycle of this species because the species is not found on this property and is therefore most unlikely to be placed at the risk of extinction by this proposal. The species prefers rocky sandstone areas and there are no suitable sandstone outcrops for this species on the property. (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 The entity under review is a species and not an endangered population so this part is not relevant. (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 the risk of extinction, or (ii) is likely to be substantially and adversely modify the composition of the ecological community such that its local occurrence is likely to be placed at the risk of extinction The entity under review is a species and not an ecological community so these sections are not relevant. (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 and a result of the action proposed, and (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 T.J. Hawkeswood Scientific Consulting

Page 58


(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 (i) Very little habitat will be removed or modified as a result of this proposal. (ii) No area of habitat will become fragmented as part of the proposal. (iii) The habitat to be removed is not important as the trees are mostly poor in health through termites, beetle borers and other factors. (e) Whether the action proposed is likely to have an adverse effect on critical habitat (either directly or indirectly) No critical habitat is listed for this species. (f) Whether the action proposed is consistent with the objectives or actions of a recovery plan or threat abatement plan Recovery plans have been produced for this species by the NSW Government. The proposal would be consistent with the objectives or actions of a recovery plan or threat abatement plan for this species since it will not be affected by the proposal (does not occur anywhere on the property). (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 No action on the subject property constitutes a key threatening process for this species. FAUNA A. Cumberland Plains Woodland snail (Meridolum corneovirens) Superficially similar to the familiar exotic Garden Snail (Helix aspera). It differs most obviously in its 25 - 30 mm diameter shell. While this shell may be almost any shade of brown, it is always uniform in colour, while that of Helix consists of dark patches on a pale background. A green or yellow tinge may be present. The Cumberland Land Snail also has a more flattened shell that is very thin and fragile, compared with the thick shell of the Garden Snail. The under side of the shell, especially in living individuals, tends to have a glossy appearance and is semitransparent, enabling the observer to see the animal colour and some internal organs. The upper side of the shell has a coarse wrinkly appearance. In adult shells the edge of the aperture is reflected, forming a slight lip. This is typically white in colour. However, the feature is absent in both juvenile and sub-adult individuals. The juveniles have a more angular shell and tend to have an open area in the central part of the underside of the shell, known as the umbilicus. Generally, in adults the umbilicus is closed or partially covered. Sometimes there is a reddish brown patch around the umbilical area. M. corneovirens can also be easily confused with other members of the genus Meridolum, especially those found along the edges of its’ range. Lives in small areas on the Cumberland Plain west of Sydney, from Richmond and Windsor south to Picton and from Liverpool west to the Hawkesbury and Nepean Rivers at the base of the Blue Mountains. known from over 100 different locations, but not all are currently occupied, and they are usually isolated from each other as a result of land use patterns. Primarily inhabits Cumberland Plain Woodland (a critically endangered ecological community). This community is a grassy, open woodland with occasional dense patches of shrubs. It is also T.J. Hawkeswood Scientific Consulting

Page 59


known from Shale Gravel Transition Forests, Castlereagh Swamp Woodlands and the margins of River-flat Eucalypt Forest, which are also listed communities. Lives under litter of bark, leaves and logs, or shelters in loose soil around grass clumps. Occasionally shelters under rubbish. Can dig several centimetres into soil to escape drought. Is a fungus specialist. Unlike the Garden Snail, does not eat green plants. It is generally active at night. Little is known of its biology, including breeding biology. It is known to be hermaphroditic, laying clutches of 20-25 small, round, white eggs in moist, dark areas (such as under logs), with the eggs taking 2-3 weeks to hatch. There is a suggestion that the species breeds throughout the year when conditions are suitable. The Cumberland Plains Woodland Snail (Meridolum corneovirens) has been detected in the hills and valley areas in western Sydney. The following items were examined for the presence of snails: 3 small bricks, 1 piece of carpet, 28 sandstone rocks, 2 small logs, 4 small log billet, 6 large log billets, 8 pieces of bark on ground. Despite all of these searches, there was no evidence for the snail occurring on the property. (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. The proposal will not have any adverse effect on the life cycle of this species because the species is not found on this property and is therefore most unlikely to be placed at the risk of extinction by this proposal. (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 The entity under review is a species and not an endangered population so this part is not relevant. (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 the risk of extinction, or (ii) is likely to be substantially and adversely modify the composition of the ecological community such that its local occurrence is likely to be placed at the risk of extinction The entity under review is a species and not an ecological community so these sections are not relevant. (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 and a result of the action proposed, and (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 T.J. Hawkeswood Scientific Consulting

Page 60


(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 (i) Very little habitat will be removed or modified as a result of this proposal. (ii) No area of habitat will become fragmented as part of the proposal. (iii) The habitat to be removed is not important as the trees are mostly poor in health through termites, beetle borers and other factors. (e) Whether the action proposed is likely to have an adverse effect on critical habitat (either directly or indirectly) No critical habitat is listed for this species. (f) Whether the action proposed is consistent with the objectives or actions of a recovery plan or threat abatement plan Recovery plans have been produced for this species by the NSW Government. The proposal would be consistent with the objectives or actions of a recovery plan or threat abatement plan for this species since it will not be affected by the proposal (does not occur anywhere on the property). (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 No action on the subject property constitutes a key threatening process for this species. B. Varanus rosenbergi (Varanidae) Rosenberg’s Goanna reaches up to 1.5 metres in length. It is dark grey above, finely spotted with yellow or white, and with paired, blackish cross-bands from the neck to the end of the tail. The pairs of narrow, regular bands around the entire length of the tail is a distinguishing feature, separating it from the more common Lace Monitor V. varius, which has very wide, light and dark bands towards the tip of the tail. Rosenberg’s Goanna also has distinct, finely barred “lips”, whereas the Lace Monitor has far broader bands around the snout. A pale-edged black stripe runs from the eyes, across the ears and onto the neck. Juveniles are brighter in colour, having an orange wash on the sides of the face and body. Rosenberg's Goanna occurs on the Sydney Sandstone in Wollemi National Park to the north-west of Sydney, in the Goulburn and ACT regions and near Cooma in the south. There are records from the South West Slopes near Khancoban and Tooma River. Also occurs in South Australia and Western Australia. Found in heath, open forest and woodland. Associated with termites, the mounds of which this species nests in; termite mounds are a critical habitat component. Individuals require large areas of habitat. Feeds on carrion, birds, eggs, reptiles and small mammals. Shelters in hollow logs, rock crevices and in burrows, which they may dig for themselves, or they may use other species' burrows, such as rabbit warrens. Runs along the ground when pursued (as opposed to the Lace Monitor, which climbs trees). Lays up to 14 eggs in a termite mound; the hatchlings dig themselves out of the mounds. Generally slow moving; on the tablelands likely only to be seen on the hottest days.


Page 61


(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. The proposal will not have any adverse effect on the life cycle of this species because the species is not found on this property and is therefore most unlikely to be placed at the risk of extinction by this proposal. The species prefers dense heath on rocky sandstone areas and there are no suitable habitat conditions for this species on the property. (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 The entity under review is a species and not an endangered population so this part is not relevant. (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 the risk of extinction, or (ii) is likely to be substantially and adversely modify the composition of the ecological community such that its local occurrence is likely to be placed at the risk of extinction The entity under review is a species and not an ecological community so these sections are not relevant. (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 and a result of the action proposed, and (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 (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 (i) Very little habitat will be removed or modified as a result of this proposal. (ii) No area of habitat will become fragmented as part of the proposal. (iii) The habitat to be removed is not important as the trees are mostly poor in health through termites, beetle borers and other factors. (e) Whether the action proposed is likely to have an adverse effect on critical habitat (either directly or indirectly) No critical habitat is listed for this species.


Page 62


(f) Whether the action proposed is consistent with the objectives or actions of a recovery plan or threat abatement plan Recovery plans have been produced for this species by the NSW Government. The proposal would be consistent with the objectives or actions of a recovery plan or threat abatement plan for this species since it will not be affected by the proposal (does not occur anywhere on the property). (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 No action on the subject property constitutes a key threatening process for this species. C. Hoplocephalus bungaroides (Elapidae) The Broad-headed Snake is generally black above with yellow spots forming narrow, irregular cross-bands. Other yellow scales may link these cross-bands laterally to form a straight or zigzagged stripe along the body. These cross-bands help distinguish it from the similar-looking but harmless juvenile Diamond Python. Its head is flattened on top and distinct from the body. The belly is grey or greyish-black. The average length is about 60 cm, with a maximum of around 150 cm.The Broad-headed Snake is largely confined to Triassic and Permian sandstones, including the Hawkesbury, Narrabeen and Shoalhaven groups, within the coast and ranges in an area within approximately 250 km of Sydney. Nocturnal. Shelters in rock crevices and under flat sandstone rocks on exposed cliff edges during autumn, winter and spring. Moves from the sandstone rocks to shelters in crevices or hollows in large trees within 500m of escarpments in summer. Feeds mostly on geckos and small skinks; will also eat frogs and small mammals occasionally. Females produce four to 12 live young from January to March, which is a relatively low level of fecundity. (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. The proposal will not have any adverse effect on the life cycle of this species because the species is not found on this property and is therefore most unlikely to be placed at the risk of extinction by this proposal. The species prefers dense heath on rocky sandstone areas and there are no suitable habitat conditions for this species on the property. (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 The entity under review is a species and not an endangered population so this part is not relevant. (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 the risk of extinction, or T.J. Hawkeswood Scientific Consulting

Page 63


(ii) is likely to be substantially and adversely modify the composition of the ecological community such that its local occurrence is likely to be placed at the risk of extinction The entity under review is a species and not an ecological community so these sections are not relevant. (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 and a result of the action proposed, and (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 (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 (i) Very little habitat will be removed or modified as a result of this proposal. (ii) No area of habitat will become fragmented as part of the proposal. (iii) The habitat to be removed is not important as the trees are mostly poor in health through termites, beetle borers and other factors. (e) Whether the action proposed is likely to have an adverse effect on critical habitat (either directly or indirectly) No critical habitat is listed for this species. (f) Whether the action proposed is consistent with the objectives or actions of a recovery plan or threat abatement plan Recovery plans have been produced for this species by the NSW Government. The proposal would be consistent with the objectives or actions of a recovery plan or threat abatement plan for this species since it will not be affected by the proposal (does not occur anywhere on the property). (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 No action on the subject property constitutes a key threatening process for this species. D. Pseudophryne australis (Myobatrachidae) The Red-crowned Toadlet is an unmistakable small frog, usually measuring less than 30 mm long. It is dark brown to black, with distinctive reddish-orange patches, one between the eyes and one along the rump. It also has a white patch at the base of each arm. The belly is marbled black and white. The tadpoles are black and reach about 25 mm. The short, grating and "squelchy" call can be heard all year round. The Red-crowned Toadlet has a restricted distribution. It is confined to the Sydney Basin, from Pokolbin in the north, the Nowra area to the south, and west to Mt Victoria in the Blue Mountains. Occurs in T.J. Hawkeswood Scientific Consulting

Page 64


open forests, mostly on Hawkesbury and Narrabeen Sandstones.\Inhabits periodically wet drainage lines below sandstone ridges that often have shale lenses or cappings. Shelters under rocks and amongst masses of dense vegetation or thick piles of leaf litter. Breeding congregations occur in dense vegetation and debris beside ephemeral creeks and gutters. Red-crowned Toadlets have not been recorded breeding in waters that are even mildly polluted or with a pH outside the range 5.5 to 6.5. Eggs are laid in moist leaf litter, from where they are washed by heavy rain; a large proportion of the development of the tadpoles takes place in the egg. Disperses outside the breeding period, when they are found under rocks and logs on sandstone ridges and forage amongst leaf-litter. Redcrowned Toadlets are quite a localised species that appear to be largely restricted to the immediate vicinity of suitable breeding habitat. Red-crowned Toadlets are usually found as small colonies scattered along ridges coinciding with the positions of suitable refuges near breeding sites. Due to this tendency for discrete populations to concentrate at particular sites, a relatively small localised disturbance may have a significant impact on a local population if it occurs on a favoured breeding or refuge 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. The proposal will not have any adverse effect on the life cycle of this species because the species is not found on this property and is therefore most unlikely to be placed at the risk of extinction by this proposal. The species prefers rocky sandstone areas which are often wet and there are no suitable sandstone outcrops for this species on the property because they are too dry. (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 The entity under review is a species and not an endangered population so this part is not relevant. (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 the risk of extinction, or (ii) is likely to be substantially and adversely modify the composition of the ecological community such that its local occurrence is likely to be placed at the risk of extinction The entity under review is a species and not an ecological community so these sections are not relevant. (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 and a result of the action proposed, and T.J. Hawkeswood Scientific Consulting

Page 65


(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 (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 (i) Very little habitat will be removed or modified as a result of this proposal. (ii) No area of habitat will become fragmented as part of the proposal. (iii) The habitat to be removed is not important as the trees are mostly poor in health through termites, beetle borers and other factors. (e) Whether the action proposed is likely to have an adverse effect on critical habitat (either directly or indirectly) No critical habitat is listed for this species. (f) Whether the action proposed is consistent with the objectives or actions of a recovery plan or threat abatement plan Recovery plans have been produced for this species by the NSW Government. The proposal would be consistent with the objectives or actions of a recovery plan or threat abatement plan for this species since it will not be affected by the proposal (does not occur anywhere on the property). (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 No action on the subject property constitutes a key threatening process for this species. E. Heleioporus australiacus (Myobatrachidae) The Giant Burrowing Frog is a large, rotund, slow-moving frog that grows to about 10 cm long. It is a powerfully built species with muscular hind limbs and enlarged tubercles on the feet well suited to burrowing. Adult males have enlarged forearms, with a large conical black spine and several small spines on their first finger. Females have reduced armmusculature compared to males. Colouration tends to vary from a steely blue grey to black on the limbs and upper body but paler on the sides. The belly is white sometimes with a varying wash of bluish grey or brown. The body surface is granular to the touch and adorned with numerous warts. Along the flanks some of the warts are creamy white to canary yellow. It has prominent, large eyes with a vertically elliptical pupil and silvery iris. Males call from within or adjacent to breeding sites with a low pitched and plaintiff owl-like oop oop oop oop in rapid succession. Tadpoles are large (up to 75 mm) and very dark blue to black. The blue/grey ventral surface of the tadpoles allows them to be readily distinguished from tadpoles of other species by an experienced observer. The Giant Burrowing Frog is distributed in south eastern NSW and Victoria, and appears to exist as two distinct populations: a northern population largely confined to the sandstone geology of the Sydney Basin and extending as far south as Ulladulla, and a southern population occurring from north of Narooma through to Walhalla, Victoria. Found in heath, woodland and open dry sclerophyll forest on a variety of soil types except those that are clay based.Spends more than 95% of its time in non-breeding habitat in areas up to 300 m from breeding sites. Whilst in non-breeding habitat it burrows below the soil surface or in T.J. Hawkeswood Scientific Consulting

Page 66


the leaf litter. Individual frogs occupy a series of burrow sites, some of which are used repeatedly. The home ranges of both sexes appear to be non-overlapping suggesting exclusivity of non-breeding habitat. Home ranges are approximately 0.04 ha in size. Individuals move into the breeding site either immediately before or following heavy rain and occupy these sites for up to 10 days. Most individuals will not attempt to breed every year The Giant Burrowing Frog has a generalist diet and studies to date indicate that they eat mainly invertebrates including ants, beetles, cockroaches, spiders, centipedes and scorpions.When breeding, frogs will call from open spaces, under vegetation or rocks or from within burrows in the creek bank. Males show strong territoriality at breeding sites. This species breeds mainly in autumn, but has been recorded calling throughout the year. Egg masses are foamy with an average of approximately 500-800 eggs and are laid in burrows or under vegetation in small pools. After rains, tadpoles are washed into larger pools where they complete their development in ponds or ponded areas of the creekline. Tadpole development ranges from around 12 weeks duration to up to 12 months with late developing tadpoles overwintering and completing development when warmer temperatures return. Breeding habitat of this species is generally soaks or pools within first or second order streams. They are also commonly recorded from 'hanging swamp' seepage lines and where small pools form from the collected water. This frog is a slow growing and long-lived species, living up to 10 years of age, possibly longer. 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. The proposal will not have any adverse effect on the life cycle of this species because the species is not found on this property and is therefore most unlikely to be placed at the risk of extinction by this proposal. The species prefers hanging swamps on sandstone benches and there are no suitable habitat conditions for this species on the property. (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 The entity under review is a species and not an endangered population so this part is not relevant. (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 the risk of extinction, or (ii) is likely to be substantially and adversely modify the composition of the ecological community such that its local occurrence is likely to be placed at the risk of extinction The entity under review is a species and not an ecological community so these sections are not relevant. (d) In relation to the habitat of a threatened species, population or ecological community: T.J. Hawkeswood Scientific Consulting

Page 67


(i) the extent to which habitat is likely to be removed or modified and a result of the action proposed, and (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 (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 (i) Very little habitat will be removed or modified as a result of this proposal. (ii) No area of habitat will become fragmented as part of the proposal. (iii) The habitat to be removed is not important as the trees are mostly poor in health through termites, beetle borers and other factors. (e) Whether the action proposed is likely to have an adverse effect on critical habitat (either directly or indirectly) No critical habitat is listed for this species. (f) Whether the action proposed is consistent with the objectives or actions of a recovery plan or threat abatement plan Recovery plans have been produced for this species by the NSW Government. The proposal would be consistent with the objectives or actions of a recovery plan or threat abatement plan for this species since it will not be affected by the proposal (does not occur anywhere on the property). (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 No action on the subject property constitutes a key threatening process for this species. F. Pteradroma leucoptera (Procellariidae) This species has a body length of 30 cm and a wingspan of 75 cm. The upper surface of their long narrow wings has a distinctive 'M' pattern. This together with a darker head, distinguishes them from other petrels of similar size. The underside of the wings and body are white with a dark edge to the wing that terminates in a diagonal bar. Both sexes are identical and immature birds fledge in adult plumage. Breeds on both Cabbage Tree Island, 1.4 km offshore from Port Stephens and on nearby Boondelbah island. The range and feeding areas of non-breeding petrels are unknown.The first arrival of Gould's petrel on cabbage tree Island occurs from mid to late September.Principal nesting habitat is located within two gullies which are characterised by steeply, sloping rock scree with a canopy of Cabbage Tree Palms.They nest predominantly in natural rock crevices among the rock scree and also in hollow fallen palm trunks, under mats of fallen palm fronds and in cavities among the buttresses of fig trees.They breed colonially and the nests are clumped and often less than 1 m apart. Egg laying takes place over a six week period commencing in early November Given the coastal distribution of this species records from the Hawkesbury Region would appear to be rather dubious.


Page 68


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. The proposal will not have any adverse effect on the life cycle of this species because the species is not found on this property and is therefore most unlikely to be placed at the risk of extinction by this proposal. The species prefers rocky coastlines and there are no such habitats for this species on the property. (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 The entity under review is a species and not an endangered population so this part is not relevant. (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 the risk of extinction, or (ii) is likely to be substantially and adversely modify the composition of the ecological community such that its local occurrence is likely to be placed at the risk of extinction The entity under review is a species and not an ecological community so these sections are not relevant. (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 and a result of the action proposed, and (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 (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 (i) Very little habitat will be removed or modified as a result of this proposal. (ii) No area of habitat will become fragmented as part of the proposal. (iii) The habitat to be removed is not important as the trees are mostly poor in health through termites, beetle borers and other factors. (e) Whether the action proposed is likely to have an adverse effect on critical habitat (either directly or indirectly) No critical habitat is listed for this species.


Page 69


(f) Whether the action proposed is consistent with the objectives or actions of a recovery plan or threat abatement plan Recovery plans have been produced for this species by the NSW Government. The proposal would be consistent with the objectives or actions of a recovery plan or threat abatement plan for this species since it will not be affected by the proposal (does not occur anywhere on the property). (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 No action on the subject property constitutes a key threatening process for this species. G. Botaurus policiloptilus (Ardeidae) The Australasian Bittern is a large, stocky bird, reaching up to 75 cm in length. It has a long, thick neck and a straight, brownish-yellow bill. Its upper surface is mottled brown and its undersurface is buff, with dark brown stripes, except for a pale throat. The eyes are yellow and there is a pale eyebrow. The feet and legs are pale green. Australasian Bitterns are widespread but uncommon over south-eastern Australia. In NSW they may be found over most of the state except for the far north-west. Favours permanent freshwater wetlands with tall, dense vegetation, particularly bullrushes (Typha spp.) and spikerushes (Elaeocharis spp.). Hides during the day amongst dense reeds or rushes and feed mainly at night on frogs, fish, yabbies, spiders, insects and snails. Feeding platforms may be constructed over deeper water from reeds trampled by the bird; platforms are often littered with prey remains. Breeding occurs in summer from October to January; nests are built in secluded places in densely-vegetated wetlands on a platform of reeds; there are usually six olive-brown eggs to a clutch. 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. The proposal will not have any adverse effect on the life cycle of this species because the species is not found on this property and is therefore most unlikely to be placed at the risk of extinction by this proposal. There are no permanent freshwater wetlands on the property. (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 The entity under review is a species and not an endangered population so this part is not relevant. (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 the risk of extinction, or T.J. Hawkeswood Scientific Consulting

Page 70


(ii) is likely to be substantially and adversely modify the composition of the ecological community such that its local occurrence is likely to be placed at the risk of extinction The entity under review is a species and not an ecological community so these sections are not relevant. (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 and a result of the action proposed, and (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 (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 (i) Very little habitat will be removed or modified as a result of this proposal. (ii) No area of habitat will become fragmented as part of the proposal. (iii) The habitat to be removed is not important as the trees are mostly poor in health through termites, beetle borers and other factors. (e) Whether the action proposed is likely to have an adverse effect on critical habitat (either directly or indirectly) No critical habitat is listed for this species. (f) Whether the action proposed is consistent with the objectives or actions of a recovery plan or threat abatement plan Recovery plans have been produced for this species by the NSW Government. The proposal would be consistent with the objectives or actions of a recovery plan or threat abatement plan for this species since it will not be affected by the proposal (does not occur anywhere on the property). (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 No action on the subject property constitutes a key threatening process for this species. H. Ixobrychus flavicollis (Ardeidae) The Black Bittern is a heron, dark grey to black in colour, with buff streaks on the throat and a characteristic yellow streak on the sides of the head and down the neck. The female is paler than the male, with a more yellow wash on the underparts. The species has a characteristic booming call that is mainly heard during the breeding season, at day or night. The colour alone readily distinguishes it from the other two much paler bittern species.The Black Bittern has a wide distribution, from southern NSW north to Cape York and along the north coast to the Kimberley region. The species also occurs in the southT.J. Hawkeswood Scientific Consulting

Page 71


west of Western Australia. In NSW, records of the species are scattered along the east coast, with individuals rarely being recorded south of Sydney or inland. Inhabits both terrestrial and estuarine wetlands, generally in areas of permanent water and dense vegetation. Where permanent water is present, the species may occur in flooded grassland, forest, woodland, rainforest and mangroves. Feeds on frogs, reptiles, fish and invertebrates, including snails, dragonflies, shrimps and crayfish, with most feeding done at dusk and at night. During the day, roosts in trees or on the ground amongst dense reeds. When disturbed, freezes in a characteristic bittern posture (stretched tall, bill pointing up, so that shape and streaked pattern blend with upright stems of reeds), or will fly up to a branch or flush for cover where it will freeze again. Generally solitary, but occurs in pairs during the breeding season, from December to March. Like other bitterns, but unlike most herons, nesting is solitary. Nests, built in spring are located on a branch overhanging water and consist of a bed of sticks and reeds on a base of larger sticks. Between three and five eggs are laid and both parents incubate and rear the young 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. The proposal will not have any adverse effect on the life cycle of this species because the species is not found on this property and is therefore most unlikely to be placed at the risk of extinction by this proposal. There are no permanent freshwater wetlands on the property. (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 The entity under review is a species and not an endangered population so this part is not relevant. (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 the risk of extinction, or (ii) is likely to be substantially and adversely modify the composition of the ecological community such that its local occurrence is likely to be placed at the risk of extinction The entity under review is a species and not an ecological community so these sections are not relevant. (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 and a result of the action proposed, and (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 T.J. Hawkeswood Scientific Consulting

Page 72


(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 (i) Very little habitat will be removed or modified as a result of this proposal. (ii) No area of habitat will become fragmented as part of the proposal. (iii) The habitat to be removed is not important as the trees are mostly poor in health through termites, beetle borers and other factors. (e) Whether the action proposed is likely to have an adverse effect on critical habitat (either directly or indirectly) No critical habitat is listed for this species. (f) Whether the action proposed is consistent with the objectives or actions of a recovery plan or threat abatement plan Recovery plans have been produced for this species by the NSW Government. The proposal would be consistent with the objectives or actions of a recovery plan or threat abatement plan for this species since it will not be affected by the proposal (does not occur anywhere on the property). (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 No action on the subject property constitutes a key threatening process for this species. I. Pandion cristatus (Accipitridae) The Eastern Osprey is a large, water-dependent bird of prey, distinctive in flight and when perched. Despite its wing-span of up to 1.7 m, it is noticeably smaller than the Whitebellied Sea-eagle. In flight it can be recognized by its distinctly bowed wings that are dark brown above, and barred underneath, and with white underwing coverts. Perched, the upperparts are dark brown and the underparts are white. The female has a dark streaky collar. The head is mainly white with a blackish stripe through the eye. The Osprey has a global distribution with four subspecies previously recognized throughout its range. However, recent studies have identified that there are two species of Osprey - the Western Osprey (P. halietus) with three susbpecies occurring in Europe, Asia and the Americas and the Eastern Osprey (P. cristatus) occurring between Sulawesi (in Indonesia), Australia and New Caledonia. Eastern Ospreys are found right around the Australian coast line, except for Victoria and Tasmania. They are common around the northern coast, especially on rocky shorelines, islands and reefs. The species is uncommon to rare or absent from closely settled parts of south-eastern Australia. There are a handful of records from inland areas. Favour coastal areas, especially the mouths of large rivers, lagoons and lakes. Feed on fish over clear, open water. Breed from July to September in NSW. Nests are made high up in dead trees or in dead crowns of live trees, usually within one kilometre of the sea. . Incubation of 2-3 eggs, usually by the female, is about 40 days. Female remains with young almost until they fly, usually after about nine weeks in the nest. 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. T.J. Hawkeswood Scientific Consulting

Page 73


The proposal will not have any adverse effect on the life cycle of this species because the species is not found on this property and its occurrence there would be extremely rare in any case and is therefore most unlikely to be placed at the risk of extinction by this proposal. (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 The entity under review is a species and not an endangered population so this part is not relevant. (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 the risk of extinction, or (ii) is likely to be substantially and adversely modify the composition of the ecological community such that its local occurrence is likely to be placed at the risk of extinction The entity under review is a species and not an ecological community so these sections are not relevant. (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 and a result of the action proposed, and (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 (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 (i) Very little habitat will be removed or modified as a result of this proposal. (ii) No area of habitat will become fragmented as part of the proposal. (iii) The habitat to be removed is not important as the trees are mostly poor in health through termites, beetle borers and other factors. (e) Whether the action proposed is likely to have an adverse effect on critical habitat (either directly or indirectly) No critical habitat is listed for this species. (f) Whether the action proposed is consistent with the objectives or actions of a recovery plan or threat abatement plan Recovery plans have been produced for this species by the NSW Government. The proposal would be consistent with the objectives or actions of a recovery plan or threat T.J. Hawkeswood Scientific Consulting

Page 74


abatement plan for this species since it will not be affected by the proposal (does not occur anywhere on the property). (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 No action on the subject property constitutes a key threatening process for this species. J. Xanthomyza phrygia (Meliphagidae) The Regent Honeyeater is a striking and distinctive, medium-sized, black and yellow honeyeater with a sturdy, curved bill. Adults weigh 35 - 50 grams, are 20 - 24 cm long and have a wings-pan of 30 cm. Its head, neck, throat, upper breast and bill are black and the back and lower breast are pale lemon in colour with a black scalloped pattern. Its flight and tail feathers are edged with bright yellow. There is a characteristic patch of dark pink or cream-coloured facial-skin around the eye. Sexes are similar, though males are larger, darker and have larger patch of bare facial-skin. The call is a soft metallic bell-like song; birds are most vocal in non-breeding season. It has recently been placed in the genus Anthochaera along with the wattlebirds, and was formerly known by the name Xanthomyza phrygia. The Regent Honeyeater mainly inhabits temperate woodlands and open forests of the inland slopes of south-east Australia. Birds are also found in drier coastal woodlands and forests in some years. Once recorded between Adelaide and the central coast of Queensland, its range has contracted dramatically in the last 30 years to between northeastern Victoria and south-eastern Queensland. There are only three known key breeding regions remaining: north-east Victoria (Chiltern-Albury), and in NSW at Capertee Valley and the Bundarra-Barraba region. In NSW the distribution is very patchy and mainly confined to the two main breeding areas and surrounding fragmented woodlands. In some years flocks converge on flowering coastal woodlands and forests.The Regent Honeyeater is a flagship threatened woodland bird whose conservation will benefit a large suite of other threatened and declining woodland fauna. The species inhabits dry open forest and woodland, particularly Box-Ironbark woodland, and riparian forests of River Sheoak. Regent Honeyeaters inhabit woodlands that support a significantly high abundance and species richness of bird species. These woodlands have significantly large numbers of mature trees, high canopy cover and abundance of mistletoes.Every few years nonbreeding flocks are seen foraging in flowering coastal Swamp Mahogany and Spotted Gum forests, particularly on the central coast and occasionally on the upper north coast. Birds are occasionally seen on the south coast.In the last 10 years Regent Honeyeaters have been recorded in urban areas around Albury where woodlands tree species such as Mugga Ironbark and Yellow Box were planted 20 years ago.The Regent Honeyeater is a generalist forager, which mainly feeds on the nectar from a wide range of eucalypts and mistletoes. Key eucalypt species include Mugga Ironbark, Yellow Box, Blakely's Red Gum, White Box and Swamp Mahogany. Also utilises: Eucalyptus microcarpa, E. punctata, E. polyanthemos, E. moluccana, Corymbia robusta, E. crebra, E. caleyi, C. maculata, E.mckieana, E. macrorhyncha, E. laevopinea, and Angophora floribunda. Nectar and fruit from the mistletoes Amyema miquelii, A. pendula and A. cambagei are also eaten during the breeding season. When nectar is scarce lerp and honeydew comprise a large proportion of the diet. Insects make up about 15% of the total diet and are important components of the diet of nestlings. A shrubby understorey is an important source of insects and nesting material. Colour-banding of Regent Honeyeater has shown that the species can undertake large-scale nomadic movements in the order of hundreds of kilometres. However, the exact nature of these movements is still poorly understood. It is T.J. Hawkeswood Scientific Consulting

Page 75


likely that movements are dependent on spatial and temporal flowering and other resource patterns. To successfully manage the recovery of this species a full understanding of the habitats used in the non-breeding season is critical. There are three known key breeding areas, two of them in NSW - Capertee Valley and Bundarra-Barraba regions. The species breeds between July and January in Box-Ironbark and other temperate woodlands and riparian gallery forest dominated by River Sheoak. Regent Honeyeaters usually nest in horizontal branches or forks in tall mature eucalypts and Sheoaks. Also nest in mistletoe haustoria. An open cup-shaped nest is constructed of bark, grass, twigs and wool by the female. Two or three eggs are laid and incubated by the female for 14 days. Nestlings are brooded and fed by both parents at an average rate of 23 times per hour and fledge after 16 days. Fledglings fed by both parents 29 times per hour. 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. The proposal will not have any adverse effect on the life cycle of this species because the species is not found on this property and its occurrence there would be extremely rare in any case and is therefore most unlikely to be placed at the risk of extinction by this proposal. (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 The entity under review is a species and not an endangered population so this part is not relevant. (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 the risk of extinction, or (ii) is likely to be substantially and adversely modify the composition of the ecological community such that its local occurrence is likely to be placed at the risk of extinction The entity under review is a species and not an ecological community so these sections are not relevant. (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 and a result of the action proposed, and (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


Page 76


(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 (i) Very little habitat will be removed or modified as a result of this proposal. (ii) No area of habitat will become fragmented as part of the proposal. (iii) The habitat to be removed is not important as the trees are mostly poor in health through termites, beetle borers and other factors. (e) Whether the action proposed is likely to have an adverse effect on critical habitat (either directly or indirectly) No critical habitat is listed for this species. (f) Whether the action proposed is consistent with the objectives or actions of a recovery plan or threat abatement plan Recovery plans have been produced for this species by the NSW Government. The proposal would be consistent with the objectives or actions of a recovery plan or threat abatement plan for this species since it will not be affected by the proposal (does not occur anywhere on the property). (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 No action on the subject property constitutes a key threatening process for this species. K. Melithreptus gularis gularis (Meliphagidae) The Black-chinned Honeyeater is the largest of its genus, reaching 17 cm in length. The cap is black, with a white crescent around the nape, and there is a diagnostic black 'chin' beneath the bill and extending down the white throat (though this can be difficult to see in the field). There is a small crescent of blue skin above the eye. The back and wings are a dull olive-green and the tail is greyish-brown. The underparts are white, with a greyish-buff tint on the breast. The bill is short, black and slightly downcurved. The call is a ringing, bubbling trill, repeated several times. A combination of larger size, black chin, bright blue eye crescent and call distinguishes this from similar species, such as the White-naped (Melithreptus lunatus) and White-throated (M. lunatus) Honeyeaters. The Black-chinned Honeyeater has two subspecies, with only the nominate (gularis) occurring in NSW. The other subspecies (laetior) was formerly considered a separate species (Golden-backed Honeyeater) and is found in northern Australia between central Queensland west to the Pilbara in Western Australia. The eastern subspecies extends south from central Queensland, through NSW, Victoria into south eastern South Australia, though it is very rare in the last state. In NSW it is widespread, with records from the tablelands and western slopes of the Great Dividing Range to the north-west and centralwest plains and the Riverina. It is rarely recorded east of the Great Dividing Range, although regularly observed from the Richmond and Clarence River areas. It has also been recorded at a few scattered sites in the Hunter, Central Coast and Illawarra regions, though it is very rare in the latter. Occupies mostly upper levels of drier open forests or woodlands dominated by box and ironbark eucalypts, especially Mugga Ironbark T.J. Hawkeswood Scientific Consulting

Page 77


(Eucalyptus sideroxylon), White Box (E. albens), Inland Grey Box (E. microcarpa), Yellow Box (E. melliodora), Blakely's Red Gum (E. blakelyi) and Forest Red Gum (E. tereticornis). Also inhabits open forests of smooth-barked gums, stringybarks, ironbarks, river sheoaks (nesting habitat) and tea-trees. A gregarious species usually seen in pairs and small groups of up to 12 birds. Feeding territories are large making the species locally nomadic. Recent studies have found that the Black-chinned Honeyeater tends to occur in the largest woodland patches in the landscape as birds forage over large home ranges of at least 5 hectares. Moves quickly from tree to tree, foraging rapidly along outer twigs, underside of branches and trunks, probing for insects. Nectar is taken from flowers, and honeydew is gleaned from foliage. Breeds solitarily or co-operatively, with up to five or six adults, from June to December. The nest is placed high in the crown of a tree, in the uppermost lateral branches, hidden by foliage. It is a compact, suspended, cup-shaped nest. Two or three eggs are laid and both parents and occasionally helpers feed the young. 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. The proposal will not have any adverse effect on the life cycle of this species because the species is not found on this property and its occurrence there would be extremely rare in any case and is therefore most unlikely to be placed at the risk of extinction by this proposal. (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 The entity under review is a species and not an endangered population so this part is not relevant. (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 the risk of extinction, or (ii) is likely to be substantially and adversely modify the composition of the ecological community such that its local occurrence is likely to be placed at the risk of extinction The entity under review is a species and not an ecological community so these sections are not relevant. (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 and a result of the action proposed, and (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 T.J. Hawkeswood Scientific Consulting

Page 78


(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 (i) Very little habitat will be removed or modified as a result of this proposal. (ii) No area of habitat will become fragmented as part of the proposal. (iii) The habitat to be removed is not important as the trees are mostly poor in health through termites, beetle borers and other factors. (e) Whether the action proposed is likely to have an adverse effect on critical habitat (either directly or indirectly) No critical habitat is listed for this species. (f) Whether the action proposed is consistent with the objectives or actions of a recovery plan or threat abatement plan Recovery plans have been produced for this species by the NSW Government. The proposal would be consistent with the objectives or actions of a recovery plan or threat abatement plan for this species since it will not be affected by the proposal (does not occur anywhere on the property). (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 No action on the subject property constitutes a key threatening process for this species. L. Climacteris picumnus victoriae (Climacteridae) The Brown Treecreeper, Australia’s largest treecreeper, is a grey-brown bird with black streaking on the lower breast and belly and black bars on the undertail. Pale buff bands across the flight feathers are obvious in flight. The face is pale, with a dark line through the eye, and a dark crown. Sexes differ slightly in all plumages, with small patches of black and white streaking on the centre of the uppermost breast on males, while the females exhibit a rufous and white streaking. Juveniles differ from adults mainly by the pattern of the under-body, and by their a pale bill and gape. Subspecies victoriae is distinguished from subspecies picumnus by colour differences on the face, body and tail markings. The two subspecies grade into each other through central NSW. Individuals are active, noisy and conspicuous, and give a loud ‘pink’ call, often repeated in contact, and sometimes given in a series of 5 - 10 descending notes. Breeds from July to Feb across its range. The Brown Treecreeper is endemic to eastern Australia and occurs in eucalypt forests and woodlands of inland plains and slopes of the Great Dividing Range. It is less commonly found on coastal plains and ranges.The western boundary of the range of Climacteris picumnus victoriae runs approximately through Corowa, Wagga Wagga, Temora, Forbes, Dubbo and Inverell and along this line the subspecies intergrades with the arid zone subspecies of Brown Treecreeper Climacteris picumnus picumnus which then occupies the remaining parts of the state.The eastern subspecies lives in eastern NSW in eucalypt woodlands through central NSW and in coastal areas with drier open woodlands such as the Snowy River Valley, Cumberland Plains, Hunter Valley and parts of the Richmond and Clarence Valleys.The population density of this subspecies has been greatly reduced over much of its range, with major declines recorded in central NSW and the northern and southern tablelands. Declines have occurred in remnant vegetation fragments smaller than T.J. Hawkeswood Scientific Consulting

Page 79


300 hectares, that have been isolated or fragmented for more than 50 years. Found in eucalypt woodlands (including Box-Gum Woodland) and dry open forest of the inland slopes and plains inland of the Great Dividing Range; mainly inhabits woodlands dominated by stringybarks or other rough-barked eucalypts, usually with an open grassy understorey, sometimes with one or more shrub species; also found in mallee and River Red Gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis) Forest bordering wetlands with an open understorey of acacias, saltbush, lignum, cumbungi and grasses; usually not found in woodlands with a dense shrub layer; fallen timber is an important habitat component for foraging; also recorded, though less commonly, in similar woodland habitats on the coastal ranges and plains. Sedentary, considered to be resident in many locations throughout its range; present in all seasons or year-round at many sites; territorial year-round, though some birds may disperse locally after breeding. Gregarious and usually observed in pairs or small groups of 8 to 12 birds; terrestrial and arboreal in about equal proportions; active, noisy and conspicuous while foraging on trunks and branches of trees and amongst fallen timber; spend much more time foraging on the ground and fallen logs than other treecreepers. When foraging in trees and on the ground, they peck and probe for insects, mostly ants, amongst the litter, tussocks and fallen timber, and along trunks and lateral branches; up to 80% of the diet is comprised of ants; other invertebrates (including spiders, insects larvae, moths, beetles, flies, hemipteran bugs, cockroaches, termites and lacewings) make up the remaining percentage; nectar from Mugga Ironbark (Eucalyptus sideroxylon) and paperbarks, and sap from an unidentified eucalypt are also eaten, along with lizards and food scraps; young birds are fed ants, insect larvae, moths, craneflies, spiders and butterfly and moth larvae. Hollows in standing dead or live trees and tree stumps are essential for nesting. The species breeds in pairs or co-operatively in territories which range in size from 1.1 to 10.7 ha (mean = 4.4 ha). Each group is composed of a breeding pair with retained male offspring and, rarely, retained female offspring. Often in pairs or cooperatively breeding groups of two to five birds. Of all of the endangered species considered in this report., this species would be the most likely to appear as there is some habitat remaining. 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. The proposal will not have any adverse effect on the life cycle of this species because the species is not found on this property and its occurrence there would be extremely rare in any case and is therefore most unlikely to be placed at the risk of extinction by this proposal. (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 The entity under review is a species and not an endangered population so this part is not relevant. (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 the risk of extinction, or T.J. Hawkeswood Scientific Consulting

Page 80


(ii) is likely to be substantially and adversely modify the composition of the ecological community such that its local occurrence is likely to be placed at the risk of extinction The entity under review is a species and not an ecological community so these sections are not relevant. (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 and a result of the action proposed, and (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 (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 (i) Very little habitat will be removed or modified as a result of this proposal. (ii) No area of habitat will become fragmented as part of the proposal. (iii) The habitat to be removed is not important as the trees are mostly poor in health through termites, beetle borers and other factors. (e) Whether the action proposed is likely to have an adverse effect on critical habitat (either directly or indirectly) No critical habitat is listed for this species. (f) Whether the action proposed is consistent with the objectives or actions of a recovery plan or threat abatement plan Recovery plans have been produced for this species by the NSW Government. The proposal would be consistent with the objectives or actions of a recovery plan or threat abatement plan for this species since it will not be affected by the proposal (does not occur anywhere on the property). (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 No action on the subject property constitutes a key threatening process for this species. M. Stagonopleura guttata (Fringillidae) The Diamond Firetail is a large (length 10 to 12 cm, weight 17 grams), striking finch with a bright red bill, and red eyes and rump. The white throat and lower breast are separated by a broad black breast-band that extends into the strongly white-spotted, black flanks. It has a grey back and head, and ashy-brown wings. The call is a plaintive, drawn-out, nasal ‘twoo-wheee’. Flight is low and direct, with slight undulations. Given good views it should not be confused with any other species. The Diamond Firetail is endemic to south-eastern Australia, extending from central Queensland to the Eyre Peninsula in South Australia. It is T.J. Hawkeswood Scientific Consulting

Page 81


widely distributed in NSW, with a concentration of records from the Northern, Central and Southern Tablelands, the Northern, Cental and South Western Slopes and the North West Plains and Riverina. Not commonly found in coastal districts, though there are records from near Sydney, the Hunter Valley and the Bega Valley. This species has a scattered distribution over the rest of NSW, though is very rare west of the Darling River. Found in grassy eucalypt woodlands, including Box-Gum Woodlands and Snow Gum Eucalyptus pauciflora Woodlands. Also occurs in open forest, mallee, Natural Temperate Grassland, and in secondary grassland derived from other communities. Often found in riparian areas (rivers and creeks), and sometimes in lightly wooded farmland. Feeds exclusively on the ground, on ripe and partly-ripe grass and herb seeds and green leaves, and on insects (especially in the breeding season). Usually encountered in flocks of between 5 to 40 birds, occasionally more. Groups separate into small colonies to breed, between August and January. Nests are globular structures built either in the shrubby understorey, or higher up, especially under hawk's or raven's nests. Birds roost in dense shrubs or in smaller nests built especially for roosting. Appears to be sedentary, though some populations move locally, especially those in the south. Has been recorded in some towns and near farm houses 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. The proposal will not have any adverse effect on the life cycle of this species because the species is not found on this property and its occurrence there would be extremely rare in any case and is therefore most unlikely to be placed at the risk of extinction by this proposal. (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 The entity under review is a species and not an endangered population so this part is not relevant. (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 the risk of extinction, or (ii) is likely to be substantially and adversely modify the composition of the ecological community such that its local occurrence is likely to be placed at the risk of extinction The entity under review is a species and not an ecological community so these sections are not relevant. (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 and a result of the action proposed, and T.J. Hawkeswood Scientific Consulting

Page 82


(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 (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 (i) Very little habitat will be removed or modified as a result of this proposal. (ii) No area of habitat will become fragmented as part of the proposal. (iii) The habitat to be removed is not important as the trees are mostly poor in health through termites, beetle borers and other factors. (e) Whether the action proposed is likely to have an adverse effect on critical habitat (either directly or indirectly) No critical habitat is listed for this species. (f) Whether the action proposed is consistent with the objectives or actions of a recovery plan or threat abatement plan Recovery plans have been produced for this species by the NSW Government. The proposal would be consistent with the objectives or actions of a recovery plan or threat abatement plan for this species since it will not be affected by the proposal (does not occur anywhere on the property). (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 No action on the subject property constitutes a key threatening process for this species. N. Pyrrholaemus sagittata (Pardalotidae) The Speckled Warbler is a small well-camouflaged very heavily streaked ground-dwelling bird related to the scrubwrens, reaching a length of 13cm. The back, wings and tail are grey-brown, with soft dark streaks. The black crown is distinctively streaked with buff. The underparts are pale and particularly heavily streaked. The face is off-white with streaking on the ear coverts. The male has a black upper margin to the brow, while the female has a rufous upper edge to the brow. The dark tail is held horizontally, although in flight the spread tail shows a wide black band above white tips of the outer tail feathers. The call is an undulating rich, trilled, warbling mix of clear sharp whistles and mellow notes. The alarm call is a harsh churring chatter. The Speckled Warbler has a patchy distribution throughout south-eastern Queensland, the eastern half of NSW and into Victoria, as far west as the Grampians. The species is most frequently reported from the hills and tablelands of the Great Dividing Range, and rarely from the coast. There has been a decline in population density throughout its range, with the decline exceeding 40% where no vegetation remnants larger than 100ha survive. The Speckled Warbler lives in a wide range of Eucalyptus dominated communities that have a grassy understorey, often on rocky ridges or in gullies. Typical habitat would include scattered native tussock grasses, a sparse shrub layer, some eucalypt regrowth and an open canopy. Large, relatively undisturbed remnants are required for the species to persist in an area. The diet consists of seeds and insects, with most foraging taking place on the ground around tussocks and under bushes and trees. Pairs are sedentary and occupy a breeding territory of about ten T.J. Hawkeswood Scientific Consulting

Page 83


hectares, with a slightly larger home-range when not breeding. The rounded, domed, roughly built nest of dry grass and strips of bark is located in a slight hollow in the ground or the base of a low dense plant, often among fallen branches and other litter. A side entrance allows the bird to walk directly inside. A clutch of 3-4 eggs is laid, between August and January, and both parents feed the nestlings. The eggs are a glossy red-brown, giving rise to the unusual folk names ‘Blood Tit’ and ‘Chocolatebird’. Some cooperative breeding occurs. The species may act as host to the Black-eared Cuckoo. Speckled Warblers often join mixed species feeding flocks in winter, with other species such as Yellow-rumped, Buff-rumped, Brown and Striated Thornbills. 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. The proposal will not have any adverse effect on the life cycle of this species because the species is not found on this property and its occurrence there would be extremely rare in any case and is therefore most unlikely to be placed at the risk of extinction by this proposal. (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 The entity under review is a species and not an endangered population so this part is not relevant. (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 the risk of extinction, or (ii) is likely to be substantially and adversely modify the composition of the ecological community such that its local occurrence is likely to be placed at the risk of extinction The entity under review is a species and not an ecological community so these sections are not relevant. (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 and a result of the action proposed, and (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 (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 T.J. Hawkeswood Scientific Consulting

Page 84


(i) Very little habitat will be removed or modified as a result of this proposal. (ii) No area of habitat will become fragmented as part of the proposal. (iii) The habitat to be removed is not important as the trees are mostly poor in health through termites, beetle borers and other factors. (e) Whether the action proposed is likely to have an adverse effect on critical habitat (either directly or indirectly) No critical habitat is listed for this species. (f) Whether the action proposed is consistent with the objectives or actions of a recovery plan or threat abatement plan Recovery plans have been produced for this species by the NSW Government. The proposal would be consistent with the objectives or actions of a recovery plan or threat abatement plan for this species since it will not be affected by the proposal (does not occur anywhere on the property). (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 No action on the subject property constitutes a key threatening process for this species. O. Limosa limosa (Scolopacidae) This species is a large sandpiper reaching 44 cm long, with a wingspan of 63 - 75 cm. It has a distinctive long, straight bill that is pink with a black tip. The wing has a white wingbar across the dark flight feathers, and white underwing coverts. There is a sharp demarcation between the white rump and the black tail. Legs are greenish-black, long and trailing. The non-breeding plumage, observed in Australia, is greyish-brown above and white below, and a grey breast. There is a broad white stripe on the underwing. The iris is brown. Most readily mistaken for the similar and more common Bar-tailed Godwits Limosa lapponica. Distinguishing features of the Black-tailed Godwit include the black tail in flight; longer, more pink, non-upturned bill; and non-streaked breast. Grey to rufous-chestnut coloured breeding plumage may be visible in some Australian birds just after arrival in spring, or prior to departure in autumn, and in some over-wintering birds. The Black-tailed Godwit is a migratory wading bird that breeds in Mongolia and Eastern Siberia and flies to Australia for the southern summer, arriving in August and leaving in March. In NSW, it is most frequently recorded at Kooragang Island (Hunter River estuary), with occasional records elsewhere along the coast, and inland. Records in western NSW indicate that a regular inland passage is used by the species, as it may occur around any of the large lakes in the western areas during summer, when the muddy shores are exposed. The species has been recorded within the Murray-Darling Basin, on the western slopes of the Northern Tablelands and in the far north-western corner of the state. Primarily a coastal species.Usually found in sheltered bays, estuaries and lagoons with large intertidal mudflats and/or sandflats. Further inland, it can also be found on mudflats and in water less than 10 cm deep, around muddy lakes and swamps. Individuals have been recorded in wet fields and sewerage treatment works. Forages for insects, crustaceans, molluscs, worms, larvae, spiders, fish eggs, frog eggs and tadpoles in soft mud or shallow water. Roosts and loafs on low banks of mud, sand and shell bars. Frequently recorded in mixed flocks with Bar-tailed Godwits. T.J. Hawkeswood Scientific Consulting

Page 85


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. The proposal will not have any adverse effect on the life cycle of this species because the species is not found on this property and its occurrence there would be extremely rare in any case and is therefore most unlikely to be placed at the risk of extinction by this proposal. Its preferred habitat is not found on the subject property in any case. (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 The entity under review is a species and not an endangered population so this part is not relevant. (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 the risk of extinction, or (ii) is likely to be substantially and adversely modify the composition of the ecological community such that its local occurrence is likely to be placed at the risk of extinction The entity under review is a species and not an ecological community so these sections are not relevant. (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 and a result of the action proposed, and (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 (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 (i) Very little habitat will be removed or modified as a result of this proposal. (ii) No area of habitat will become fragmented as part of the proposal. (iii) The habitat to be removed is not important as the trees are mostly poor in health through termites, beetle borers and other factors. (e) Whether the action proposed is likely to have an adverse effect on critical habitat (either directly or indirectly) No critical habitat is listed for this species.


Page 86


(f) Whether the action proposed is consistent with the objectives or actions of a recovery plan or threat abatement plan Recovery plans have been produced for this species by the NSW Government. The proposal would be consistent with the objectives or actions of a recovery plan or threat abatement plan for this species since it will not be affected by the proposal (does not occur anywhere on the property). (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 No action on the subject property constitutes a key threatening process for this species. P. Melanodryas cucullata cucullata (Petroicidae), Petroica boodang (Petroicidae) and Petroica phoenicia (Petroicidae) The Hooded Robin is a large Australian robin reaching 17 cm in length. The male is strikingly marked in black and white, with a bold black hood extending down a white breast. The back is black with distinct white shoulder and wing-bar. The tail is black, with prominent white side-panels. Females and immatures are duller, with light brownish-grey upperparts, but the same striking black and white wings. Flight is short and swiftly undulating. The call is a series of descending, fading, mellow notes. The adult male is unmistakable but the female and young males may be confused with other species, such as the Jacky Winter. Hooded Robins are distinguished by their larger size, distinctive white wing bar and different shaped tail markings ('hourglass' shaped). The Hooded Robin is widespread, found across Australia, except for the driest deserts and the wetter coastal areas - northern and eastern coastal Queensland and Tasmania. However, it is common in few places, and rarely found on the coast. It is considered a sedentary species, but local seasonal movements are possible. The south-eastern form (subspecies cucullata) is found from Brisbane to Adelaide and throughout much of inland NSW, with the exception of the extreme north-west, where it is replaced by subspecies picata. Two other subspecies occur outside NSW.Prefers lightly wooded country, usually open eucalypt woodland, acacia scrub and mallee, often in or near clearings or open areas.Requires structurally diverse habitats featuring mature eucalypts, saplings, some small shrubs and a ground layer of moderately tall native grasses. Often perches on low dead stumps and fallen timber or on low-hanging branches, using a perch-and-pounce method of hunting insect prey. Territories range from around 10 ha during the breeding season, to 30 ha in the nonbreeding season. May breed any time between July and November, often rearing several broods. The nest is a small, neat cup of bark and grasses bound with webs, in a tree fork or crevice, from less than 1 m to 5 m above the ground. The nest is defended by both sexes with displays of injury-feigning, tumbling across the ground. A clutch of two to three is laid and incubated for fourteen days by the female. Two females often cooperate in brooding. The Scarlet Robin is a small Australian robin that reaches 13 cm in length. The male has a black head and upperparts, with a conspicuous white forehead patch, white wing stripes and white tail-edges. The male has a bright scarlet-red chest and a white belly. The female is pale brown, darker above, and has a dull reddish breast and whitish throat. The whitish mark on the female’s forehead is smaller than the male’s. The female Scarlet Robin also has white wing and tail markings. Immature males resemble females. The main call of Scarlet Robin is a soft, warbling trill. The Scarlet Robin is found from south T.J. Hawkeswood Scientific Consulting

Page 87


east Queensland to south east South Australia and also in Tasmania and south west Western Australia. In NSW, it occurs from the coast to the inland slopes. After breeding, some Scarlet Robins disperse to the lower valleys and plains of the tablelands and slopes. Some birds may appear as far west as the eastern edges of the inland plains in autumn and winter. The Scarlet Robin lives in dry eucalypt forests and woodlands. The understorey is usually open and grassy with few scattered shrubs. This species lives in both mature and regrowth vegetation. It occasionally occurs in mallee or wet forest communities, or in wetlands and tea-tree swamps. Scarlet Robin habitat usually contains abundant logs and fallen timber: these are important components of its habitat. The Scarlet Robin breeds on ridges, hills and foothills of the western slopes, the Great Dividing Range and eastern coastal regions; this species is occasionally found up to 1000 metres in altitude. The Scarlet Robin is primarily a resident in forests and woodlands, but some adults and young birds disperse to more open habitats after breeding. In autumn and winter many Scarlet Robins live in open grassy woodlands, and grasslands or grazed paddocks with scattered trees. The Scarlet Robin is a quiet and unobtrusive species which is often quite tame and easily approached. Birds forage from low perches, fence-posts or on the ground, from where they pounce on small insects and other invertebrates which are taken from the ground, or off tree trunks and logs; they sometimes forage in the shrub or canopy layer. Scarlet Robin pairs defend a breeding territory and mainly breed between the months of July and January; they may raise two or three broods in each season. This species’ nest is an open cup made of plant fibres and cobwebs and is built in the fork of tree usually more than 2 metres above the ground; nests are often found in a dead branch in a live tree, or in a dead tree or shrub. Eggs are pale greenish-, bluish- or brownishwhite, spotted with brown; clutch size ranges from one to four. Birds usually occur singly or in pairs, occasionally in small family parties; pairs stay together year-round. In autumn and winter, the Scarlet Robin joins mixed flocks of other small insectivorous birds which forage through dry forests and woodlands. The Flame Robin is a small Australian robin that reaches 14 cm in length. The male has a dark grey head and upperparts, a small white forehead patch, and white wing stripes and white tail-edges. The male has a bright orange-red throat, breast and upper-belly. The lower belly is white. The female is brown, darker above, and has a whitish throat and lower belly. The whitish mark on the female’s forehead is inconspicuous. Female Flame Robins also have white and buffish marked wings and tail. Immature males resemble females. The main call of the Flame Robin is a thin, pretty, piping descending song. The Flame Robin is endemic to south eastern Australia, and ranges from near the Queensland border to south east South Australia and also in Tasmania. In NSW, it breeds in upland areas and in winter, many birds move to the inland slopes and plains. It is likely that there are two separate populations in NSW, one in the Northern Tablelands, and another ranging from the Central to Southern Tablelands. Breeds in upland tall moist eucalypt forests and woodlands, often on ridges and slopes. Prefers clearings or areas with open understoreys. The groundlayer of the breeding habitat is dominated by native grasses and the shrub layer may be either sparse or dense. Occasionally occurs in temperate rainforest, and also in herbfields, heathlands, shrublands and sedgelands at high altitudes. In winter, birds migrate to drier more open habitats in the lowlands (i.e. valleys below the ranges, and to the western slopes and plains). Often occurs in recently burnt areas; however, habitat becomes unsuitable as vegetation closes up following regeneration. In winter lives in dry forests, open woodlands and in pastures and native grasslands, with or without scattered trees. In winter, occasionally seen in heathland or other shrublands in coastal areas. Birds forage from low perches, from which they sally or pounce onto small invertebrates which they take from the ground or off tree trunks, logs and other coarse woody debris. Flying insects are often taken in the air and sometimes gleans for invertebrates from foliage and T.J. Hawkeswood Scientific Consulting

Page 88


bark.In their autumn and winter habitats, birds often sally from fence-posts or thistles and other prominent perches in open habitats. Occur singly, in pairs, or in flocks of up to 40 birds or more; in the non-breeding season they will join up with other insectivorous birds in mixed feeding flocks. Breeds in spring to late summer. Nests are often near the ground and are built in sheltered sites, such as shallow cavities in trees, stumps or banks. Builds an open cup nest made of plant materials and spider webs. Eggs are oval in shape and are pale bluish- or greenish-white and marked with brownish blotches; clutch size is three or four eggs. 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. The proposal will not have any adverse effect on the life cycle of these species because these species are not found on this property and their occurrence there would be extremely rare in any case and therefore most unlikely to be placed at the risk of extinction by this proposal. (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 The entity under review are species and not an endangered population so this part is not relevant. (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 the risk of extinction, or (ii) is likely to be substantially and adversely modify the composition of the ecological community such that its local occurrence is likely to be placed at the risk of extinction The entity under review are species and not an ecological community so these sections are not relevant. (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 and a result of the action proposed, and (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 (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 (i) Very little habitat will be removed or modified as a result of this proposal. T.J. Hawkeswood Scientific Consulting

Page 89


(ii) No area of habitat will become fragmented as part of the proposal. (iii) The habitat to be removed is not important as the trees are mostly poor in health through termites, beetle borers and other factors. (e) Whether the action proposed is likely to have an adverse effect on critical habitat (either directly or indirectly) No critical habitat is listed for these species. (f) Whether the action proposed is consistent with the objectives or actions of a recovery plan or threat abatement plan Recovery plans have been produced for these species by the NSW Government. The proposal would be consistent with the objectives or actions of a recovery plan or threat abatement plan for these species since they will not be affected by the proposal (they doe not occur anywhere on the property). (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 No action on the subject property constitutes a key threatening process for these species. Q. Lathamus discolor, Psittacidae), Neophema pulchella (Psittacidae), Calyptorhynchus lathami (Cacatuidae), Callocephalon fimbriatum (Cacatuidae) The Swift Parrot breeds in Tasmania during spring and summer, migrating in the autumn and winter months to south-eastern Australia from Victoria and the eastern parts of South Australia to south-east Queensland. In NSW mostly occurs on the coast and south west slopes. Migrates to the Australian south-east mainland between March and October. On the mainland they occur in areas where eucalypts are flowering profusely or where there are abundant lerp (from sap-sucking bugs) infestations. Favoured feed trees include winter flowering species such as Swamp Mahogany Eucalyptus robusta, Spotted Gum Corymbia maculata, Red Bloodwood C. gummifera, Mugga Ironbark E. sideroxylon, and White Box E. albens. Commonly used lerp infested trees include Inland Grey Box E. microcarpa, Grey Box E. moluccana and Blackbutt E. pilularis. Return to some foraging sites on a cyclic basis depending on food availability. Following winter they return to Tasmania where they breed from September to January, nesting in old trees with hollows and feeding in forests dominated by Tasmanian Blue Gum Eucalyptus globulus. The male Turquoise Parrot is a highly distinctive bird with bright green upperparts and a turquoise-blue crown and face. Its shoulders are turquoise-blue, grading to deep blue at the flight-feathers. It has a chestnut-red patch on the upper-wing. The upper-breast of the Turquoise Parrot has an orange tint, while the yellow abdomen may have an orange centre. Females and immature individuals are generally duller, have whitish lores, a green, rather than yellow throat and breast and no red on the shoulder and upper-wing area. It should not be confused with other parrots in the region. The call of the Turquoise Parrot in flight is a tinkling sound, while at other times it may emit a sharp “sit-sit” alarm call. The Turquoise Parrot’s range extends from southern Queensland through to northern Victoria, from the coastal plains to the western slopes of the Great Dividing Range. Lives on the edges of eucalypt woodland adjoining clearings, timbered ridges and creeks in farmland. Usually seen in pairs or small, possibly family, groups and have also been reported in flocks of up to thirty individuals. Prefers to feed in the shade of a tree and T.J. Hawkeswood Scientific Consulting

Page 90


spends most of the day on the ground searching for the seeds or grasses and herbaceous plants, or browsing on vegetable matter. Forages quietly and may be quite tolerant of disturbance. However, if flushed it will fly to a nearby tree and then return to the ground to browse as soon as the danger has passed. Nests in tree hollows, logs or posts, from August to December. It lays four or five white, rounded eggs on a nest of decayed wood dust. The Glossy Black-Cockatoo is a small brown-black cockatoo with a massive, bulbous bill and a short crest. Males have a prominent red tail panel, while that of females is yellow to orange-red. The coloured tail panel is barred black in juvenile birds, with the extent of barring decreasing with age. The female usually has irregular pale-yellow markings on the head and neck, and may have yellow flecks on the underparts and underwing. They are usually seen in pairs or small groups feeding quietly in sheoaks.The species is uncommon although widespread throughout suitable forest and woodland habitats, from the central Queensland coast to East Gippsland in Victoria, and inland to the southern tablelands and central western plains of NSW, with a small population in the Riverina. An isolated population exists on Kangaroo Island, South Australia. Inhabits open forest and woodlands of the coast and the Great Dividing Range where stands of sheoak occur. Black Sheoak (Allocasuarina littoralis) and Forest Sheoak (A. torulosa) are important foods. Inland populations feed on a wide range of sheoaks, including Drooping Sheoak, Allocasuarina diminuta, and A. gymnathera. Belah is also utilised and may be a critical food source for some populations.In the Riverina, birds are associated with hills and rocky rises supporting Drooping Sheoak, but also recorded in open woodlands dominated by Belah (Casuarina cristata). Feeds almost exclusively on the seeds of several species of she-oak (Casuarina and Allocasuarina species), shredding the cones with the massive bill. Dependent on large hollow-bearing eucalypts for nest sites. A single egg is laid between March and May.Gang-gang Cockatoos are one of the more distinctive and charismatic members of Australia's avifauna. These birds are primarily slate-grey, with the males easily identified by their scarlet head and wispy crest, while females have a grey head and crest and feathers edged with salmon pink on the underbelly. They range in length from 32 to 37 cm, with a wingspan of 62 to 76 cm. The call has been likened to a creaking gate or cork being pulled from a bottle. The Gang-gang Cockatoo is distributed from southern Victoria through south- and centraleastern New South Wales. In New South Wales, the Gang-gang Cockatoo is distributed from the south-east coast to the Hunter region, and inland to the Central Tablelands and south-west slopes. It occurs regularly in the Australian Capital Territory. It is rare at the extremities of its range, with isolated records known from as far north as Coffs Harbour and as far west as Mudgee. In summer, generally found in tall mountain forests and woodlands, particularly in heavily timbered and mature wet sclerophyll forests. In winter, may occur at lower altitudes in drier more open eucalypt forests and woodlands, and often found in urban areas.May also occur in sub-alpine Snow Gum (Eucalyptus pauciflora ) woodland and occasionally in temperate rainforests. Move to lower altitudes in winter, preferring more open eucalypt forests and woodlands, particularly in box-ironbark assemblages, or in dry forest in coastal areas. Favours old growth attributes for nesting and roosting. 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.


Page 91


The proposal will not have any adverse effect on the life cycle of these species because these species are not found on this property and their occurrence there would be extremely rare in any case and therefore most unlikely to be placed at the risk of extinction by this proposal. (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 The entity under review are species and not an endangered population so this part is not relevant. (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 the risk of extinction, or (ii) is likely to be substantially and adversely modify the composition of the ecological community such that its local occurrence is likely to be placed at the risk of extinction The entity under review are species and not an ecological community so these sections are not relevant. (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 and a result of the action proposed, and (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 (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 (i) Very little habitat will be removed or modified as a result of this proposal. (ii) No area of habitat will become fragmented as part of the proposal. (iii) The habitat to be removed is not important as the trees are mostly poor in health through termites, beetle borers and other factors. (e) Whether the action proposed is likely to have an adverse effect on critical habitat (either directly or indirectly) No critical habitat is listed for these species. (f) Whether the action proposed is consistent with the objectives or actions of a recovery plan or threat abatement plan Recovery plans have been produced for these species by the NSW Government. The proposal would be consistent with the objectives or actions of a recovery plan or threat T.J. Hawkeswood Scientific Consulting

Page 92


abatement plan for these species since they will not be affected by the proposal (they doe not occur anywhere on the property). (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 No action on the subject property constitutes a key threatening process for these species. R. Powerful Owl (Ninox strenua, Strigidae), Barking Owl (Ninox connivens, Strigidae) and the Masked Owl (Tyto novaehollandiae, Strigidae) The Powerful Owl is the largest owl in Australasia. It is a typical hawk-owl, with large yellow eyes and no facial-disc. Adults reach 60 cm in length, have a wingspan of up to 140 cm and weigh up to 1.45 kilograms. Males are larger than females. The upper parts of the Powerful Owl are dark, greyish-brown with indistinct off-white bars. The underparts are whitish with dark greyish-brown V-shaped markings. Juvenile Powerful Owls have a white crown and underparts that contrasts with its small, dark streaks and dark eye patches. The call of this species may be heard at any time of the year, but it is more vocal during the autumn breeding season. It has a slow, deep and resonant double hoot, with the female's being higher pitched and expressing an upward inflection on the second note. The Powerful Owl is endemic to eastern and south-eastern Australia, mainly on the coastal side of the Great Dividing Range from Mackay to south-western Victoria. In NSW, it is widely distributed throughout the eastern forests from the coast inland to tablelands, with scattered records on the western slopes and plains suggesting occupancy prior to land clearing. Now at low densities throughout most of its eastern range, rare along the Murray River and former inland populations may never recover. The Powerful Owl inhabits a range of vegetation types, from woodland and open sclerophyll forest to tall open wet forest and rainforest. The Powerful Owl requires large tracts of forest or woodland habitat but can occur in fragmented landscapes as well. The species breeds and hunts in open or closed sclerophyll forest or woodlands and occasionally hunts in open habitats. It roosts by day in dense vegetation comprising species such as Turpentine Syncarpia glomulifera, Black She-oak Allocasuarina littoralis, Blackwood Acacia melanoxylon, Rough-barked Apple Angophora floribunda, Cherry Ballart Exocarpus cupressiformis and a number of eucalypt species.The main prey items are medium-sized arboreal marsupials, particularly the Greater Glider, Common Ringtail Possum and Sugar Glider. There may be marked regional differences in the prey taken by Powerful Owls. For example in southern NSW, Ringtail Possum make up the bulk of prey in the lowland or coastal habitat. At higher elevations, such as the tableland forests, the Greater Glider may constitute almost all of the prey for a pair of Powerful Owls. Flying foxes are important prey in some areas; birds comprise about 10-50% of the diet depending on the availability of preferred mammals. As most prey species require hollows and a shrub layer, these are important habitat components for the owl.Pairs of Powerful Owls demonstrate high fidelity to a large territory, the size of which varies with habitat quality and thus prey densities. In good habitats a mere 400 can support a pair; where hollow trees and prey have been depleted the owls need up to 4000 ha.Powerful Owls nest in large tree hollows (at least 0.5 m deep), in large eucalypts (diameter at breast height of 80-240 cm) that are at least 150 years old. While the female and young are in the nest hollow the male Powerful Owl roosts nearby (10-200 m) guarding them, often choosing a dense "grove" of trees that provide concealment from other birds that harass him.Powerful Owls are monogamous and mate for life. Nesting occurs from late autumn to mid-winter, but is slightly earlier in north-eastern NSW (late T.J. Hawkeswood Scientific Consulting

Page 93


summer - mid autumn). Clutches consist of two dull white eggs and incubation lasts approximately 38 days. The Barking Owl is medium-sized owl (42 cm, 650 g), smaller than the similar Poweful Owl and larger than the Southern Boobook. It has bright yellow eyes and no facial-disc. Upperparts are brown or greyish-brown, and the white breast is vertically streaked with brown. The large talons are yellow. Males are typically larger than their mate and have a more square crown. The quick, dog-like ‘wook-wook’ territorial call is diagnostic, but the yapping of foxes and dogs is sometimes attributed to this species. Pairs of birds perform call-and-answer duets, the male's tone being the deeper, which often rise to an excited rapid pitch. It also has a high-pitched tremulous scream that has earned it the name ‘screaming-woman bird'. The Barking Owl is found throughout continental Australia except for the central arid regions. Although common in parts of northern Australia, the species has declined greatly in southern Australia and now occurs in a wide but sparse distribution in NSW. Core populations exist on the western slopes and plains (especially the Pilliga) and in some northeast coastal and escarpment forests. Many populations have crashed as woodland on fertile soils was cleared, leaving linear riparian strips of remnant trees as the last inhabitable areas. Sometimes extend their home range into urban areas, hunting birds in garden trees and insects attracted to streetlights. Inhabits woodland and open forest, including fragmented remnants and partly cleared farmland. It is flexible in its habitat use, and hunting can extend in to closed forest and more open areas. Sometimes able to successfully breed along timbered watercourses in heavily cleared habitats (e.g. western NSW) due to the higher density of prey on these fertile soils. Roost in shaded portions of tree canopies, including tall midstorey trees with dense foliage such as Acacia and Casuarina species. During nesting season, the male perches in a nearby tree overlooking the hollow entrance. Preferentially hunts small arboreal mammals such as Squirrel Gliders and Ringtail Possums, but when loss of tree hollows decreases these prey populations the owl becomes more reliant on birds, invertebrates and terrestrial mammals such as rodents and rabbits. Can catch bats and moths on the wing, but typically hunts by sallying from a tall perch. Requires very large permanent territories in most habitats due to sparse prey densities. Monogamous pairs hunt over as much as 6000 hectares, with 2000 hectares being more typical in NSW habitats. Two or three eggs are laid in hollows of large, old trees. Living eucalypts are preferred though dead trees are also used. Nest sites are used repeatedly over years by a pair, but they may switch sites if disturbed by predators (e.g. goannas). Nesting occurs during mid-winter and spring but is variable between pairs and among years. As a rule of thumb, laying occurs during August and fledging in November. The female incubates for 5 weeks, roosts outside the hollow when chicks are 4 weeks old, then fledging occurs 2-3 weeks later. Young are dependent for several months. Territorial pairs respond strongly to recordings of Barking Owl calls from up to 6 km away, though humans rarely hear this response farther than 1.5 km. Because disturbance reduces the pair’s foraging time, and can pull the female off her eggs even on cold nights, recordings should not be broadcast unnecessarily nor during the nesting season. A medium-sized owl to 40 - 50 cm long, with dark eyes set in a prominent flat, heart-shaped facial disc that is encircled by a dark border. The feet are large and powerful, with fully feathered legs down to the toes. The owl exists in several colour forms, with wide variation in plumage. The upperparts are grey to dark brown with buff to rufous mottling and fine, pale spots. The wings and tail are well barred. The underparts are white to rufous-brown with variable dark spotting. The palest birds have a white face with a brown patch around each eye; the darkest birds have a chestnut face. The dark form of the Masked Owl is much browner than the Sooty Owl Tyto tenebricosa. Extends from the coast where it is most abundant to the western plains. T.J. Hawkeswood Scientific Consulting

Page 94


Overall records for this species fall within approximately 90% of NSW, excluding the most arid north-western corner. There is no seasonal variation in its distribution. Lives in dry eucalypt forests and woodlands from sea level to 1100 m. A forest owl, but often hunts along the edges of forests, including roadsides. The typical diet consists of tree-dwelling and ground mammals, especially rats. Pairs have a large home-range of 500 to 1000 hectares. Roosts and breeds in moist eucalypt forested gullies, using large tree hollows or sometimes caves 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. The proposal will not have any adverse effect on the life cycle of these species because these species are not found on this property and their occurrence there would be extremely rare in any case and therefore most unlikely to be placed at the risk of extinction by this proposal. (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 The entity under review are species and not an endangered population so this part is not relevant. (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 the risk of extinction, or (ii) is likely to be substantially and adversely modify the composition of the ecological community such that its local occurrence is likely to be placed at the risk of extinction The entity under review are species and not an ecological community so these sections are not relevant. (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 and a result of the action proposed, and (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 (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 (iii) (i) Numerous trees and some fauna habitat will be required to be removed for the proposal. T.J. Hawkeswood Scientific Consulting

Page 95


(iv) No area of SSTF habitat will become fragmented as part of the proposal. (v) The habitat to be removed is not important as the trees are mostly poor in health through termites, beetle borers and other factors. (e) Whether the action proposed is likely to have an adverse effect on critical habitat (either directly or indirectly) No critical habitat is listed for these species. (f) Whether the action proposed is consistent with the objectives or actions of a recovery plan or threat abatement plan Recovery plans have been produced for these species by the NSW Government. The proposal would be consistent with the objectives or actions of a recovery plan or threat abatement plan for these species since they will not be affected by the proposal (they doe not occur anywhere on the property). (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 No action on the subject property constitutes a key threatening process for these species. S. Dasyurus maculatus (Dasyuridae) The Spotted-tailed Quoll is about the size of a domestic cat, from which it differs most obviously in its shorter legs and pointed face. The average weight of an adult male is about 3500 grams and an adult female about 2000 grams. It has rich-rust to dark-brown fur above, with irregular white spots on the back and tail, and a pale belly. The spotted tail distinguishes it from all other Australian mammals, including other quoll species. However, the spots may be indistinct on juvenile animals. The range of the Spotted-tailed Quoll has contracted considerably since European settlement. It is now found in eastern NSW, eastern Victoria, south-east and north-eastern Queensland, and Tasmania. Only in Tasmania is it still considered relatively common. Recorded across a range of habitat types, including rainforest, open forest, woodland, coastal heath and inland riparian forest, from the sub-alpine zone to the coastline. Individual animals use hollow-bearing trees, fallen logs, small caves, rock outcrops and rocky-cliff faces as den sites. Mostly nocturnal, although will hunt during the day; spends most of the time on the ground, although also an excellent climber and will hunt possums and gliders in tree hollows and prey on roosting birds. Use communal ‘latrine sites’, often on flat rocks among boulder fields, rocky clifffaces or along rocky stream beds or banks. Such sites may be visited by multiple individuals and can be recognised by the accumulation of the sometimes characteristic ‘twisty-shaped’ faeces deposited by animals. A generalist predator with a preference for medium-sized (500g-5kg) mammals. Consumes a variety of prey, including gliders, possums, small wallabies, rats, birds, bandicoots, rabbits, reptiles and insects. Also eats carrion and takes domestic fowl. Females occupy home ranges up to about 750 hectares and males up to 3500 hectares. Are known to traverse their home ranges along densely vegetated creeklines. Average litter size is five; both sexes mature at about one year of age. Life expectancy in the wild is about 3-4 years. 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. T.J. Hawkeswood Scientific Consulting

Page 96


The proposal will not have any adverse effect on the life cycle of this species because the species is not found on this property and its occurrence there would be extremely rare in any case and is therefore most unlikely to be placed at the risk of extinction by this proposal. (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 The entity under review is a species and not an endangered population so this part is not relevant. (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 the risk of extinction, or (ii) is likely to be substantially and adversely modify the composition of the ecological community such that its local occurrence is likely to be placed at the risk of extinction The entity under review is a species and not an ecological community so these sections are not relevant. (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 and a result of the action proposed, and (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 (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 (i) Very little habitat will be removed or modified as a result of this proposal. (ii) No area of habitat will become fragmented as part of the proposal. (iii) The habitat to be removed is not important as the trees are mostly poor in health through termites, beetle borers and other factors. (e) Whether the action proposed is likely to have an adverse effect on critical habitat (either directly or indirectly) No critical habitat is listed for this species. (f) Whether the action proposed is consistent with the objectives or actions of a recovery plan or threat abatement plan Recovery plans have been produced for this species by the NSW Government. The proposal would be consistent with the objectives or actions of a recovery plan or threat T.J. Hawkeswood Scientific Consulting

Page 97


abatement plan for this species since it will not be affected by the proposal (does not occur anywhere on the property). (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 No action on the subject property constitutes a key threatening process for this species. T. Phascolarctos cinereus (Phascolarctidae) The Koala is an arboreal marsupial with fur ranging from grey to brown above, and is white below. It has large furry ears, a prominent black nose and no tail. It spends most of its time in trees and has long, sharp claws, adapted for climbing. Adult males weigh 6 - 12 kg and adult females weigh 5 - 8 kg. During breeding, males advertise with loud snarling coughs and bellows. The Koala has a fragmented distribution throughout eastern Australia from north-east Queensland to the Eyre Peninsula in South Australia. In NSW it mainly occurs on the central and north coasts with some populations in the west of the Great Dividing Range. It was briefly historically abundant in the 1890s in the Bega District on the south coast of NSW, although not elsewhere, but it now occurs in sparse and possibly disjunct populations. Koalas are also known from several sites on the southern tablelands. Inhabit eucalypt woodlands and forests. Feed on the foliage of more than 70 eucalypt species and 30 non-eucalypt species, but in any one area will select preferred browse species. Inactive for most of the day, feeding and moving mostly at night. Spend most of their time in trees, but will descend and traverse open ground to move between trees. Home range size varies with quality of habitat, ranging from less than two ha to several hundred hectares in size. Generally solitary, but have complex social hierarchies based on a dominant male with a territory overlapping several females and sub-ordinate males on the periphery. Females breed at two years of age and produce one young per year. 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. The proposal will not have any adverse effect on the life cycle of this species because the species is not found on this property and its occurrence there would be extremely rare in any case and is therefore most unlikely to be placed at the risk of extinction by this proposal. (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 The entity under review is a species and not an endangered population so this part is not relevant. (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 the risk of extinction, or T.J. Hawkeswood Scientific Consulting

Page 98


(ii) is likely to be substantially and adversely modify the composition of the ecological community such that its local occurrence is likely to be placed at the risk of extinction The entity under review is a species and not an ecological community so these sections are not relevant. (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 and a result of the action proposed, and (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 (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 (i) Very little habitat will be removed or modified as a result of this proposal. (ii) No area of habitat will become fragmented as part of the proposal. (iii) The habitat to be removed is not important as the trees are mostly poor in health through termites, beetle borers and other factors. (e) Whether the action proposed is likely to have an adverse effect on critical habitat (either directly or indirectly) No critical habitat is listed for this species. (f) Whether the action proposed is consistent with the objectives or actions of a recovery plan or threat abatement plan Recovery plans have been produced for this species by the NSW Government. The proposal would be consistent with the objectives or actions of a recovery plan or threat abatement plan for this species since it will not be affected by the proposal (does not occur anywhere on the property). (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 No action on the subject property constitutes a key threatening process for this species. V. Petaurus norfolcensis (Petauridae) Adult Squirrel Gliders have a head and body length of about 20 cm. They have blue-grey to brown-grey fur above, white on the belly and the end third of the tail is black. There is a dark stripe from between the eyes to the mid-back and the tail is soft and bushy averaging about 27 cm in length. Squirrel Gliders are up to twice the size of Sugar Gliders, their facial markings are more distinct and they nest in bowl-shaped, leaf lined nests in tree hollows. Squirrel Gliders are also less vocal than Sugar Gliders. The species is widely though sparsely distributed in eastern Australia, from northern Queensland to western Victoria. T.J. Hawkeswood Scientific Consulting

Page 99


Inhabits mature or old growth Box, Box-Ironbark woodlands and River Red Gum forest west of the Great Dividing Range and Blackbutt-Bloodwood forest with heath understorey in coastal areas. Prefers mixed species stands with a shrub or Acacia midstorey. Live in family groups of a single adult male one or more adult females and offspring Require abundant tree hollows for refuge and nest sites. Diet varies seasonally and consists of Acacia gum, eucalypt sap, nectar, honeydew and manna, with invertebrates and pollen providing protein. 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. The proposal will not have any adverse effect on the life cycle of this species because the species is not found on this property and its occurrence there would be extremely rare in any case and is therefore most unlikely to be placed at the risk of extinction by this proposal. (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 The entity under review is a species and not an endangered population so this part is not relevant. (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 the risk of extinction, or (ii) is likely to be substantially and adversely modify the composition of the ecological community such that its local occurrence is likely to be placed at the risk of extinction The entity under review is a species and not an ecological community so these sections are not relevant. (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 and a result of the action proposed, and (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 (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 (i) Very little habitat will be removed or modified as a result of this proposal. (ii) No area of habitat will become fragmented as part of the proposal. T.J. Hawkeswood Scientific Consulting

Page 100


(iii) The habitat to be removed is not important as the trees are mostly poor in health through termites, beetle borers and other factors. (e) Whether the action proposed is likely to have an adverse effect on critical habitat (either directly or indirectly) No critical habitat is listed for this species. (f) Whether the action proposed is consistent with the objectives or actions of a recovery plan or threat abatement plan Recovery plans have been produced for this species by the NSW Government. The proposal would be consistent with the objectives or actions of a recovery plan or threat abatement plan for this species since it will not be affected by the proposal (does not occur anywhere on the property). (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 No action on the subject property constitutes a key threatening process for this species. W. Chalinolobus dwyeri (Vespertilionidae), Saccolaimus flaviventris (Emballonuridae), Miniopterus schreibersii (Vespertilionidae), Scoteanax rueppellii (Vespertilionidae), Pteropus poliocephalus (Pteropodidae) and Myotis macropus (Vespertilionidae) The Large-eared Pied Bat, Chalinolobus dwyeri (Vespertilionidae) is a small to mediumsized bat with long, prominent ears and glossy black fur. The lower body has broad white fringes running under the wings and tail-membrane, meeting in a V-shape in the pubic area. This species is one of the wattled bats, with small lobes of skin between the ears and corner of the mouth. Found mainly in areas with extensive cliffs and caves, from Rockhampton in Queensland south to Bungonia in the NSW Southern Highlands. It is generally rare with a very patchy distribution in NSW. There are scattered records from the New England Tablelands and North West Slopes. Roosts in caves (near their entrances), crevices in cliffs, old mine workings and in the disused, bottle-shaped mud nests of the Fairy Martin (Petrochelidon ariel), frequenting low to mid-elevation dry open forest and woodland close to these features. Females have been recorded raising young in maternity roosts (c. 20-40 females) from November through to January in roof domes in sandstone caves and overhangs. They remain loyal to the same cave over many years. Found in well-timbered areas containing gullies. The relatively short, broad wing combined with the low weight per unit area of wing indicates manoeuvrable flight. This species probably forages for small, flying insects below the forest canopy. Likely to hibernate through the coolest months. It is uncertain whether mating occurs early in winter or in spring. The Yellow-bellied Sheathtail-bat (Saccolaimus flaviventris (Emballonuridae) is a very distinctive, large, insectivorous bat up to 87 mm long. It has long, narrow wings, a glossy, jet-black back, and a white to yellow belly extending to the shoulders and just behind the ear. Characteristically, it has a flattened head and a sharply-pointed muzzle. The tail is covered with an extremely elastic sheath that allows variation in the tail-membrane area. Males have a prominent throat pouch; females have a patch of bare skin in the same place. The Yellow-bellied Sheathtail-bat is a wide-ranging species found across northern and eastern Australia. In the most southerly part of its range - most of Victoria, southT.J. Hawkeswood Scientific Consulting

Page 101


western NSW and adjacent South Australia - it is a rare visitor in late summer and autumn. There are scattered records of this species across the New England Tablelands and North West Slopes. Roosts singly or in groups of up to six, in tree hollows and buildings; in treeless areas they are known to utilise mammal burrows. When foraging for insects, flies high and fast over the forest canopy, but lower in more open country. Forages in most habitats across its very wide range, with and without trees; appears to defend an aerial territory. Breeding has been recorded from December to mid-March, when a single young is born. Seasonal movements are unknown; there is speculation about a migration to southern Australia in late summer and autumn. Common Bent-wing Bat (Miniopterus schreibersii, Vespertilionidae) forms major colonies and the longest period of torpor (hibernation) observed was about 12 days. These colonies can range anywhere from a few dozen or several million bats. Most of these colonies are formed in large caves or mines but they can also be found in other areas such as tunnels or ruins or other man made sites. In these roosting sites the common bent-wing bat establishes its colony in a "bell-shaped" hollow, which traps body heat and raises the temperature of the roost higher than the surrounding portions of the cave. This method of trapping warmth is used to reduce energy loss from shivering. Also, they will often enter hollows through small openings in order to better secure themselves from large predators during torpor. The common bent-wing bat migrates multiple times a year depending on weather of the roosting area; the length of these migrations can vary but the longest migration recorded was 833 km. The Greater Broad-nosed Bat (Scoteanax rueppellii, Vespertilionidae) is a large powerful bat, up to 95 mm long, with a broad head and a short square muzzle. It is dark reddishbrown to mid-brown above and slightly paler below. It is distinguished from other broadnosed bats by its greater size. While similar to the Eastern False Pipistrelle Falsistrellus tasmaniensis, it differs by having only two (not four) upper incisors. The Greater Broadnosed Bat is found mainly in the gullies and river systems that drain the Great Dividing Range, from north-eastern Victoria to the Atherton Tableland. It extends to the coast over much of its range. In NSW it is widespread on the New England Tablelands, however does not occur at altitudes above 500 m. Utilises a variety of habitats from woodland through to moist and dry eucalypt forest and rainforest, though it is most commonly found in tall wet forest. Although this species usually roosts in tree hollows, it has also been found in buildings. Forages after sunset, flying slowly and directly along creek and river corridors at an altitude of 3 - 6 m. Open woodland habitat and dry open forest suits the direct flight of this species as it searches for beetles and other large, slow-flying insects; this species has been known to eat other bat species. Little is known of its reproductive cycle, however a single young is born in January; prior to birth, females congregate at maternity sites located in suitable trees, where they appear to exclude males during the birth and raising of the single young. The Grey-headed Flying-fox (Pteropus poliocephalus, Pteropodidae) is the largest Australian bat, with a head and body length of 23 - 29 cm. It has dark grey fur on the body, lighter grey fur on the head and a russet collar encircling the neck. The wing membranes are black and the wingspan can be up to 1 m. It can be distinguished from other flyingfoxes by the leg fur, which extends to the ankle. Grey-headed Flying-foxes are generally found within 200 km of the eastern coast of Australia, from Bundaberg in Queensland to Melbourne in Victoria. In times of natural resource shortages, they may be found in unusual locations. Occur in subtropical and temperate rainforests, tall sclerophyll forests and woodlands, heaths and swamps as well as urban gardens and cultivated fruit crops. Roosting camps are generally located within 20 km of a regular food source and are T.J. Hawkeswood Scientific Consulting

Page 102


commonly found in gullies, close to water, in vegetation with a dense canopy. Individual camps may have tens of thousands of animals and are used for mating, and for giving birth and rearing young. Annual mating commences in January and conception occurs in April or May; a single young is born in October or November. Site fidelity to camps is high; some camps have been used for over a century. Can travel up to 50 km from the camp to forage; commuting distances are more often