Flora & Fauna Survey & Ecological Assessment (pdf. 5MB)

NOTE BY KU-RING-GAI COUNCIL: ALL REFERENCES TO AND DIAGRAMS OF SUBDIVISION 

LOTS, NUMBERS AND LOCATION DO NOT FORM PART OF THIS PLANNING PROPOSAL 

Flora & Fauna Survey & Ecological Assessments – 35 Water Street Wahroonga 

Executive Summary 

NOTE BY KU-RING-GAI COUNCIL: 

ALL REFERENCES TO AND DIAGRAMS OF SUBDIVISION LOTS, NUMBERS 

AND LOCATION DO NOT FORM PART OF THIS PLANNING PROPOSAL 

Background: UBM Ecological Consultants (‘UBM’) has been retained by the Proponent Mr Peter Borbilas of 

Bellevue Projects Pty Ltd undertake ecological investigations in support of a Planning Proposal application to 

Ku-ring-gai Council to rezone the Subject Property Lot 1 in DP 375262 at 35 Water Street Wahroonga from 

5(a) Special Uses (Hospital) to E4 Environmental Living Zone. 

Ku-ring-gai Council is in the process of preparing a new Principal Local Environmental Plan (‘LEP’) to replace 

the Ku-ring-gai Planning Scheme Ordinance (‘KPSO’). The draft LEP has not yet been exhibited, however it is 

understood that it is proposed to rezone the Subject Property part R2 Low Density Residential and part E4 

Environmental Living. When the draft LEP is finalised and gazetted, the proposed E4 Environmental Living 

Zone for the Subject Property would be subsumed into the new LEP. 

The existing zoning of the land allows for ‘hospitals’ but does not allow residential subdivision. The E4 

Environmental Living Zoning would permit limited residential development, subject to a minimum Lot size of 

2,000 m 2 , the conservation of the ecological heritage values of the site and retention of neighbourhood 

character and amenity (Ingham Planning 2013). 

Two thirds of the Subject Property has been identified by Ku-ring-gai Council (Draft LEP 218) as part of a 

larger area considered to have biodiversity significance. This assessment is based on the presence of the 

‘critically endangered’ Blue Gum High Forest (‘BGHF’) on the Subject Property; represented predominantly 

by stands of remnant trees - Sydney Blue Gum (E. saligna). However, there is sufficient land outside the 

primary ecological conservation areas and the primary heritage curtilage of Rippon Grange to enable the 

creation of a small number of residential lots. A limited residential development of the site in this manner 

will have significantly less heritage, ecological and neighbor impacts than the large hospital buildings that 

have been approved over a substantial portion of the site. 

The current Report has been prepared at the request of the Proponent and assesses the conservation 

significance of the native vegetation known to occur within the Subject Property in regards to the current 

State and Commonwealth environmental legislation. The potential impacts of the current rezoning 

application and of any future limited development on the Subject Property have also been considered. 

The presence of remnant BGHF within the Subject Property established by previous workers is confirmed. 

The extent of this ecological community on the Property has been determined by the NSW Land & 

Environment Court (Proceedings 11193 of 2006) to be 6,350 sq metres (0.635 ha), and this area has been 

adopted in this Report (see Figure 1.3). 

The remnant BGHF in the Subject Property now comprises individuals and small stands of native canopy 

trees over a predominantly exotic/weedy understorey. These areas are hereafter described in this Ecological 

Report as ‘BGHF Habitat’ in order to distinguish the vegetation from a viable BGHF ‘ecological community’, 

which is typically floristically diverse and structurally intact (see Final Determination TSC Act, Appendix 1). 

Given the considerable number of flora and fauna surveys which have been conducted for the whole of the 

2.1318 hectares of the larger Subject Property since 2005 (see Section 6 References), it was not considered 

UBM Ecological Consultants Pty Ltd 

Page i


necessary to replicate these earlier studies. This Report therefore focuses on the conservations significance 

of those parts of the Subject Property which may be the subject of a future development application – i.e. 

area substantially outside the mapped BGHF Habitat, as determined by the Land and Environment Court 

(2006). 

It is proposed to retain historic Rippon Grange, its curtilage and part of the culturally significant gardens. 

The house will be restored and used as a family residence. However, there are two (2) areas outside 

potentially suitable for environmentally sensitive limited future residential development. 

Area 1 is located in the south-western part of the Subject Property wholly outside the area mapped as BGHF 

Habitat (see Figure 1.3). 

Area 2 is located in the south-eastern corner of the Property, with part of this area abutting the mapped 

Core BGHF Habitat area (see Figure 1.3). Ecological investigations presented in this Report focus on the 

natural conservation values of Area 2, likely to be subject of a future limited development application. 

Results – Flora: A total of 170 flora species was recorded for the eight (8) transects established in four (4) 

Subject Sites in the south-eastern corner of the Subject Property and described in this Report as Area 2 (see 

Figure 1.3). A total of 220 flora species was recorded in the 11 quadrats established in the nearby BGHF 

Habitat Area (see Section 3.3). 

More introduced species than natives were recorded throughout the area surveyed. Approximately 75% (in 

8 transects) and 79% (in 11 quadrats) recorded were horticultural introductions, non-indigenous native 

species (i.e. planted specimens) or weeds. Thirteen (13) plants recorded Sites are declared as ‘noxious 

weeds’ in Ku-ring-gai Local Government Area. 

Under the draft concept design (see Figure 1.4), the potential loss of BGHF Habitat in the proposed future 

development area has been calculated at 173 sq metres, which is only 2.74% of the total area of BGHF extant 

within the Subject Property. Eleven (11) BGHF trees are likely to be removed or otherwise impacted under 

the development proposal. 

Results – Fauna: 

Previous surveys have identified a total of 24 native birds, six (6) native mammals, four (4) reptiles and two 

(2) amphibians within or nearby the Subject Property. Of these, the Gang-gang Cockatoo and Grey-headed 

Flying-fox are listed under the TSC and/or EPBC Acts. 

By the completion of the current field survey (May/June 2012), eight (8) bird species were detected within, 

adjacent to, or flying over the Subject Property; the latter identified by their distinctive calls as well as 

observation (Table 4.2). The Powerful Owl (Ninox strenua) is listed as ‘vulnerable’ under the TSC Act and was 

heard calling from outside the Subject Property during nocturnal surveys. 

Two (2) native mammalian species were observed on the Subject Property; the Common Ringtail Possum 

(Pseudocheirus peregrines) and Swamp wallaby (Wallabia bicolour). 

Three (3) species listed under the TSC and/or EPBC Acts have been recorded in the vicinity or flying over the 

Subject Property during field investigations. Although not observed within the Subject Property, there are 


Page ii


some suitable resources available for these species. Therefore, the Seven-part Test of Significance has been 

applied under the precautionary principle for the following species: 

Grey-headed Flying-fox (Pteropus poliocephalus) 

Gang-gang Cockatoo (Callocephalon fimbriatum) 

Powerful Owl (Ninox strenua) 

These Assessments (see Section 4.5) have indicated that there would be NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT on any of 

the threatened species listed above as the result of the Planning Proposal. 

Conclusions & Recommendations: 

Future development in Area 2 may have some minor impact on the mapped Core BGHF Habitat, depending 

on project design; these being limited to parts of potential Lots 3 and 4 in Area 2. The remaining potential 

Lots 2 and 5 are located wholly outside the mapped BGHF (see Figure 1.4). 

There is however, an opportunity to redesign the limited development in Area 2 so that no area of BGHF 

Habitat is impacted. This will be addressed if and when the current proposal rezoning is approved, and 

before a development application is submitted. However, for the purposes of the current Report, the draft 

concept subdivision plan which considers the potential to establish three (3) Lots in Area 2 will b considered 

(see Figure 1.4). 

If the subdivision proposal is adopted as envisaged in the subdivision concept plan accompanying the 

Planning Proposal, there is likely to be a loss of 173 sq metres of modified BGHF Habitat from Area 2. This 

represents a loss of 2.74 % of the total area of BGHF Habitat in the Subject Property (@ 6,530 sq metres). 

Accordingly the Seven-part Test of Significance has been undertaken as per Section 5A of the NSW 

Environment Planning & Assessment Act 1979 (see Section 3.6). 

This Assessment has concluded that the loss of 173 sq metres out of a total area of 6,350 sq metres of BGHF 

Habitat in the Subject Property (2.74%) is not ‘significant’ in terms of the legislation, and therefore it will not 

be necessary to refer the matter to the Minister for Environment & Heritage for future consideration in a 

Species Impact Statement relating to flora issues 1 . 

It should however, be noted that the loss of 2.74% of BGHF under the future subdivision proposal compares 

favourably with the 4.9% loss of this community which would have occurred under the approved Hospital 

development. Under the future subdivision proposal envisaged in the subdivision concept 

planaccompanying the Planning Proposal, 6,177 sq metres of BGHF would be retained, rehabilitated and 

appropriately managed. This compares to only 6,034 sq metres of the community which would have been 

retained under the Hospital development proposal (a net gain of 143 sq metres) 

1 Note that a Species Impact Statement was prepared in support of the earlier approved hospital development 

(Cumberland Ecology 2007). This SIS considered impacts to a significantly larger area of BGHF Habitat than the current 

draft Proposal. 


Page iii


It is however, recommended that the loss of 173 sq metres of BGHF, although small, should be ‘offset’ 

against a restoration and management program to rehabilitate the remaining Core BGHF within the Subject 

Property. 

A Vegetation Management Plan for the restoration and management of BGHF Habitat at 35 Water Street has 

been prepared (UBM 2007); approved by DECCW/OEH, and adopted by Ku-ring-gai Council. This Plan 

provides for bush regeneration works over a period of at least five (5) years and will guide on-ground 

bushland restoration and rehabilitation works in the area mapped as Core and Non-Core BGHF Habitat. This 

Plan includes those areas of BGHF Habitat which intrude marginally into possible new Lots 3 and 4, inArea 2. 

Scientific Licence 132C for the purposes of science, education or conservation under the National Parks & 

W8ldlife Act 1979 has been obtained from the Office of Environment & Heritage (OEH) to provide for the 

implementation of works. However to date, no works under this Plan have been undertaken. Scientific 

License 132C is currently in the name of the previous landowner Waterbrook Pty Ltd, so it will be necessary 

to apply to the Licensing Division of OEH to reissue the License in the name of the current landowner 

Bellevue Projects Pty Ltd. All other licence conditions will remain unchanged. 

Further, it is also recommended that those parts of the Subject Lots located outside the Development Zone 

(i.e. house footprints and driveways) and adjoining the Core BGHF (as mapped) be rehabilitated and 

thereafter maintained as closely as possible in a ‘near natural’ condition. 

It is considered that the implementation of the adopted Vegetation Management Plan (UBM 2007) for the 

remaining 1,677 sq metres of BGHF Habitat in the Subject Property, and the rehabilitation of the simplified 

and modified BGHF adjoining the Core BGHF (as mapped) will serve to provide an adequate ‘offset’ for the 

loss of~173 sq metres of BGHF in the Area 2 potential development area. 

Further, the loss of only 2.74% of BGHF Habitat within the Subject Property is well within the maximum 5% 

loss for BGHF proposed by Dr P. Smith as an expert witness appearing in the Land and Environment Court 

and adopted by the Court (Proceedings 11193 of 2006). 

Similarly, the loss of a small area (173 sq metres) of habitat which could potentially be utilised by the 

threatened species, the Grey-headed Flying-fox, Gang Gang Cockatoo and Powerful Owl is not considered to 

be significant to the species, populations or habitats. 

The Planning Proposal and potential future subdivision, as envisaged by the concept plan submitted with the 

Planning Proposal, will result in the restoration of historic Rippon Grange, its gardens and arboretum, and 

allow for the conservation and future management of the critically endangered BGHF on the Subject 

Property. 

. 


Page iv


Table of Contents 

1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1 

1.1 Background Information ......................................................................................................................... 1 

1.2 Site History .............................................................................................................................................. 3 

1.3 The Development Proposal ..................................................................................................................... 5 

1.4 Relevant Legal and Planning Policies .....................................................................................................10 

2 SITE DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................... 13 

2.1 Location and Setting ..............................................................................................................................13 

2.2 Physical Environment ............................................................................................................................15 

2.3 Biological Environment ..........................................................................................................................17 

2.3.1 Vegetation Community Mapping ...................................................................................................17 

2.3.2 Blue Gum High Forest in the Subject Property ...............................................................................18 

3 FLORA ASSESSMENT ........................................................................................................... 20 

3.1 Methods ................................................................................................................................................20 

3.1.1 Literature Review ...........................................................................................................................20 

3.1.2 Field Survey ....................................................................................................................................21 

3.1.3 Mapping and Photography .............................................................................................................22 

3.2 Limitations to Ecological Field Surveys ..................................................................................................22 

3.3 Field Survey Results ...............................................................................................................................25 

3.3.1 Vegetation Communities ................................................................................................................25 

3.3.2 Indigenous Flora Species ................................................................................................................25 

3.3.3 Threatened Species ........................................................................................................................27 

3.3.4 Introduced Flora Species ................................................................................................................28 

3.4 Description of the Vegetation in the BGHF Habitat Area ......................................................................29 

3.5 Description of the Vegetation in the Proposed Subdivision Area .........................................................32 

3.6 Assessments of Significance – Flora ......................................................................................................39 

3.6.1 Commonwealth Legislative Considerations for the Critically Endangered Ecological Community 

‘Blue Gum High Forest’ ...............................................................................................................................39 

3.6.2 NSW Legislative Considerations for the Critically Endangered Ecological Community Blue Gum 

High Forest ..................................................................................................................................................39 

4 FAUNA ASSESSMSENT ......................................................................................................... 45 


Page v


4.1 Overview ................................................................................................................................................45 

4.2 Fauna Methods ......................................................................................................................................45 

4.3 Limitations to Fauna Field Surveys ........................................................................................................47 

4.4 Survey Results ........................................................................................................................................48 

4.4.1 Fauna Species Recorded .................................................................................................................48 

4.4.2 Fauna Habitat Assessment .............................................................................................................49 

4.4.3 Threatened Fauna Assessment ......................................................................................................50 

4.5 Assessments of Significance - Fauna .....................................................................................................62 

5 CONCLUSIONS & R ECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................. 71 

6 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 73 

7 APPENDICES ....................................................................................................................... 76 

List of Figures 

Figure 1.1: Regional Positioning of the Subject Property ..................................................................................... 2 

Figure 1.2: Extent of the Blue Gum High Forest in the Subject Property (UBM 2007) ........................................ 4 

Figure 1.3: draft Concept Plan of Proposed 5-Lot Subdivision (courtesy Tanner Architects 2012) ..................... 8 

Figure 1.4: draft Concept Plan of Subdivision showing Location of 4 new Lots in Area 2 (Tanner Arcthitects 

2011) ..................................................................................................................................................................... 9 

Figure 2.1: Soil Landscapes of the Subject Property & Environs (per Chapman & Murphy 1989) ....................16 

Figure 2.2: Vegetation mapping (NPWS 2002) ...................................................................................................19 

Figure 2.3: Vegetation mapping (SCIVI) by Tozer et al. 2010 .............................................................................19 

Figure 3.1: Approximate location of the 11 quadrats established within the BGHF Habitat Area (UBM 

May/June 2012) ..................................................................................................................................................26 

Figure 4.1: Distance Nearby BGHF Bushland from Subject Property .................................................................50 

List of Tables 

Table 1.1: Summary of Environmental Policies, Planning & Legislative Requirements * ..................................10 

Table 2.1: Site Definition for the Subject Property ............................................................................................14 

Table 2.2: Physical Features of the Subject Property & Environs ......................................................................15 

Table 3.1: Flora Species of State or National Conservation Significance occurring in the Region .....................27 

Table 3.2: Introduced flora species declared as ‘noxious weeds’ in Ku-ring-gai LGA and recorded in the 

Subject Property .................................................................................................................................................28 


Page vi


Table 3.3: Condition of vegetation in 11 quadrats established in the BGHF Habitat Area ................................31 

Table 3.4: Summary of BGHF Issues in the Proposed Development Subject Sites, Lots 2, 3, 4 and 5 ...............37 

Table 3.5: Trees described in the Final Determination as BGHF species ...........................................................38 

Table 4.1: Summary of surveys conducted and weather conditions .................................................................45 

Table 4.2: Native species identified during current field surveys ......................................................................48 

Table 4.3: Likelihood of occurrence categories ..................................................................................................51 

Table 4.4: Threatened Fauna Speices recorded in the Locality and Region .......................................................52 

List of Appendices 

APPENDIX 1: Final Determination – Blue Gum High Forest ...............................................................................76 

APPENDIX 2: Flora List Recorded for in the eight (8) transects established in the Subject Sites: proposed Lots 

2, 3, 4 and 5 at 35 Water Street Wahroonga .....................................................................................................81 

APPENDIX 3: List of Flora Species Recorded in the 11 quadrats established in the BGHF Habitat Area ...........92 

APPENDIX 4: Fauna occurring in the Region (OEH 2012) and recorded on the Subject Property from all 

studies ..............................................................................................................................................................102 

APPENDIX 5: List of Trees to be removed or impacted for proposed subdivision (source Tree Wise Men 

(Australia) Pty Ltd October 2011) .....................................................................................................................115 


Page vii


Certification 

I, Judith Rawling Managing Director of UBM Ecological Consultants Pty Ltd hereby state that this Report, 

which comprises a revised Flora and Fauna Survey and Ecological Assessment, has been prepared in support 

of a proposed rezoning of land known as Lot 1 in DP 375262 at 35 Water Street Wahroonga. This Report also 

considers the potential impacts of any future development on areas outside the mapped Blue Gum High 

Forest known to occur within the Subject Property. 

The nature of the remnant native vegetation on this site has been determined with reference to its 

conservation significance and status under the current State and Commonwealth environmental legislation. 

The UBM project team charged with preparing this Report were: 

• Judith Rawling (BA,DipEd,DipEnv.Stud.MEnvSt) 

• David Thomas Consultant Botanist 

• Rebecca Carman (BSc,MPhil,PGDipWldMgt) 

Disclaimer 

The preparation of this Report has been in accordance with the brief provided by the Client and has relied 

upon the data and results collected at or under the times and conditions specified in the Report. All findings, 

conclusions or recommendations contained within the Report are based only on the aforementioned 

circumstances. 

The Report has been prepared for use by the Client Bellevue Projects, and no responsibility for its use by 

other parties is accepted by UBM Ecological Consultants Pty Ltd 2 . 

Draft Report 14 June 2012 

Revision 21 January 2013 

Judith Rawling 

BA,DipEd,DipEnvStud,MEnvStud 

Managing Director UBM Ecological Consultants 

Member Executive Council ECA (NSW) , Member AIB, MESA, MEIANZ 

2 Copyright © UBM Ecological Consultants Pty Ltd January 2013 


Page viii


Definitions 

BGHF – Blue Gum High Forest, a Critically Endangered Ecological Community listed under the Schedules of 

the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 and Commonwealth Environment Protection & 

Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 

Council / KC–Ku-ring-gai Council 

EEC – Endangered Ecological Community – as determined by the NSW Scientific Committee and described 

as–a community facing a risk of extinction in the immediate future, as listed under State and/or 

Commonwealth threatened species legislation 

CEEC - Critically Endangered Ecological Community – as determined by the Scientific Committee and 

described as a community facing an extremely high risk of extinction in the immediate future, as listed under 

State and/or Commonwealth threatened species legislation 

Characteristic vs. Diagnostic Species - Characteristic species are those typically found in the subject plant 

community but which may also be found in a number of other plant communities, e.g. Pittosporum 

undulatum, Microlaena stipoides, Pratia purpurascens, Dichondra repens, Entolasia spp, Oplismenus spp etc. 

Diagnostic species are those that indicate the type of plant community present and which are usually limited 

to the subject community or to a narrow range of communities which have similar or related habitat 

requirements. Examples might be Blue Gums indicating BGHF, Sydney Turpentine indicating Sydney 

Turpentine Ironbark Forest, Grey Box indicating Cumberland Plain Woodland or Shale Gravel Transition 

Forest. Some commonly occurring species are characteristic of quite a few plant communities, 

DECCW – NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (formerly ‘DECC’). Now the Office of 

Environment & Heritage (‘OEH’) within the Department of Premier & Cabinet. 

Direct Impacts are those that directly affect the habitat and individuals. They include, but are not limited to, 

death through predation, trampling, poisoning of the animal/plant itself and the removal of suitable habitat. 

Indirect Impacts occur when project-related activities affect species, populations or ecological communities 

in a manner other than direct loss. Indirect impacts can include loss of individuals through starvation, 

exposure, predation by domestic and/or feral animals, loss of breeding opportunities, loss of shade/shelter, 

deleterious hydrological changes, increased soil salinity, erosion, inhibition of nitrogen fixation, weed 

invasion, fertiliser drift, or increased human activity within or directly adjacent to sensitive habitat areas. 

Ecological Community – described as an assemblage of species occupying a particular area at a particular 

time, e.g. as set out in the Final Determinations of the Scientific Committee 

EPBC Act – Commonwealth Environment Protection & Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 

Habitat – an area or areas occupied, or periodically or occasionally occupied by a species, population or 

ecological community, and including any biotic or abiotic components present. 


Page ix


LGA – Local Government Area – here Ku-ring-gai 

Locality – generally, an area within 1-2 kilometres of the Study Area 

NPWS – former National Parks & Wildlife Unit of DECCW 

Region – area within 10 km of the Subject Property/Study Area 

SCIVI – Southeast NSW Native Vegetation Classification and Mapping by Tozer et al. 2010 for the former 

NSW Department of Environment and Climate Change (DECCW) 3 . 

Subject Property –existing Lot 1 in DP 375262 at 35 Water Street, Water Street @ 21,318 sq metres (2.1318 

hectares) in size and formerly known as Rippon Grange; and latterly as the John Williams Respite Care 

Centre or Hospital. 

Subject Sites – refers to the area directly affected by the draft concept subdivision proposal i.e. proposed 

new Lots 2 (Area 1), 3, 4 and 5 (Area 2) within the Subject Property. 

Study Area means the Subject Site and any additional areas which are likely to be affected by the Proposal, 

either directly or indirectly. The Study Area extends as far as necessary to take all potential impacts into 

account. 

TSC Act – NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 

UBM – UBM Ecological Consultants Pty Ltd: formerly trading as Urban Bushland Management Consultants 

(‘UBMC’) 

WoNS – Weed of National Significance 

3 Reference: Tozer, M.G., Turner, K., Simpson, C., Keith, D.A., Beukers, P., MacKenzie, B., Tindall, D. & Pennay, C. (2010). Native 

vegetation of southeast NSW: a revised classification and map for the coast and eastern tableland, in Cunninghamia 11 (3) 


Page x


1 INTRODUCTION 

1.1 Background Information 

UBM Ecological Consultants (‘UBM’) has been retained by the Proponent Mr Peter Borbilas of Bellevue 

Projects Pty Ltd undertake ecological investigations in support of a Planning Proposal application to Ku-ringgai 

Council to rezone the Subject Property Lot 1 in DP 375262 at 35 Water Street Wahroonga from 5(a) 

Special Uses (Hospital) to E4 Environmental Living Zone. 

Ku-ring-gai Council is in the process of preparing a new Principal Local Environmental Plan (‘LEP’) to replace 

the Ku-ring-gai Planning Scheme Ordinance (‘KPSO’). The draft LEP has not yet been exhibited, however it is 

understood that it is proposed to rezone the Subject Property part R2 Low Density Residential and part E4 

Environmental Living. When the draft LEP is finalised and gazetted, the proposed E4 Environmental Living 

Zone for the Subject Property would be subsumed into the new LEP. 

The existing zoning of the land allows for ‘hospitals’ but does not allow for residential subdivision. The E4 

Environmental Living Zoning would permit limited residential development, subject to a minimum Lot size of 

2,000 m 2 , the conservation of the ecological heritage values of the site and retention of neighbourhood 

character and amenity (Ingham Planning 2013). 

Two thirds of the Subject Property Lot 1 has been identified by Ku-ring-gai Council (Draft LEP 218) as part of 

a larger area considered to have ‘biodiversity significance’. This assessment is based on the presence of the 

‘critically endangered’ Blue Gum High Forest (‘BGHF’) on the Subject Property: this community represented 

predominantly by stands of remnant Sydney Blue Gum (E. saligna) canopy trees. However, there is sufficient 

land on the Subject Property outside the primary ecological conservation areas and the primary heritage 

curtilage of Rippon Grange to enable creation of a small number of residential lots. 

The presence of remnant BGHF within the Subject Property established by previous workers is confirmed. 

The extent of this ecological community on the Property has been determined by the NSW Land & 

Environment Court (Proceedings 11193 of 2006) to be 6,350 sq metres (0.635 ha), and this area has been 

adopted in this Report (see Figure 1.2). 

Given the considerable number of flora and fauna surveys undertaken for the whole of the 2.1318 hectares 

of the Subject Property since 2005, it was not considered necessary to replicate these earlier studies, 

especially for those areas mapped as Core BGHF. This Report therefore focuses on the conservation 

significance of those parts of the Subject Property which may be the subject of a future development 

application – i.e. areas outside the mapped Core BGHF, as determined by the Land and Environment Court 

(2006). 

The current Report- Flora and Fauna Survey and Ecological Assessments for Blue Gum High Forest at 35 

Water Street Wahroonga – will, where applicable, update and expand the findings of a number of earlier 

surveys and reports prepared for the Subject Property; these earlier reports having been undertaken on 

behalf of former Department of Commerce and latterly, the former owners Waterbrook Pty Ltd (see Section 

3.1.1 and Section 6 References) for a list of previous reports). 

UBM Ecological Consultants Pty Ltd Page 1


Ecological investigations and Assessments will be undertaken in accordance with the requirements of the 

NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 and Commonwealth Environment Protection & Biodiversity 

Conservation Act 1999. The potential impacts of the current rezoning application and of any future limited 

development of the Subject Property will also be considered. 

The regional positioning of the Subject Property is shown on Figure 1.1. 

Figure 1.1: Regional Positioning of the Subject Property Rippon Grange 



1.2 Site History 

The Subject Property (Lot 1 in DP 375262) is part of a historic property known as Rippon Grange. The 

Property is 2.1318 hectares in size, with frontages to Water Street and Young Street and is located within the 

fully developed residential suburb of Wahroonga. The Property is currently zoned Special Uses 5(a) Hospital 

Rippon Grange was constructed as a two (2) storey private dwelling in 1898 and is the main building on the 

Subject Property, although a number of significant outbuildings and important landscape elements remain in 

situ. Rippon Grange has been classified by the National Trust of Australia (NSW), and it is also listed as an 

‘Indicative Place’ on the Australian Heritage Commission’s Register of the National Estate. 

In the early 1950s, Rippon Grange was donated to the NSW State government for use as a Hospital,-and it 

continued to serve this function - latterly as the John Williams Respite Care Centre - until 2002 when it was 

declared ‘surplus to needs’. 

In 2005, the State Property Unit of the NSW Department of Commerce commissioned a preliminary 

investigation of ecological issues and an opportunities and constraints study (UBMC February 2005), which 

identified the presence of ~2,600 sq metres (0.26 ha) of simplified and modified Blue Gum High Forest on 

the Property. 

On June 30 2005, the Subject Property was acquired by Waterbrook Pty Ltd with the intention of 

redeveloping the Property under State Environmental Planning Policy (Senior Living) 2004. Subsequent 

ecological surveys carried out on behalf of Waterbrook (UBMC February 2006) confirmed the findings of the 

earlier ecological investigations. At that time, Blue Gum High Forest in the Sydney Basin Bioregion was listed 

under the Schedules of the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (hereafter ‘TSC Act’) as an 

‘Endangered Ecological Community’, and as ‘Threatened’ under the Commonwealth Environment Protection 

of Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (hereafter ‘EPBC Act’). 

Since the acquisition of the Subject Property by Waterbrook in mid-2005, the ecological status of the Blue 

Gum High Forest has been reviewed by the NSW Scientific Committee established under the TSC Act; with 

this community now being declared as a Critically Endangered Ecological Community (‘CEEC’)’ (see Final 

Determination 20 April 2007, Appendix 1). Of most import, the criteria for identifying the Blue Gum High 

Forest ecological community were also amended, thus providing for a larger proportion of the Subject 

Property to be reclassified as BGHF. 

As the result of these changes to the legislation, Ku-ring-gai Council and the then-National Parks & Wildlife 

Group of the Department of Environment & Climate Change 4 (‘DECCW’) required Waterbrook to review and 

reassess the extent of the remnant BGHF extant at 35 Water Street, Wahroonga. 

Subsequent investigations by Smith & Smith on behalf of Ku-ring-gai Council (December 2006) then revised 

the area of BHGF extant on the Subject Property from the original 2,600 sq metres (0.26 ha) mapped by 

UBMC (2005) to 6,350 sq metres (0.64 ha) (see Figure 1.2). 

4 DECCW is now the Office of Environment & Heritage within the Department of Premier & Cabinet. 



The method used by Smith & Smith (2006) to determine the extent of the BGHF at Rippon Grange was to 

draw a line around the outside canopy line of each of the large Sydney Blue Gums (Eucalyptus saligna) on 

the Property and to call this area BGHF, regardless of the nature of the understorey. Polygons were then 

joined together to arrive at the larger area of 6,530 sq metres (see Figure 1.2). 

The extended area of BGHF was subsequently approved by a Hearing in the NSW Land & Environment Court 

(No 11193 of 2006). Therefore, in view of the Court’s decision, the larger area of 6,350 sq metres of BGHF 

was adopted as a base point for all subsequent reports and investigations, including the Vegetation 

Management Plan prepared to guide the restoration and future management of the BGHF in the Subject 

Property (UBM December 2007). 

Figure 1.2: Extent of the Mapped Blue Gum High Forest in the Subject Property (UBM 2007) 



1.3 The Planning Proposal 

A Planning Proposal Report has been prepared by Ingham Planning Pty Ltd (January 2013) for the Subject 

Property Lot 1 DP 375362, 35 Water Street, Wahroonga. This Planning Proposal involves an amendment to 

the existing KPSO zoning map to change the zoning of the Subject Property Lot 1 from 5(a) Special Uses – 

Hospital to E4 Environmental Living. 

The E4 Environmental Living Zoning would permit limited residential development, subject to a minimum Lot 

size of 2,000 m 2 , conservation of the ecological heritage values of the site, and retention of neighbourhood 

character and amenity (Ingham Planning 2013). A limited residential development of the site in this manner 

will have significantly less heritage, ecological and neighbor impacts than the large hospital buildings that 

have been approved over a substantial portion of the site. 

The rezoning of the Subject Property will provide for a future development application to Ku-ring-gai Council 

to subdivide a limited number of residential allotments in the southwest and southeast corners of the site, 

together with a large a) residual Lot containing the heritage-listed buildings and gardens (see Figure 1.3). A 

development application for subdivision will be prepared if and when Council indicates support for the 

proposed re-zoning. 

Assuming the rezoning proposal is approved, the future subdivision of land at Rippon Grange is generally 

proposed as follows: 

The Heritage Precinct - proposed new Lot 1 will include Rippon Grange and its outbuildings, landscaped 

gardens, and a large part of the 19th Century arboretum. The house, which is in a derelict condition, will be 

restored and utilised once again as a family residence. 

The Potential Development Land - comprises two (2) areas with the potential for environmentally sensitive 

limited future development. 

Area 1 is located in the south-western part of the Subject Property (see Figure 1.3). 

Area 1 can accommodate a a large battle axe block and will include a new driveway from Water 

Street running along the western boundary, and a residential Lot sited to the rear of the Property; 

i.e. in the south-western corner formerly used as a poultry yard, composting and service area. Lot 2 

will be 2,070 sq metres (~0.021 ha) in size, does not include any area mapped as BGHF. 

Area 2 is located in the south-eastern corner of the Property, with part of this area abutting the mapped 

Core BGHF area (see Figure 1.3). 

Area 2 can accommodate up 3 lots frontingYoung Street. Potential Lots 3 and 4 can be accessed by a 

common driveway servicing both Lots. Both these Lots incorporate parts of the arboretum, but they also 

intrude marginally into the area mapped as BGHF (Smith & Smith 2006, UBM 2007). Lot 3 will be 940 sq 

metres (0.094 ha) and Lot 4 will be 1,290 sq metres (0.129 ha) in size. Lot 3 has 572 sq metres of BGHF, 

of which 77 sq metres (23 sq metres building and 54 metres driveway) would be affected. Lot 4 has 987 

sq metres of BGHF, of which 96 sq metres (27 sq metres building and 69 sq metres driveway) would be 

affected. 



A potential third lot within Area 2 (Lot 5) is located in the lower SE corner of the Property, adjacent to 

the rear gate and driveway on Young Street. It will be located partly on the paved car park which 

serviced the former Nurses Quarters on Billyard Avenue, and will incorporate part of the arboretum. Lot 

5 will be 1,110 sq metres (0.111 ha) in size. Lot 5 has 353 sq metres of BGHF, of which none would be 

affected (calculations courtesy Tanner Architects, pers. comm.). 

NOTE: There will be an opportunity to redesign the proposed new Lots in Area 2 so that no area of BGHF is 

impacted or the area of impact is reduced. This will be addressed if and when the current rezoning proposal 

is approved and before a development application is submitted. However, for the purposes of the current 

Report, the draft concept project design which considers the maximum potential to establish three (3) Lots 

in Area 2 will be considered in detail (see Figure 1.4). 

The subdivision concept plan submitted with the Planning Proposal (see Figure 1.3) provides for services to 

potential new Lots 3,,4 and 5 (drainage and sewage facilities) in Area 2 to be installed along the southern 

Property boundary; these being located outside the mapped BGHF Habitat area. Alternately, all services will 

be installed on the common driveway from Young Street. It is anticipated that no impact to the BGHF is 

result as a result of the installation of services. 

An Arboricultural Impact Assessment Report prepared by Tree Wise Men (October 2007) in support of a 

previous Development Application identified 342 trees in the Subject Property, and of these, a small number 

are species considered to be ‘characteristic’ of the BGHF Ecological Community (see Appendix 1). The 

remaining trees are horticultural introductions or non-indigenous native plantings. 

While some of the characteristic BGHF trees are remnant (i.e. naturally occurring), others have been planted 

in the landscaped grounds. Large native canopy trees, particularly Sydney Blue Gum (Eucalyptus saligna) 

have been widely used as landscape features in the Locality, occurring as street trees, in neighbourhood 

parks and in private gardens 

A Preliminary Tree Impact Assessment Report has been prepared by Tree Wise Man (October 2011) in 

support of the future concept subdivision proposal. This Assessment suggests that eight (8) BGHF trees will 

be removed or otherwise impacted under the subdivision proposal. However of these, two (2) specimens 

are mature Pittosporum undulatum (Sweet Pittosporum) – a small native tree known to occur is most plant 

communities in SE NSW and widely considered by bush regenerators to be a ‘native weed’ (UBMC 2006, 

UBM 2007. ). Five (5) of the BGHF trees likely to be impacted have been identified for proposed Lot 3 and 

one (1) tree for proposed Lot 4 (see Appendix 3). Another 27 introduced (exotic) trees or large shrubs will 

also be impacted, with the majority of these being located in proposed Lot 2, which is part of the landscaped 

garden and arboretum and located outside the area mapped as BGHF (Smith & Smith 2006, UBM 2007). 

In order to reduce any potential impacts on the BGHF trees on potential Lots 3, 4 and 5, within Area 2, the 

development footprint for each allotment has been sited towards the front of the Lot, in what are essentially 

open lawns with scattered trees. Pending advice from the new Project Arborists Landscape Matrix (report 

December 2011) the configuration of the development footprints will be adjusted to protect any significant 

trees which may occur. 



Appendix 3 provides information about the species and numbers of trees likely to be impacted under the 

Proposal. This information has been sourced from Tree Wise Man (Australia) Pty Ltd (October 2011). The 

draft concept plan of potential subdivision showing Areas 1 and 2 is presented as Figure 1.3. 



Figure 1.3: draft Concept Plan of Proposed 5-Lot Subdivision (courtesy TKD Architects 2012) 



Figure 1.4: draft Concept Plan of Subdivision showing Location of 4 new Lots in Area 2 (TKD Architects 2011) 



1.4 Relevant Legal and Planning Policies 

A number of local planning policies, State and Commonwealth Acts and policies are relevant to the 

management of remnant bushland in Ku-ring-gai LGA. Relevant items are listed in Table 1.1. 

Table 1.1: Summary of Environmental Policies, Planning & Legislative Requirements 5 * 

GOVERNMENT LEVEL RELEVANT POLICY /LEGISLATION RELEVANCE TO SUBJECT PROPERTY 

LOCAL 

Ku-ring-gai Planning Scheme 

Ordinance (2006) 

Draft Principal Local Environmental 

Plan (draft 2012) 

Plan of Management for KRG Council 

Bushland Reserves 2006 

Ku-ring-gai Biodiversity Strategy 

May 2006 

Currently Lot 1 DP 726091 is zoned 2(c) Residential. Lot 

1 DP 375262 is zoned 5(a) Special Uses (Hospital) 

Amendments to the KPSO are proposed which identify 

2/3 rds of the Subject Property as having biodiversity 

significance. Rezoning is proposed as part R2 Low 

Density Residential and part E4 Environmental Living. 

This document is currently in draft form and has not 

been adopted (Ku-Ring-gai Draft Planning Proposal – 

Biodiversity Mapping – Draft LEP 218)” 

Council’s Bushland PoM provides practical overarching 

guidance for the management of bushland reserves. 

The companion document to the Plan - ‘Operation 

Information’ - contains specific requirements & actions 

for individual reserves, with species lists and an 

overview of the relevant legislation and Recovery Plans. 

While not strictly applicable to bushland on private 

land, the PoM provides valuable information on local 

bushland species, habitats and ecological communities. 

Council has identified a significant part of the Subject 

Property has retaining biodiversity values. 

Among the Strategy Objectives are: 

- to prevent loss of local native biodiversity on 

public and private lands by 

eliminating/ameliorating threatening processes 

- to protect, enhance and where appropriate, 

increase local biodiversity on public and private 

lands 

- to protect and enhance aquatic and terrestrial 

ecosystems and habitats and connectivity 

between reserves. 

The Vegetation Management Plan prepared for the 

BGHF Habitat at 35 Water Street (UBM 2007) has 

addressed each of the objectives listed above. 

5 Information in Table 1.2 sourced from the Vegetation Management Plan UBM 2007 




STATE 

Threatened Species Conservation Act 

1995 

Sydney Regional Environmental Plan 

Hawkesbury-Nepean River No 20 

Noxious Weeds Act 1993(Amended 

2005) 

Rural Fires Act 1997 / Amendment 

A single threatened flora species – Magenta Lilly Pilly 

(Syzygium paniculatum) – was recorded in the Subject 

Property (in proposed Lot 1). This species has been 

planted widely throughout the Region, and in the 

Subject Property is likely to be of horticultural origin 

rather than a natural occurrence (confirmed by DECCW 

2007). 

Stands of a single critically endangered ecological 

community – Blue Gum High Forest (‘BGHF’) – were 

recorded for part of the Subject Property (see Figure 

1.2). The community has been highly simplified, both 

structurally and floristically due to long-term severe 

disturbances, past and current land uses. 

The following fauna species have been recorded in or 

near to the Subject Property, and where these have not 

been recorded, suitable habitat is known to be present: 

The Grey-headed Flying Fox (Pteropus poliocephalus), is 

listed as ‘vulnerable’ under the Act. 

The Gang-gang Cockatoo (Callocephalon fimbriatum) is 

listed as a ‘vulnerable’ species throughout NSW. 

The Powerful Owl (Ninox strenua) is listed as a 

‘vulnerable’ species throughout NSW. 

Source material: UBM 2007 

SREP-20 aims to protect the environment of the 

Hawkesbury-Nepean River system by ensuring that the 

impacts of future land uses are considered in a regional 

context, mainly by maintaining and improving water 

quality in the Catchment. 

The Subject Property is within the Lovers Jump Creek 

sub-catchment. There are no natural drainage lines on 

this site, and the land drains into Council’s stormwater 

drainage system on Young Street and Billyard Avenue: 

then draining into Lovers Jump and Cowan Creeks. 

The current Proposal will not adversely impact on the 

natural environment of the Hawkesbury-Nepean 

Catchment or water quality within the Catchment. 

There are 13 noxious weed species within the larger 

Subject Property. Many of these occur in the area 

proposed for development (see Section 4.3). 

The landowner has a legal responsibility to control 

noxious weeds on the property and to prevent their 

spread to adjoining land. 

The Subject Property is not classified as Bush Fire Prone 




2002 Land (Ku-ring-gai Council 2002). Accordingly, no Asset 

Protection Zones are required to be established. 

State Environmental Planning Policy 

19 – Bushland in Urban Areas 

A Bushfire Risk Assessment has been prepared by 

Bushfire Planning Services (12 June 2012). This report 

concludes that there is no bushfire hazard within the 

Subject Property and that no hazard is presented by a 

stand of bushland in nearby Wahroonga Public School 

(mapped as ‘buffer’ under Council’s Bushfire Prone 

Lands Map). This Map is currently under revision, but 

this is unlikely to impact on the BGHF Habitat in the 

Subject Property. 

SEPP-19 applies aims to protect and preserve bushland 

in urban environments but applies only to land zoned as 

‘community land’ or ‘public open space’. In accordance 

with clause 7a of SEPP-19, public authorities managing 

bushland zoned for or reserved for public open space 

purposes shall not disturb the bushland for the purpose 

referred to in Clause 6(2) unless it has first had regard to 

the aims of this Policy. 

No areas within, or adjacent to the Subject Property are 

zoned as community land or public open space, and the 

Property is privately owned. Therefore the SEPP does 

not apply. 

COMMONWEALTH 

State Environmental Planning Policy 

44 – Koala Habitat 

Environment Protection and 

Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 

The Subject Property is not considered to constitute 

potential Koala habitat. Therefore, a Koala Plan of 

Management is not required. 

A single threatened flora species – Magenta Lilly Pilly 

(Syzygium paniculatum) – was recorded in proposed Lot 

1 – outside the area mapped as BGHF. This species has 

been frequently planted throughout the Region, and is 

likely to be of horticultural origin rather than a natural 

occurrence (confirmed DECCW 2007). 

A single threatened ecological community – Blue Gum 

High Forest (BGHF) – was recorded within part of the 

Subject Property (see Figure 1.2). The community has 

been highly simplified, both structurally and floristically 

due to long-term and severe disturbances. 

As this site is < one (1) hectare in size, the 

Commonwealth Department of Environment & Water 

Resources (‘DEW’) has declined to consider any of the 

previous development proposals as significant. 

The Grey-headed Flying Fox (Pteropus poliocephalus), is 

listed as ‘vulnerable’ under the Act. 

Source material: UBM 2007 



2 SITE DESCRIPTION 

2.1 Location and Setting 

Historic Rippon Grange is located in a fully developed residential setting in the suburb of Wahroonga, in Kuring-gai 

Local Government Area. It is about one (1) kilometre from the Wahroonga Shopping Centre and 

Railway Station and about 22 kilometres north-west of the Sydney CBD. 

The suburb of Wahroonga was developed in the late 19 th Century, soon after the railway line was extended 

to Sydney’s Upper North Shore (c. 1890). For many years, it was used as a private dwelling, and during that 

time the grounds were developed and extensively landscaped. 

The character of the surrounding area is described as 

“…a well established leafy residential area. The Lots are larger than average found in Sydney, 

and the gardens are landscaped and well maintained. The exception to the surrounding 

residential dwellings is ‘The Bush School’, which is located opposite the site in Water Street” 

(R. Olssen for Ku-ring-gai Council, December 2006). 

The former John Williams Hospital site occupies land bounded by Water Street (north) and Young Street 

(east) and backs onto residential development in Billyard Avenue (south) and Plymouth Close (west). The 

original Property was once much larger, but it has been reduced in size as land was progressively sold off for 

residential development. 

The grounds have been extensively landscaped over a number of years, and include a significant arboretum 

with specimen trees sourced from all parts of the world. Some native canopy trees have been retained; 

most particularly a stand of Sydney Blue Gums (Eucalyptus saligna), and these been incorporated into the 

original landscape design; growing over (exotic) garden plantings and lawns. These canopy trees are located 

predominantly in the eastern and central parts of the Property (see Figure 1.2). Some of these Blue Gums 

may be remnants of the original vegetation; while others (particularly those occurring in a straight line on 

the Water/Young Street frontages) appear to have been planted. 

In order to provide for the upkeep of a large pleasure garden and latterly a Hospital, parts of the Subject 

Property were developed as ‘service areas’ (composting facilities, work sheds), while other areas were used 

to provide food for the main house and latterly the Hospital (chicken coops, vegetable gardens and a small 

orchard). Surviving plans and photographs show that these facilities were located in the south-western part 

of the Subject Property, behind the Stables – an area which has now been identified for ‘reconstruction’ to 

BGHF (UBM Vegetation Management Plan 2007). 

From 1951 to 2005, when the Property was owned by the State Government and used as a hospital and 

respite care centre, the grounds were generally neglected, with invasive garden plants and other weeds 

growing unchecked and invading the remnant BGHF along the Water Street / Young Street boundary. The 

understorey in this stand of BGHF trees is now wholly composed of introduced species and weeds. 



There is also some evidence that a second period of landscaping occurred in the latter part of the 20 th 

Century, when a number of ‘generally’ Australian native species (i.e. not indigenous to the BGHF) were 

planted into the Water and Young Streets remnant, in what was originally an open lawn area towards its 

southern end. 

The remnant BGHF in the Subject Property now comprises individuals and small stands of native canopy 

trees over a predominantly exotic/weedy understorey. These areas are hereafter described in this Ecological 

Report as ‘BGHF Habitat’ in order to distinguish the vegetation from a viable BGHF ‘ecological community’, 

which is typically floristically diverse and structurally intact (see Final Determination TSC Act, Appendix 1). 

The closest area of ‘bushland’ to Rippon Grange is found in the grounds of ‘The Bush School’ (Wahroonga 

Public School), which is ~100 metres away, on the northern side of Water Street. While this remnant retains 

a stand of Sydney Blue Gum (Eucalyptus saligna) and some other native species, it is badly degraded with an 

understorey of Privets (Ligustrum spp) and other woody weeds estimated at >75% density. Flow of native 

genetic material (via seed dispersal) between the Bush School and the BGHF Habitat is possible, but unlikely 

given that there are very few sites bare soil sites where plant establishment could occur in either location. 

Two (2) Council reserves are located to the north-east: Turiban Reserve (@ 250 metres) and Clive Evatt 

Reserve (@ 425 metres) (Cumberland Ecology 2007); while other Sydney Blue Gums (Eucalyptus saligna) 

have been retained in private gardens (see Plates). Connectivity between these bushland reserves and 

through the Locality generally is retained only through the tree canopy; with both native and introduced 

trees providing ‘stepping stones’ through a highly urbanised environment (see Figure 4.1). 

Table 2.1: Site Definition for the Subject Property 

Title Information 

Ownership 

Location 

Co-ordinates 

Total Area 

Zoning 

Rippon Grange - the former John Williams Hospital at 35 Water Street Wahroonga, Kuring-gai 

Local Government Area, Sydney. 

Bellevue Projects Pty Ltd 

The land is bounded by Water Street (north) and Young Street (east); backing onto 

residential development in Billyard Avenue (south) and Plymouth Close (west). 

Latitude: 33 degrees,43 minutes, 7 seconds 

Longitude: 151 degrees,7 minutes,.31 seconds 

Lot 1 DP 375262), with an area of 21, 318 sq metres (2.1318 hectares) 

Currently Lot 1 DP 375262 is zoned 5(a) Special Uses (Hospital) (Ku-ring-gai Municipal 

Council 2006) 

Proposed as part R2 Low Density Residential and part E4 Environmental Living under 

Council’s proposed Comprehenisive LEP for Ku-ring-gai LGA. 



2.2 Physical Environment 

The physical characteristics of the Subject Property and the Locality have been summarised in Table 2.3. 

Table 2.2: Physical Features of the Subject Property & Environs 6 

FEATURE DESCRIPTION 

Topography 

Geology 

Soil Landscape Unit 

Local Hydrology 

The Subject Property is located on gently sloping land, with a moderately steep (10%) 

gradient from north-west to south-east – downslope towards Young Street and Billyard 

Avenue. 

Site elevation ranges from 200m AHD at the top to 176m AHD at the lower southern 

site boundary, sloping towards Billyard Avenue. 

The geology has been mapped as Ashfield Shale (Rwa), which is a unit (or substrate) of 

the Wianamatta Group Shales. It typically comprises black to dark-grey shale and 

laminite (Herbert 1983). 

The Subject Property is located on the Glenorie (gn) Soil Landscape Unit. 

Glenorie soils are erosional landscapes, comprising shallow to moderately deep red 

podzolic soils on crests, moderately deep red and brown podzolic soils on upper 

slopes, deep yellow podzolic soils on lower slopes and humic gleys, yellow podzolic 

soils and gleyed podzolic soils along drainage lines (Chapman & Murphy 1989). 

Glenorie Soil Landscape comprises undulating to rolling low hills with a local relief of 

50-80 m, and slopes of 5-20%. Ridges, hillcrests and valleys are narrow (Chapman & 

Murphy 1989). 

Limitations: As the gardens at Rippon Grange were developed in the late 19 th Century, 

and have until recently been maintained as a managed landscape, it may be assumed 

that the native soil profile described above has been extensively modified. 

The Subject Property is located with the Lovers Jump Creek sub-catchment of the 

Hawkesbury-Nepean Catchment (see Table 1.1). There is no external catchment inflow 

to the site. There are no natural drainage lines within, or in close proximity to the 

Subject Property. Runoff drains generally overland, to the south-east. 

An ephemeral man-made drainage line runs from north to south along the western 

side of the driveway in the south-eastern portion of the Subject Property. 

Existing stormwater drainage is limited to the developed areas, and consists of building 

roof drainage and sparsely located surface inlet pits on pavement, with discharge to 

Council’s stormwater system at Billyard Avenue (LHO Group, Drainage Concept Plan 

November 2007). 

6 Information in Table 2.3 has been sourced from the Vegetation Management Plan UBM 2007 



FEATURE DESCRIPTION 

Climatic Details 

The mean daily maximum temperature is 22.3°C, with highest temperatures recorded 

in December, January and February. The mean daily minimum temperature 11.0°C, 

with lowest temperatures recorded in June, July and August. 

Mean annual rainfall is 1,068.0 mm; with February, March and April recording the 

highest mean levels (Bureau of Meteorology 2006, Pennant Hills #067047). 

NOTE: the suburb of Wahroonga (along with neighbouring Turramurra) receives the 

highest annual rainfall in the Sydney area. 

Figure 2.1: Soil Landscapes of the Subject Property & Environs (per Chapman & Murphy 1989) 



2.3 Biological Environment 

2.3.1 Vegetation Community Mapping 

Native vegetation in the Sydney Basin Bioregion has been mapped by a number of authorities (Benson 1992, 

NPWS 2002, and Tozer et al. 2010) 7 . 

Over the past 10 years the former-Department of Environment Climate Change & Water (‘DECCW’) 8 has 

been developing vegetation maps for the greater Sydney area and the south coast of New South Wales. This 

is an on-going process of revision and addition as new surveys and community verification take place. Each 

subsequent mapping system has sought to refine the previous mapping, which has been based largely on 

aerial photography and physical characteristics such as geology, soil type, elevation and aspect. In the more 

recent mapping programs there has been an increased emphasis on ground truthing. 

A brief summary of these mapping programs as they relate to the native vegetation extant at 35 Water 

Street is presented below. 

2.3.1.1 National Parks & Wildlife Service 2002 

In 2002 the former NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (‘NPWS’) produced a series of vegetation maps 

for the Cumberland Plain at the scale of 1:25 000; mapping remnants greater than 0.5 hectares in size. The 

NPWS mapped BGHF in part of the Subject Property, with other stands of BGHF occurring in the Locality (see 

Figure 2.2). The condition of the BGHF community within the Subject Property was mapped as “Txu” 

(canopy cover < 10% over urban development), and its conservation significance was classified as “Urban 

Remnant Trees (Critically Endangered Communities)”. 

NOTE: most urban areas which retain native canopy trees are coded ‘Txu – canopy


2.3.2 Blue Gum High Forest in the Subject Property 

The BGHF Habitat at Water Street as mapped by Smith & Smith (2006) and adopted by the NSW Land & 

Environment Court (Proceedings 11193 of 2006), comprises two (2) separate stands of vegetation located in 

the central and eastern sectors of the site (see Figure 1.2). These two (2) areas are described as the ‘Core 

BGHF Habitat’. 

The area determined as the Core BGHF Habitat forms a reversed ‘L-shape’, running along the residential 

boundary on the southern side of Water Street, and extending along Young Street on the eastern boundary. 

This area is described in the Vegetation Management Plan (UBM 2007) as ‘Core Bushland’ and is ~20 to 35 

metres in width and 135 metres long along the Young Street boundary, and 15 to 40 metres wide and 125 

metres long near the southern boundary. The east-west length of the widest section near the southern 

boundary is approximately 50 metres (see Figure 1.2). 

The Core BGHF Habitat generally has an intact canopy of Sydney Blue Gum (Eucalyptus saligna) and other 

sub-canopy trees which stand over a weed infested mid-storey and groundcover strata. The mid-storey 

contains dense weed thickets dominated by Privets (Ligustrum spp), African Olive (Olea europaea subsp 

cuspidata) and Lantana (Lantana camara). The groundcover is dominated by garden escapes such as 

Asparagus Fern (Asparagus aethiopicus), Fishbone Fern (Nephrolepis cordifolia), Agapanthus (Agapanthus 

praecox), Japanese Honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), and introduced turf grasses. However, some native 

resilience is indicated by the scattered occurrence of a small number of disturbance-tolerant native shrubs 

such as Wattles (Acacia spp), She-oak (Casuarina spp) and Sweet Pittosporum (Pittosporum undulatum). 

Within the Core BGHF Habitat are several small clearings which comprise areas of open lawn with scattered 

or few weeds extant (see Section 4.3 and Appendix 2). These open grassland areas were once managed as 

lawns. Some native groundcovers are present here, growing among the sparse turf. These include Wallaby 

Grass (Danthonia sp), Glycine, Basket Grass (Oplismenus aemulus), Weeping Meadow Grass (Microlaena 

stipoides), and Kidney Weed (Dichondra repens). 

A third area designated as ‘Non-core BGHF Habitat’ (Smith & Smith 2006) is located in the south-western 

sector of the Subject Property (see Figure 1.2). This part of the Property was used for more than 100 years 

as a service area; comprising vegetable gardens, composting and storage areas, and a chicken coup. 

This Non-core BGHF Habitat area retains some mature canopy trees (Sydney Blue Gums and others) growing 

over stone-edged garden beds containing introduced horticultural specimens (Camellia, Azalea, Clivia and 

Agapanthus) and bordering remnants of the former lawns. Because of its lack of native floristic diversity and 

structural integrity, and its long-term use as a garden and service area, this third Non-core area was not 

included in the original BGHF mapping by UBMC 2005 and 2006). 

However, this area has since been determined to be ‘potential’ BGHF based on the assumption that native 

seed in the soil seed bank is viable (Smith & Smith 2006), and as a result, it has been incorporated into the 

larger BGHF Habitat area to be rehabilitated and reconstructed (see Vegetation Management Plan UBM 

2007). 



Figure 2.2: Vegetation mapping (NPWS 2002) 

Figure 2.3: Vegetation mapping (SCIVI) by Tozer et al. 2010 



3 FLORA ASSESSMENT 

3.1 Methods 

3.1.1 Literature Review 

Previous ecological studies conducted for the Subject Property and general references for the Locality and 

Region were searched for descriptions of similar habitats, and for recordings of flora species, populations or 

communities of conservation significance known to occur in the area. 

The main documents referenced were: 

• The Native Vegetation of the Cumberland Plain, Western Sydney (NPWS 2002); 

• Native vegetation of southeast NSW: a revised classification and map for the coast and eastern 

tablelands (Tozer et al. 2010); 

• Identity and Condition of Native Vegetation at 35 Water Street, Wahroonga (Smith, P. & Smith, J. 

(December 2006); 

• Arboricultural Impact Assessment Report for Waterbrook @ Wahroonga, 35 Water Street & 64 

Billyard Avenue, Wahroonga (Tree Wise Men (October 2007); 

• Species Impact Statement for 35 Water Street, Wahroonga (Cumberland Ecology 2007); 

• Vegetation Management Plan for Blue Gum High Forest Habitat 35 Water Street Wahroonga (UBMC 

2007); 

• Tree Assessment & Impact Report for a potential 5-Lot Subdivision at 35 Water Street Wahroonga 

(Landscape Matrix, December 2011); and 

• Flora Survey & Ecological Assessment for Proposed 5-Lot Subdivision at 35 Water Street Wahroonga 

(UBM December 2011). 

A number of other studies, reports and databases were reviewed and drawn upon as required, including 

relevant reports and mapping conducted by UBM (Chapter 9 References). Particular attention was paid to 

records of flora species listed under the Schedules of the Commonwealth EPBC Act and the NSW TSC Act 

which have previously been recorded in the Locality and Region. 

The current Report has been prepared as a ‘stand alone’ report. Therefore, information has been sourced 

from a number of previous studies and reports prepared for the Subject Property in relation to previous 

Development Applications. All information sourced from earlier reports has been appropriately referenced. 

Plant identifications were made according to nomenclature in Pellow et al. (2009) and Botanic Gardens Trust 

(2010). Stands of vegetation were described by their structural and floristic characteristics according to 

Tozer et al. (2003, 2006 and 2010). 

Critically Endangered and Endangered Ecological Communities were classified and named according to NSW 

Scientific Committee’s Final Determinations (various dates). 

Noxious weeds were determined using lists of weeds declared for Ku-ring-gai LGA under the NSW Noxious 

Weeds Act 1993 (Amended 2005). 



3.1.2 Field Survey 

Field survey was undertaken by Consultant Botanist David Thomas on two (2) occasions in late May and early 

June 2012. A total of ~22 hours was spent actively surveying on site, with another 2-3 hours spent in 

laboratory time. Previous investigations by the same worker totalling 12 hours were undertaken in 

December 2011. Total field survey effort in the same survey locations is 34 hours. 

NOTE: the same worker D. Thomas who surveyed the quadrats established by Cumberland Ecology in 2007, 

also subsequently surveyed for UBM in December 2011 and May/June 2012. 

The ecological survey was undertaken in the area mapped as BGHF Habitat (per Smith & Smith 2006) 

generally, as well as targeting the four (4) Subject Sites proposed for future development (see Figure 1.3). 

Field survey was undertaken to assess the floristic composition and diversity of native species occurring 

within these areas. Although all parts of the Property outside the formal house gardens were surveyed in 

detail, the field survey focused on searching for any rare or endangered species known to occur in the 

Locality and Region. The presence of species known to be both ‘characteristic’ and ‘diagnostic’ of the BGHF 

(see Final Determination Appendix 1) was the main focus of this targeted survey. 

The potential impacts of the concept subdivision proposal on those areas mapped as BGHF Habitat was also 

assessed, and examined in the context of the adopted Vegetation Management Plan (UBM 2007). 

Proposed Development Areas: Native vegetation in the area proposed for development Areas 1 and 2 

(see Figure 1.3) was first assessed in a ‘general’ survey carried out on foot using the ‘Random Meander’ 

method as described by Cropper (1993). This repeated the survey methodology used in the same areas 

during field surveys in December 2011. 

Using the ‘Parallel Line Method’ as described by Cropper (1993), a targeted search was undertaken for 

threatened species listed under the Schedules of the NSW TSC Act and/or the Commonwealth EPBC Act 

which have been identified as occurring, or potentially occurring, in the Locality and Region (see Table 4.1). 

This method involves using a series of parallel line transects within all areas identified for investigation and 

recording all vascular flora species located. 

Any noxious weeds for Ku-ring-gai (Noxious Weeds Act 1993, Revised 2005) and significant environmental 

weeds located were also recorded, and a visual comparison made of existing weed populations with those 

occurring in 2007 when the Vegetation Management Plan was prepared (UBM 2007). 

BGHF Habitat Areas: Following the Random Meander survey, 11 quadrats were surveyed in the BGHF 

Habitat Areas (see Figure 3.1 for location of quadrats). This part of the field survey included a review and 

reassessment of all sites surveyed by previous workers (UBMC 2006, 2007, Cumberland Ecology 2007, and 

UBM 2011). 

The locations of nine (9) of the 20 x 20 metre quadrats established by UBM (December 2011) approximately 

corresponded to the 10, 10 x 10 metre quadrats established by Cumberland Ecology as part of the 2007 

Species Impact Statement prepared for the previous owners Waterbrook (see Section 4.1 SIS). 



The proportions of exotics in each of four (4) assumed vegetation strata (i.e. tree canopy, sub-canopy, shrub, 

ground cover) were estimated in each quadrat. Although the quadrat size was larger than those established 

the 2007 and 2011 surveys, the current 2012 quadrats incorporated the location of these earlier quadrats. 

Each quadrat pair was located in locally uniform vegetation, except in the quadrat 7 pair where the larger 

quadrat included a higher proportion of indigenous vegetation. 

The survey results were then used to compare the health or condition of the remnant BGHF in approximately 

the same locations surveyed in 2006, 2007 and 2011. These results also considered the response of the 

vegetation to the absence of any routine maintenance since at least 2005, when the Property was sold by 

the NSW State government. 

The current health or condition, floristic diversity and structural integrity of the remnant BGHF was assessed 

in light of claims made by expert witnesses in the NSW Land & Environment Court hearings in 2007; i.e. that 

the BGHF on the Subject Property retained a high degree of resilience, and had the potential to return to a 

more natural condition through natural regeneration from in situ seed sources. 

3.1.3 Mapping and Photography 

The extent of the remnant BGHF has previously been mapped by a number of workers (UBM 2005, 2006, 

2007. Smith & Smith 2006, Cumberland 2007, and UBM 2011) and the area adopted by the NSW Land and 

Environment Court (Proceedings 11193 of 2006), so detailed mapping was not repeated again. 

Visual evidence suggests that the vegetation within the BGHF Core Habitat has not changed markedly from 

site conditions recorded in 2007, although there has been an increase in the distribution and density of 

woody weeds (particularly Privet, African Olive and Lantana), weedy ground covers and introduced vines in 

all areas surveyed. The extent and diversity of native understorey species has decreased concurrently. 

Mapping showing the location of the BGHF Habitat within the Subject Property were sourced from UBM 

2007 and Cumberland Ecology (2006). Similarly, vegetation mapping by NPWS (2002) and Tozer et al (2010) 

were sourced from the OEH website at www.environment.nsw.gov.au. 

The locations of the proposed new Lots within the Subject Property have been superimposed on an original 

drawing prepared by Tanner Architects (see Figure 1.3). 

3.2 Limitations to Ecological Field Surveys 

The diversity of flora species recorded during the current field survey is expected to be influenced by 

seasonal factors, with some species likely to be inconspicuous, or absent from the above-ground populations 

during particular times of the year. For these reasons, survey results can always be improved by extending 

the time allowed to provide an investigation in all seasons. 

However, given the long history of ecological investigations on this Property undertaken in all seasons (see 

Literature Review) and given that weather conditions have been favourable for plant growth for the recent 

spring and summer growing seasons, it is considered that the time allocated to the field surveys is more than 

adequate for the purposes of this Report. 



Plate 1: Core BGHF Habitat with weedy understorey: looking to Young Street (Photo UBM 2011) 

Plate 2: Former Croquet Lawn showing weed invasion (Cootamundra Wattle, Fishbone Fern, 

Blackberry & Fireweed (photo UBM 2007) 



Plate 3: Non-Core BGHF Habitat in the south-western corner: former service area behind stables– 

(photo facing south) Photo UBM 2011 

PLATE 5: View from Bush School looking west on Water Street: Subject Property to centre rear 



3.3 Field Survey Results 

3.3.1 Vegetation Communities 

Previous studies (UBMC 2005, 2006, 2007 & UBM 2011, Smith & Smith 2006, Cumberland Ecology 2007) 

have confirmed the remnant native vegetation within the Subject Property as BGHF. The remnant consists 

primarily of mature canopy trees (Sydney Blue Gum Eucalyptus saligna) considered to be ‘diagnostic’ of the 

BGHF, with a small number of locally indigenous shrubs and ground covers ‘characteristic’ of the CEEC also 

present (see Final Determination Appendix 1). While many of the native trees are likely to be remnant 

individuals, having been retained when the gardens were developed in the late 19 th and early 20 th Centuries, 

some of the younger trees have been planted since that time. 

The extent of the existing (and potential) BGHF on the Subject Property was determined by Smith & Smith 

(2006) to be 6,350 sq metres (0.635 ha). This area was subsequently adopted by the Land & Environment 

Court (Proceedings 11193 of 2006) and it has been used in all subsequent surveys and reports, including the 

current UBM flora and fauna survey. 

The ‘Core’ BGHF Habitat on the Subject Property is located in the eastern part of the Property, in an L- 

shaped distribution fronting Water and Young Streets. The understorey in dominated by woody weeds 

(Privets - Ligustrum spp, African Olive - Olea europaea subsp cuspidata, Lantana camara, and Cape Broom - 

Genista monspessulana) (see Plates). 

A second Core Habitat area is located towards the centre of the Property, within parts of the arboretum and 

landscaped gardens, although in these areas the native understorey has been totally cleared and the large 

trees under-planted with horticultural introductions and lawns (see Plates and Figure 1.2). 

3.3.2 Indigenous Flora Species 

A list of plant species recorded for the eight (8) transects 11 quadrats and established and surveyed in the 

Subject Property has been provided in Appendix 2 (transects) and Appendix 3 (quadrats) respectively. 

Figure 3.1 provides the location of these transects and quadrats within the Subject Property. 

Transect Results: For the eight (8) Transects established in the south-eastern part of the Property 

proposed for limited future development (i.e. Subject Sites proposed new Lots 3, 4 and 5), 170 flora species 

were recorded (see Appendix 2). Of these, 75% were horticultural introductions, non-indigenous native 

species, or weeds. See Section 3.5 for a description of the vegetation occurring. 

Quadrat Results: For the 11 20 x 20 metre quadrats established through the mapped BGHF Habitat Area 

220 flora species were recorded. Of these, 174 species (79.1%) were horticultural introductions, nonindigenous 

native species (i.e. planted) or weeds (see Appendix 3). 

Only 46 species are considered to be naturally-occurring species ‘characteristic’ of the BGHF ecological 

community were present (see Final Determination, Appendix1). See Section 3.4 for a description of the 

vegetation occurring. 



Figure 3.1: Approximate location of the 11 quadrats established within the BGHF Habitat Area (UBM surveyed May/June 2012) 

1 

11 

2 

3 

10 

4 

9 

5 

6 

8 

7 



3.3.3 Threatened Species 

Twenty (20) threatened flora species have previously been recorded within a 10-km radius of the Subject 

Property (‘the Region’) (see Table 3.1). 

However, none (0) of these threatened species was located during the current (2012) or any of the previous 

(2005, 2006, 2007, 2011) field surveys 9 . Having been managed as an exotic garden for more than 100 years, 

the greater part of the Subject Property is considered not to provide suitable habitat for any of the listed 

species due to its long-term disturbance history, clearing and planting as an introduced garden, changes to 

the soil profile and composition, and the domination of the site by introduced horticultural species and 

weeds. 

Table 3.1: Flora Species of State or National Conservation Significance occurring in the Region 

Source of Records 

1 = DECCW/OEH (2011). Search area: 10 x 10 km centred on the Study Area (State Significance) 

2 = SEWPAC (2011). Search area: 5 km radius centred on the Study Area (National Significance) 

Key 

E – Endangered; V – Vulnerable 

SPECIES 

SOURCE 

STATUS 

1 2 TSC Act EPBC Act 

Acacia bynoeana Endangered Vulnerable 

Acacia gordonii Endangered Endangered 

Cryptostylis hunteriana Vulnerable Vulnerable 

Darwinia biflora Vulnerable Vulnerable 

Darwinia peduncularis Vulnerable - 

Deyeuxia appressa Endangered Endangered 

Epacris purpurascens var. purpurascens Vulnerable - 

Eucalyptus camfieldii Vulnerable Vulnerable 

Genoplesium baueri Vulnerable - 

Grammitis stenophylla Endangered - 

Haloragodendron lucasii Endangered Endangered 

Lasiopetalum joyaceae Vulnerable Vulnerable 

Leptospermum deanei Vulnerable Vulnerable 

Melaleuca deanei Vulnerable Vulnerable 

Persoonia hirsuta Endangered Endangered 

9 Note that one Syzygium paniculatum occurs within the Subject Property but is located out side the current study area. 

This specimen is believed to be a horticultural planting (see UBM 2006 and Cumberland Ecology 2007) 



SPECIES 

SOURCE 

STATUS 

1 2 TSC Act EPBC Act 

Persoonia mollis ssp. maxima Endangered Endangered 

Pimelea curviflora var. curviflora Vulnerable Vulnerable 

Prostanthera marifolia Presumed Extinct Extinct 

Syzygium paniculatum Vulnerable Vulnerable 

Tetratheca glandulosa Vulnerable Vulnerable 

3.3.4 Introduced Flora Species 

The vegetation in the mapped BGHF Habitat Area and in other parts of the Property is dominated by 

introduced species; with the majority of these having been planted as horticultural specimens at some time 

in the past. Many horticultural specimens popular in the 1 st half of the 20 th Century and widely used as 

garden plants have since naturalised in local bushland to the detriment of the native flora and fauna. Such 

naturalised introductions are described as ‘environmental weeds’. 

More introduced species than natives were recorded in the eight (8) transects (75%) and in the 11 quadrats 

(79.1%). The overall % cover of introduced species in the tree, shrub and ground strata was approximately 

75%. The introduced to indigenous ratio for each stratum was as follows: 

• Canopy trees - ~80% 

• Sub-canopy trees ~68% 

• Shrubs ~78% 

• Ground covers ~64% 

Thirteen (13) plants recorded are declared as ‘noxious weeds’ in the Ku-ring-gai LGA (see Table 3.2). Weeds 

of National Significance (‘WoNS’) present include Bridal Creeper (Asparagus asparagoides), Blackberry 

(Rubus fruticosus), and Lantana (Lantana camara). 

Table 3.2: Introduced flora species declared as ‘noxious weeds’ in Ku-ring-gai LGA and recorded in the 

Study Area 

FAMILY SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME CLASS* 

Asparagaceae Asparagus aethiopicus Asparagus Fern 4 

Asparagaceae Asparagus asparagoides Bridal Creeper 4/5 

Asparagaceae Asparagus plumosus Climbing Asparagus 4 

Lauraceae Cinnamomum camphora Camphor Laurel 4 

Fabaceae Genista monspessulana Cape Broom 4 

Convolvulaceae Ipomoea indica Morning Glory Vine 4 

Verbenaceae Lantana camara Lantana 4/5 

Oleaceae Ligustrum lucidum Large Leaved Privet 4 

Oleaceae Ligustrum sinense Small-leaved Privet 4 



FAMILY SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME CLASS* 

Ochnaceae Ochna serrulata Mickey Mouse Bush/Ochna 4 

Oxalidaceae Oxalis spp. Oxalis 5 

Rosaceae Rubus fruticosus spp agg Blackberry 3 

Commelinaceae Tradescantia fluminensis Wandering Jew 4 

*Actions Required For Noxious Weed Classes 

1 The plant must be eradicated from the land and the land must be kept free of the plant 

2 The plant must be eradicated from the land and the land must be kept free of the plant 

3 The plant must be fully and continuously suppressed and destroyed 

4 The growth and spread of the plant must be controlled according to the measures specified in a management plan published by the 

local control authority and the plant may not be sold, propagated or knowingly distributed. 

5 The requirements in the Noxious Weeds Act 1993 for a notifiable weed must be complied with. 

3.4 Description of the Vegetation in the BGHF Habitat Area 

The vegetation in the mapped BGHF Habitat Area (Smith & Smith 2006) mainly comprised a canopy of 

original Sydney Blue Gums (Eucalyptus saligna) and the occasional Rough-barked Applebox (Angophora 

floribunda), with numerous planted specimens also occurring (Three Wise Men, 2007). Plantings included 

non-indigenous or ‘generally Australian’ species, and (in the historic arboretum) many significant specimen 

trees from overseas. The canopy height was typically 15-30 metres. 

The native understorey had been cleared over 100 years previously in order to establish exotic gardens, an 

arboretum and extensive lawns. In some locations, soil levels were altered to construct terraces, as at the 

croquet lawn, stone retaining walls, grottos and pathways. 

The results of the 11 quadrats established within the mapped BGHF Habitat Area are presented below. See 

Figure 3.1 for location of the quadrats. 

Exotic vegetation dominated the understorey at the time of the original (2005), subsequent (2006, 2007 and 

2011) and current surveys (May/June 2012). The most commonly occurring environmental weeds recorded 

were: Large-leaved Privet (Ligustrum lucidum), Small-leaved Privet (Ligustrum sinense), Ground Asparagus 

(Asparagus aethiopicus var. densiflorus), Japanese Honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), Mickey Mouse Plant 

(Ochna serrulata) and Morning Glory (Ipomoea indica). 

Locally indigenous (BGHF) species generally comprised only a small part of the vegetation (2.09%), often 

being limited to a few individuals within a quadrat. One (1) area in the south (sampled in quadrat 7) 

contained a large proportion of commonly-occurring grasses such as Weeping Meadow-Grass (Microlaena 

stipoides) and smaller proportions of Basket Grass (Oplismenus aemulus). 

Nine (9) quadrats were surveyed in similar locations to the 10 quadrats first surveyed by Consultant Botanist 

David Thomas for Cumberland Ecology (2007) in order to provide an opportunity to compare any change in 

condition of the vegetation. Quadrat 10 was located north of the original quadrat 10 of Cumberland 

Ecology. The extra quadrat (quadrat 11) was located in the western part of the former croquet lawn to 

determine whether or not the vegetation here might conform to BGHF generally (see Figure 3.1). Results 

from 2007 and 2012 quadrats are presented in Appendix 3. 



The total area within the quadrats surveyed was ~4,400 square metres. This represents 69.3% of the total 

area of BGHF mapped for the Subject Property (6,350 sq metres) by Smith & Smith (2006). 

The comparison of the condition of vegetation in each quadrat surveyed in 2007, 2011 and 2012 showed the 

vegetation contained a higher proportion of exotics in the 2012 survey (see Appendix 3). This occurred in all 

quadrats except the quadrat 7 pair. In this case, the larger quadrat included additional indigenous 

vegetation that lowered the proportion of exotics in the upper stratum and ground cover. 

The condition and extent of the tree canopy was substantially the same throughout the BGHF Habitat Area in 

each survey period (2007 vs. 2012). The trends in condition of the understorey were however significantly 

more towards the exotic/weed species. In the small tree stratum (i.e. sub-canopy), there was major increase 

in projective foliage cover (255 to 470 cover abundance units). The increase in exotic shrub and ground 

covers was minor (715 to 809 units for shrubs and 750 to 824 cover abundance units for ground covers) (see 

Table 3.3). 

The main increase in exotics/weeds was the result of increases in the canopy cover of Large-leaved Privet 

(Ligustrum lucidum); progressing it from the shrub to the small tree stratum. Ligustrum lucidum also 

increased its cover in the shrub stratum. The native Pittosporum undulatum increased slightly in canopy 

cover in the small tree and shrub stratum, also due to growth of its canopy since 2007. 

English Broom (Genista monspessulana) decreased in cover slightly, probably due to the increased shading 

by the small trees described above. Indigenous shrubs remained limited to a few scattered individuals. 

Regeneration comprised two (2) Bleeding Heart Trees (Homalanthus populifolius) and one (1) Rough-barked 

Applebox (Angophora floribunda) seedlings. 

In the ground cover stratum, the increase of exotics/weeds was generally small, caused mainly by the spread 

of Japanese Honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), English Ivy (Hedera helix), and increases in saplings and 

seedlings of Small-leaved Privet (Ligustrum sinense), Camphor laurel (Cinnamomum camphora) and Mickey 

Mouse Bush (Ochna serrulata). These species can be expected to have a major influence on the understorey 

in the future as they mature to become trees and large shrubs, seed and spread further. 

Morning Glory (Ipomoea indica) and Wandering Jew (Tradescantia fluminensis) increased significantly in the 

southern section of the BGHF Habitat Area where the ground was largely bare in 2007 and affected by high 

nutrient levels from the former poultry run and composting area. There was no significant change in the 

populations of other major weeds such as Ground Asparagus (Asparagus aethiopicus var. aethiopicus var. 

densiflorus) and Fishbone Fern (Nephrolepis cordifolia). 

The native ground covers mainly comprised native grasses such as Weeping Meadow Grass (Microlaena 

stipoides), Basket Grass (Oplismenus aemulus), and smaller amounts of small forbs such as Common 

Storksbill (Geranium homeanum). These formed only a minute component of most areas as in 2007. 

Geranium homeanum appears to have decreased in numbers, possibly due to increased shading by small 

trees and smothering by exotic vines. 

Only one (1) large area of native ground cover occurred - in the southern section of the Property, east of the 

former poultry run and composting area, where the small tree and shrub strata was largely absent and the 

soil was unaffected by increased nutrient levels (see Figure 1.3). Weeping Meadow Grass (Microlaena 



stipoides) was the main ground cover here, with significant numbers of Basket Grass (Oplismenus aemulus). 

Sydney Blue Gum (Eucalyptus saligna) and Rough-barked Applebox (Angophora floribunda) were scattered 

through the area. Morning Glory Vine (Ipomoea indica) and Wandering Jew (Tradescantia fluminensis) were 

noted to be invading the margins of this more natural ground cover area, and can be expected to eventually 

cover it completely unless suitably managed. 

Table 3.3: Condition of vegetation in 11 quadrats established in the BGHF Habitat Area 

Quadrat 

Cumberland Ecology 2007 UBM 2012 

CT ST Sh GC CT ST Sh GC 

1 40 40 100 95+ 30 80 90 98 

2 0 100 70 95+ 0 100 80 99 

3 0 70 95+ 95+ 0 100 95 99 

4 0 50 80 80 0 100 95 99 

5 0 5 100 90 0 40 100 90 

6 0 90 70 95+ 50 50 99 90 

7 100 a 100 70 30 a 100 60 

8 0 a 100 40 10 a 100 99 

9* 20 a a 90 0 60 50 90 

10# 50 10 95 100 a 80 90 95 

11 No equivalent quadrat a a a 90 

*Quadrat 9 (2012) was equivalent to Quadrats 9 & 10 (2007). 

# Quadrat 10 (2012) did not align with Quadrat 10 (2007). 

See Figure 3.1 for locations of quadrats 

Key: CT = canopy trees, ST = small trees, Sh = shrubs, GC = ground covers 

Numbers indicate cover abundance (modified Braun Blanquet system). “a” indicates stratum absent 

NOTE: a colour-coded condition of bushland map has not been prepared as there is little difference between 

quadrats, and they would all be classified as being in ‘poor’ condition and be assigned a single colour 



3.5 Description of the Vegetation in the Proposed Subdivision Area 

The current Proposal is to rezone the Subject Property Lot 1 in DP 375262 at 35 Water Street from 5(a) 

Special Uses (Hospital) to E4 Environmental Living. This rezoning will facilitate a future subdivision to be 

considered by Ku-ring-gai Council under a future development application. 

However, for the purposes of the current Ecological Survey, each of the four (4) proposed new Lots (i.e. one 

[1] new Lot in Area 1 and three [3] new Lots in Area 2) has been surveyed separately (see Figure 1.3) and the 

potential impacts of the future subdivision proposal have been assessed to consider any loss or impact on 

the BGHF Habitat. 

The results of the flora survey in the eight (8) transects established in Area 1 and2 are presented below. 

Each proposed new Lot has been subdivided into the ‘Development Zone’ – i.e. where the footprint of the 

new residence has been proposed; and the ‘Non-development Zone’, which is located to the rear (east) of 

the Lot. Figure 1.4 is a preliminary sketch used to determine the area of BGHF Habitat in Area 2 on each of 

potential new Lots 3, 4 and 5 which is likely to be impacted (courtesy TKD Architects). 

The code provided for the Condition of Vegetation assumes four (4) structural strata: tall tree (canopy), small 

tree, shrub and ground cover. The % of exotics is estimated for each of these and entered with a slash / 

between. If a stratum is absent this is shown by an “a” in the relevant place. Where there are a few 

individuals, but less than the 5% considered necessary to form a structural stratum, “a” might be used with 

the % of these species that are exotic (e.g. a-80), in the relevant place. An example would be 0/a/a-20/60. 

NOTE: in the descriptions provided below * indicates an introduced or non-indigenous native species. 

AREA 1 - POTENTIAL NEW LOT 2 

i) Development Zone 

Location: potential battle axe Lot located in south-western corner of the Property with a driveway from 

Water Street (see Figure 1.3) 

Vegetation Type: Non-bushland. Exotic garden with minor occurrences of native species: mostly planted 

specimens 

Condition of Vegetation: 

i) Condition north of existing building: a/100/99/99% 

ii) 

Condition south of existing building: a-100/a-100/99/70% 

[“a” refers to the stratum being substantially absent] 

Description: the area proposed as a driveway is a landscaped garden which has been overrun with weeds 

and horticultural escapes. In the area to the rear – proposed as a battle axe Lot - in 2006 a screening hedge 

of BGHF shrubs and small trees was planted along the southern and western boundary fences to provide 

privacy for neighbouring properties. These plantings include Sydney Blue Gum (Eucalyptus salignus); 

Backhousia myrtifolia; Lilly Pilli (Acmena smithii); Bleeding Heart Tree (Homalanthus populifolius); Acacia 



schinoides, and Blueberry Ash (Elaeocarpus reticulatus). Much of this area has now been overtaken by 

Morning Glory Vine* (Ipomoea indica) and other weeds. 

Most of southern section of proposed Lot 2 (incorporating the former chicken coop and composting areas) 

was maintained in the past as a mown lawn surrounded by formal garden beds, although no maintenance 

has taken place in the recent past. Where not overrun with introduced vines, the open grassland supports 

both native and exotic grasses such as Paspalum (Paspalum dilatatum*), Brome* (Bromus catharticus) and 

Perennial Panic Grass* (Ehrharta erecta); with the natives Weeping Meadow Grass (Microlaena stipoides) 

and Basket Grass (Oplismenus aemulus). 

Native species comprised an estimated 30% of the ground cover, depending on weed density and the 

amount of shade cast by the large trees. Typical ground cover species were Weeping Meadow Grass 

(Microlaena, Oplismenus), Cranesbill (Geranium homeanum) and Kidney Weed (Dichondra repens). 

No (0) threatened or otherwise significant naturally- occurring (native) flora species occurred. 

ii) Lot 2 Driveway from Water Street 

Location: western Property boundary (see Figure 1.3) 

Vegetation Type: Non-bushland. Exotic trees and shrubs with minor occurrences of a few native species 

Condition of Vegetation: a-100/90/99/99%. 

Description: The new driveway will extend for a distance of 4.6 metres from the existing western boundary 

fence, with an entry on Water Street and adjacent to the exiting main gate and carriageway. The new 

driveway will traverse an area of landscaped garden and will retain screening vegetation to the carriageway. 

Apart from a small number of Sweet Pittosporum (Pittosporum undulatum) trees, scattered occurrences of 

the native grass Oplismenus spp., and the planted natives at the southern end, there were no naturally 

occurring (native) species in the area proposed for the driveway leading to the Development Zone of Lot 2. 

A small clump of native Maidenhair Fern (Adiantum aethiopicum) was recorded near the entry, east of the 

proposed driveway. Its origin is unknown; however it is likely to have been planted owing to its location in a 

generally unsuitable habitat. 

Potential Impacts Lot 2: Lot 2 contains no areas of BGHF and will not be impacted. A number of exotic tree 

and shrub species will however be impacted. Appendix 4 provides details of the trees/shrubs to be removed 

or otherwise impacted under the Proposal (source material: Tree Wise Men October 2011). 

AREA 2 - POTENTIAL NEW LOT 3 

i) Development Zone (transect 3w – Appendix 2) 

Location: western section of Lot 3, as shown on Figure 1.3. In Appendix 2, the species list for this site was 

marked as “3w” 

Vegetation Type: Open (introduced) grassland with tree and shrub plantings 

Condition of Vegetation: estimated as: a/50/a-100/90%. 



Description: This site mainly comprised previously mown exotic and native grasses. Garden escapes and 

weed species were also common. Typical species were Paspalum dilatatum*, Sweet Vernal Grass 

(Anthoxanthum odoratum), Ribwort*(Plantago lanceolata), Cat’s Ear* (Hypochaeris radicata), Dichondra 

repens, Carex inversa, Hedgehog Grass (Echinopogon ovatus), and Hypericum japonicum. Microlaena 

stipoides was locally common adjacent to a mature Liquidambar* (Liquidambar styraciflua) which was 

planted in the lawn area. 

Old garden plantings occurred to the north of the former lawn area. These mainly comprised small trees and 

shrubs with under-plantings of Agapanthus* (Agapanthus praecox) and Adiantum formosum. The canopy 

comprised small trees such as Pittosporum undulatum, Rhododendron sp.*, Maidenhair Tree* (Gingko 

biloba), Cotoneaster *(Cotoneaster glauca), and Japanese Honeysuckle* (Lonicera japonica). Woody weed 

species, especially Camphor laurel* (Cinnamomum camphora), Privets* (Ligustrum spp.), and Mickey Mouse 

Bush* (Ochna serrulata) were beginning to colonise below the small tree canopy – these spreading from 

older plantings elsewhere in the gardens. 

No threatened or otherwise significant naturally occurring (native) species occurred. 

Condition of Vegetation: estimated to be: a/50/a-100/90% 

ii)Non-Development Zone (Transect 3e – see Appendix 2) 

Location: eastern sector of proposed Lot 3, with transect through Non-Development Zone marked as “3e”. 

Vegetation Type: Open (introduced) grassland with tree and shrub plantings, merging into mapped BGHF 

Habitat (see Figure 1.3). 

Condition of Vegetation: scrub to north estimated to be: a/50/a-100/90 

Description: A band of mostly exotic ‘scrub-type’ vegetation occurred immediately below the Development 

Zone, extending along the northern edge of the Lot to Young Street. Large-leaved Privet* (Ligustrum 

lucidum) and Pittosporum undulatum were the main small tree species; although numerous other species 

were also recorded (see Appendix 2. 

Scattered Sydney Blue Gum (Eucalyptus saligna) formed an open canopy in this part of Lot 3. One (1) small 

mature Rough-barked Applebox (Angophora floribunda) occurred near the fence at Young Street. The 

understorey was mainly exotic especially Ground Asparagus* (Asparagus aethiopicus var. densiflorus), 

English Ivy* (Hedera helix) and Lonicera japonica*. The indigenous vine Native Yam (Parsonsia straminea) 

was fairly common in the scrub and adjacent in proposed Lot 4. 

Below, and south of the scrub was an introduced lawn (now unmaintained) with Buffalo Grass* 

(Stenotaphrum secundatum), Asparagus aethiopicus*, and natives Dichondra repens, Oplismenus aemulus 

and Echinopogon ovatus as the main ground cover species. 

A small group of native species, including Pomaderris ferruginea, Sydney Golden Wattle (Acacia longifolia), 

Sydney Turpentine (Syncarpia glomulifera), Forest Oak (Allocasuarina torulosa), Elaeocarpus reticulatus, 

Acmena smithii and Sydney Rusty Gum (Angophora costata) had been planted beyond the potential 



Development Zone. Records by UBMC in 2006 noted these species as new plantings in what had been an 

open grassy area south of the Core BGHF Habitat area. 

A young Rusty Fig (Ficus rubiginosa) was observed growing as an epiphyte on a large Eucalyptus saligna at 

the Young Street fence. One planted tree, a Small-leaved Tuckeroo* (Cupaniopsis parvifolia), although a 

non-indigenous native species, was considered to be a significant planting owing to its general rarity in 

landscape works and relatively large size and maturity. 

Potential Impacts on BGHF for Lot 3: Lot 3 has 572 sq metres of BGHF, of which 77 sq metres (23 sq metres 

building and 54 metres driveway) or ~13.5% would potentially be affected 

AREA 2 – POTENTIAL NEW LOT 4 

i) Development Zone (Transect 4w - Appendix 2) 

Location: western section of potential Lot 4, as shown on Figure 1.3. In Appendix 2, the species list for this 

site was marked as “4w” 

Vegetation Type: Open (introduced) grassland with tree and shrub plantings 

Condition of Vegetation: estimated to be: a-100/a-90/a-90/50% 

Description: Lot 4 is downslope and south of potential Lot 3. It contained trees and scrub-type vegetation 

throughout much of the Lot; however a cleared area occurs at its western end. In common with the area 

potentially Lot 3, it was previously maintained as mown lawn and contained a grassy ground cover, now 

mainly composed of Stenotaphrum secundatum*, Anthoxanthum odoratum* and Microlaena stipoides. 

Exotics are rapidly colonising the area; with Plantago lanceolata*, Hypochaeris radicata* and Fireweed* 

(Senecio madagascariensis) occurring in the more open areas, and Ligustrum spp*, Olea europaea subsp 

cuspidata*, Ochna serrulata*, Hedera helix* and Asparagus aethiopicus* occurring in the more shady 

locations. 

Part of this area at the boundary with proposed Lot 3 contained a small Pittosporum undulatum 10 and a large 

Irish Strawberry tree* (Abutus unedo). 

No threatened or otherwise significant naturally-occurring (native) species occurred. 

Ii) Non-development Zone (Transect 4e – see Appendix 2) 

Location: eastern section of potential Lot 4, as shown on Figure 1.3. In Appendix 2, the species list for this 

site was marked “4e”. 

Vegetation Type: Open (introduced) grassland with tree and shrub plantings, merging into mapped BGHF 

Habitat area (see Figure 1.3) 

Condition of Vegetation: estimated to be: 0/90/90/70. 

10 NOTE: Pittosporum undulatum is a small native tree which seeds profusely and establishes in bushland in the absence of fire. 

Pittosporum is very common in the garden, and it has invaded the garden beds, paving and other structures such as the croquet lawn 

and former children’s play area. 



Description: Most of potential Lot 4 was identified for exclusion of development owing to the presence of 

several large Eucalyptus saligna. Most of the natural understorey had been removed many years previously 

and replaced with exotics. A few native species remained or had re-colonised, including ground covers such 

as Microlaena stipoides, Echinopogon spp. and Geranium homeanum. 

The native Pittosporum undulatum was noted to be regenerated widely and was beginning to dominate the 

sub-canopy to the detriment of more light-demanding native ground covers. Native understorey species 

occurred variably owing to the density of large trees, invading woody weeds (mainly Ligustrum lucidum*) 

and exotic grounds covers, mainly Asparagus aethiopicus* and Nephrolepis cordifolia*. 

Some native trees had also been planted in this part of potential Lot 4, including Allocasuarina torulosa and 

Elaeocarpus reticulatus, as well as non-locally-indigenous species including Swamp Oak* (Casuarina glauca) 

and White Beech*(Gmelina leichhardtii). 

Potential Impacts on BGHF for Lot 4: Lot 4 has 987 sq metres of BGHF, of which 96 sq metres (27 sq metres 

building and 69 sq metres driveway) or 9.73% would potentially be affected. 

AREA 2 – POTENTIAL NEW LOT 5 

i)Development Zone (Transect 5w – see Appendix 2) 

Location: western section of potential Lot 5 as shown on Figure 1.3. In Appendix 2, the species list for this 

site was marked as “5w”: the Non-development Zone was marked “5e”. 

Vegetation Type: Open (introduced) grassland with tree and shrub plantings (see Figure 1.3) 

Condition of Vegetation: estimated to be: 100/a/a-90/95%. 

Description: Trees and scrub-type vegetation occurred in the northern third of Lot 5, based on the presence 

of the overhanging Eucalyptus saligna canopy (Smith & Smith 2006). The potential Development Zone 

comprised the central and southern parts of the Lot. 

Much of this area contained a sealed road and car parking area at the Young Street entrance. The road area 

contained exotic herbaceous species and a few natives such as Euchiton sphaericum growing in cracks on the 

surface. The planted area north of the road (part of the former arboretum) was dominated by exotic species 

including a large Liquidambar styraciflua*, a mature Waterhousea floribunda*; various woody weeds such as 

Ligustrum spp.*, Olea europaea*, Cape Broom* (Genista monspessulana) and Cotoneaster spp*, with a 

mainly exotic ground cover layer. Typical ground cover species were: Asparagus aethiopicus*, Lonicera 

japonica*, Blowfly Grass * (Briza maxima), Fleabane* (Conyza bonariensis), and the native herb Dichondra 

repens. 

No threatened or otherwise significant naturally occurring (native) species occurred. 

ii)Non-development Zone (Transect 5e – see Appendix 2) 

Location: western section of Lot 5 as shown on Figure 1.3. In Appendix 2, the species list for this site was 

marked as “5e” 



Vegetation Type: Open (introduced) grassland with tree and shrub planting, merging into BGHF Habitat at 

the rear (east) (see Figure 1.3) 

Condition of Vegetation: estimated to be: a-o/80/90/90%. 

Description: Trees and scrub-type vegetation occurred in the northern third of Lot 5, based on the presence 

of Eucalyptus saligna, and determined entirely (Smith & Smith 2006) by the width or extent of the overhead 

tree canopy, which in places overhangs the grassland and arboretum areas. 

This area was similar to that in Lot 4, which it adjoined. 

Eucalyptus saligna was rare in this zone. Most tree species were exotic plantings, being part of the historic 

arboretum. These included Cedars* (Cupressus sp.), Araucaria cunninghamii* and Monterey Pine* (Pinus 

radiata). A few native tree species had also been planted: Blackbutt (Eucalyptus pilularis), Turpentine 

(Syncarpia glomulifera), and Forest Oak (Allocasuarina torulosa). Pittosporum undulatum occurred naturally 

in relatively small numbers; however the weedy Ligustrum lucidum was the main small tree shrub species, 

although at the time of the survey most were only shrub-sized. 

The ground cover stratum was mainly exotic, with the scrambler Asparagus aethiopicus* being the 

dominant. The native herb Dichondra repens was a fairly common species, and numerous other species 

occurred in low proportions including: Hypochaeris radicata*, Lonicera japonica*, Climbing Asparagus* 

(Asparagus plumosus), Ribwort* (Plantago lanceolata), Agapanthus sp.*, and the natives Microlaena 

stipoides and Senecio hispidulus. 

Potential Impacts on BGHF for Lot 5: Lot 5 has 353 sq metres of BGHF, of which none would be affected. 

Development on Lots 3 and 4 will potentially have some impact on the Blue Gum High Forest. The 

approximate area of mapped Blue Gum High Forest in the Subject Lots and the area potentially to be 

impacted by development has been summarised in Table 4.3 (Source: Landscape Matrix report 13 December 

2011). 

Table 3.4: Summary of BGHF Issues in the Proposed Development Subject Sites, Lots 2, 3, 4 and 5 

Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Totals 

Lot Area ~ 2,070 940 1,290 1,110 5,410 

BGHF area sq m 0 572 987 353 1,912 

BGHF to be Impacted sq m 0 77 96 0 173 

BGHF Trees to be removed 

or potentially impacted 

under the Proposal 

Non-BGHF Trees to be 

removed or potentially 

impacted under the 

Proposal 

2 6.5 2.5 0 11 

14 3 6 6 29 



NOTE: the non-BGHF trees recommended for removal do NOT include noxious weeds or those trees 

considered to be ‘environmental weeds’ which would have to be removed regardless of any Development 

Proposal (e.g. Camphor laurel, Indian Coral Tree). 

Table 3.5: Trees described in the Final Determination as characteristic BGHF species 

Lot Number Tree Number* Species 

No to be Removed or 

Potentially Impacted 

Diagnostic for BGHF 

Lot 2 1B Pittosporum undulatum 1 No 

21 Pittosporum undulatum 1 (2) No 

Lot 3 322 Pittosporum undulatum 1 No 

203 Elaeocarpus reticulatus 0.5 No 

323 Eucalyptus saligna 1 Yes 

325 Angophora floribunda 1 No 



374 Eucalyptus saligna 1 (7) Yes 

Lot 4 322 Pittosporum undulatum 1 No 

203 Elaeocarpus reticulatus 0.5 No 

319 Eucalyptus saligna 1 (3) 

Lot 4 None 0 

*per Landscape Matrix December 2011 

Totals No of BGHF Trees 11 

(1) Tree 203 Elaeocarpus reticulates is a single tree, located on the boundary of Lots 3 and 4 



3.6 Assessments of Significance – Flora 

Assessments which consider the potential direct and indirect impacts of a possible futuresubdivision on the 

BGHF have been prepared for each of the possible Subject Sites in Area 2, potential Lots 3, 4 and 5. Potential 

Lot 2 in Area 1 is located outside the mapped BGHF area (UBM 2007) and therefore no Assessment of 

Impacts has been prepared. 

3.6.1 Commonwealth Legislative Considerations for the Critically Endangered Ecological 

Community ‘Blue Gum High Forest’ 

An Assessment of Significance is not required for this patch of remnant vegetation as it does not meet the 

condition criteria as set out in the listing advice for Blue Gum High Forest in the Sydney Basin Bioregion - a 

‘critically endangered ecological community’ under this Act. Specifically, the listing Condition Threshold 

requiring remnant patches to be more than one (1) ha in size or adjacent to a remnant more than one (1) ha 

in size is not met. 

3.6.2 NSW Legislative Considerations for the Critically Endangered Ecological Community Blue 

Gum High Forest 

A Seven-part Test of Significance under Section 5A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 

is designed to determine "whether there is likely to be a significant effect on threatened species, 

populations, ecological communities or their habitats" (as listed on the Schedules of the NSW TSC Act), and 

consequently, to determine whether a Species Impact Statement is required. 

Each of the Subject Sites potential new Lots 3, 4 and 5 are part of the 19 th Century arboretum established by 

the first landowner. Individual plantings and remnant trees with a highly degraded understorey also occur 

throughout the Subject Property, including numerous Sydney Blue Gums (Eucalyptus saligna), which have 

been retained over lawns and exotic gardens. 

A small number of understorey species (grasses and flowering forbs) characteristic of the BGHF also occur in 

those areas not overrun with horticultural escapes and weeds. These species generally occur in areas 

otherwise devoid of other native vegetation, and are generally found to be regenerating in areas formerly 

maintained as lawns or garden beds (see species recorded in potential new Lots 3, 4 and 5 in Appendix 3). 

Despite being characteristic of the BGHF ecological community, the understory species occurring are 

common to a number of other vegetation communities in the Locality and Region; with only some of these 

communities being listed as ‘endangered’. 

Even so, in accordance with the precautionary principle the following Seven-part Test has been undertaken 

to assess the impacts of the proposed subdivision on BGHF in potential new Lots 3, 4 and 5. A total of 173 sq 

metres (0.0173 ha) of BGHF out of a total area of 6,350 sq metres (0.635 ha) in the Subject Property is likely 

to be impacted in the proposed Lots 3 and 4. No BGHF will be impacted on Lot 5. A total of 11 BGHF trees 

will be removed or otherwise impacted on Lots 2, 3 and 4. Nine (9) BGHF trees will be removed from the 

mapped BGHF area in Lots 3 and 4. 

This Seven-part Test relates to the possible subdivision of land within the larger Subject Property to 

potentially create up to five (5) residential allotments. Potential allotments Lots 3, 4 and 5, retain trees 



characteristic of the BGHF (Figure 1.2), with a small number of understorey species also present. While 

some of these trees are ‘characteristic’ of the BGHF community, only Sydney Blue Gum (Eucalyptus saligna) 

is considered to be ‘diagnostic’ for the community (see Definitions and Abbreviations for definitions of 

‘characteristic’ and ‘diagnostic’). 

Although two (2) Pittosporum undulatum (found in BGHF and many other communities) may be impacted in 

Lots 2, this area is clearly outside the area mapped as BGHF and accepted by the NSW Land & Environment 

Court (Proceedings 1113 of 2006). Accordingly no Assessment under the legislation has been required. 

This Assessment of Significance has considered the potential impacts of development; including future land 

uses on the proposed new Lots, construction impacts and the installation of services and it has also 

considered the potential for edge effects. This Assessment also considers the OEH/Council approved 

Vegetation Management Plan (UBM 2007) prepared for the BGHF Habitat on the Subject Property which will 

be implemented by the Proponent, most likely under a Memorandum of Understanding. 

Seven-part Test for BGHF on proposed Lots 3 & 4 (see Figure 1.3) 

(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, 

Blue Gum High Forest (“BGHF’) is not a threatened species, but occurs as a critically endangered 

ecological community; therefore this item is not applicable. 

(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, 

Blue Gum High Forest (“BGHF’) is not an endangered population, but occurs as a critically 

endangered ecological community; therefore this item is not applicable. 

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

whether the action proposed: 

(i) is likely to have an adverse effect on the extent of the ecological community such that its local 

occurrence is likely to be placed at risk of extinction, or 

The vegetation in the Subject Sites potential new Lots 3 and 4 (Area 2 – see Figure 1.3) contain some 

native species consistent with the description of BGHF set out in the Final Determination of this 

community (see Appendices 1 and 2). The BGHF community here is represented mainly by remnant 

Sydney Blue Gums (Eucalyptus saligna) – however because the understorey comprises >75% 

introduced species or weeds, the vegetation within the Subject Sites is not considered to represent a 

structurally intact, interactive and viable native ecological community. This is due to the remnant’s 

small size, isolation from other bushland areas, very low number and low % cover of locally 

indigenous flora species (~25%), chronically degraded nature of the understorey (~75%)as the result 

of invasion by garden escapes and weeds, and its long-standing land use and disturbance history. 



The larger part of both potential new Lots 3 and 4 in Area 2 comprises an introduced grassland 

habitat with scattered remnant and planted canopy trees, some large shrubs, and a small number of 

native ground covers. The lawns have not been maintained in recent years, and are rapidly being 

overtaken by woody weeds. 

The area of remnant vegetation likely to be impacted by the proposed subdivision is very small -173 

sq metres or 2.74% of the total mapped BGHF area -highly simplified and dominated by woody weed 

and other introduced species (as above). Although it adjoins a larger area of BGHF Habitat in the 

eastern part of the Subject Property, this adjoining Habitat is chronically degraded and no longer 

functions as a viable interactive native ecological community. 

Degradation of good quality bushland at the suburban: bushland interface often results from 

inappropriate recreational activities, plantings and encroachments for gardens, storage or vehicle 

parking or access, disposal of lawn clippings and garden debris, as well as overzealous underscrubbing 

or clearing for bushfire hazard purposes – these being collectively described as ‘edge 

effects’. In Area 2, no such negative impacts are likely to occur because the understorey in the 

adjacent BGHF Core Habitat is already chronically degraded, with only remnant canopy and some 

sub-canopy trees remaining in situ. 

Further, although some connectivity through the local area is retained through the tree canopy, 11 

BGHF trees are proposed to be removed or otherwise impacted under the Proposal; and of these, 

two (2P individuals are the small native tree Pittosporum undulatum , which is known to be invasive 

in numerous bushland communities in the long-term absence of fire. It is however possible that the 

concept development footprint can be amended to avoid removing any BGHF trees. This option is 

currently being considered. 

The closest stand of BGHF is located in Wahroonga Public School (‘the Bush School’), on Water Street 

a short distance to the north-east. The modification of 173 sq metres of BGHF in Lots 3 and 4 out of 

a total area of 6,350 sq metres being (2.74%) is not likely to reduce this connectivity. 

Gene flow (via seed dispersal) between the two (2) BGHF sites is possible but unlikely, as there very 

few establishment sites available in either location; the understorey having been colonised by 

introduced and weed species. Therfore no effect on the extent of the BGHF in the larger Subject 

Property, Locality or Region is expected if the Proposal is allowed to proceed. 

(ii) is likely to substantially and adversely modify the composition of the ecological community such that 

its local occurrence is likely to be placed at risk of extinction, 

The vegetation in the Subject Sites potential new Lots 3 and 4 (Area 2) contain some native species 

consistent with BGHF (primarily mature Sydney Blue Gums (E. saligna),; however is not considered to 

represent a viable vegetation community for all of the reasons listed above in item C(i). 

The larger part of both proposed Lots 3 and 4 comprises a grassland habitat with scattered remnant 

and planted canopy trees, some large shrubs, and a small number of native ground covers. The 

lawns have not been maintained in recent years, and are rapidly being overtaken by woody weeds. 

On balance, only about 25% of the flora species recorded comprise local native species, and of these, 



most are species which commonly occur in a number of different plant communities in the Sydney 

Bioregion. 

Eleven (11) BGHF trees are likely to be removed or otherwise impacted if the identified potential 

subdivision proceeds (8 in potential Lot 3 and 4 in potential Lot 4) 11 , with two (2) of these being the 

widespread Pittosporum undulatum. If the development footprint cannot be modified to avoid 

damage to these BGHF trees, their removal will not impact unduly on the composition of the BGHF 

Habitat in the Subject Sites potential Lots 3 and 4. 

This Report has recommended the retention and rehabilitation of those parts of potential new Lots 3 

and 4 not required for development (i.e. areas adjoining the ‘core’ BGHF Habitat to the east). If this 

recommendation is adopted, the Proposal will result in a significant improvement in the condition of 

the BGHF and provide a net gain. 

Minimal modification of the existing BGHF Habitat is expected to result from this Proposal but it is 

highly unlikely that the removal of 173 sq metres of simplified and modified BGHF from a total area 

of 6,350 sq metres (2.74%) will place the community at risk of local extinction. 

(d) …in relation to the habitat of a threatened species, population or ecological community: 

(i) the extent to which habitat is likely to be removed or modified as a result of the action proposed, and 

The vegetation in the Subject Sites proposed Lots 3 and 4 retain some native species consistent with 

BGHF (primarily mature Sydney Blue Gums (E. saligna), however it is not considered to represent a 

viable vegetation community due to the reasons listed above in Item C(i). 

The larger part of both potential new Lots 3 and 4 comprises an introduced grassland habitat (former 

lawns) with scattered remnant and planted canopy trees, some large shrubs, and a small number of 

native ground covers. The lawns have not been maintained in recent years, and are rapidly being 

overtaken by woody weeds 

About 173 sq metres of simplified and modified BGHF will be impacted under the potential 

subdivisionl, being some 2.74% of the total area of BGHF in the Subject Property. Eleven (11) BGHF 

trees are likely to be removed or otherwise impacted under the Proposal (6.5 trees in Lot 3 and 2.5 

in Lot 4 12 ). If the development footprint cannot be modified to avoid damage to these BGHF trees, 

their removal will not impact unduly on the composition of the BGHF Habitat in the Subject Property. 

This Report has recommended the retention and rehabilitation of those parts of potential new Lots 3 

and 4 not required for development (i.e. areas adjoining the ‘core’ BGHF Habitat to the east). If this 

recommendation is adopted the Proposal will result in a significant improvement in the condition of 

the extant BGHF, and result in a net gain for the ecological community overall. 

(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 

11 One (1) Pittosporum undulatum may be impacted in Lot 2, however as this area is not within the mapped BGHF area, 

the Seven-part Test has not been carried out for this commonly occurring species. 

12 Tree 203 is a single specimen located on the boundary of Lots 3 and 4 and has only been counted as one (1) tree 



The 173 sq metres of BGHF Habitat to be removed or otherwise impacted under the Proposal is 

located in the rear or eastern sectors of proposed Lots 3 and 4 where the Lots adjoin a much larger 

area of ‘Core’ BGHF Habitat along the eastern property boundary. This area is located outside the 

potential Development Zone (e.g. house footprints and shared driveway). The BGHF Habitat areas 

within the proposed new Lots are proposed as Non-Development Zones. It is likely that these areas 

will not be developed under the potential subdivision and as such, they will not be isolated from the 

‘Core’ Habitat area. 

The closest stand of remnant BGHF is located in the grounds of the Wahroonga Public School (‘The 

Bush School’) on the northern side of Water Street. Under the Proposal, the extant area of BGHF on 

the Subject Property will not be fragmented or otherwise isolated from other bushland areas. Gene 

flow between the two (2) BGHF sites is possible, but not likely given the chronically degraded nature 

of the understorey vegetation in both sites, where introduced species and weeds dominant in the 

ground cover, thereby excluding suitable establishmen sites. 

(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, 

Potential new Lots 3 and 4 are located in the south-eastern part of the Subject Property, and with 

the exception of potential new Lot 5, they adjoin an area mapped as ‘Core’ BGHF Habitat. The 

adjoining area of ‘Core’ Habitat is chronically degraded and comprises stands of remnant Sydney 

Blue Gums (E. saligna), and a small number of other trees growing over an understorey composed 

almost entirely of woody weeds, scrambling ground covers and introduced vines. 

The BGHF in the adjoining Subject Sites potential new Lots 3 and 4 (an area of ~1,559 sq metres) is in 

better conditions towards their western ends, being mainly introduced lawns with remnant and 

planted canopy trees and large shrubs (part of the former arboretum). The lawns have not been 

maintained in recent years, and they are rapidly being colonised by woody weeds (Privets, African 

Olive, Broom and Lantana) and ground covers (Asparagus spp, and Fishbone Fern). The weed 

species listed above occur widely, and dominate the understorey towardsthe potential Lot’s eastern 

ends where they adjoin the Core BGHF Habitat Area along the eastern boundary. 

The native ground covers (grasses and some flowering forbs) recorded in the western parts of 

potential new Lots 3 and 4 occur in the more open lawn areas and along footpaths where light levels 

are higher. However, these native understorey storey species occur in very low numbers and in a 

scattered distribution. Further, the species recorded, although ‘characteristic’ species of BGHF they 

are all commonly-occurring species in other ecological communities and occur widely in the Locality 

and Region. None of these understorey species is considered to be ‘diagnostic’ for BGHF. 

The BGHF Habitat to be removed or otherwise impacted under the potential subdivision is minimal 

given that it represents only 2.74% of the total area of BGHF in the Subject Property, a considerable 

reduction to the approved Hospital development. 

Further, the vegetation within the Subject Sites potential Lots 3, 4 and 5 is not considered to 

represent a viable ecological community in its present condition. The long-term survival of the BGHF 

ecological community within the Subject Property is highly unlikely to be compromised by the 



removal of 173 sq metres of simplified and modified BGHF in potential new Lots 3 and 4. Given that 

6,177 sq metres of BGHF Habitat will be retained, rehabilitated and managed in perpetuity, 

opportunities exist for a net gain of good quality BGHF in the local area. 

Therefore it is considered that the potential subdivision that could occur if the Planning Proposal 

proceeds will not significantly modify any stands of remnant BGHF so that it further fragments, 

isolates or removes habitat for any listed species or populations. 

(e) …whether the action proposed is likely to have an adverse effect on critical habitat (either directly or 

indirectly), 

Critical habitat has not been identified for BGHF. 

(f) …whether the action proposed is consistent with the objectives or actions of a recovery plan or threat 

abatement plan, 

A formal recovery plan has not been developed for BGHF; therefore the Proposal does not conflict 

with the objectives of actions of any recovery plan or threat abatement plan for BGHF. 

(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. 

Within the Subject Sites potential new Lots 3 and 4, the Proposal is not expected to result in any 

action that is part of a Key Threatening Process. Key Threatening Processes are relevant in relation 

to species, populations or vegetation communities listed under the TSC Act. 

The KTP ‘clearing of native vegetation’ will apply as a small number of BGHF trees in the 

Development Zone of each Lot will be removed. Several small areas of native understorey 

vegetation (commonly occurring grasses and forbs) will also be cleared to facilitate development. 

The possibility of invasion by woody weeds, exotic vines and perennial grasses is also not applicable 

in this case as all of these elements are already present on site, on large numbers. 

No flora species, populations or other ecological communities listed under the TSC Act occur within 

the larger Subject Property, Subject Sites or their immediate environs. 

Therefore, having given consideration to Section 5(a) of the NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment 

Act 1979, it is concluded that a potential future residential subdivision of the Subject Property in the 

manner envisaged in the subdivision concept plan accompanying the Planning Proposal WOULD NOT 

require the preparation of a second Species Impact Statement for the CEEC Blue Gum High Forest in the 

Sydney Basin Bioregion. 



4 FAUNA ASSESSMSENT 

4.1 Overview 

The Subject Property at #35 Water Street is located in the developed residential suburb of Wahroonga. The 

grounds have been extensively landscaped over a number of years, and include a significant arboretum with 

specimen trees sourced from all parts of the world. Some native canopy trees have been retained; most 

particularly a stand of Sydney Blue Gums (Eucalyptus saligna), and these been incorporated into the original 

landscape design; growing over (exotic) garden plantings and lawns. These canopy trees are located 

predominantly in the eastern and central parts of the Property (see Figure 1.2). 

In order to assess the likelihood of native fauna species utilising the trees and gardens at 35 Water Street a 

diurnal and nocturnal fauna survey was undertaken. Any species listed as threatened under the NSW TSC 

Act and/or the Commonwealth EPBC Act 1999 (see Table 4.4) were targeted during the survey. 

4.2 Fauna Methods 

The diurnal fauna survey was undertaken by Ecologist Rebecca Carman (BSc, MPhil, PGDipWldMgt) on 29 th May and 7 th 

June 2012. The surveys conducted on each occasion are outlined in Table 4.1. 

Table4.1: Summary of surveys conducted and weather conditions 

* Temperatures recorded at Terrey Hills (station #066059), 9.9 km away 

DATE WEATHER SURVEYS CONDUCTED 

29/5/12 Overcast, some rain. No wind 

Maximum temperature 10.4°C, minimum 

temperature* 15.5°C 

7/6/12 Clear sky, ¾ moon. No wind 

Maximum temperature 14.7°C, minimum 

temperature 7.9°C 

Habitat assessment, active searches and 

opportunistic observations 

Spotlighting and ultrasonic call recording, 

The fauna field survey was aimed at assessing the species richness of the site; to investigate the range of 

fauna habitats present, and to determine the potential for local threatened fauna species to occur. 

The fauna survey incorporated a range of techniques designed to target species from all fauna groups that 

would be expected to occur on the site, including birds, mammals and reptiles. These techniques included a 

series of diurnal bird censuses, searches for active herpetofauna (reptiles), and recording of indirect 

evidence of fauna presence (e.g. tracks, scats, hollows, nests, diggings, bones and other traces). In addition, 

all opportunistic sightings of fauna were recorded. 

All relevant previous reports and databases were reviewed and drawn upon (see Reference list for previous 

studies and reports). Particular attention was paid to records of species listed under the Schedules of the 

EPBC or TSC Acts known to occur in the Locality and Region. 

Field surveys were restricted to the land that comprised the residential allotment at #35 Water Street, 

although observations of fauna utilising neighbouring properties (manly birds) were also made. While 



surveying this area, the condition and structure of any fauna habitats present were identified, and a 

consideration of their potential to support locally-occurring populations of threatened fauna was 

determined. 

Species specific survey methods are set out below. 

Diurnal Birds 

Formal bird point censuses were conducted in three (3) locations within the Subject Property, one towards 

the front, one in the centre, and the other towards the back of the Property. The formal census involved 

‘point bird counts’ at these locations. This method was used in addition to the opportunistic bird census 

conducted over the remaining areas of the Subject Property. Birds were identified on the basis of visual 

identification and by their characteristic calls. All opportunistic observations of bird species were recorded 

while undertaking general field survey activities. 

Herpetofauna Census 

Reptiles and amphibians were surveyed using hand-searches around the Subject Property. Searches 

concentrated on areas containing woody debris or urban refuse, those on and around rock terraces and 

around the base of trees; and this included techniques such as carefully turning over rocks, logs or garden 

furniture wherever these were encountered. These were replaced on site after inspection. All opportunistic 

sightings were noted. 

Bats 

Two (2) stationary ultrasonic bat call detectors (AnaBat SD1, Titley Electronics) were used to record bat calls 

throughout the Subject Property. The units were positioned where predicted ‘fly-ways’ exist and left in 

position for 4.5 hours from dusk on 7 th June. 

In relation to the analysis of those microchiropteran bat calls obtained, it is noted that some insectivorous 

bat species have distinctive echolocation calls that are unlikely to be confused with those of other species. 

Other bats species overlap in both call frequency and structure, making identification problematic in some 

cases. The degree of confidence or reliability associated with call identifications will depend on the quality 

of the recordings as well as the activity of the bat at the time of recording and flight direction. In some 

instances, a particular species may be identified with confidence, while at other times its identification will 

be less certain. 

Nocturnal fauna 

Spotlighting was undertaken for all terrestrial and arboreal mammals and for nocturnal birds using a 

Lightforce 100 Watt hand-held spotlight with a red filter to minimise impacts on nocturnal species. The 

spotlighting session was carried out during and after dusk for one (1) hour along existing pathways to 

minimise disturbance by the observer. 



Searches for Evidence of Species Presence 

Searches were conducted for animal scats of both predatory and non-predatory species. Where these were 

encountered, scats were identified on site; first to genus and then to species level, wherever possible. The 

search concentrated on the ground area beneath trees, in garden beds and edge sites, as well as amongst 

leaf litter and on the open lawns. 

Searches were also made for other characteristic signs of fauna species’ presence; including tracks, bones, 

hair, shed skins and animal remains, as well as nests, diggings, burrows, chew marks, scratchings and pellets 

(indicative of birds of prey). 

4.3 Limitations to Fauna Field Surveys 

The diversity of the species recorded during the current field surveys is expected to be influenced by seasonal 

factors, with some species likely to be inconspicuous, or absent from the above-ground populations during 

particular times of the year. For these reasons, survey results can always be improved by extending the time 

allowed to provide an investigation in all seasons. 

The cooler autumn/winter months are acknowledged not to be ideal for fauna surveys, and as such, climatic 

conditions at the time of survey (May/June) are recognised as a limitation. Unfortunately this could not be 

avoided. However, UBM has assembled a list of all previous fauna surveys from previous studies and reports 

(see Appendix 4) to provide a point of comparison. The potential for each of these species to occur, or 

potentially occur in the Subject Property given favourable seasonal conditions has also been assessed. 

The list of fauna species recorded by the current field surveys should not be regarded as being fully 

comprehensive, but rather only as providing an indication of the species present at the time of the survey 

(May/June 2012). Surveys carried across all seasons over a period of several years are needed to identify all 

of the species present in an area, especially as some species are only present at certain times of the year (e.g. 

migratory birds), while others may require specific weather patterns and seasonal conditions for optimum 

levels of detection, e.g. amphibians. 

On establishing the suite of resident native species occurring or potentially occurring in an area by utilising 

the habitat requirements and associations of these animals, the diversity of other native species that could 

occur on occasion can be determined. For example, if a hollow-associated owl is detected, then there is the 

potential that, if previously recorded in the vicinity of the Study Area, other species of owls with similar 

nesting requirements may also be present. By using those species recorded to predict the full range of fauna 

potentially present in the Study Area helps to overcome some of the limitations associated with seasonal 

constraints and of surveys of limited duration. 

In this study UBM has considered all fauna species detected during previous studies that may not be present 

or detected during the current field investigations (Appendix 4). Given the long history of fauna survey on 

this Property, dating from 2005 and repeated in 2006 and 2007, surveys have been carried out in all seasons 

in accordance with the Guidelines for threatened species assessment (DECC 2007). 



4.4 Survey Results 

4.4.1 Fauna Species Recorded 

Previous fauna surveys and compilation lists from OEH databases have identified 55 mammals, 186 birds, 47 

native reptiles, and 18 native frogs for the Region (i.e. within a 10 x 10 km area centred on the Subject 

Property). Of those native species previously recorded in the Region, 31 are listed as ‘vulnerable’, 

‘endangered’, ‘critically endangered’ and/or ‘migratory’ under the Schedules of the EPBC and/or TSC Acts 

(see Table 3.2). 

By the completion of the current field survey (May/June 2012), eight (8) bird species were detected within, 

adjacent to, or flying over the Subject Property; the latter identified by their distinctive calls as well as 

observation (Table 4.2). The Powerful Owl (Ninox strenua) is listed as ‘vulnerable’ under the TSC Act and was 

heard calling from outside the Subject Property during nocturnal surveys. 

Two (2) native mammalian species were observed on the Subject Property; the Common Ringtail Possum 

(Pseudocheirus peregrines) and Swamp wallaby (Wallabia bicolour). 

No (0) calls were recorded by either of the ultrasonic bat call detectors. 

Table4.2: Native species identified during current field surveys 

Observation Type: 

A Stranding/Beaching I Subfossil/Fossil remains S Shot 

B Burnt K Dead T Trapped or netted 

C Cat kill M Miscellaneous U Anabat 

D Dog Kill N Not located V Fox kill 

E Nest/Roost O Seen W Heard 

F Tracks or scratchings P Scat X In scat 

FB Burrow Q Camera Y Bone, teeth, shell 

G Crushed cones R Road kill Z In raptor/owl pellet 

H Hair, feathers or skin 

* Introduced species > greater than + at least (V) vulnerable 

COMMON NAME 

Birds (8) 

SCIENTIFIC NAME 

OBSERVATION 

METHOD 

UBM Ecological Consultants Pty Ltd Page 48 

COUNT 

NEARBY/FLY- 

WITHIN SITE 

OVER 

Australian Brush-turkey Alectura lathami O 1 - 

Australian Magpie Cracticus tibicen O/K 1 1 

Australian Raven Corvus coronoides O - 1 

Crested Pigeon Ocyphaps lophotes W 2 - 

Noisy Miner Manorina melanocephala O >5 - 

Pied Currawong Strepera graculina W - 1 

Powerful Owl (V) Ninox strenua W - 1 

Rainbow Lorikeet Trichoglossus haematodus O/W >10 >10 

Mammals (2) 

Common Ringtail Possum Pseudocheirus peregrinus O 4 - 

Swamp Wallaby Wallabia bicolor O 1 -


4.4.2 Fauna Habitat Assessment 

Habitat types 

Modified environment: Comprises approximately half of the Subject Property and includes the buildings, 

driveways, footpaths, garden beds, cleared land, retaining walls and other built structures. The vegetation 

comprises a range of introduced landscape and horticultural species. The majority of these species have 

been planted over a period of many years, although there are a few remnant native species present. 

Previous arborist reports (Tree Wise Men 2007, 2011 and Landscape Matrix 2011) and observations in the 

field have indentified that only one (1) exotic tree in the modified environment is hollow bearing (this being 

a Liquidambar styraciflua). 

An ephemeral man-made drainage line runs along the western side of the driveway in the south-eastern 

section of the Subject Property. It is in poor condition and not considered to provide valuable resources to 

any native species. 

The native species supported by this habitat type are the typical urban-tolerant fauna species and the 

Subject Property provides no unique habitat essential to the survival of any of these species. 

Eucalypt Woodland: Occurs mainly within the eastern and southern section of the Subject Property. The 

canopy consists of mature eucalypt species while the understory is a mixture of native and exotic shrubs and 

groundcovers. Seven (7) native and one (1) exotic hollow bearing trees are present that are suitable for 

smaller hollow-dependant native animals. 

Wildlife Corridors and Vegetation Links 

Reviews of aerial photographs of the Region have identified areas of nearby bushland. The following areas 

(and their approximate distance from the Subject Property) have been identified (see Figure 4.1): 

Wahroonga Public School (100 metres north) – highly modified Blue Gum High Forest 

Turiban Reserve (250 metres north-east) 

Clive Evatt Reserve (440 metres north-east) 

Lovers Jump Creek (1 km east) 

Ku-ring-gai Chase National Park (>1 km north) 

The connectivity to these other areas of bushland is limited, with the exception of scattered native canopy 

species existing on nearby streets and in residential properties. The urban-tolerant species detected on the 

Subject Property are likely to have no difficulty traversing through these urban environments via the tree 

canopy, although this is discontinuous. The majority of the species detected within any large areas of 

bushland would not travel through urban environments to utilise the resources of the Subject Property. 



Figure 4.1: Distance to Nearby BGHF Bushland from Subject Property 

4.4.3 Threatened Fauna Assessment 

Table 4.4 assesses the likelihood of threatened fauna species (previously recorded, and/or thought to 

potentially occur within the Study Region, being present, or utilizing, the Subject Property. A description of 

the likelihood of occurrence is given in Table 4.3. It also considers any potential impacts the Proposal may 

have on the said threatened species. 

Although only (1) threatened fauna species – the Powerful Owl (Ninox strenua) - was detected during the 

current field investigations, there are suitable resources available within the Subject Property to support a 

number of other threatened species. Accordingly, Assessments of Significance (commonly called the ‘Sevenpart 

Test’) have been prepared (see Section 4.5) for those species most likely to occur, being: 

• Powerful Owl (Ninox strenua) 

• Grey-headed Flying-fox (Pteropus poliocephalus) 

• Gang-gang Cockatoo (Callocephalon fimbriatum) 



Table 4.3: Likelihood of occurrence categories 

LIKELIHOOD 

Low 

Moderate 

High 

DESCRIPTION 

Species considered to have a low likelihood of occurrence include species not recorded during 

the field surveys that fit one or more of the following criteria: 

Have not been recorded previously in the study area and surrounds and for which the 

study area is beyond the current distribution range. 

Require habitat types or resources that are not present in the study area 

Are considered locally extinct 

Species considered to have a moderate likelihood of occurrence include species not recorded 

during the field surveys that fit one or more of the following criteria: 

Have infrequently been recorded previously in the study area and surrounds. 

Use habitat types or resources that are present in the study area, although generally in a 

poor or modified condition 

Are unlikely to maintain sedentary populations, however, may seasonally use resources 

within the study area opportunistically during variable seasons or migration 

Species considered to have a high likelihood of occurrence include species recorded during the 

field surveys or species not recorded that fit one or more of the following criteria: 

Have frequently been recorded previously in the study area and surrounds 

Use habitat types or resources that are present in the study area that are abundant and/or 

in good condition within the study area 

Are known or likely to maintain resident populations surrounding the study area 

Are known or likely to visit the site during regular seasonal movements or migration 



Table 4.4: Threatened Fauna Species recorded in the Locality and Region 

E1 = Endangered Species, E2 = Endangered Population, E4A = Critically Endangered, V = Vulnerable Species and M = Migratory Species 

* Habitat requirements were generally extracted from Churchill (2009) and OEH (2011a), with other references used being identified in the bibliography. 

** Within a 10 x 10 km 2 area centred on the Study Area 

COMMON & SCIENTIFIC 

NAME 

Amphibia (3) 

Giant Burrowing Frog 

(Heleioporus australiacus) 

Green and Golden Bell Frog 

(Litoria aurea) 

LEGAL STATUS 

TSC 

ACT 

EPBC 

ACT 

HABITAT REQUIREMENTS* 

V V Occurs in hanging swamps on 

sandstone shelves and beside 

perennial creeks, in heath, 

woodland and open forest 

with sandy soils. 

E1 V Prefers sandstone areas, 

breeds in grass and debris 

beside non-perennial creeks 

or gutters. Individuals can 

also be found under logs and 

rocks in non breeding 

periods. 

DISTRIBUTION IN THE REGION** 

NUMBER CLOSEST MOST 

OF PROXIMITY RECENT & 

RECORDS & DATE PROXIMITY 

6 3.65km 

(1983) 

1 1.65km 

(1998) 

2010 

(4.30km) 

1998 

(1.54km) 

POTENTIAL 

UTILISATION 

OF STUDY 

AREA 

Low 

Low 

LIKELY IMPACT & ASSESSMENT 

CONSIDERATIONS 

Targeted but not located during 

field investigations. Potential 

breeding and foraging habitat is 

not present as the Subject Property 

is situated in shale soils. Further 

assessment of this species is not 

required. 





is situated in shale soils. No records 

of the species occurring within the 

Region since 1998. Further 


required. 




NAME 

Red-crowned Toadlet 

(Pseudophryne australis) 

Aves (17) 

Barking Owl 

(Ninox connivens) 

Broad-billed Sandpiper 

(Limicola falcinellus) 

LEGAL STATUS 

TSC 

ACT 

EPBC 

ACT 


V - Inhabits periodically wet 

drainage lines below 

sandstone ridges that often 

have shale lenses or 

cappings. Prefers sandstone 

areas, breeding in dense 

vegetation and debris beside 

ephemeral creeks and 

gutters. Individuals can be 

found under logs, rocks and 

leaf-litter in non breeding 

periods. 

V - Inhabits principally 

woodlands but also open 

forests and partially cleared 

land and utilises hollows for 

nesting. 

V,M - In Australia, favours 

estuarine mudflats, 

saltmarshes and reefs as 

feeding and roosting habitat. 





62 1.65km 

(1992) 

1 4.75km 

(2003) 

2 0.85km 

(1982) 

2009 

(6.10km) 

2003 

(4.75km) 

1982 

(0.85km) 

POTENTIAL 

UTILISATION 

OF STUDY 

AREA 

Low 

Low 

Low 







is situated in shale soils. Has been 

recorded within the Region but is 

unlikely to occur on the Subject 

Property. Further assessment of 

this species is not required. 

No suitable habitat present. Only 

one (1) record of the species 

occurring within the Region and 

there are no recognised 

populations. Unlikely to utilise the 

resources of the Subject Property. 

Further assessment of this species 

is not required. 

No suitable habitat present. Has 

not been recorded within the 

Region for 30 years. Further 


required. 




NAME 

Gang-gang Cockatoo 

(endangered population in 

the Hornsby and Ku-ring-gai 

Local Government Areas) 

(Callocephalon fimbriatum) 

Glossy Black-Cockatoo 

(Calyptorhynchus lathami) 

Little Eagle 

(Hieraaetus morphnoides) 

LEGAL STATUS 

TSC 

ACT 

EPBC 

ACT 


V, E2 - 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. Favours old 

growth attributes for nesting 

and roosting. 

V - Prefers open forests with 

Allocasuarina species as the 

main food source. Uses 

hollows for nesting. 

V - Occupies open eucalypt 

forest, woodland or open, 

she-oak, acacia or riparian 

woodland with abundant 

prey (birds, reptiles and small 

mammals including rabbits). 

Requires tall, living tree in 

remnant patch for nesting. 





31 0.47km 

(2006) 

26 3.14km 

(2006) 

6 0.88km 

(1986) 

2008 

(6.33km) 

2006 

(6.33km) 

2002 

(3.94km) 

POTENTIAL 

UTILISATION 

OF STUDY 

AREA 

High 

Low 

Low 




field investigations. Has been 

recorded in the vicinity of the 

Subject Property during previous 

field investigations. Some suitable 

habitat present within the study 

area. 


has been undertaken (see Sevenpart 

Test Section 4.5). 


field investigations. No 

Allocasaurina trees were recorded 

on the Subject Property. Further 


required. 


field investigations. No suitable 

habitat present. Limited prey 

available. Further assessment of 





NAME 

Little Lorikeet 

(Glossopsitta pusilla) 

Masked Owl 

(Tyto novaehollandiae) 

Pied Oystercatcher 

(Haematopus longirostris) 

LEGAL STATUS 

TSC 

ACT 

EPBC 

ACT 


V - Foraging habitat includes 

eucalyptus tree canopies 

with nectar and pollen 

available. Requires hollow 

bearing trees for breeding. 

V - Large home range (500- 

1000ha) of dry open 

woodland. Often hunts along 

edges of forests for small 

mammals. Uses large tree 

hollows for nesting. 

E1 - Favours intertidal flats of 

inlets and bays, open 

beaches and sandbanks, 

foraging for molluscs, worms, 

crabs and small fish, on 

exposed sand, mud and rock, 

at low tide. Nests are shallow 

scrapes in the sand above the 

high tide mark, mainly on 

coastal estuarine beaches, 

but occasionally in saltmarsh 

or grassy areas. 





6 0.88km 

(1986) 

5 3.72km 

(1980) 

1 5.15km 

(1972) 

1995 

(4.98km) 

1995 

(5.19km) 

1972 

(5.15km) 

POTENTIAL 

UTILISATION 

OF STUDY 

AREA 

Low 

Low 

Low 





habitat trees present on 

neighbouring properties. Some 

hollow trees present on the 

Subject Property. Further 


required. 




not present. This species is unlikely 

to utilise the resources of the 



required. 



habitat present. Further 


required. 




NAME 

Powerful Owl 

(Ninox strenua) 

Regent Honeyeater 

(Anthochaera phrygia) 

Scarlet Robin 

(Petroica boodang) 

Sooty Oystercatcher 

(Haematopus fuliginosus) 

LEGAL STATUS 

TSC 

ACT 

EPBC 

ACT 


V - Forests containing mature 

trees for shelter or breeding 

& densely vegetated gullies 

for roosting. 

E4A E Flagship threatened 

woodland bird (Box 

Ironbark/riparian River 

Sheoak for breeding). 

Generalist forager of nectar, 

honeydew and insects. 

V - Lives in dry woodlands with 

abundant logs and fallen 

timber. In winter may live in 

open grasslands. Forage for 

small invertebrates. 

V - Inhabit rocky headlands, 

rocky shelves, exposed reefs 

with rock pools, beaches and 

muddy estuaries. Breeds in 

spring and summer, almost 

exclusively on offshore 

islands. 





60 0.46km 

(2010) 

12 1.34km 

(1939) 

3 3.29km 

(2001) 

4 0.85km 

(1974) 

2011 

(4.07km) 

1998 

(2.04km) 

2001 

(3.29km) 

1974 

(0.85km) 

POTENTIAL 

UTILISATION 

OF STUDY 

AREA 

High 

Low 

Low 

Low 



Detected field investigations. 

Suitable habitat present that could 

be utilised by this highly mobile 

species. There a many records for 

the Region dating up to 2011, 

however, there are no records of 

the species occurring on the 

Subject Property. No suitable 

hollows for nesting or roosting 

present. Further assessment of 

this species has been undertaken 

(see Seven-part Test Section 4.5). 





required. 





required. 





required. 




NAME 

Superb Fruit-Dove 

(Ptilinopus superbus) 

Superb Parrot 

(Polytelis swainsonii) 

Varied Sittella 

(Daphoenositta chrysoptera) 

Mammalia (10) 

Eastern Bentwing-bat 

(Miniopterus schreibersii 

oceanensis) 

LEGAL STATUS 

TSC 

ACT 

EPBC 

ACT 


V - Inhabits rainforest and 

similar closed forests, and 

eucalypt or acacia woodland 

where there are fruit-bearing 

trees. Forages high in the 

canopy, eating fruits of many 

tree species (including figs 

and palms). 

V V Inhabits forests and 

woodlands dominated by 

eucalypts, especially River 

Red Gums (Eucalyptus 

camaldulensis) and box 

eucalypts such as Yellow Box 

(E. melliodora) or Grey Box 

(E. microcarpa). Mostly 

occurs west of the Great 

Divide. 

V - Occurs in woodlands and 

forests preferring rough and 

stringy barked trees where it 

searches for insects. Builds 

nests in forks of trees. 

V - Prefers areas where there 

are caves, old mines, old 

buildings, storm water drains 

& well timbered areas. This 

species may travel large 

distances from roosting site 





5 0.88km 

(1977) 

1 1.35km 

(1986) 

1 2.61km 

(2002) 

11 1.96km 

(2007) 

1992 

(1.18km) 

1986 

(1.35km) 

2002 

(2.61km) 

2011 

(3.58km) 

POTENTIAL 

UTILISATION 

OF STUDY 

AREA 

Low 

Low 

Low 

Low 




field investigations. Limited 

suitable foraging habitat. No 

known populations in the Region. 





habitat present. Not known to 

occur in the Region. Further 


required. 



habitat present, however there is 

only one (1) record for the Region. 





roosting sites in old buildings. May 

find suitable habitat nearby for 

foraging. Further assessment of 





NAME 

LEGAL STATUS 

TSC 

ACT 

EPBC 

ACT 


for foraging. 





POTENTIAL 

UTILISATION 

OF STUDY 

AREA 



Eastern Freetail-bat 

(Mormopterus norfolkensis) 

Eastern Pygmy-possum 

(Cercartetus nanus) 

V - Prefers dry and swamp 

forests, woodlands. Roost in 

tree hollows, under bark or 

man-made structures. 

Insectivorous. 

V - Inhabit a broad range of 

habitats from rainforest 

through sclerophyll forest 

and woodland to heath. 

Woodland and heath are 

preferred. Feed largely on 

nectar and pollen from 

banksias, eucalypts and 

bottlebrushes, soft fruits and 

insects. Shelter in tree 

hollows, rotten stumps, holes 

in the ground, abandoned 

bird-nests, Ringtail Possum 

dreys or thickets of 

vegetation. Nests usually 

built in hollows, but also 

under the bark of eucalypts. 

Mainly solitary, with home 

ranges from 0.35 ha (males) - 

0.68 ha (females). Generally 

nocturnal, and frequently 

spend time in torpor in 

winter. 

2 3.52km 

(2002) 

30 3.34km 

(2005) 

2011 

(3.69km) 

2011 

(4.10km) 

Low 

Low 


field investigations. Some potential 

foraging habitat present. Only two 

(2) records of the species occurring 

in the Region. Further assessment 

of this species is not required. 


field investigations. Unlikely to be 

detected during winter months. 

Some suitable habitat present 

although small home ranges means 

the species in unlikely to travel in 

and out of the Subject Property. 






NAME 

Grey-headed Flying-fox 

(Pteropus poliocephalus) 

Koala 

(Phascolarctos cinereus) 

Large-eared Pied Bat 

(Chalinolobus dwyeri) 

LEGAL STATUS 

TSC 

ACT 

EPBC 

ACT 


V V Occur in sub-tropical and 

temperate forests and urban 

areas. Roost in trees near 

food sources 

(nectar/pollen/fruits). Large 

numbers in roosts used for 

breeding and young rearing. 

Site fidelity is high. 

V - Populations exist in the 

Wedderburn/ Campbelltown 

area, in the Blue Mountains 

in Wollemi National Park and 

the Colo River area and likely 

around Little Cattai Creek 

and the O’Haras Creek/Cattai 

Creek catchment area. 

Inhabits eucalypt forest and 

woodlands with specific 

primary food trees 

depending on region. 

V V Prefers sandstone outcrops 

for roosting and possibly tree 

hollows in dry or wet 

sclerophyll forest. 





880



NAME 

New Holland Mouse 

(Pseudomys novaehollandiae) 

Southern Brown Bandicoot 

(eastern) 

(Isoodon obesulus obesulus) 

Spotted-tailed Quoll 

(Dasyurus maculatus) 

LEGAL STATUS 

TSC 

ACT 

EPBC 

ACT 


- V Inhabit open heathlands, 

open woodlands with a 

heathland understorey and 

vegetated sand dunes. 

E1 E Inhabits heath or open forest 

with a healthy understorey 

on sandy or friable soils. 

During the day nest in 

shallow depressions in the 

ground covered by leaf litter, 

grass or other plant material. 

Feed on ground-dwelling 

invertebrates and fruit 

bodies of undergroundfruiting 

fungi. 

V E Individual animals use 

hollow-bearing trees, fallen 

logs, small caves, rock 

crevices, and rocky-cliff faces 

as den sites. Mostly 

nocturnal; spends most of 

the time on the ground, 

although also an excellent 

climber and may raid 

possum/glider dens and prey 

on roosting birds; also eats 

carrion and takes domestic 

fowl. 





2 5.14km 

(1980) 

179 3.02km 

(1996) 

12 1.35km 

(1975) 

1980 

(5.14km) 

2009 

(3.17km) 

2010 

(5.63km) 

POTENTIAL 

UTILISATION 

OF STUDY 

AREA 

Low 

Moderate 

Low 







required. 



foraging habitat present. Closest 

records have detected this species 

3km from the Subject Property. 

Unlikely it would travel this 

distance to forage. Further 


required. 


field investigations. Only limited 

hollows as den sites. Limited 

availability of prey species. Unlikely 

to utilise the resources of the 



required. 




NAME 

Yellow-bellied Sheathtail-bat 

(Saccolaimus flaviventris) 

Reptilia (1) 

Rosenberg's Goanna 

(Varanus rosenbergi) 

LEGAL STATUS 

TSC 

ACT 

EPBC 

ACT 


V - Roosts in groups of up to 6 in 

tree hollows, mammal 

burrows or buildings. Forage 

high over canopy for insects. 

V - Inhabits heath, open forest 

and woodland. Associated 

with termites and their 

mounds. Shelters in hollow 

logs, rock crevices and 

burrows and require large 

areas of habitat. Feeds on 

carrion, birds, eggs, reptiles 

and small mammals. 





1 3.66km 

(2004) 

6 1.74km 

(1996) 

2004 

(3.65km) 

2009 

(6.10km) 

POTENTIAL 

UTILISATION 

OF STUDY 

AREA 

Low 

Low 




field investigations. Limited 

suitable foraging and roosting 

habitat present. No known 

populations occur in the Region. 





habitat sheltering habitat present 

and limited prey available. Further 


required. 



4.5 Assessments of Significance - Fauna 

A previous report, the Species Impact Statement (Cumberland Ecology 2007) prepared in support of the 

earlier Hospital Proposal conducted Assessments of Significance under Part 5(a) of the NSW EP&A Act 1979 

(commonly called the Seven-part test) for a number of fauna species; being those species listed in the NSW 

Atlas of Wildlife as having been recorded within a 10-km radius of the Subject Property, regardless of where 

they occurred on the Subject Property or not. Those species were: 

Superb Fruit-dove 

Glossy Black cockatoo 

Gang-gang cockatoo 

Masked Owl 

Powerful Owl 

Barking Owl 

Large-eared Pied Bat 

Eastern Bentwing-bat 

Yellow-bellied Sheathtail Bat 

Eastern Free-tail bat 

Grey-headed Flying-fox 

Each of the Seven-part Tests carried out concluded that the former Hospital Proposal, which would have 

removed ~4.9% of the total area of BGHF Habitat on the Subject Property, was NOT LIKELY to impact on the 

habitats or life cycles any of these species. 

The Planning Proposal and potential future subdivision, as envisaged on the concept plan accompanying the 

Planning Proposal, would remove only 173 sq metres or 2.74% of the BGHF Habitat on the Subject Property 

(@ 0.635 ha) and therefore have a significantly reduced impact on the habitat of any of the above-listed (if at 

all). Specific habitat requirements for each of these species are outlined in Table 4.4. 

However, under the precautionary principle, Seven-part Tests have been undertaken and updated for the 

following species; being those species actually recorded on site during field investigations carried out 

between 2006 and 2012: 

Grey-headed Flying-fox (Pteropus poliocephalus) 

Gang-gang Cockatoo (Callocephalon fimbriatum) 

Powerful Owl (Ninox strenua) 



Seven-part Test for the Grey-headed Flying-fox 

The Grey-headed Flying-fox (Pteropus poliocephalus), is listed as ‘Vulnerable’ under Schedule 2 of the NSW 

TSC Act 1995 and the Commonwealth EPBC Act 1999. Although not detected during the current field 

investigations; the species was recorded flying over the Subject Property during an earlier survey conducted 

by UBM in 2006. The Grey-headed Flying-fox in known to frequent bushland on Sydney’s North Shore, and it 

is possible that this species would utilise the resources of the Subject Property when local eucalyptus trees 

are in flower; this being a primary food source for this species. 

(a) “…in the case of a threatened species, whether the action proposed is likely to have an adverse effect on 


extinction…” 

The potential subdivision and associated residential development is unlikely to impact on the 

foraging resources for the Grey-headed Flying-fox as only a small area will be cleared. Therefore, the 

Planning Proposal or future potential subdivision, as envisaged on the concept plan accompanying 

the Planning Proposal, is unlikely to disrupt the life cycle of the species such that a local viable 

population would be placed at risk of extinction. 

(b) ”…in the case of an endangered population, whether the action proposed is likely to have an adverse 

effect on the life cycle of the species that constitutes the endangered population such that a viable local 

population of the species is likely to be placed at risk of extinction…” 

An ‘endangered population’ is defined as a “population specified in Part 2 of Schedule 1” of the TSC 

Act. Therefore the Grey-headed Flying-fox is not an endangered population. 

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


(i) ..is likely to have an adverse effect on the extent of the ecological community such that its local 


(ii).. is likely to substantially and adversely modify the composition of the ecological community such 

that its local occurrence is likely to be placed at risk of extinction...” 

An Endangered Ecological Community means an ecological community specified in Part 3 of Schedule 

1 of the TSC Act. Therefore, this item is not applicable to a threatened species. 

(d) “…in relation to the habitat of a threatened species, population or ecological community: 

(i)... the extent to which habitat is likely to be removed or modified as a result of the action proposed…”, 

and 

(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… 



Five (5) potential feed trees occur within the small (173 sq metres or 2.74%) of BGHF Habitat likely to 

be cleared on the Subject Sites potential Lots 3 and 4 may provide seasonal foraging habitat for this 

species, however no roost sites occur on the site or nearby. Other much larger areas of foraging 

habitat occur in bushland in the Locality and throughout the Region, including a number of dedicated 

conservation reserves. The Planning Proposal and the subdivision, as envisaged on the concept plan 

accompanying the Planning Proposal, is not likely to modify or remove a significant area of habitat. 

Trees to be removed that are a potential food source for the Grey-headed Flying-fox are four (4) 

Sydney Blue Gums (Eucalyptus saligna) and one (1) Rough-barked Applebox (Angophora floribunda). 

Flying-foxes are highly mobile species and regularly fly over cleared and highly urbanised areas. The 

Planning Proposal and the potential subdivision envisaged on the concept plan accompanying the 

Planning Proposal is unlikely to significantly impact upon habitat connectivity to any other bushland 

areas (which are limited), and areas of known habitat are not likely to become isolated from 

currently interconnecting or proximate areas of habitat. 

Foraging habitat to be removed from the Subject Property (173 sq metres, including five [5] feed 

trees), is minimal compared to other available habitat in the Locality. It will not affect the long-term 

viability of the species. 

(e) “…whether the action proposed is likely to have an adverse effect on critical habitat (either directly or 

indirectly)…” 

The Subject Property is not listed as critical habitat under Part 3 Division 1 of the TSC Act. Therefore, 

no critical habitat would be adversely affected by the draft Proposal. 

(f) “…whether the action proposed is consistent with the objectives or actions of a recovery plan or threat 

abatement plan…” 

A Draft National Recovery Plan has been prepared for the Grey-headed Flying-fox (DECCW 2009). 

The following objective is relevant to this Proposal: to identify and protect foraging habitat critical to 

the survival of Grey-headed Flying-foxes throughout their range. However, given the very small 

amount of habitat likely to be disturbed by the Proposal (173 sq metres and the removal of five [5] 

potential feed trees), it is highly unlikely that this stand of vegetation would be identified as a 

priority foraging 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...” 

The proposed project will involve land clearance and soil disturbance. As such it will or may involve 

a number of Key Threatening Processes under the TSC Act: 

Clearing of native vegetation (173 sq metres); 

The removal of dead trees, dead wood and logs; and 

Predation by the feral European Red Fox, which although not recorded on site, may visit the 

Subject Property from time to time. 



Invasion of native vegetation by exotic vines, perennial grasses and woody weeds does not apply as 

these are already on site in large numbers. 

With the exception of the European Red Fox threat abatement plan, no threat abatement plans 

relevant to the threatening processes mentioned above have been prepared by the NSW National 

Parks and Wildlife Service to date. 

Expected impact on the Grey-headed Flying-fox 

The Planning Proposal and potential future subdivision, as envisaged on the concept plan accompanying the 

Planning Proposal, will remove a small amount of Blue Gum High Forest habitat (173 sq m) that could be 

utilised by the Grey-headed Flying-fox seasonally, when eucalypts are in flower. The remainder of the BGHF 

Habitat on the Subject Property (@ 6,177 sq metres) will be retained, rehabilitated according to the adopted 

BGHF Habitat Vegetation Management Plan (UBM 2007), and managed in perpetuity. 

Given the mobility and ability to adapt to the urban environment, as well as the small area of vegetation to 

be removed, it is unlikely that the Planning Proposal or a potential future subdivision as envisaged on the 

concept plan accompanying the Planning Proposal will have a detrimental effect on any Grey-headed Flyingfox 

individuals or populations that have potential to use the Subject Property. 

It is considered that Planning Proposal and future subdivision, as envisaged on the concept plan submitted 

with the Planning Proposal, would not have a significant impact on the Grey-headed Flying-fox, its 

populations or habitats. Therefore, the preparation of a Species Impact Statement that further considers 

the impacts of the Proposal on these fauna species is NOT REQUIRED. 

Seven-part Test for the Gang-gang Cockatoo 

The Gang-gang Cockatoo (Callocephalon fimbriatum), is listed as ‘Vulnerable’ under Schedule 2 of the NSW 

TSC Act 1995. The Gang-gang Cockatoo is also listed under the TSC Act as an ‘Endangered Population’ within 

the Hornsby and Ku-ring-gai Local Government Areas. Although not detected during the current field 

investigations, there are 31 records of the species occurring within the Region (Table 4.4). Field 

investigations conducted by UBM in 2006 indentified Gang-gang Cockatoos flying over the Subject Property. 

The Gang-gang Cockatoo has different habitat requirements depending on the season. The resources of the 

Subject Property are likely to be only utilised during the winter months when the species is known to 

accommodate more open eucalypt forests and woodlands at lower altitudes than during summer. 




The Planning Proposal and potential future subdivision, as envisaged on the concept plan 

accompanying the Planning Proposal, is unlikely to impact on the foraging resources for the Ganggang 

Cockatoo as only a small area will be cleared (173 sq metres). Any native trees with nesting 



hollows will also be retained. Therefore, the Proposal is unlikely to disrupt the life cycle of the 

species such that a local viable population would be placed at risk of extinction. 




The listed endangered population is found in the Ku-ring-gai and Hornsby local government areas. It 

is known to inhabit areas of Lane Cove National Park, Pennant Hills Park and other forested gullies in 

the area, where most nesting is likely to take place. 

The Subject Property is located in a fully developed residential suburb, and at some distance (> one 

[1] km) from the species’ known nesting sites in Lane Cove National Park and Ku-ring-gai Chase 

National Park. As such, the Proposal is unlikely to disrupt the life cycle of the species such that the 

endangered population would be placed at risk of extinction. 








1 of the TSC Act. Therefore, this item is not applicable to a threatened species. 



and 





Although a small proportion of foraging habitat will be removed from the Subject Property (173 sq 

metres), all potential nesting habitat for the species elsewhere on the Property will be retained (@ 

6,177 sq metres). The Planning Proposal and potential future subdivision, as envisaged on the 

concept plan accompanying the Planning Proposal, is not likely to fragment or isolate any areas of 

habitat for this species as it is capable of flying over cleared and developed urban areas. 

The Subject Property affords foraging habitat and some potential nesting habitat for the species. 

However, as the Gang-gang Cockatoo is highly mobile and moves around according to the availability 

of foraging habitat, it is likely to use a much broader area of habitat, including the large bushland 



areas within Lane Cove National Park and Ku-ring-gai Chase National Park. Therefore the small area 

of habitat potentially affected by subdivision potential envisaged under the Proposal (173 sq metres) 

is not essential habitat for the species. 




no critical habitat would be adversely affected by the draft Proposal. 



No Recovery Plans or Threat Abatement Plans (either finalised or draft) have been prepared for the 

Gang-gang Cockatoo. However, DECCW has identified a number of priority actions for these species 

(DECCW 2009b). 

Actions which may be relevant to the management of habitat for the Gang Gang Cockatoo on the 

Subject Property include: 

Development of a strategy that includes street tree or other plantings, which include browse 

plant species within reserves and private residences. 



The following key threatened processes as they potentially impact on the Gang Gang Cockatoo may 

be applicable to the Subject Property: 

Clearing of native vegetation, as this will clear foraging habitat. However, potential nesting sites 

and other potential foraging habitat will be retained elsewhere on the Subject Property; 

Competition from feral honeybees, as they can form hives in tree hollows that also form 

potential nesting habitat for the Gang-gang Cockatoo. The Proposal is not likely to exacerbate 

this process; 

Ecological consequences of high frequency fires, as fire can destroy tree hollows that form 

potential nesting habitat. It is envisaged that fire will not be part of the management of the 

BGHF Habitat on the Subject Property; 

Infection by Psittacine circoviral (beak and feather) disease affecting endangered psittacine 

species and populations, as it can leave Gang-gang Cockatoos prone to other infections. 

However, the Proposal will not exacerbate the likelihood of this disease infecting a local 

population; 

Predation by the European Red Fox as fledglings can become prey items for foxes. Foxes may 

occur or visit the Subject Property from time to time (although not recorded), but are not likely 

to be increased in number by the Proposal; and 

The removal of dead wood and dead trees, as dead trees are often hollow and contain potential 

nesting habitat. Some dead trees may be removed but all trees with hollows will be retained on 

the Subject Property. 



Expected impact on the Gang-gang Cockatoo 

The Planning Proposal or potential future subdivision, as envisaged on the concept plan accompanying the 

Planning Proposal, will potentially remove a small amount of BGHF Habitat (173 sq metres or 2.74% of the 

total area) that could potentially be utilised by the Gang-gang Cockatoo during the winter months for 

foraging. However, the remainder of the BGHF Habitat on the Subject Property 6,177 sq metres) will be 

retained, rehabilitated under the adopted BGHF Vegetation Management Plan (UBMC 2007), and managed 

in perpetuity. 

Given the species’ mobility and ability to adapt to the urban environment, as well as the small area of 

vegetation to be removed or impacted (173 sq metres or 2.74% of the total BGHF Habitat area), it is unlikely 

that potential subdivision envisaged under the Proposal will have a detrimental effect on Gang-gang 

Cockatoo individuals or populations that have potential to use the Subject Property from time to time. 

It is considered that the Planning Proposal and future subdivision, as envisaged on the concept plan 

submitted with the Planning Proposal, would not have a significant impact on the Gang-gang Cockatoo, its 


the impacts of the Proposal on these species is NOT REQUIRED. 

Seven-part Test for the Powerful Owl 

The Powerful Owl (Ninox strenua) is listed as ‘Vulnerable’ under Schedule 2 of the NSW TSC Act 1995. 

Tree hollows are particularly important for all forest owl species. They not only provide habitat for hollowdwelling 

arboreal marsupials (possums and gliders), which comprise a large proportion of the Owl’s diet, but 

are also potential nesting sites (Higgins 1999). Estimates of the home range of the Powerful Owl is 300 – 

1500 hectares (DEC 2006). 




There is potential for the Powerful Owl to utilise the Subject Property for hunting and roosting. No 

hollows of suitable size for nesting are present. The Planning Proposal and potential subdivision as 

envisaged under the concept plan accompanying the Planning Proposal, will potentially remove a 

small amount of BGHF Habitat (173 sq metres or 2.74% of the total Habitat area). This Proposal will 

not significantly reduce the populations of suitable prey, and is therefore unlikely to have an adverse 

effect of the life cycles or place any local populations of the Powerful Owl at risk of extinction. 




An endangered population is defined under the TSC Act as ‘a population specified in Part 2 of 

Schedule 1’. Therefore the Powerful Owl is not an endangered population. 










1 of the TSC Act. Therefore, this item not applicable to a threatened species. 



and 





Although a small proportion of hunting and roosting habitat will be impacted or removed from the 

Subject Property (173 sq metres), the remainder of BHGF habitat on the Property will be retained (@ 

6,177 sq metres). The Planning Proposal and potential future subdivision, as envisaged on the 

concept plan accompanying the Planning Proposal, is not likely to fragment or isolate any areas of 

habitat for this species as it is capable of flying over cleared and developed urban areas. 

The Subject Property affords some hunting habitat and some potential roosting habitat for the 

species. However, as the Powerful Owl is highly mobile and has a large home range, it is likely to use 

a much broader area of habitat for these purposes, including the large bushland areas within Lane 

Cove National Park and Ku-ring-gai Chase National Park. Therefore the small area of habitat 

potentially affected by the Proposal (173 sq metres) is not considered to be essential habitat for the 

species. 

The clearing or otherwise modification of this small area (173 sq metres) of bushland on the Subject 

Property is unlikely to impact on the long-term survival of the Powerful Owl within the Locality or 

Region. 




no critical habitat would be adversely affected by the Proposal. 





A Recovery Plan has been developed for large Forest Owls (including the Powerful Owl). Two (2) of 

the main issues identified in these Recovery Plans are clearing and fragmentation of habitat. 

The Planning Proposal and potential future subdivision will impact upon or clear 173 sq metres of 

BGHF Habitat on the Subject Property. This is not expected to have a significant impact on the 

resources available to the owls. The remainder of the BGHF Habitat on the Subject Property will 

remain intact. 

To date, there is no threat abatement plan for the Powerful Owl. 



Currently 32 Key threatening processes are defined under Schedule 3 of the TSC Act. The Planning 

Proposal would require the clearing of a small area of native vegetation (listed as a Key Threatening 

Process). 

No other key threatening processes are likely to be relevant to the protection of the Powerful Owls 

which might utilise the resources of the Subject Property. 

It is recommended that the largest possible area of BGHF habitat on the Subject Property is retained 

to minimise the impact of key threatening processes. 

Expected impact on the Powerful Owl 

The Planning Proposal and potential future subdivision proposal, as envisaged in the concept plan 

accompanying the Planning Proposal, will impact upon or remove a small amount (173 sq metres) of habitat 

that could be utilised by the Powerful Owl for hunting and roosting. The remainder of the BGHF habitat 

(6,177 sq metres) on the Subject Property will be retained and protected. 

Given that the prey of these species is highly adaptable to the urban environment, as well as the small area 

of vegetation to be removed, it is unlikely that the Planning Proposal will lead to a reduction of prey species 

resulting in a detrimental effect on Powerful Owl individuals or populations that have potential to use the 

Subject Property. 

It is considered that the Planning Proposal and potential future subdivision, as envisaged on the concept 

plan accompanyingthe Planning Proposal, would not have a significant impact on the Powerful Owl, its 


the impacts of the Proposal on this species is NOT REQUIRED. 



5 CONCLUSIONS & R ECOMMENDATIONS 

In conclusion, land within the Subject Property 35 Water Street Wahroonga has a soil landscape, geology and 

topography able to support BGHF – described in this Report as BGHF Habitat. The presence of 6,350 sq 

metres (0.635 ha) of BGHF in the Subject Property has been confirmed by the NSW Land & Environment 

Court (Proceedings 1113 of 2006) and this figure has been used in all subsequent (Cumberland Ecology 2007, 

UBMC 2007, UBM 2011) and current (UBM 2012) reports. 

The BGHF Habitat support a number of flora species associated with a number of shale-soil vegetation 

communities in the Sydney Bioregion; however the low abundance of native flora species present in the 

understorey, the very low % cover of locally indigenous flora species (~25%), the small size of the remnant 

vegetation in the Subject Property overall (6,350 sq metres, 0.635 ha), its isolation within a fully developed 

residential area, and its long-term land use and disturbance history means that the remnant vegetation in 

the Subject Property has not functioned as a viable, interactive native ecological community for many years. 

However, the stands of Sydney Blue Gum (Eucalyptus saligna) remaining in the Subject Property provide a 

genetic resource for the species and they form part of the remnant BGHF ecological community in the 

Locality and Region. Under the Planning Proposal and potential future subdivision, as envisaged on the 

concept plan accompanying the Planning Proposal, an area of 173 sq metres (2.74% o f the total BGHF 

Habitat area) and 11 BGHF trees will potentially be removed from the area proposed for possible 

subdivision, with nine (9) BGHF trees to be removed or impacted in potential Lots 3 and 4. 

The large remnant trees on the Subject Property, both native and introduced species, provide connectivity 

(albeit discontinuous) to trees in neighbouring properties and local bushland reserves, and they also provide 

habitat and food resources for a range of urban-tolerant native fauna; these being important ecological 

services within a wholly residential landscape. UBM recommends that wherever possible, in those areas not 

proposed for development all trees in good condition and which provide no hazard to public safety should 

be protected, retained and incorporated in any future landscape design. 

There will be a potential loss of 173 sq metres of BGHF Habitat for development in potential Subject Sites 3 

and 4. This represents a loss of 2.74% of the total area of BGHF Habitat in the Subject Property overall (@ 

6,350 sq metres). It should also be noted that the loss of only 2.74% of BGHF Habitat identified under the 

potential future subdivision compares favourably with the 4.9% loss of this community which would have 

occurred under the approved Hospital proposal. 

Further, under the potential future subdivision proposal envisaged in the concept plan accompanying the 

Planning Proposal, 6,177 sq metres of BGHF Habitat would be retained, rehabilitated and appropriately 

managed under the adopted BGHF Habitat Vegetation Management Plan (UBMC 2007). This compares 

favourably to only 6,034 sq metres of the community which would have been retained under the approved 

Hospital proposal (providing a net gain of 323 sq metres) 

It is however, recommended that the loss of 173 sq metres of BGHF Habitat, although small, should be 

‘offset’ against a restoration and management program to rehabilitate the remaining area of BBGHF Habitat 

within the larger Subject Property. 



A Vegetation Management Plan for the BGHF Habitat at 35 Water Street has been prepared (UBMC 2007), 

approved by DECCW/OEH, and adopted by Ku-ring-gai Council. This Plan provides for bush regeneration 

works over a period of five (5) years, and will cover bushland restoration and rehabilitation works in all of 

the BGHF Habitat Area mapped within the Subject Property, and includes those parts of BGHF Habitat which 

intrude marginally into potential new Lots 3 and 4. 

Scientific Licence 132C for the purposes of science, education or conservation under the National Parks & 

Wildlife Act 1979 has been obtained from OEH to provide for the implementation of on-ground works. 

However, to date, no works under this Plan have been undertaken. Scientific License 132C is currently in the 

name of the previous landowner Waterbrook Pty Ltd, so it will be necessary to apply to the Licensing Division 

of OEH to reissue the License in the name of the current landowner Bellevue Projects Pty Ltd. All other 

licence conditions will remain unchanged. 

It is considered that the implementation of the adopted Vegetation Management Plan for the remaining 

6,177 sq metres of BGHF Habitat in the Subject Property will provide an adequate offset for the loss of173 sq 

(2.74%) metres of this Habitat in the Development Areas of potential Lots 3 and 4 within Area 2. 

Further, the loss of 2.74% of BGHF Habitat within the Subject Property is well within the maximum 5% loss 

for BGHF proposed by Dr P. Smith as an expert witness appearing in the Land and Environment Court and 

adopted by the Court. 

The Planning Proposal and potential subdivision proposal, as envisaged by the concept plan accompanying 

the Planning Proposal, will result in the restoration of historic Rippon Grange, its gardens and arboretum, 

and allow for the conservation and future management of the BGHF Habitat on the Subject Property. 



6 REFERENCES 

Botanic Gardens Trust (2009). PlantNET - The Plant Information Network System of Botanic Gardens Trust, 

Sydney, Australia (version 2.0) http://plantnet.rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au [Accessed December 2011]. 

Chapman, G.A. & Murphy C.L. (1989). Soil Landscapes of the Sydney 1: 100 000 Sheet, Soil Conservation 

Service NSW, Sydney. 

Cook, Kerrin (1991). The Railway Comes to Ku-ring-gai: a pictorial history of Ku-ring-gai Municipality 1890- 

1991. Genlin Investments, Pymble NSW 

Cropper, S. (1993). Management of Endangered Plants. CSIRO, Melbourne. 

Cumberland Ecology (September 2007). Species Impact Statement for 35 Water Street, Wahroonga. 

Unpublished report prepared for Murlan Consulting. 

Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) (2006). NSW Recovery Plan for the Large Forest Owls: 

Powerful Owl (Ninox strenua), Sooty Owl (Tyto tenebricosa) and Masked Owl (Tyto novaehollandiae). 

DEC, Sydney. 

Department of Environment and Climate Change (2004). Threatened biodiversity survey and assessment: 

Guidelines for developments and activities (working draft). Department of Environment and Climate 

Change, Hurstville, NSW (now Office of Environment & Heritage). 

Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (2011a). Atlas of NSW Wildlife Database. 

http://wildlifeatlas.npws.gov.au. (now Office of Environment & Heritage). [Accessed December 2011] 

Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (2011b). Threatened species information. 

http://www.threatenedspecies.environment.nsw.gov.au/index.aspx (now Office of Environment & 

Heritage). [Accessed December 2011]. 

Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water Populations and Communities (2011). Environment 

Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act Online Databases. 

http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/db/index.html(now SEWPAC) [Accessed December 2011]. 

Herbert, C. (ed.) (1983). Geology of the Sydney 1:100 000 Sheet. NSW Department of Mineral Resources. 

Higgins, P.J. (Ed.) (1999). Handbook of Australian, New Zealand and Antarctic Birds, Volume 4, Parrots to 

Dollarbird. Oxford University Press, Melbourne 

Ingham Planning (January 2013). Planning Proposal Report: draft Amendment to Ku-ring-gai Planning 

Scheme Ordinance. Unpublished report prepared for Mr Peter Borbilas 

Keith, D.A. (2009). The interpretation, assessment and conservation of ecological communities, in Ecological 

Management and Restoration 10 (S3 – S15) 

Ku-ring-gai Municipal Council (1995). Bushland Weed Assessment Guidelines. Parks & Landscape Services, 

Ku-ring-gai M. Council, Gordon NSW 



Ku-ring-gai Municipal Council (2002). Bushfire Prone Lands Map (website) 

Ku-ring-gai Council (2012). draft Planning Proposal Biodiversity Mapping Ku-Ring-gai Council, Gordon NSW 

Landscape Matrix 13 December 2011). Arboricultural Impact Statements, proposed Lots 2, 3, 4 and 5 at 35 

Water Street Wahroonga. Unpublished report prepared for Peter Borbilas, Bellevue Projects Pty Ltd 

Wahroonga 

LesryK Environmental Consultants (2004). Flora and fauna survey, proposed hazard reduction works, 

Wahroonga, NSW. Prepared for the NSW Roads and Traffic Authority by LesryK Environmental 

Consultants, Bundeena, NSW. 

LHO Group (October 2007). Hydraulic Services Report for Residential Development 35 Water Street, 

Wahroonga. Unpublished report prepared for Murlan Consulting Pty Ltd. 

Moore, P.D. & Chapman S.B. (1986). Methods in Plant Ecology. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Melbourne 

NSW Industry & Investment (formerly Primary Industries) (2011). Noxious Weeds Declarations online at 

http://ww.dpi.nsw.gov.au/agriculture (Accessed November 2011) 

NSW Land & Environment Court (xx). Proceedings No 11193 of 2006, Ku-ring-gai Council ats. Murlan 

Consulting Pty Ltd, 35 Water Street & 64 Billyard Avenue. 

NSW Scientific Committee (1998). Final Determination for Blue Gum High Forest in the Sydney Bioregion 

Pellow B.J., Henwood M, Carolin, R.C. (2009). Flora of the Sydney Region. 5th Edition. Sydney University 

Press, Sydney. 

Richardson F.J., Richardson R.G., Shepherd R.C.H. (2007). Weeds of the South-East: an Identification Guide 

for Australia. R.G. and F.J. Richardson, Meredith 

Smith, P. & Smith, J. (December 2006). Identity and Condition of Native Vegetation at 35 Water Street, 

Wahroonga. Unpublished report prepared for the Commonwealth Department of Environment & 

Heritage (now DEW), Canberra. 

Smith, P & Smith, J (April 2007). Supplementary Ecological Report NSW Land & Environment Court 

Proceedings No 11193 of 2006, Ku-ring-gai Council ats. Murlan Consulting Pty Ltd, 35 Water Street & 

64 Billyard Avenue. 

Taylor Brammer (October 2007). Landscape Strategy Plan, LA.DA.05 Taylor Brammer Landscape Architect, 

Sydney, NSW. 

Tree Wise Men (October 2007). Arboricultural Impact Assessment Report for Waterbrook @ Wahroonga, 35 

Water Street & 64 Billyard Avenue, Wahroonga. Unpublished report prepared for Murlan Consulting, 

Pty Ltd. 

Tree Wise Men (October 2011). Preliminary Arboricultural Advice in relation to a 5-Lot Subdivision at 35 

Water Street, Wahroonga. Correspondence to Bellevue Projects 



Tozer, M. G., Turner, K., Simpson, C., Keith, D.A., Beukers, P., MacKenzie, B., Tindall, D. & Pennay, C. 

(2010). ‘SCIVI’ - native vegetation of southeast NSW: a revised classification and map for the coast and 

eastern tableland, in Cunninghamia 11 (3) 2010. RBG Sydney 

Urban Bushland Management Consultants (2003). Flora and Fauna Assessment for Site 1 for SEPP 53, #2, 4, 

8, 10 & 12 Avon Road and #1, 1A, 3, 5 & 5A Pymble Avenue, Pymble. Report prepared for Multiplex 

and Australand (Avon Road Pymble Pty Ltd). 

Urban Bushland Management Consultants (2005). Flora & Fauna Assessment, Opportunities and 

Constraints for Lot 1 DP 375262 (John Williams Respite Care Centre) and Lot 1 DP 726091 (64 Billyard 

Avenue, Wahroonga). Unpublished report prepared for State Property - Department of Commerce 

and Department of Ageing, Disability & Home Care. 

Urban Bushland Management Consultants (2006). Flora & Fauna Assessment for the former John Williams 

Respite Care Centre. Unpublished report prepared for Murlan Consulting Pty Ltd. 

UBM Ecological Consultants (December 2007). Vegetation Management Plan for Blue Gum High Forest Habitat: 

a guide to the rehabilitation and reconstruction of a native plant community at 35 Water Street Wahroonga. 

Unpublished report prepared for Waterbrook @ Wahroonga 

UBM Ecological Consultants (December 2011). Flora Survey & Ecological Assessment in support of a 5-Lot 

Subdivision at 35 Water Street Wahroonga. Unpublished report prepared for Peter Borbilas, Bellevue 

Projects Pty Ltd. Wahroonga 



7 APPENDICES 

APPENDIX 1: Final Determination – Blue Gum High Forest 

Blue Gum High Forest in the Sydney Basin Bioregion - critically endangered ecological community listing 

NSW Scientific Committee - final determination 

The Scientific Committee, established by the Threatened Species Conservation Act, has made a Final 

Determination to list the Blue Gum High Forest in the Sydney Basin Bioregion, as a critically endangered 

ecological community in Part 2 of Schedule 1A of the Act, and as a consequence omit reference to the Blue 

Gum High Forest in Part 3 of Schedule 1 of the Act. Listing of critically endangered ecological communities is 

provided for by Part 2 of the Act. 

The Scientific Committee has found that: 

1. Blue Gum High Forest in the Sydney Basin Bioregion is the name given to the ecological community 

characterised by the species assemblage listed in paragraph 2. All sites are within the Sydney Basin 

Bioregion. 

2. Blue Gum High Forest in the Sydney Basin Bioregion is characterised by the following assemblage of 

species: 

Acmena smithii 

Adiantum aethiopicum 

Allocasuarina torulosa 

Alphitonia excelsa 

Angophora costata 

Angophora floribunda 

Asplenium flabellifolium 

Backhousia myrtifolia 

Blechnum cartilagineum 

Breynia oblongifolia 

Calochlaena dubia 

Carex maculata 

Cissus hypoglauca 

Clematis aristata 

Clerodendrum tomentosum 

Dianella caerulea 

Doodia aspera 

Elaeocarpus reticulatus 

Entolasia marginata 

Entolasia stricta 

Eucalyptus globoidea 

Eucalyptus paniculata 

Eucalyptus pilularis 

Eucalyptus saligna 

Eustrephus latifolius 

Ficus coronata 

Glochidion ferdinandi var. ferdinandi 

Glycine clandestina 

Hydrocotyle laxiflora 

Leucopogon juniperinus 

Lomandra longifolia 

Marsdenia rostrata 

Maytenus silvestris 

Morinda jasminoides 

Notelaea longifolia forma longifolia 

Oplismenus aemulus 

Oplismenus imbecillis 

Oxalis perennans 

Pandorea pandorana 

Persoonia linearis 

Pittosporum revolutum 

Pittosporum undulatum 



Platylobium formosum 

Polyscias sambucifolia subsp. A 

Pseuderanthemum variabile 

Rapanea variabilis 

Smilax glyciphylla 

Viola hederacea 

Poa affinis 

Pratia purpurascens 

Pteridium esculentum 

Smilax australis 

Tylophora barbata 

3. The total species list of the community is considerably larger than that given above, with many species 

present in only one or two sites or in low abundance. The species composition of a site will be influenced by 

the size of the site, recent rainfall or drought condition and by its disturbance (including fire) history. The 

number of species and the above ground relative abundance of species will change with time since fire, and 

may also change in response to changes in fire regime (including changes in fire frequency). At any one time, 

above ground individuals of some species may be absent, but the species may be represented below ground 

in the soil seed banks or as dormant structures such as bulbs, corms, rhizomes, rootstocks or lignotubers. 

The list of species given above is of vascular plant species; the community also includes micro-organisms, 

fungi, cryptogamic plants and a diverse fauna, both vertebrate and invertebrate. These components of the 

community are poorly documented. 

4. Blue Gum High Forest is dominated by a tall canopy of eucalypts that may exceed 30 m in height. Its 

understorey is typically multi-layered with a midstorey of mesophyllous shrubs and small trees and a diverse 

ground layer of herbs, ferns and some grasses. Most stands of the community are in a state of regrowth 

after past clearing or logging activities, and consequently trees may be shorter, less dense or more dense 

than less disturbed stands. Blue Gum High Forest is dominated by either Eucalyptus pilularis (Blackbutt) or E. 

saligna (Sydney Blue Gum). Angophora costata (Smooth-barked Applebox) is frequently observed in 

remnants close to the shale/sandstone boundary, but also occurs infrequently on deep shale soils, as does A. 

floribunda (Rough-barked Applebox). Eucalyptus paniculata (Grey Ironbark) is typically found on upper 

slopes. A relatively diverse stratum of small trees is usually present, and includes Pittosporum undulatum 

(Sweet Pittosporum), Elaeocarpus reticulatus (Blueberry Ash) and Allocasuarina torulosa (Forest Oak). Shrub 

species are typically mesophyllous, such as Breynia oblongifolia (Coffee Bush), Pittosporum revolutum, 

(Yellow Pittosporum), Clerodendrum tomentosum, Notelaea longifolia forma longifolia (Large Mock-olive), 

Maytenus sylvestris (Narrow-leaved Orange Bark), Polyscias sambucifolia subsp. A (Elderberry Panax) and 

Rapanea variabilis (Muttonwood). Mesophyllous species are generally more common in gullies associated 

with both shale and volcanic soils than slopes and ridgetops. Sclerophyllous species such as Persoonia 

linearis (Narrow-leaved Geebung) and Leucopogon juniperinum (Prickly Bearded-heath) occur more 

frequently closer to the shale/sandstone boundary. The ground stratum is often dense and contains a 

mixture of herb, grass and fern species including Adiantum aethiopicum, Entolasia marginata (Bordered 

Panic), Lomandra longifolia (Spiny-headed Matrush), Calochlaena dubia (Common Groundfern), Dianella 

caerulea (Blue Flax Lily), Pseuderanthemum variabile (Pastel Flower) and Oplismenus imbecillis. Vine species 

are also frequently present, in particular Tylophora barbata (Bearded Tylophora), Eustrephus latifolia, 

(Wombat Berry), Clematis aristata (Old Man's Beard) and Pandorea pandorana (Wonga Wonga Vine). 

5. While no systematic fauna surveys have been carried out across the range of Blue Gum High Forest a 

number of mammal and bird species listed as threatened in NSW have been recorded as resident or 



transient in the community. These include the Grey-headed Flying Fox (Pteropus poliocephalus), Yellowbellied 

Sheathtail-bat (Saccolaimus flaviventris), Glossy Black cockatoo (Calyptorhynchus lathami) and the 

Powerful Owl (Ninox strenua). 

6. Blue Gum High Forest is typically associated with soils derived from Wianamatta Shale (Tozer 2003), 

though may occur in adjacent areas underlain by Hawkesbury Sandstone. The community also occurs on 

soils associated with localised volcanic intrusions, 'diatremes' (Benson and Howell 1994). Typically, Blue Gum 

High Forest occurs more than 100m above sea level, where rainfall exceeds 1050 mm per annum, although it 

may be present in sheltered locations with lower rainfall (Tozer 2003). In drier areas and approaching the 

shale/sandstone boundary, it intergrades with Sydney Turpentine Ironbark Forest, which is currently listed as 

an Endangered Ecological Community under the TSC Act. Stands that exhibit intermediate characteristics are 

collectively covered by the Determinations of these communities and may be diagnosed by detailed 

consideration of the assemblage of species present at the site. 

7. Vegetation surveys carried out across the range of Blue Gum High Forest include those of Benson and 

Howell (1990, 1994) and Tozer (2003). All of these studies describe and map this community as 'Blue Gum 

High Forest', including map unit 6b 'Tall open-forest: Eucalyptus pilularis – Eucalyptus saligna' of Benson and 

Howell (1994) and map unit 153 of Tozer (2003). In addition, Benson and Howell (1994) map separately that 

part of this community which occurs on soils associated with diatremes as 'Glen Forest, map unit 6c, i. Tall 

open-forest: Eucalyptus saligna', noting that this vegetation was 'very similar to the Blue Gum High Forest of 

the north shore [i. e. map unit 6b]'. Blue Gum High Forest belongs to the North Coast Wet Sclerophyll Forests 

vegetation class of Keith (2004). 

8. Blue Gum High Forest is found on the north shore and northern suburbs of Sydney and has been recorded 

from the local government areas of Lane Cove, Willoughby, Ku-ring-gai, Hornsby, Baulkham Hills, Ryde and 

Parramatta within the Sydney Basin Bioregion and may occur elsewhere in the Bioregion. 

9. Blue Gum High Forest has a very highly restricted geographic distribution, and is currently estimated to 

cover an extant area of less than 200 ha (Tozer 2003). The distribution comprises a series of small remnant 

patches, the largest of which is less than 20ha. Highly modified relics of the community also persist as small 

clumps of trees without a native understorey. All remnants of the community are now surrounded by urban 

development. Consequently, the distribution of Blue Gum High Forest is severely fragmented. Fragmentation 

of habitat contributes to a very large reduction in the ecological function of the community. 

10. Prior to European settlement, about 200 years ago, Blue Gum High Forest is estimated to have covered 

an area of approximately 3700 ha (Tozer 2003). Its current extent amounts to less than 5% of this original 

distribution. The dominant eucalypts of the community live for several hundred years. Blue Gum High Forest 

has therefore undergone a very large reduction in its geographic distribution within a time span appropriate 

to the life cycle and habitat characteristics of its component species. Small-scale clearing associated with 

residential subdivision, road upgrading, extension and maintenance of service easements, etc. pose a threat 

of ongoing decline in the extent of the community. Clearing of native vegetation is listed as a Key 

Threatening Process under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995. 



11. Changes in structure of Blue Gum High Forest have occurred as a consequence of the extensive removal 

of large old trees. A number of stands of Blue Gum Forests have highly modified understories, in which the 

native woody component has been largely replaced by woody exotic species or by increased abundance of 

native and exotic grasses. Continued underscrubbing, frequent burning and mowing may maintain the 

understorey in an artificially open state and prevent recruitment of species with the community. The loss of 

large trees removes essential habitat for a range of tree-dependent fauna (Gibbons and Lindenmeyer 1996). 

The reduction of understorey complexity, through the reduction of native shrub cover, degrades habitat for 

a range of bird and mammal species (Catling 1991). These processes contribute to a very large reduction in 

the ecological function of the community. 

12. The influx of stormwater, which brings excessive moisture, pollutants and nutrients to the remnant 

forests from surrounding urban areas, is a significant ongoing threat to the ecological integrity of Blue Gum 

High Forest. This, together with the legacy of past disturbances and the abundance and dispersal of weed 

propagules from nearby urban areas, results in the invasion, establishment and spread of weeds (Thomson 

and Leishman 2005). Problematic weed species in Blue Gum High Forest include the following: 

Asparagus asparagoides 

Cinnamomum camphora 

Lantana camara 

Ligustrum lucidum 

Ligustrum sinense 

Ochna serrulata 

Passiflora edulis 

Passiflora subpeltata 

Pennisetum clandestunum 

Rubus ulmifolius 

Senna colutioides 

Tradescantia fluminensis 

Bridal Creeper 

Camphor laurel 

Lantana 

Large-leaved Privet 

Small-leaved Privet 

Passionfruit 

Passionfruit 

Kikuyu 

Blackberry 

'Invasion and establishment of exotic vines and scramblers', 'Invasion of native plant communities by exotic 

perennial grasses' and 'Invasion, establishment and spread of Lantana (Lantana camara L. sens. lat)' are 

listed as Key Threatening Processes under the Threatened Species Conservation Act. The influx of 

stormwater, pollutants and nutrients, and the invasion of weeds contribute to a very large reduction in the 

ecological function of the community. 

13. Blue Gum High Forest in the Sydney Basin Bioregion is eligible to be listed as a critically endangered 

ecological community as, in the opinion of the Scientific Committee, it is facing an extremely high risk of 

extinction in New South Wales in the immediate future, as determined in accordance with the following 

criteria as prescribed by the Threatened Species Conservation Regulation 2002: 

Clause 25 

The ecological community has undergone, is observed, estimated, inferred or reasonably suspected to have 

undergone, or is likely to undergo within a time span appropriate to the life cycle and habitat characteristics 

of its component species: 

(a) a very large reduction in geographic distribution. 



Clause 26 

The ecological community's geographic distribution is estimated or inferred to be: 

(b) very highly restricted, 

and the nature of its distribution makes it likely that the action of a threatening process could cause it to 

decline or degrade in extent or ecological function over a time span appropriate to the life cycle and habitat 

characteristics of the ecological community's component species. 

Clause 27 

The ecological community has undergone, is observed, estimated, inferred or reasonably suspected to have 

undergone, or is likely to undergo within a time span appropriate to the life cycle and habitat characteristics 

of its component species: 

(a) a very large reduction in ecological function, 

as indicated by any of the following: 

(b) change in community structure 

(c) change in species composition 

(f) disruption of ecological processes 

(g) invasion and establishment of exotic species 

(h) degradation of habitat 

(i) fragmentation of habitat 

Associate Professor Lesley Hughes 

Chairperson 

Scientific Committee 

Proposed Gazettal date: 20/04/07 

Exhibition period: 20/04/07 – 15/06/07 

References 

Benson DH, Howell J (1990) The natural vegetation of the Penrith 1:100 000 map sheet. Cunninghamia 2, 

541-596. 

Benson DH, Howell J (1990) Taken for granted: the bushland of Sydney and its suburbs. (Kangaroo Press: 

Sydney) 

Catling PC (1991) Ecological effects of prescribed burning practices on the mammals of south-eastern 

Australia. In: 'Conservation of Australia's forest fauna' (Ed. D Lunney), pp 353-363. (Surrey Beatty and Sons: 

Sydney). 

Gibbons P, Lindenmeyer DB (1996) A review of issues associated with the retention of trees with hollows in 

wood production forests. Forest Ecology and Management 83, 245-279. 

Keith DA (2004) Ocean shores to desert dunes: the native vegetation of New South Wales and the ACT. NSW 

Department of Environment and Conservation, Sydney. 

Thomson VP, Leishman MR (2005) Post-fire vegetation dynamics in nutrient-enriched and non-enriched 

sclerophyll woodland. Austral Ecology 30, 250-260 

Tozer MG (2003) The native vegetation of the Cumberland Plain, western Sydney: systematic classification 

and field identification of communities. Cunninghamia 8, 1-75. 



APPENDIX 2: Flora List Recorded for in the eight (8) transects surveyed in the Subject Sites: proposed Lots 2, 3, 4 and 5 at 35 Water Street Wahroonga 

FAMILY SPECIES NAME COMMON NAME 

Canopy Trees 

Araucariaceae *Araucaria bidwillii Bunya Pine r 

LOCATION 

Area 1 Area 2 

Lot 2s Lot 2d Lot 3w Lot 3e Lot 4w Lot 4e Lot 5w Lot 5e 

Cupressaceae *Cupressus sp Cypress r r 

Pinaceae *Cedrus deodara Himalayan Cedar r 

*Liquidambar 

Aceraceae 

Liquidambar r r r 

styraciflua 

Anacardiaceae *Harpephyllum caffrum Kaffir Plum r 

Juglandaceae *Carya illinoensis Pecan r 

Myrtaceae 


Rough-barked 

Applebox 

r 

Myrtaceae Eucalyptus saligna Blue Gum c o r 

Proteaceae *Grevillea robusta Silky Oak r 

Sterculiaceae 

*Brachychiton 

acerifolius 

Flame Tree 

Small Trees 

Araucariaceae *Araucaria bidwillii Bunya Pine r 

Araucariaceae *A. cunninghamii Hoop Pine r r 

Cupressaceae *Cupressus spp. Cypress r r o 

Pinaceae *Cedrus deodara Himalayan Cedar r r 

Pinaceae *Pinus radiata Monterey Pine r r r 

Podocarpaceae *Podocarpus elatus Plum Pine r 

Bignoniaceae *Jacaranda mimosifolia Jacaranda r 

Casuarinaceae 

Allocasuarina torulosa - 

pl 

Forest Oak r o o 

Casuarinaceae *Casuarina glauca Swamp Oak r 

r 




LOCATION 

Area 1 Area 2 


Ericaceae *Arbutus unedo Strawberry Tree r 

Ericaceae *Rhododendron sp cv Rhododendron r r r 

Fabaceae *Acacia schinoides r 

Gingkoaceae *Gingko biloba Maidenhair Tree r 

Juglandaceae *Carya illinoensis Pecan r 

*Cinnamomum 

Lauraceae 

Camphor Laurel 

r 

camphora 

Magnoliaceae *Magnolia grandiflora Magnolia o 

Smooth-barked 

Myrtaceae 

Angophora costata - pl 

r 

Applebox 

Angophora floribunda - Rough-barked 

Myrtaceae 

r 

pl 

Applebox 

*Callistemon salignus - 

Myrtaceae 

Willow Bottlebrush r r 

pl 

Myrtaceae Eucalyptus pilularis - pl Blackbutt r r r 

Myrtaceae E. saligna - pl Blue Gum o 

Syncarpia glomulifera - 

Myrtaceae 

Turpentine r r 

pl 

*Waterhousea 

Myrtaceae 

Weeping Lilly Pilly 

r 

floribunda 

*Olea europaea ssp 

Oleaceae 

African Olive r r 

cuspidata 

Pittosporaceae Pittosporum undulatum Sweet Pittosporum adj r c v o o 

Sapindaceae *Cupaniopsis parvifolia Small-leaved Tuckeroo r 

*Brachychiton 

Sterculiaceae 

Flame Tree r r 

acerifolius 

Verbenaceae *Gmelina leichhardtii White Beech r 

Arecaceae *Phoenix canariensis Canary Island Date r r 



LOCATION 


Palm 

Area 1 Area 2 


Shrubs 

Cyatheaceae Cyathea australis Rough Tree Fern r - pl 

Araucariaceae *Araucaria bidwillii Bunya Pine sapling o 

Araucariaceae 

*Araucaria 

cunninghamii 

Hoop Pine sapling 

Cupressaceae *Cupressus sp. r 

Aceraceae *Acer negundo Hard Alder sapling r 

Aceraceae 

*Liquidambar 

styraciflua 

saplings 

r 

Amygdalaceae *Prunus sp cv Flowering Cherry o o o o o o r 

Anacardiaceae *Pistachio chinensis saplings r o r 

Apocynaceae *Oleander neriifolia Oleander r r 

Araliaceae *Polyscias elegans Celerywood sapling r r r r 

Asteraceae *Ageratina megaphylla r r r 

Atherospermaceae *Doryphora sassafras Sassafras r 

Berberidaceae *Nandina domestica Sacred Bamboo r r r r o r 

Bignoniaceae *Bignonia sp. o r 

Bignoniaceae *Jacaranda mimosifolia Jacaranda sapling r 

Caprifoliaceae *Lonicera sp. r 

Allocasuarina torulosa - 

Casuarinaceae 

Forest Oak saplings 

r 

pl 

Casuarinaceae *Casuarina glauca saplings r r 

Cunoniaceae *Callicoma serratifolia Callicoma sapling o - pl 

Elaeocarpaceae 

Elaeocarpus reticulatus 

- pl 

Blueberry Ash o o r r r 

r 





LOCATION 

Area 1 Area 2 


Ericaceae *Arbutus enedo saplings r 

Escalloniaceae *Escallonia sp. Escallonia r 

Euphorbiaceae 

Homalanthus 

populifolius - pl 

Bleeding Heart r o 

Fabaceae 

*Genista 

monspessulana 

Montpellier Broom o r o r o o o 

Fabaceae *Acacia decurrens - pl Green Wattle saplings r 

Fabaceae Acacia floribunda - pl Sally Wattle r 

Fabaceae Acacia longifolia - pl Sydney Golden Wattle r 

Fabaceae 

*Senna pendula var 

glabrata 

Cassia r r r r 

Flacourtiaceae *Xylosma sp. r 

Lamiaceae *Westringia fruticosa Coast Rosemary r r 

Lauraceae 

*Cinnamomum 

camphora 


saplings 

r o o o 

Lythraceae *Lagerstroemia indica Crepe Myrtle r r 

Magnoliaceae *Magnolia grandiflora saplings r 

*Cotoneaster 

Malaceae 

Cotoneaster r r 

glaucophylla 

Malaceae *Cotoneaster pannosus Cotoneaster r r r r 

Meliaceae *Melia azedarach White Cedar sapling r r r 

Myrtaceae *Acmena smithii - pl Lilly Pilly o r r r 

Myrtaceae 

Angophora floribunda - 

pl 

saplings 

r 

Myrtaceae 

*Backhousia myrtifolia 

- pl 

Grey Myrtle saplings c o 

Ochnaceae *Ochna serrulata Mickey Mouse Plant o o o o r r 

Oleaceae *Ligustrum lucidum Large-leaved Privet o o o v o v c v



saplings 


LOCATION 

Area 1 Area 2 


Oleaceae *Ligustrum sinense Small-leaved Privet o r o 

Oleaceae 

*Olea europea ssp. 

cuspidata 

African Olive saplings o o o o o o 

Pittosporaceae 

Pittosporum undulatum 

Sweet Pittosporum 

saplings 

r r c o c c 

Proteaceae *Grevillea robusta saplings r 

Rhamnaceae 

Pomaderris ferruginea - 

pl 

r 

Rosaceae 

*Photinia serrulata var 

robusta 

o 

Rosaceae *Rosa sp. cv. Rose hyrbids r 

Sapindaceae *Alectryon tomentosus Hairy Birds Eye r 

Sapindaceae 

*Cupaniopsis parvifolia 

Small-leaved Tuckeroo 

sapling 

Saxifragaceae *Hydrangea sp. r 

Solanaceae *Solanum mauritianum Tobacco Weed r r r 

Sterculiaceae 

*Brachychiton 

acerifolius 

Flame Tree saplings r r 

Theaceae *Cammellia japonica o 

Theaceae *Commellia sassanqua o o 

Ulmaceae *Celtis occidentalis Hackberry saplings r r r 

Arecaceae *Phoenix canariensis r 

Bambusaceae *Bambusa sp. o 

Herbs - Ferns 

Adiantaceae 

Adiantum aethiopicum 

Common Maidenhair 

Fern 

adj c 

Adiantaceae *Adiantum formosum Giant Maidenhair Fern 1 

r




LOCATION 

Area 1 Area 2 


Cyatheaceae Cyathea australis - pl Rough Tree Fern r 

Pteridaceae Pteris tremula o r 

Thelypteridaceae Christella dentata Binung r 

Herbs - Dicots 

Acanthaceae *Acanthus mollis Oyster Plant r 

Acanthaceae 

Pseuderanthemum 

variabile 

Pastel Flower 

Aceraceae 

*Liquidambar 

styraciflua 

seedlings 

Amygdalaceae *Prunus sp cv Flowering Cherry o 

Apiaceae Centella asiatica Pennywort r r r 

*Ciclosperma 

Apiaceae 

Slender Celery o o r 

leptophylla 

Asteraceae *Ageratina adenophora Crofton Weed r o r 

Asteraceae *Ageratina riparia Mistweed o r r 

Asteraceae *Bidens pilosa Farmers Friends c o r r r o o 

Asteraceae *Cirsium vulgare Spear Thistle r r r r 

Asteraceae *Conyza bonariensis Fleabane o r o r c o 

Asteraceae *Erigeron karvinksianus Brazilian Fireweed r r 

Asteraceae Euryops pectinatus Brighteyes o r 

Asteraceae Euchiton sphaericum o 

Asteraceae 

*Gnaphalium 

americanum 

Cudweed r r 

Asteraceae *Hypochaeris radicata Flatweed c v o c o o o 

Asteraceae 

Senecio hispidulus var 

hispidulus 

r 

o 

Asteraceae *Senecio Fireweed o o 

r 

r


LOCATION 


madagascariensis 

Area 1 Area 2 


Asteraceae *Sonchus oleraceus Sow Thistle o r 

Asteraceae *Taraxacum officinale Dandelion r r r 

Begoniaceae *Begonia sp. r 

Campanulaceae Wahlenbergia gracilis Small Bluebell r 

Caryophyllaceae 

*Polycarpon 

tetraphyllum 

Four-leaf-all-seed 

Clusiaceae Hypericum japonicum v o 

Convolvulaceae Dichondra repens Kidney Plant o v c v c c 

Crassulaceae *Crassula sp. r 

Euphorbiaceae *Euphorbia peplus Petty Spurge r o r 

Euphorbiaceae *Trifolium sp. Clover r c r o 

Fumariaceae *Fumaria sp Fumaria o r 

Gentianaceae 

*Centaurium 

tenuiflorum 

r 

Geraniaceae Geranium homeanum Trailing Storksbill o r o o o 

Lauraceae 

*Cinnamomum 

camphora 


seedlings 

Lobeliaceae Pratia purpurascens Whiteroot r 

Ochnaceae 

*Ochna serrulata 

Mickey Mouse Plant 

seedlings 

o 

Oleaceae *Ligustrum lucidum seedlings r r o 

Oleaceae *Ligustrum sinense seedlings r o o 

*Olea europea ssp 

Oleaceae 

African Olive seedlings o o r 

africana 

Onagraceae Epilobium sp. Sheoards Purse o 

Oxalidaceae *Oxalis carnea r r o 

o 

o 

o 

r 




LOCATION 

Area 1 Area 2 


Oxalidaceae Oxalis ?perennans o o 

Oxalidaceae *Oxalis sp. r r r 

Plantaginaceae *Plantago lanceolata Lambs Tongue c v c c o o o 

Polygonaceae Rumex brownii o r 

Primulaceae *Anagallis arvensis Scarlet Pimpernel o 

Rosaceae *Duchesnea indica Indian Strawberry o 

Rutaceae *Murraya paniculata seedling r 

Scrophulariaceae *Veronica arvensis Wall Speedwell r 

Scrophulariaceae Veronica plebeia Trailing Speedwell r r 

Solanaceae *Solanum nigrum Blackberry Nightshade r 

Tropaeolaceae *Tropolaea majus Nasturtium r 

Verbenaceae *Verbena bonariensis Purpletop r r 

Violaceae *Viola odorata Violet r 

Herbs - Monocots 

Agavaceae 

*Cordyline fruticosa 

a Broad-leaved Palm 

Lily 

o 

r 

Alliaceae 

*Nothoscordum 

borbonicum * 

Onion Weed 

o 

Amaryllidaceae *Agapanthus sp Agapanthus o v o o o 

Anthericaceae 

*Chlorophytum 

comosum 

Spider lily r c r o 

Asparagaceae *Asparagus densiflora Fern Asparagus o c c v o o v v 

Commelinaceae 

*Tradescantia 

fluminensis 

Wandering Jew o o o 

Cyperaceae Carex inversa o c o r 

Cyperaceae Cyperus gracilis o r r 




LOCATION 

Area 1 Area 2 

Cyperaceae C. imbecillis r 

Iridaceae *Freesia refracta Freesia o r 


Iridaceae *Dietes vegeta Peacock Lily o o c o o o o 

Iridaceae *?Homeria sp o o r o r r 

Juncaceae *Juncus capitatus r r 

Liliaceae *Lilium formosanum Formosan Lily o o 

Lomandraceae Lomandra longifolia Spiny-headed Mat-rush r - pl 

Musaceae *Strelitzia reginae Strelitzia o r o r 

Dianella caerulea var 

Phormiaceae 

Rough Flax Lily r o r r r 

producta 

* Anthoxanthum 

Poaceae 

Sweet Vernal Grass r v v 

odoratum * 

Poaceae *Avena fatua Wild oats r r 

Poaceae *Axonopus affinis Carpet Grass r 

Poaceae *Briza maxima Quaking Grass o r r r c o 

Poaceae *Briza minor Shivery Grass o r r 

Poaceae *Bromus catharticus Prairie Grass c o o 

Poaceae *Cynodon dactylon Couch Grass o o 

Poaceae Danthonia ?racemosa a Wallaby Grass r r r 

Poaceae 

Dichelachne micrantha 

Short-haired Plume 

Grass 

r 

Poaceae 

Echinopogon 

caespitosus 

a Hedgehog Grass o o 

Poaceae Echinopogon ovatus a Hedgehog Grass c c o o r r 

Poaceae *Ehrharta erecta Veldt Grass o c r o c o 

Poaceae Entolasia marginata Margined Panic r r 




LOCATION 

Area 1 Area 2 


Poaceae Lachnogrostis aemula r o 

Poaceae 

Microlaena stipoides 

Weeping Meadowgrass 

c o c v c r o 

Poaceae Oplismenus aemulus Basket Grass c r o o o r r 

Poaceae Oplismenus imbecillis r 

Poaceae *Paspalum dilatatum Paspalum c r v v c c o r 

Poaceae 

*Pennisetum 

clandestinum 

Kikuyu 

r 

Poaceae Poa affinis Winter Grass r r 

Poaceae 

*Sporobolus indica var 

capensis 

Parramatta Grass r r 

Poaceae 

*Stenotaphrum 

succedanea 

Buffalo Grass c v v v 

Zingiberaceae 

*Hedychium 

gardnerianum 

Indian Ginger r o o r 

Vines 

Apocynaceae Parsonsia straminea Common Silkpod r c r 

Araceae *Monstera deliciosa Fruit Salad Plant r 

Araliaceae *Hedera helix English Ivy o v c c c c o o 

Asclepiadaceae *Araujia sericifera Moth Vine o r r 

Basellaceae *Anredera cordifolia Madeira Vine r 

Bignoniaceae 

*Campsis radicans 

American Trumpet 

Creeper 

o 

o 

Caprifoliaceae *Lonicera japonica Japanese Honeysuckle r v c c c o 

Convolvulaceae *Ipomoea indica Purple Glory c r 

Fabaceae Glycine microphylla A love twiner r r o 

Fabaceae Hardenbergia violacea Purple Coral Pea r 




LOCATION 

Area 1 Area 2 


Fabaceae Kennedia rubicunda - pl Dusky Coral Pea r 

Fabaceae *Vicia sativa Vetch c r r 

Fabaceae *Wisteria chinensis Wisteria o r 

Oleaceae *Jasminum sp cv Jasmine o r 

Passifloraceae *Passiflora edulis Passionfruit Vine r 

Rosaceae Rubus parvifolia Small-leaved Bramble r 

Vitaceae Cissus antarctica - pl Kangaroo Vine r 

Vitaceae *Parthenocissus sp. Boston Ivy o o r 

Asparagaceae 

*Asparagus 

asparagoides 

Bridal Creeper 

Asparagaceae *Asparagus scandens r r r r o 

Luzuriagaceae Eustrephus latifolius Wombat Berry r r 

Epiphytes 

Polypodiaceae 

*Platycerium 

bifurcatum 

Elkhorn Fern 

Loranthaceae ?Amyema sp. (on E. saligna branch) r 

Moraceae Ficus rubiginosa (on E. saligna, Tree 373) r 

adj 



APPENDIX 3: List of Flora Species Recorded in the 11 quadrats established in the BGHF Habitat Area 

NOTE: results from the quadrats established by Cumberland Ecology (2007) have been included to provide points of comparison. 

KEY 

D – dead 

adj - indicates species recorded adjacent to survey site 

pl - indicates planted potentially local species 

* indicates introduced species 


Trees 

Cover abundance in 20 x 20 m quadrat (modified Braun Blanquet system) 

1 = rare 

2 = occasional 

3 = common 

4 = very common but less than 5% 

5 = 5-25% 

6 = 26-50% 

7 = 51-75% 

8 = more than 75% 

Cumberland 16 th August 2007 UBM 29 th May 2012 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 

Araucariaceae *Araucaria bidwillii Bunya Pine 1 

*A. cunninghamii Hoop Pine 1 

Cupressaceae *Callitris rhomboidea Port Jackson Pine 5 1 

*Cupressus spp Cypress 5 1 1 2 

Pinaceae *Pinus radiata Monterey Pine 1 1 1 

Podocarpaceae *Podocarpus elatus Plum Pine 1 5 

Aceraceae *Liquidambar styraciflua Liquidambar 1 5 D 1 

Araceae *Schefflera actinophylla Umbrella Tree 1 

Araliaceae *Polyscias elegans Celery Wood 5 1 

Bignoniaceae *Jacaranda mimosifolia Jacaranda 1 1 

Casuarinaceae *Casuarina glauca Swamp Oak 1 

Allocasuarina torulosa Forest Oak 1 1 1 

Cunoniaceae *Ceratopetalum apetalum - pl Coachwood 1 

Ericaceae *Rhododendron sp cv Rhododendron 5 1 5 





1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 

Fabaceae *Acacia elata Cedar Wattle 1 1 

*A. decurrens Green Wattle 1 

Magnoliaceae *Magnolia grandiflora 1 

Malaceae *Cotoneaster glauca Cotoneaster 5 

Moraceae *Ficus rubiginosa - pl Rusty Fig 

Myrtaceae Acmena smithii - pl Lilly Pilly 1 

Angophora costata - pl Smooth-barked Applebox 1 

Angophora floribunda Rough-barked Applebox 5 D D 5 D 1 1 

*Callistemon salignus - pl Willow Bottlebrush 6 5 5 

*Corymbia citriodora Lemon-scented Gum 1 5 

*Corymbia maculata Spotted Gum 5 5 

*Eucalyptus crebra Narrow-leaved Ironbark 1 

*E. grandis Flooded Gum 5 

E. pilularis Blackbutt 5 1 1 1 

E. saligna Blue Gum 5 1 6 6 6 5 7 5 6 5 5 6 1 6 6 5 5 6 

Syncarpia glomulifera - pl Turpentine 1 1 1 1 1 

Oleaceae *Ligustrum lucidum Large-Leaved Privet 5 5 6 5 1 

*Olea eurpaea ssp cuspidata African Olive 1 1 1 1 

Pittosporaceae Pittosporum undulatum Sweet Pittosporum 5 5 5 5 1 5 5 1 2 1 

Proteaceae *Grevillea robusta Silky Oak 1 

*Stenocarpus sinuatus Wheel-of-fire Tree 1 

Rutaceae *Acronychia oblongifolia White Lilly Pilly 5 

Sapindaceae *Alectryon subdentatus Holly-leaved Birds Eye 1 

1 

pl 

1 

5 

pl 

1 

o/ 

h 

1 

o/ 

h 

1 

o/ 

h 





1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 

*Cupaniopsis parvifolia Small-leaved Tuckeroo 5 5 

Sterculiaceae *Brachychiton acerifolius Flame Tree 1 

*B. discolor Lacebark Tree 1 

Arecaceae *Livistona australis Cabbage Palm 1 1 

Shrubs 

Cyatheaceae *Cyathea australis Rough Tree Fern D 1 

Araucariaceae *Araucaria bidwillii Bunya Pine sapling 1 1 

*A. cunninghamii Hoop Pine sapling 1 

Cupressaceae *Cupressus sp. 1 

Aceraceae *Liquidambar saplings 1 

Amygdalaceae *Prunus sp cv Flowering Cherry 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 

Anacardiaceae *Pistacia chinensis 1 1 

*Toxicadendron succedanea Rhus 1 1 

Apocynaceae *Oleander neriifolia Oleander 1 

Araliaceae *Polyscias elegans Celerywood sapling 1 1 1 1 

Asteraceae *Ageratina megalophylla 6 6 1 1 

*Euryops pectinatus 1 1 3 

Berberidaceae *Nandina domestica Sacred Bamboo 1 1 1 

Bignoniaceae *Jacaranda mimosifolia Jacaranda sapling 1 1 1 1 1 1 

Cunoniaceae *Callicoma serratifolia - pl Callicoma sapling 2 1 2 

*Ceratopetalum gummiferum - pl Christmas Bush 2 

Elaeocarpaceae Elaeocarpus reticulatus - pl Blueberry Ash 1 2 2 1 

Ericaceae *Rhododendron sp cv Rhododendron juvenile 1 1 1 

Escalloniaceae *Escallonia sp 1 1 1 3 

Euphorbiaceae Omalanthus nutans Bleeding Heart 3 1 1 1 1 1 

Fabaceae *Genista monspessulana Montpellier Broom 7 2 2 5 1 4 2 2 3 





1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 

*Pultenaea villosa 1 

*Acacia baileyana Cootamundra Wattle 1 

*Acacia decurrens Green Wattle saplings 1 2 

A. floribunda Sally Wattle 2 1 

A. longifolia - pl Sydney Golden Wattle 2 

*Senna pendula var glabrata Cassia 1 1 1 

Lauraceae *Cinnamomum camphora Camphor Laurel saplings 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 2 

Malaceae *Cotoneaster glaucophylla Cotoneaster 1 1 

*Pyracantha sp. Firethorn 1 

*Rhaphiolepis indica Indian Hawthorn 1 1 

Malvaceae *Abutilon sp. Chinese Lantern 2 

Meliaceae *Melia azedarach White Cedar sapling 1 1 

Moraceae *Morus alba Mulberry 1 

Myrtaceae *Acmena smithii Lilly Pilly saplings 1 

*Acmena smithii var minor Lilly Pilly (small-leaved race) 2 2 2 

Angophora floribunda saplings 1 

*Backhousia myrtifolia Grey Myrtle 2 2 2 

*Corymbia citriodora sapling 1 

Eucalyptus saligna - pl Blue Gum sapling 1 1 

*Melaleuca armillaris Bracelet Honey-myrtle 1 

Syncarpia glomulifera - pl saplings 1 

Ochnaceae *Ochna serrulata Mickey Mouse Plant 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 

Oleaceae *Ligustrum lucidum Large-leaved Privet saplings 3 6 2 2 5 2 7 5 5 3 5 4 5 2 3 2 

*L. sinense Small-leaved Privet 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 

*Olea europea ssp africana African Olive saplings 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 

Pittosporaceae *Pittosporum obovatum 1 2 




Rhamnaceae 


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 

P. revolutum Yellow Pittosporum 1 

P. undulatum Sweet Pittosporum saplings 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 3 2 1 1 2 2 

Pomaderris feruginea - pl 

Rosaceae *Eriobotrya japonica Loquat 1 

*Photinia glabra robusta 2 

Rutaceae *Murraya paniculata 1 

Sapindaceae *Alectryon tomentosus saplings 1 1 2 1 

*Cupaniopsis parvifolia 

Small-leaved Tuckeroo 

sapling 

Solanaceae *Solanum mauritianum Tobacco Weed 1 1 

Sterculiaceae *Brachychiton acerifolius Flame Tree saplings 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

Theaceae *Camellia japonica Camellia 1 

Ulmaceae *Celtis occidentalis Hackberry saplings 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 

Verbenaceae *Duranta repens 1 1 

Herbs - Ferns 

Adiantaceae Adiantum aethiopicum Comon Maidenhair Fern 

1 

*A. formosum Giant Maidenhair Fern 1 

Davaliaceae *Nephrolepis cordifolia Fishbone Fern 7 5 3 5 6 5 

Dicksoniaceae Calochlaena dubia False Bracken Fern 2 

Pteridaceae Pteris tremula Tender Brake 1 

Herbs - Dicots 

Acanthaceae *Acanthus spinosus Oyster Plant 2 1 2 

unidentified sp 2 1 

Pseuderanthemum variabile Pastel Flower 3 2 2 1 1 

Apiaceae Centella asiatica Pennywort 2 3 

ad 

j 

ad 

j 





1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 

*Ciclosperma leptophylla Slender Celery 2 2 2 

*Hydrocotyle bonariensis 1 

H. pedunculata 2 

Araliaceae *Polyscias elegans seedlings 1 1 

Asteraceae *Ageratina adenophora Crofton Weed 1 1 2 3 

*Bidens pilosa Farmers Friends 1 1 3 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 

*Cirsium vulgare Spear Thistle 2 2 2 

*Conyza bonariensis Tall Fleabane 1 2 2 3 3 2 2 

*Erechtites valerianifolia Brazilian Fireweed 3 

*Erigeron karvinskianus Seaside Daisy 1 1 1 

*Hypochaeris radicata Flatweed 1 1 3 2 1 4 

Senecio hispidulus var hispidulus 1 

*Senecio madagascariensis Fireweed 2 2 4 

*Sonchus oleraceus Sow Thistle 1 2 

*Taraxacum officinale Dandelion 1 1 

Brassicaceae *Cardamine hirsuta Flickweed 3 

Caryophyllaceae *Cerastium glomeratum Mouse-eared Chickweed 1 

Clusiaceae Hypericum japonicum 1 

Convolvulaceae Dichondra repens Kidney Plant 1 3 1 2 2 1 1 3 3 2 1 3 

Euphorbiaceae *Euphorbia peplus Petty Spurge 3 3 3 

Poranthera microphylla 1 

Fabaceae *Genista monspessulana seedlings 2 

*Medicago polymorpha Medic 1 1 

*Trifolium repens White Clover 2 

*T. sp. 2 

Fumariaceae *Fumaria sp Fumaria 2 1 





1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 

Geraniaceae Geranium homeanum Trailing Storksbill 1 2 2 6 2 1 2 2 2 2 

Lauraceae *Cinnamomum camphora Camphor Laurel seedlings 1 1 2 2 

Lobeliaceae Pratia purpurascens Whiteroot 2 1 1 1 1 1 

Malvaceae *Modiola caroliniana 2 2 

*Sida rhombifolia Paddys Lucerne 1 2 1 2 

Moraceae *Ficus rubiginosa seedling 1 

Myrtaceae 

Ochnaceae 


*Ochna serrulata 

Rough-barked Applebox 

seedling 

Mickey Mouse Plant 

seedlings 

1 

1 1 1 2 1 2 

Oleaceae *Olea europea ssp africana African Olive seedlings 1 1 1 

Oxalidaceae Oxalis exilis/perennans 1 1 2 

*O. corniculata 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 

*O. carnea 1 1 2 2 2 2 

Phytolaccaceae *Phytolacca octandra Inkweed 1 

Plantaginaceae Plantago debile 1 

*P. lanceolata Lambs Tongue 2 5 2 4 2 1 2 2 2 

Polygonaceae *Persicaria capitata 1 

Rumex brownii 1 1 

Primulaceae *Anagallis arvensis Scarlet Pimpernel 4 2 

*Primula sp cv Primula 2 

Ranunculaceae *Ranuncula repens Buttercup 1 2 5 

Rosaceae *Duchesnia indica Irish Strawberry 1 1 

Solanaceae *Solanum nigrum Blackberry Nightshade 1 1 1 

Thunbergiaceae *Thunbergia alata Black-eyed Susan 2 

Tropolaeaceae *Tropolaea majus Nasturtium 3 1 3 2 

Ulmaceae *Celtis occidentalis seedling 1 




Verbenaceae *Verbena bonariensis Purpletop 1 1 1 1 

Herbs - Monocots 


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 

Agavaceae *Cordyline fruticosa a Broad-leaved Palm Lily 1 1 

*C. stricta Narrow-leaved Plam Lily 1 

Amaryllidaceae *Agapanthus sp Agapanthus 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 

*Clivea miniata Clivea 3 

*Crinum pedunculatum Swamp Lily 1 1 

Anthericaceae *Chlorophytum comosum Spider Lily 2 2 2 

Araceae *Typhonium spp. 1 1 

Asparagaceae *Asparagus densiflora Fern Asparagus 4 4 5 4 5 5 3 2 6 5 3 5 5 6 6 2 6 3 2 

Bambusaceae *Phyllostachys aurea Fishpole Bamboo 2 1 2 2 

Commelinaceae *Tradescantia fluminensis Wandering Jew 2 2 5 

Cyperaceae *Cyperus eragrostis 1 

C. gracilis 2 2 2 

C. imbecillis 1 

Iridaceae *Freesia refracta Freesia 4 3 2 2 1 2 2 2 

*Dietes vegeta 2 5 1 2 3 

*Crocosmia x crocosmiflora Montbrecia 2 

Liliaceae *Lilium formosanum Formosan Lily 2 1 

Lomandraceae Lomandra longifolia Spiny-headed Mat-rush 1 

Musaceae *Musa sp cv Banana 1 1 

*Strelitzia nicolai Giant Strelitzia 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 

Phormiaceae Dianella caerulea var producta Rough Flax Lily 1 1 1 2 2 

2 

pl 

1 1 2 1 

Poaceae *Axonopus affinis Carpet Grass 1 1 5 

*Bromus catharticus Prairie Grass 2 2 2 2 

ad 

j 

1 





1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 

*Cynodon dactylon Couch Grass 1 2 5 

Danthonia ?racemosa var racemosa a Wallaby Grass 3 1 1 

Echinopogon caespitosus a Hedgehog Grass 1 1 

E. ovatus a Hedgehog Grass 1 

*Ehrharta erecta Veldt Grass 1 3 3 1 2 2 2 

Entolasia marginata Margined Panic 1 2 1 

E. stricta Wiry Panic 1 

*Eragrostis sp. 1 

Microlaena stipoides Weeping Meadow-grass 2 2 1 2 2 5 2 2 2 

Oplismenus aemulus Basket Grass 2 2 3 1 2 1 2 2 3 2 2 1 1 

O. imbecillis 1 

*Paspalum dilatatum Paspalum 1 2 3 1 

*Pennisetum clandestinum Kikuyu 1 

*Sporobolus indica var capensis Parramatta Grass 1 

*Stenotaphrum succedanea Buffalo Grass 2 5 6 6 2 3 5 2 5 1 

Zingiberaceae *Hedychium gardnerianum Indian Ginger 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

Vines 

Apocynaceae Parsonsia straminea Common Silkpod 3 2 2 3 2 2 

Araceae *Monstera deliciosa Fruit Salad Plant 1 1 

Araliaceae *Hedera helix English Ivy 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 

Asclepiadaceae *Araujia sericifera Moth Vine 1 1 1 

Basellaceae *Anredera cordifolia Madeira Vine 1 1 

Caprifoliaceae *Lonicera japonica Japanese Honeysuckle 4 3 3 2 5 3 3 3 3 1 3 5 5 

Convolvulaceae *Ipomoea indica Purple Glory 2 5 7 8 5 

Fabaceae *Dipogon lignosus Dolicos Pea 2 

Glycine microphylla 1 1 1 





1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 

Glycine tabacina 2 2 3 

Hardenbergia violacea Purple Coral Pea 1 

Kennedia rubicunda Dusky Coral Pea 1 1 

*Vicia sativa Vetch 3 2 

Oleaceae *Jasminum sp cv Jasmine 2 1 

Passifloraceae *Passiflora edulis Passionfruit Vine 1 1 1 1 

Ranunculaceae Clematis glycinoides Travellers Joy 1 

Rosaceae *Rubus fruticosus Blackberry 1 1 

Thunbergiaceae *Thunbergia alata Black-eyed Susan 2 2 

Vitaceae *Parthenocissus sp Boston Ivy 2 2 1 

Asparagaceae *Asparagus asparagoides Bridal Veil Creeper 1 

*A. plumosus 1 

*A. scandens 3 2 1 1 1 2 2 

Luzuriagaceae Eustrephus latifolius Wombat Berry 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 



APPENDIX 4: Fauna occurring in the Region (OEH 2012) and recorded on the Subject Property from all studies 

* Occurring within a 10km radius centred on the Subject Property 

** Surveys conducted on or nearby the Subject Property 

FAMILY SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME 

Amphibia (18) 

LEGAL STATUS 

TSC 

ACT 

EPBC 

ACT 

OEH 

RECORDS 

(2012)* 

DEC 

2006 

UBM 

2012 

Surveys completed** 

Myobatrachidae Crinia signifera Common Eastern Froglet 67 x x 

Myobatrachidae Heleioporus australiacus Giant Burrowing Frog V V 6 x 

Myobatrachidae Limnodynastes dumerilii Eastern Banjo Frog 6 x 

Myobatrachidae Limnodynastes peronii Brown-striped Frog 27 x x 

Myobatrachidae Limnodynastes tasmaniensis Spotted Grass Frog 1 

Myobatrachidae Pseudophryne australis Red-crowned Toadlet V 62 x 

Myobatrachidae Pseudophryne bibronii Bibron's Toadlet 4 x 

Myobatrachidae Uperoleia laevigata Smooth Toadlet 4 x 

Hylidae Litoria aurea Green and Golden Bell Frog E1 V 1 x 

Hylidae Litoria caerulea Green Tree Frog 4 x 

Hylidae Litoria dentata Bleating Tree Frog 2 

Hylidae Litoria fallax Eastern Dwarf Tree Frog 3 x 

Hylidae Litoria gracilenta Dainty Green Tree Frog 1 x 

Hylidae Litoria latopalmata Broad-palmed Frog 1 x 

Hylidae Litoria lesueuri Lesueur's Frog 2 

Hylidae Litoria peronii Peron's Tree Frog 19 x 

Hylidae Litoria phyllochroa Leaf-green Tree Frog 8 x 

Hylidae Litoria verreauxii Verreaux's Frog 5 

Aves (186) 

Megapodiidae Alectura lathami Australian Brush-turkey 13 x x x 

UBM 

2006 

UBM 

2005 

LesryK 

2004 

UBM 

2003 




LEGAL STATUS 

TSC 

ACT 

EPBC 

ACT 

OEH 

RECORDS 

(2012)* 


DEC 

2006 

UBM 

2012 


Phasianidae Coturnix pectoralis Stubble Quail 1 x 

Anatidae Anas castanea Chestnut Teal 4 x 

Anatidae Anas gracilis Grey Teal 1 x 

Anatidae Anas superciliosa Pacific Black Duck 9 x 

Anatidae Chenonetta jubata Australian Wood Duck 10 x 

Columbidae Chalcophaps indica Emerald Dove 2 x 

Columbidae Columba leucomela White-headed Pigeon 23 x 

Columbidae Columba livia Rock Dove * 5 x x 

Columbidae Geopelia humeralis Bar-shouldered Dove 2 x 

Columbidae Geopelia striata Peaceful Dove 4 x 

Columbidae Leucosarcia picata Wonga Pigeon 7 x 

Columbidae Lopholaimus antarcticus Topknot Pigeon 2 x 

Columbidae Macropygia amboinensis Brown Cuckoo-Dove 24 x 

Columbidae Ocyphaps lophotes Crested Pigeon 45 x x 

Columbidae Phaps chalcoptera Common Bronzewing 2 x 

Columbidae Phaps elegans Brush Bronzewing 3 x 

Columbidae Ptilinopus superbus Superb Fruit-Dove V 5 

Columbidae Streptopelia chinensis Spotted Turtle-Dove * 32 x 

Podargidae Podargus strigoides Tawny Frogmouth 50 x x x 

Aegothelidae Aegotheles cristatus Australian Owlet-nightjar 4 x 

Apodidae Apus pacificus Fork-tailed Swift 3 x 

Apodidae Hirundapus caudacutus White-throated Needletail 22 x 

Procellariidae Pterodroma lessonii White-headed Petrel 1 x 

Phalacrocoracidae Microcarbo melanoleucos Little Pied Cormorant 2 x 

Phalacrocoracidae Phalacrocorax carbo Great Cormorant 1 x 

UBM 

2006 

UBM 

2005 

LesryK 

2004 

UBM 

2003



LEGAL STATUS 

OEH 

RECORDS 

(2012)* 

Phalacrocoracidae Phalacrocorax sulcirostris Little Black Cormorant 1 

Phalacrocoracidae Phalacrocorax varius Pied Cormorant 1 x 

Ardeidae Ardea intermedia Intermediate Egret 1 x 

Ardeidae Ardea pacifica White-necked Heron 1 x 

Ardeidae Egretta novaehollandiae White-faced Heron 3 x 

Threskiornithidae Platalea flavipes Yellow-billed Spoonbill 1 x 

Threskiornithidae Threskiornis molucca Australian White Ibis 4 x 

Threskiornithidae Threskiornis spinicollis Straw-necked Ibis 1 x 

Accipitridae Accipiter cirrocephalus Collared Sparrowhawk 7 x 

Accipitridae Accipiter fasciatus Brown Goshawk 15 x 

Accipitridae Accipiter novaehollandiae Grey Goshawk 2 x 

Accipitridae Aquila audax Wedge-tailed Eagle 1 x 

Accipitridae Aviceda subcristata Pacific Baza 19 x 

Accipitridae Haliaeetus leucogaster White-bellied Sea-Eagle 4 

Accipitridae Haliastur sphenurus Whistling Kite 1 x 

Accipitridae Hieraaetus morphnoides Little Eagle V 6 x 

Falconidae Falco berigora Brown Falcon 1 x 

Falconidae Falco longipennis Australian Hobby 1 x 

Falconidae Falco peregrinus Peregrine Falcon 9 x 

Rallidae Fulica atra Eurasian Coot 1 

Rallidae Gallinula tenebrosa Dusky Moorhen 3 x 

Rallidae Gallirallus philippensis Buff-banded Rail 1 x 

Rallidae Lewinia pectoralis Lewin's Rail 1 x 

Rallidae Porphyrio porphyrio Purple Swamphen 1 x 

Rallidae Porzana fluminea Australian Spotted Crake 1 x 

TSC 

ACT 

EPBC 

ACT 

DEC 

2006 

UBM 

2012 


UBM 

2006 

UBM 

2005 

LesryK 

2004 

UBM 

2003 




LEGAL STATUS 

TSC 

ACT 

EPBC 

ACT 

OEH 

RECORDS 

(2012)* 

DEC 

2006 

UBM 

2012 


Rallidae Porzana tabuensis Spotless Crake 2 x 

Haematopodidae Haematopus fuliginosus Sooty Oystercatcher V 4 

Haematopodidae Haematopus longirostris Pied Oystercatcher E1 1 

Charadriidae Charadrius bicinctus Double-banded Plover 3 x 

Charadriidae Vanellus miles Masked Lapwing 11 x x 

Scolopacidae Calidris acuminata Sharp-tailed Sandpiper 9 

Scolopacidae Calidris ferruginea Curlew Sandpiper E1 5 

Scolopacidae Limicola falcinellus Broad-billed Sandpiper V 2 

Turnicidae Turnix varius Painted Button-quail 4 

Laridae Chroicocephalus novaehollandiae Silver Gull 5 x 

Laridae Thalasseus bergii Crested Tern 1 

Cacatuidae 

Callocephalon fimbriatum 

Gang-gang Cockatoo population 

in the Hornsby and Ku-ring-gai E2 31 

Local Government Areas 

Cacatuidae Callocephalon fimbriatum Gang-gang Cockatoo V 31 x x 

Cacatuidae Calyptorhynchus lathami Glossy Black-Cockatoo V 26 x 

Cacatuidae Cacatua galerita Sulphur-crested Cockatoo 80 x x x x x 

Cacatuidae Cacatua sanguinea Little Corella 36 x 

Cacatuidae Cacatua tenuirostris Long-billed Corella 10 x 

Cacatuidae Calyptorhynchus funereus Yellow-tailed Black-Cockatoo 21 x 

Cacatuidae Eolophus roseicapillus Galah 30 x x 

Psittacidae Polytelis swainsonii Superb Parrot V V 1 x 

Psittacidae Alisterus scapularis Australian King-Parrot 48 x x 

Psittacidae Glossopsitta concinna Musk Lorikeet 2 x 

Psittacidae Glossopsitta pusilla Little Lorikeet V 6 x 

UBM 

2006 

UBM 

2005 

LesryK 

2004 

UBM 

2003 




LEGAL STATUS 

TSC 

ACT 

EPBC 

ACT 

OEH 

RECORDS 

(2012)* 

DEC 

2006 

UBM 

2012 


Psittacidae Platycercus adscitus White Cheeked Rosella 2 

Psittacidae 

Platycercus adscitus adscitus x 

eximius 

Eastern/Pale-headed Rosella 1 

Psittacidae Platycercus elegans Crimson Rosella 65 x x 

Psittacidae Platycercus eximius Eastern Rosella 42 x x x 

Psittacidae Psephotus haematonotus Red-rumped Parrot 1 x 

Psittacidae Trichoglossus chlorolepidotus Scaly-breasted Lorikeet 2 x 

Psittacidae Trichoglossus haematodus Rainbow Lorikeet 111 x x x x x x 

Cuculidae Cacomantis flabelliformis Fan-tailed Cuckoo 19 x 

Cuculidae Cacomantis pallidus Pallid Cuckoo 5 x 

Cuculidae Cacomantis variolosus Brush Cuckoo 4 x 

Cuculidae Chalcites basalis Horsfield's Bronze-Cuckoo 6 x 

Cuculidae Chalcites lucidus Shining Bronze-Cuckoo 6 x 

Cuculidae Cuculus saturatus Himalayan Cuckoo 2 x 

Cuculidae Eudynamys orientalis Eastern (Common) Koel 42 x x 

Cuculidae Eudynamys orientalis cyanocephala 1 

Cuculidae Scythrops novaehollandiae Channel-billed Cuckoo 30 x 

Strigidae Ninox connivens Barking Owl V 1 x 

Strigidae Ninox strenua Powerful Owl V 60 x x 

Strigidae Ninox novaeseelandiae Southern Boobook 30 x 

Tytonidae Tyto novaehollandiae Masked Owl V 5 x 

Tytonidae Tyto javanica Eastern Barn Owl 1 

Alcedinidae Dacelo novaeguineae Laughing Kookaburra 105 x x x x x 

Alcedinidae Todiramphus macleayii Forest Kingfisher 1 

Alcedinidae Todiramphus sanctus Sacred Kingfisher 23 x 

UBM 

2006 

UBM 

2005 

LesryK 

2004 

UBM 

2003 




LEGAL STATUS 

TSC 

ACT 

EPBC 

ACT 

OEH 

RECORDS 

(2012)* 


DEC 

2006 

UBM 

2012 


Coraciidae Eurystomus orientalis Dollarbird 25 x 

Pittidae Pitta versicolor Noisy Pitta 1 x 

Menuridae Menura novaehollandiae Superb Lyrebird 27 x 

Climacteridae Cormobates leucophaea White-throated Treecreeper 29 x 

Ptilonorhynchidae Ptilonorhynchus violaceus Satin Bowerbird 9 x 

Ptilonorhynchidae Sericulus chrysocephalus Regent Bowerbird 1 x 

Maluridae Malurus cyaneus Superb Fairy-wren 37 x x 

Maluridae Malurus lamberti Variegated Fairy-wren 32 x 

Maluridae Malurus lamberti lamberti 1 

Acanthizidae Acanthiza lineata Striated Thornbill 13 x 

Acanthizidae Acanthiza nana Yellow Thornbill 3 x 

Acanthizidae Acanthiza pusilla Brown Thornbill 43 x 

Acanthizidae Acanthiza sp. Unidentified Thornbill 2 

Acanthizidae Gerygone albogularis White-throated Gerygone 6 

Acanthizidae Gerygone mouki Brown Gerygone 17 x 

Acanthizidae Hylacola pyrrhopygia Chestnut-rumped Heathwren 3 x 

Acanthizidae Origma solitaria Rockwarbler 7 x 

Acanthizidae Sericornis frontalis White-browed Scrubwren 59 x x x 

Acanthizidae Sericornis magnirostra Large-billed Scrubwren 1 x 

Pardalotidae Pardalotus punctatus Spotted Pardalote 43 x x 

Pardalotidae Pardalotus striatus Striated Pardalote 2 x 

Meliphagidae Acanthorhynchus tenuirostris Eastern Spinebill 51 x 

Meliphagidae Anthochaera carunculata Red Wattlebird 59 x x x 

Meliphagidae Anthochaera chrysoptera Little Wattlebird 39 x 

Meliphagidae Anthochaera phrygia Regent Honeyeater E4A E 12 x 

UBM 

2006 

UBM 

2005 

LesryK 

2004 

UBM 

2003



LEGAL STATUS 

TSC 

ACT 

EPBC 

ACT 

OEH 

RECORDS 

(2012)* 


DEC 

2006 

UBM 

2012 


Meliphagidae Lichenostomus chrysops Yellow-faced Honeyeater 21 x 

Meliphagidae Lichenostomus fuscus Fuscous Honeyeater 1 x 

Meliphagidae Lichenostomus leucotis White-eared Honeyeater 13 x 

Meliphagidae Lichenostomus melanops Yellow-tufted Honeyeater 91 x 

Meliphagidae Lichmera indistincta Brown Honeyeater 1 

Meliphagidae Manorina melanocephala Noisy Miner 135 x x x x x x 

Meliphagidae Manorina melanophrys Bell Miner 2 

Meliphagidae Meliphaga lewinii Lewin's Honeyeater 18 x 

Meliphagidae Melithreptus brevirostris Brown-headed Honeyeater 2 x 

Meliphagidae Melithreptus lunatus White-naped Honeyeater 3 x 

Meliphagidae Myzomela sanguinolenta Scarlet Honeyeater 3 x 

Meliphagidae Philemon corniculatus Noisy Friarbird 10 x 

Meliphagidae Phylidonyris niger White-cheeked Honeyeater 20 x 

Meliphagidae Phylidonyris niger niger 1 

Meliphagidae Phylidonyris novaehollandiae New Holland Honeyeater 20 x 

Psophodidae Cinclosoma punctatum Spotted Quail-thrush 3 x 

Psophodidae Psophodes olivaceus Eastern Whipbird 53 x x 

Neosittidae Daphoenositta chrysoptera Varied Sittella V 1 x 

Campephagidae Coracina novaehollandiae Black-faced Cuckoo-shrike 28 x x x 

Campephagidae Coracina papuensis White-bellied Cuckoo-shrike 1 

Campephagidae Coracina tenuirostris Cicadabird 5 x 

Campephagidae Lalage sueurii White-winged Triller 1 x 

Pachycephalidae Colluricincla harmonica Grey Shrike-thrush 19 x 

Pachycephalidae Falcunculus frontatus frontatus Eastern Shrike-tit 1 

Pachycephalidae Pachycephala pectoralis Golden Whistler 32 x 

UBM 

2006 

UBM 

2005 

LesryK 

2004 

UBM 

2003



LEGAL STATUS 

TSC 

ACT 

EPBC 

ACT 

OEH 

RECORDS 

(2012)* 


DEC 

2006 

UBM 

2012 


Pachycephalidae Pachycephala rufiventris Rufous Whistler 10 x 

Oriolidae Oriolus sagittatus Olive-backed Oriole 4 x 

Oriolidae Sphecotheres vieilloti Australasian Figbird 1 x 

Artamidae Artamus cyanopterus Dusky Woodswallow 1 x 

Artamidae Artamus superciliosus White-browed Woodswallow 1 x 

Artamidae Cracticus nigrogularis Pied Butcherbird 6 x x 

Artamidae Cracticus tibicen Australian Magpie 76 x x x x x x 

Artamidae Cracticus torquatus Grey Butcherbird 53 x x x x x 

Artamidae Strepera graculina Pied Currawong 128 x x x x x x 

Dicruridae Dicrurus bracteatus Spangled Drongo 4 x 

Rhipiduridae Rhipidura albiscapa Grey Fantail 38 x 

Rhipiduridae Rhipidura albiscapa alisteri 1 

Rhipiduridae Rhipidura leucophrys Willie Wagtail 7 x 

Rhipiduridae Rhipidura rufifrons Rufous Fantail 13 x 

Corvidae Corvus coronoides Australian Raven 64 x x x x x x 

Corvidae Corvus mellori Little Raven 1 

Monarchidae Grallina cyanoleuca Magpie-lark 21 x 

Monarchidae Monarcha melanopsis Black-faced Monarch 13 x 

Monarchidae Myiagra cyanoleuca Satin Flycatcher 2 x 

Monarchidae Myiagra rubecula Leaden Flycatcher 11 x 

Petroicidae Eopsaltria australis Eastern Yellow Robin 60 x 

Petroicidae Eopsaltria australis australis 2 

Petroicidae Microeca fascinans Jacky Winter 3 

Petroicidae Petroica boodang Scarlet Robin V 3 x 

Petroicidae Petroica rosea Rose Robin 6 x 

UBM 

2006 

UBM 

2005 

LesryK 

2004 

UBM 

2003



LEGAL STATUS 

TSC 

ACT 

EPBC 

ACT 

OEH 

RECORDS 

(2012)* 

DEC 

2006 

UBM 

2012 


Timaliidae Zosterops lateralis Silvereye 65 x 

Hirundinidae Hirundo neoxena Welcome Swallow 27 x x x x 

Hirundinidae Petrochelidon ariel Fairy Martin 1 

Hirundinidae Petrochelidon nigricans Tree Martin 1 x 

Pycnonotidae Pycnonotus jocosus Red-whiskered Bulbul * 11 x 

Turdidae Turdus merula Eurasian Blackbird * 5 x 

Turdidae Zoothera lunulata Bassian Thrush 1 

Turdidae Zoothera sp. Unidentified ground thrush 1 

Sturnidae Sturnus tristis Common Myna * 40 x x x x 

Sturnidae Sturnus vulgaris Common Starling * 9 x 

Nectariniidae Dicaeum hirundinaceum Mistletoebird 4 x 

Estrildidae Neochmia temporalis Red-browed Finch 41 x 

Passeridae Passer domesticus House Sparrow * 6 x 

Mammalia (55) 

Ornithorhynchidae Ornithorhynchus anatinus Platypus 1 x 

Tachyglossidae Tachyglossus aculeatus Short-beaked Echidna 21 x 

Dasyuridae Antechinus flavipes Yellow-footed Antechinus 4 x 

Dasyuridae Antechinus sp. Unidentified Antechinus 1 

Dasyuridae Antechinus stuartii Brown Antechinus 113 x 

Dasyuridae Antechinus swainsonii Dusky Antechinus 1 

Dasyuridae Dasyurus maculatus Spotted-tailed Quoll V E 12 x 

Dasyuridae Sminthopsis murina Common Dunnart 8 x 

Peramelidae Isoodon macrourus Northern Brown Bandicoot 2 

Peramelidae Isoodon obesulus obesulus 

Southern Brown Bandicoot 

(eastern) 

E1 E 179 x 

UBM 

2006 

UBM 

2005 

LesryK 

2004 

UBM 

2003 




LEGAL STATUS 

TSC 

ACT 

EPBC 

ACT 

OEH 

RECORDS 

(2012)* 


DEC 

2006 

UBM 

2012 


Peramelidae Isoodon/Perameles sp. Unidentified Bandicoot 2 

Peramelidae Perameles nasuta Long-nosed Bandicoot 72 x 

Phascolarctidae Phascolarctos cinereus Koala V 11 x 

Vombatidae Vombatus ursinus Common Wombat 4 x 

Burramyidae Cercartetus nanus Eastern Pygmy-possum V 30 x 

Petauridae Petaurus breviceps Sugar Glider 42 x 

Pseudocheiridae Petauroides volans Greater Glider 1 x 

Pseudocheiridae Pseudocheirus peregrinus Common Ringtail Possum 116 x x x x x 

Acrobatidae Acrobates pygmaeus Feathertail Glider 3 x 

Phalangeridae Trichosurus sp. brushtail possum 9 x 

Phalangeridae Trichosurus vulpecula Common Brushtail Possum 279 x x x 

Macropodidae Macropus robustus Common Wallaroo 2 x 

Macropodidae Macropus rufogriseus Red-necked Wallaby 4 x 

Macropodidae Wallabia bicolor Swamp Wallaby 94 x x 

Pteropodidae Pteropus poliocephalus Grey-headed Flying-fox V V 880 x x x x 

Emballonuridae Saccolaimus flaviventris Yellow-bellied Sheathtail-bat V 1 

Molossidae Mormopterus "Species 2" Undescribed Freetail Bat 6 

Molossidae Mormopterus norfolkensis Eastern Freetail-bat V 2 x 

Molossidae Tadarida australis White-striped Freetail-bat 15 x 

Vespertilionidae Chalinolobus dwyeri Large-eared Pied Bat V V 1 x 

Vespertilionidae Chalinolobus gouldii Gould's Wattled Bat 21 x x x x 

Vespertilionidae Chalinolobus morio Chocolate Wattled Bat 4 x 

Vespertilionidae Miniopterus schreibersii oceanensis Eastern Bentwing-bat V 11 x x 

Vespertilionidae Nyctophilus geoffroyi Lesser Long-eared Bat 3 x 

Vespertilionidae Nyctophilus sp. Long-eared bat 1 

UBM 

2006 

UBM 

2005 

LesryK 

2004 

UBM 

2003



LEGAL STATUS 

OEH 

RECORDS 

(2012)* 

DEC 

2006 


Vespertilionidae Scotorepens orion Eastern Broad-nosed Bat 5 x 

Vespertilionidae Vespadelus darlingtoni Large Forest Bat 1 x 

Vespertilionidae Vespadelus pumilus Eastern Forest Bat 1 

Vespertilionidae Vespadelus regulus Southern Forest Bat 3 x 

Vespertilionidae Vespadelus vulturnus Little Forest Bat 10 x 

Muridae Hydromys chrysogaster Water-rat 1 

Muridae Mus musculus House Mouse * 20 x x 

Muridae Pseudomys novaehollandiae New Holland Mouse V 2 x 

Muridae Rattus fuscipes Bush Rat 92 x 

Muridae Rattus norvegicus Brown Rat * 2 x 

Muridae Rattus rattus Black Rat * 35 x x x 

Muridae Rattus sp. Rat 6 

Canidae Canis lupus Dingo, domestic dog * 9 x 

Canidae Canis lupus familiaris Dog * 16 x x 

Canidae Vulpes vulpes Fox * 39 x 

Felidae Felis catus Cat * 10 x x 

Leporidae Oryctolagus cuniculus Rabbit * 15 x 

Equidae Equus caballus Horse * 4 x x 

Bovidae Capra hircus Goat * 2 x 

Delphinidae Tursiops truncatus Bottlenose Dolphin 1 

Reptilia (47) 

Dermochelyidae Dermochelys coriacea Leathery Turtle E1 E 1 

Chelidae Chelodina longicollis Eastern Snake-necked Turtle 3 x 

Chelidae Emydura sp. Unidentified Emydura 1 

Gekkonidae Diplodactylus vittatus Wood Gecko 4 x 

TSC 

ACT 

EPBC 

ACT 

UBM 

2012 

UBM 

2006 

UBM 

2005 

LesryK 

2004 

UBM 

2003 




LEGAL STATUS 

TSC 

ACT 

EPBC 

ACT 

OEH 

RECORDS 

(2012)* 


DEC 

2006 

UBM 

2012 


Gekkonidae Oedura lesueurii Lesueur's Velvet Gecko 1 x 

Gekkonidae Phyllurus platurus Broad-tailed Gecko 9 x 

Gekkonidae Underwoodisaurus milii Thick-tailed Gecko 8 x 

Pygopodidae Lialis burtonis Burton's Snake-lizard 13 x 

Pygopodidae Pygopus lepidopodus Common Scaly-foot 20 x 

Scincidae Acritoscincus duperreyi Eastern Three-lined Skink 1 

Scincidae Acritoscincus platynota Red-throated Skink 4 x 

Scincidae Cryptoblepharus virgatus Cream-striped Shinning-skink 5 x 

Scincidae Ctenotus robustus Robust Ctenotus 1 x 

Scincidae Ctenotus taeniolatus Copper-tailed Skink 12 x 

Scincidae Egernia cunninghami Cunningham's Skink 6 x 

Scincidae Egernia whitii White's Skink 2 x 

Scincidae Eulamprus quoyii Eastern Water-skink 54 x x 

Scincidae Eulamprus tenuis Barred-sided Skink 5 x 

Scincidae Lampropholis delicata Dark-flecked Garden Sunskink 52 x x x 

Scincidae Lampropholis guichenoti Pale-flecked Garden Sunskink 23 x x 

Scincidae Saiphos equalis Three-toed Skink 4 x 

Scincidae Saproscincus mustelinus Weasel Skink 11 x x 

Scincidae Tiliqua rugosa Shingle-back 1 x 

Scincidae Tiliqua scincoides Eastern Blue-tongue 54 x 

Agamidae Amphibolurus muricatus Jacky Lizard 2 x 

Agamidae Physignathus lesueurii Eastern Water Dragon 40 x 

Agamidae Physignathus lesueurii lesueurii Eastern Water Dragon 1 

Agamidae Pogona barbata Bearded Dragon 14 x 

Agamidae Rankinia diemensis Mountain Dragon 1 x 

UBM 

2006 

UBM 

2005 

LesryK 

2004 

UBM 

2003



LEGAL STATUS 

OEH 

RECORDS 

(2012)* 

Varanidae Varanus gouldii Gould's Goanna 1 x 

Varanidae Varanus rosenbergi Rosenberg's Goanna V 6 x 

Varanidae Varanus varius Lace Monitor 18 x 

Typhlopidae Ramphotyphlops nigrescens Blackish Blind Snake 11 x 

Typhlopidae Ramphotyphlops sp. Blind snake 1 

Boidae Morelia spilota Carpet & Diamond Pythons 4 

Boidae Morelia spilota spilota Diamond Python 2 x 

Colubridae Dendrelaphis punctulatus Common Tree Snake 11 x 

Elapidae Acanthophis antarcticus Common Death Adder 11 x 

Elapidae Cacophis squamulosus Golden-crowned Snake 9 x 

Elapidae Cryptophis nigrescens Eastern Small-eyed Snake 1 

Elapidae Demansia psammophis Yellow-faced Whip Snake 7 x 

Elapidae Furina diadema Red-naped Snake 8 x 

Elapidae Hemiaspis signata Black-bellied Swamp Snake 3 x 

Elapidae Notechis scutatus Tiger Snake 5 x 

Elapidae Pseudechis porphyriacus Red-bellied Black Snake 15 x 

Elapidae Pseudonaja textilis Eastern Brown Snake 4 x 

Elapidae Vermicella annulata Bandy-bandy 5 x 

TSC 

ACT 

EPBC 

ACT 

DEC 

2006 

UBM 

2012 


UBM 

2006 

UBM 

2005 

LesryK 

2004 

UBM 

2003 



APPENDIX 5: List of Trees to be removed or impacted for proposed subdivision (source Tree Wise Men (Australia) Pty Ltd October 2011) 

TREES TO BE REMOVED (NUMBER & SPECIES NAME) 

LOT 2* LOT 3 LOT 4 LOT 5 

Number of Blue Gum High Forest tree species 

1 6 1 nil 

T22 Pittosporum undulatum T321 Polyscias elegans T319 Eucalyptus.saligna 

T25A Eucalyptus saligna 

T322 Pittosporum undulatum 

T325 Angophora floribunda 

T326 Eucalyptus saligna 

T374 Eucalyptus saligna 

19 2 4 2 

Number of non-Blue Gum High Forest tree species 

T19 Phoenix canariensis T132 Liquidambar styracifua T135 Liquidambar styracifua T142 Waterhousea floribunda 

T20 Strelitzia nicolai T324 Corymbia citriodora T318 Cupressus sp. T144 Calllitrus sp. 

T22Pittosporum undulatum 

T23 Magnolia grandiflora 

T320 Arbutus enudo 

T136 Braychiton acerifolius 

T27Magnolia grandiflora 

T28 Rhododendron sp. 

T29 Rhododendron sp 



TREES TO BE REMOVED (NUMBER & SPECIES NAME) 

LOT 2* LOT 3 LOT 4 LOT 5 

T30 Strelitzia nicolai 

T31 Cedrus deodara 

T32 Strelitzia nicolai 

T40 Camellia japonica 

T42 Jacaranda mimosifolia 

T49 Rhododendron sp. 


T54 Cinnamomum camphora 

T55 Photinia robusta 




Total number of trees 

20 8 5 2 

*Lot 2 is not in the BGHF mapped area (Smith & Smith 2006, UBM 2007)

Flora & Fauna Survey & Ecological Assessment (pdf. 5MB)

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?