Response to Information Request 23 November 2023

       c. how the offset will be secured so that it persists in perpetuity.

Comment:
With respect to (a) above, Native Foresters has advised that the mapping for the offset area contains Regional
Ecosystems 12.3.13 and 12.5.3. This is the same as the ecosystem that is being cleared and is therefore
considered to provide a suitable area to provide “like for like” offset planting.

With respect to (b) above, Native Foresters has advised that … the clearing of 1.02ha remnant vegetation will
result in the loss of approximately 500 non-juvenile Koala habitat trees. The proposed Offset Rehabilitation Plan
will include provision for 1500 Koala habitat trees spaced at 3 metre centres. Additional plantings will include
both mid storey and groundcover species. It is my understanding that the above planting can be achieved
within the proposed offset area, which has previously been cleared in part, as allowed under the current
development approval.

With respect to (c) above, the applicant intends to protect the land around the southern end of the existing
facility by way of the environmental covenant. It is expected that the covenant area will encompass the
proposed offset planting area and extend to the edge of the southern boundary of the site. This will provide
a vegetated buffer to the major road network fronting Emu Mountain Road and Walter Hay Drive. A concept
plan for this area could be provided if requested.

18. Provide a Concept Fencing Plan which identifies the extent of fencing and general design specifications that
    will be used to mitigate the existing and likely future edge effects from the proposed landfill expansion (i.e.
    dust, rubbish, weed propagules).

Comment:
The applicant will provide a Concept Fencing Plan at the operational works stage that will show the location
of temporary fencing to 1.8m in height that is located and shifted in response to the operation of the landfill.
The key need for the fencing is to prevent rubbish leaving the landfill area and being deposited in the
adjoining bushland. It is not intended to erect permanent fencing around the permitter of the facility, which
is unnecessary. Under that scenario the extent of fencing could also hinder and not necessarily assist fauna
movement, for example, if fauna was to move through the site from the west or south, in particular, at night.

It is suggested that moveable temporary fencing around the landfill operation will minimise the amount of
rubbish propagating from the site, which will need to be continuously managed. Given the location of the
recoverables area being centrally located, which is also partly enclosed along the eastern side, the need for
temporary fencing is primarily required for the operation of the landfill.

It is also intended to erect signage along the length of the northern, eastern and partly the southern boundary
to clearly delineate the extremities of the facility relative to the surrounding bushland, to help prevent any
works extending into the bushland.

Issue – Bushfire

PO12 of the Biodiversity, waterways and wetland code requires adoption of bushfire management measures
based on ecological principles. The existing development approval includes a condition requiring the preparation
of a Bushfire Management Plan (BMP). It is unknown whether this BMP was ever produced. In any event, if it
was produced the BMP would not be consistent with the latest hazard assessment methodology prescribed under
                                                                                                        11 | P a g e