Ecological Constraints Assessment

Ecological Constraints Assessment:

Project:

Northern Gateway Development, part Lot 1&2 DP 733715, Lot 1 DP1096868, and Lot 16 DP613107, Cundletown

Client:

Coastplan Consulting Pty Ltd

April 2016

Ecological Constraints Assessment | Northern Gateway Project | April 2016

2

Document Status

Rev 1 Draft Karl Robertson Jason Berrigan Luke Bowden 30/10/2015

Rev 2 Draft Jason Berrigan Jason Berrigan Luke Bowden 18/42016

Document Control

1 30/10/2015 Electronic/

Email

Coastplan

Consulting

Gavin Maberly-

Smith Client Copy


Email Naturecall Ashley Parker File Copy


Email

Coastplan

Consulting

Gavin Maberly-

Smith Client Copy


Email Naturecall Ashley Parker File Copy

Project Number: EC1090

Our Document Reference: EC1090-BEC-REP-0001-CundletownBypassCA-rev2.0

This document has been prepared to the requirements of the client identified on the cover page and

no representation is made to any third party. It may be cited for the purposes of scientific research

or other fair use, but it may not be reproduced or distributed to any third party by any physical or

electronic means without the express permission of the client for whom it was prepared or

Biodiversity Australia Pty Ltd.

Version Purpose Author Reviewed By Approved By Date

Copy No. Date Type/Via Issued to Name Purpose


3

Contents

1.0 Introduction 11

2.0 Background Information 11

2.1. Location of the Study Site and Access 11

2.2. Key Definitions 11

2.3. Previous Ecological Assessments 12

Terra Consulting 2003 12

Naturecall 2014 15

2.4. Soils, Topography and Geology 15

2.5. Landuse and Disturbance History 17

Fire History and Weed Invasion 19

3.0 Statutory Framework 19

3.1. Commonwealth 19

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 19

3.2. New South Wales 20

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 20

Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 22

4.0 Flora Survey 23

4.1. Survey and Assessment Methodology 23

Vegetation Communities 23

Threatened Flora Species Searches and Occurrence Assessment 24

Survey Limitations 24

4.2. Flora Survey Results 25

Site Vegetation Communities 25

4.3. Threatened Ecological Communities 35

Site and Study Area EECs 35

Study Area Endangered Populations 46

Other listed Threatened Ecological Communities and Populations 47

4.4. Threatened Flora 51

Survey Results 51

Potential Occurrence Assessment 51

5.0 Fauna and Habitat Survey and Assessment 51

5.1. Survey Methods 51

Habitat Evaluation 52


4

Koala Survey 53

Spotlighting, Torch Searches and Stag Watching 53

Call Playback, Identification and Recording 53

Diurnal Bird Survey 54

Herpetofauna and Secondary Evidence Searches 54

Hollow Bearing Tree Survey 54

Limitations 54

5.2. Corridors and Key Habitats 55

Regional Corridors 55

Sub-regional Corridors 55

Local Corridors and Habitat Links 55

Key Habitat 58

5.3. Fauna Survey Results 58

Habitat Evaluation 58

Call Playback, Identification and Recording 66

Spotlighting 67

Secondary Evidence 67

Opportunistic observations 68

Total Fauna Observed 68

Locally Recorded Threatened Fauna 70

5.4. Potential Occurrence Assessment 71

New South Wales 72

Commonwealth 73

Migratory Species 76

6.0 SEPP 44 - Koala Habitat Assessment 80

6.1. Potential Koala Habitat 80

Introduction 80

Methods and Results 80

Conclusion 80

6.2. Core Koala Habitat Assessment 80

Overview of Koala Ecology 80

Site Core Koala Habitat Assessment 85

Discussion and Conclusion 94

7.0 Constraints Identification 95

7.1. Constraints 95


5

Nil Constraint 95

Low Constraint 96

Medium Constraint 96

High Constraints 100

8.0 Recommendations and Mitigation Measures 101

8.1. Vegetation Clearing 101

Clearing Timing 101

Hollow-bearing Tree Marking and Two Stage Clearing 101

Hollow-bearing Tree Felling Protocol 102

Clearing Monitoring 103

Fencing 104

Street Lighting 104

Stormwater Management 104

9.0 Conclusion 104

10.0 References 105

Appendix 1: Potential Occurrence Assessment 115

Appendix 2: Site flora species list 140


6

List of Figures

Figure 1: Location of the study site .................................................................................................................. 13 Figure 2: Study site .......................................................................................................................................... 14 Figure 3: Quaternary geology .......................................................................................................................... 16

Figure 4: GTCC LEP zoning map. ................................................................................................................... 18 Figure 5: Vegetation communities of the site .................................................................................................. 28

Figure 6: 1:100 ARI and vegetation communities on site ................................................................................ 36 Figure 7: OEH Corridors and Key Habitats ..................................................................................................... 56 Figure 8: Approximate location of hollow-bearing trees .................................................................................. 65 Figure 9: Local Koala records .......................................................................................................................... 87 Figure 10: SAT locations ................................................................................................................................. 88 Figure 11: GTCC LGA Koala records 2015 ..................................................................................................... 91 Figure 12: Coastal GTCC Koala records 2015 ................................................................................................ 92 Figure 13: Ecological constraints mapping of the site ..................................................................................... 98 Figure 14: Potential development and conservation areas ............................................................................. 99

List of Tables

Table 1: Exotic Pasture 25

Table 2: Derived Forest Red Gum woodland 26

Table 3: Swamp Oak swamp forest 29 Table 4: Tall Open/Paperbark Swamp Forest 31

Table 5: Immature swamp forest regrowth 32 Table 6: Aquatic vegetation 33 Table 7: Evaluation of the EEC – Freshwater Wetlands on Coastal Floodplains 37

Table 8: Evaluation of the EEC – Subtropical Coastal Floodplain Forest on Coastal Floodplains 41

Table 9: Evaluation of the EEC – Swamp Oak Floodplain Forest on Coastal Floodplains 43 Table 10: Evaluation of the EEC – Swamp Sclerophyll Forest on Coastal Floodplains 45

Table 11: Threatened flora species recorded in the locality 51

Table 12: Habitat evaluation summary 58 Table 13: Yangochiropteran bat call identification 66

Table 14: Fauna recorded on and adjacent to the site 69

Table 15: Threatened species recorded in the locality 70

Table 16: Threatened fauna potentially occurring in the locality 71

Table 17: Threatened species potentially occurring on the site/study area 72

Table 18: EPBC Act threatened fauna species potential occurrence assessment 74

Table 19: EPBC Act migratory species potential occurrence assessment 77

Table 20: Preferred Koala browse species in the GTCC coastal LGA 83 Table 21: Likelihood of occurrence - Flora 117

Table 22: Threatened flora unlikely to occur 118 Table 23: Eligibility for Seven Part Test Assessment – Fauna 126

Table 24: Fauna unlikely to occur on site 137

Table 25: Site hollow-bearing tree data 142


7

List of Photos

Photo 1: Derived Forest Red Gum Open Woodland 29 Photo 2: Swamp Oak swamp forest in south 30 Photo 3: Paperbark swamp forest 31

Photo 4: Regenerating swamp forest on western half of Lot 16 33 Photo 5: Main dam 34

Photo 6: Billabong on northern boundary. 34 Photo 7: Typical hollow bearing trees in pastoral areas 63 Photo 8: Eastern Osprey nest on Lot 16 64


8

Executive Summary

Naturecall Environmental were requested by Coastplan Consulting to undertake an ecological

constraints assessment for the proposed Northern Gateway development precinct, Cundletown, to aid

in making informed planning decisions for a rezoning application for the subject land.

The ~67.09ha study site (which comprises part Lot 1 & 2 DP 733715, Lot 1 DP 1096868, Lot 681 DP

617842, Lot 1 DP 1139255 and Lot 16 DP 613107) is located immediately west of Cundletown and

shares its northwestern boundary with the Taree Airport.

The subject land has been identified as part of a greater planning strategy by Greater Taree City Council

as potentially suitable for the establishment of a new employment/industrial precinct interlinked with the

Pacific Highway and Greater Taree airport. The future development envelope will necessitate some filling

due to flooding constraints. No concept plan has been derived as yet, as the objective of this assessment

is identify potential constraints and identify land suitable for development.

The study site is largely flat with elevation of ~1.5-3.5m above sea level, and forms part of and is adjunct

to the Manning River floodplain. Approximately 25% of the land is mapped at risk of inundation during

1:100 ARI floods, and drainage has been established in the study area to modify the inundation period

in low lying areas.

The site has been extensively cleared in the past for agricultural practices, and much of the land is

expected to have been cultivated for improved pasture and crops in the past given the high agricultural

capability. Agricultural practices still continue throughout the site, with some recent (last 5 years at least)

relaxation of maintenance in the far west where lack of slashing has allowed regeneration of a tall

shrubland from the seedbank and adjacent remnants.

Aside from pasture with scattered trees, the site contains the following vegetation communities:

• Derived open Forest Red Gum woodland: This occurs as two small non-viable small remnant

patches in a very derived state on the northern boundary of Lot 1 & 2 DP733715, and eastern

end of Lot 1 DP1096868; and one small patch of regrowth in very good condition on the mid-

south boundary of Lot 681. The non-viable patches simply consist of senescent trees which

are all that remain of the original forest, with recruitment prevented by pastoralism. The small

patch in the south has a simple assemblage and is insufficient in size to be viable in long

term.

• Swamp Oak swamp forest: Patch of immature regrowth on southeast boundary of site and

partially within the proposed Cundletown bypass on Lot 681; and a narrow linear band along

a drain in the west on Lot 16. More common to northwest study area outside the site.

• Paperbark swamp forest: Small remnant clump in northwest corner of site, near the barn on

Lot 16; in very good condition despite grazing.

• Tall shrubland/immature swamp forest regrowth: Dominates western end of site/half of Lot

16. Comprised of remnant trees mixed with at times dense regrowth about 5 years old. Will

develop into a swamp forest mixed with an ecotone of eucalypts in the south.

• Aquatic vegetation: Native aquatic vegetation occurs in partly artificial, artificial and natural

habitats comprising a large dam on Lot 681 and Lot 2, and associated drainage line and


9

billabong/dam; and the drains from Lot 681 to Lot 1, and on Lot 16. Generally dominated by

sedges with common herbs.

No threatened flora species were recorded on the site, however the Eucalyptus seeana population in the

Greater Taree local government area was considered to potentially occur in the western study area

adjacent to the airport due to a few trees in the open forest strips to the west and southwest containing

several trees whose identity could not be confirmed without further investigation.

The site and study area contains examples in varying condition of the following Coastal Floodplain

Endangered Ecological Communities listed under the TSC Act 1995:

• Swamp Sclerophyll Forest on Coastal Floodplains of the NSW North Coast, Sydney Basin

and South East Corner Bioregions.

• Swamp Oak Floodplain Forest on Coastal Floodplains of the NSW North Coast, Sydney

Basin and South East Corner Bioregions.

• Subtropical Coastal Floodplain Forest of the NSW North Coast, Sydney Basin and South

East Corner Bioregions.

• Freshwater Wetlands on Coastal Floodplains of the NSW North Coast, Sydney Basin and

South East Corner Bioregions.

The site occurrences of these EECs range from clearly non-viable in the medium to long term, to viable

but with limited biodiversity due to isolation and edge effects. Limitations of the 1:100 ARI modelling

compared with other Final Determination criteria suggested the EECs may be more extensive than

indicated by the 1:100 ARI. The extent of occurrence of the Freshwater Wetlands EEC is particularly

unclear due to the large dam being artificial but constructed on previous EEC habitat, and vagueness of

the Final Determination in resolving situation such as this instance.

No Threatened Ecological Communities listed under the EPBC Act occur on site or in the study area.

Surveys have previously been conducted on the land adjacent to the site. Previous survey by Terra

Consulting Pty Ltd identified the area of Melaleuca/Eucalyptus tereticornis open forest immediately to

the southwest of the site and in the study area as Core Koala Habitat; but survey of the site and derived

open forest woodland to the southeast failed to detect any Koala activity. This result suggested the

presumably small local aggregate may have become extinct since their last record in 2003/2004. Further

investigations is required to confirm this fact.

This survey detected the Grey-headed Flying Fox, Little Bentwing Bat and the Eastern Osprey on site.

The Osprey was present as a nesting pair in the open paddock on Lot 16 in the west, which poses a key

constraint to potential development in this area. Possible mitigation measures including 100m buffer

zones, erecting and artificial nest pole self-relocation and manual relocation options have been detailed

depending on desired development outcomes and statutory approvals.

The two detected bats would only be using the site as a minute part of their seasonally variable local

range for foraging. Another 14 threatened species listed under the TSC Act were considered mostly low

potential occurrences, mostly likely using the western study area as a small part of their local range, or

the local floodplain under suitable conditions. Usage of this area and the study area overall however is

critically constrained by the isolation and limited extent of the habitat. These species were generally not

considered to pose any key constraint on future development.


10

The exceptions were the Squirrel Glider and Varied Sittella, which have at best low potential to occur in

the remnant open forest in the western study area (albeit non-viable vestigial populations due to isolation

and edge effects), hence further targeted survey may be required for these species if maximum

development is desired and habitat is to be removed in the western study area.

This report assessed the ecological constraints of the subject site and study area, and categorised the

site into nil, low, medium and high levels of constraint. The latter was limited to the Osprey nest and an

isolated example of the EEC – Freshwater Wetlands on Coastal Floodplains.

Development of the nil and low and a lesser constrained part of the medium constraint areas would see

the majority of the site developed, with regeneration in the northwest to achieve a good balance of

development opportunity and ecological sustainability.


11

1.0 Introduction

Biodiversity Australia Pty Ltd trading as Naturecall Environmental (hereafter referred to as ‘Naturecall’)

has been requested by Coastplan Consulting to undertake an ecological constraints assessment for the

proposed Northern Gateway development precinct, Cundletown, to aid in making informed planning

decisions for a rezoning application for the subject land.

The subject land has been identified as part of a greater planning strategy by Greater Taree City Council

as potentially suitable for the establishment of a new employment/industrial precinct interlinked with the

Pacific Highway and Greater Taree airport. The nominal area is shown in Figure 2.

This future development envelope will necessitate some filling due to flooding constraints. No concept

plan has been derived as yet, as the objective of this assessment is identify potential constraints and

identify land suitable for development.

The ecological constraints assessment considers relevant statutory constraints under the Environmental

Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended by the Threatened Species Conservation (TSCA) Act

1995 which in turn has been amended by the Threatened Species Conservation Legislation

Amendments Act 2002 (Seven Part Test for Significance); NSW SEPP 44 - Koala Habitat Protection;

and the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBCA) Act 1999 -

Matters of National Environmental Significance (MNES).

The survey and assessment was performed in consideration of the draft Threatened Species Survey

and Assessment – Guidelines for Developments and Activities (DEC 2004). The assessment has also

been undertaken in accordance with the Ecological Consultants Association of NSW – Code of Ethics

(2002) available at www.ecansw.org.au.

2.0 Background Information

2.1. Location of the Study Site and Access

As shown in Figure 1, the study site, which is approximately 67.09ha in size, is located southeast of

the Taree Airport and northeast of the residential area of Cundletown, within the central-coastal area

of the Greater Taree City Council Local Government Area (GTCC LGA). The Pacific Highway is

situated <400m to the east of the site.

Current access is via Emerton Close off Princes Street to the eastern and central areas, and via

Denison St to the western areas.

2.2. Key Definitions

The study site is defined as the area shown in Figure 2, which comprises part Lot 1 & 2 DP 733715,

Lot 1 DP 1096868, Lot 681 DP 617842, Lot 1 DP 1139255 and Lot 16 DP 613107; and is ~67.09ha

in area.

The study area is land within an at least 100m radius of the site (minimum extent to which indirect

impacts such as edge effects will be detectable). These key definitions are in line with DECC (2007).


12

The locality is land within a 10km radius of the site, and places the site in a landscape context from

an ecological point of view.

2.3. Previous Ecological Assessments

Terra Consulting 2003

Terra Consulting Pty Ltd undertook previous surveys for GTCC for the rezoning of the Cundletown

Bypass Corridor area in 2003. Terra surveyed the bypass corridor area and a potential residential

precinct located along the southeastern and southwestern boundaries of the current site assessed

in this report.

Terra’s study site was reported to be dominated (70%) by land cleared for grazing and agricultural

uses. Melaleuca/Red Gum closed forest, Low Melaleuca shrubland, Red Gum/Ironbark open forest,

Casuarina woodland and aquatic communities were described as dominating the remaining parts of

the site.

The largest and most important native vegetation community located on the site was the

Melaleuca/Red Gum Closed Forest, which was identified as Core Koala Habitat under SEPP 44.

This vegetation is a strip located along and adjunct to the current site’s southwestern boundary, and

is mainly comprised of several Melaleuca species (M.nodosa, M.quinquenervia, M.ericifolia,

M.styphelioides), emergent Forest Red Gums (Eucalyptus tereticornis) and a miscellaneous mix of

other eucalypts, with a very sparse to open grass/sedge groundcover.

No threatened flora species found on the Terra study site, with only Asperula asthenes (Vulnerable –

TSCA, V-EPBCA) considered to have generic potential habitat in the wettest portions of Lot 681.

Terra recorded a total of 39 vertebrate species. Of these, two were Vulnerable species listed under the

TSC Act and EPBC Act: the Koala (Phascolarctos cinereus) and the Grey-headed Flying Fox (Pteropus

poliocephalus). Scat searches suggested high Koala activity levels in the Melaleuca/Red Gum forest,

with a sub-adult Koala detected.

Due to Core Koala Habitat being present, Terra advised that a Koala Management of Plan (KPoM) will

be required for future proposed development of their site.


13

Figure 1: Location of the study site


14

Figure 2: Study site

Lot 681

Lot 1 DP1096868

Lot 1 DP733715 Lot 2

Lot 16

Lot 1 DP 1139255


15

Naturecall 2014

Naturecall Environmental undertook a statutory ecological assessment (SEA) for a proposed truck stop

development on Lot 17 DP86662, and Lots 44 & 46 DP 1191326 in 2014. This land adjoins the current

site to the immediate southeast, and will essentially form part of the Northern Gateway precinct.

This study site totalled an approximately area of 7.5ha of vegetation which is very similar to that found

on much of the study site. The vegetation consisted of pasture and associated weeds, ~30 scattered

trees, and some limited understorey which was mostly around the two dwellings as landscaping. The

land is currently grazed by cattle and horses, and is likely to have been cultivated in the past to improve

pasture as part of a dairy enterprise which formerly operated there.

No threatened flora species were detected or were considered likely occurrences. A few Forest Red

Gums and some representative herbs comprised the vestiges of formerly extensive local Coastal

Floodplain EECs which would have originally covered the local floodplain prior to clearing for agriculture.

The site readily qualified as Potential Koala Habitat, but not Core Koala Habitat due to lack of evidence

indicating Koalas regularly use the site, hence a KPoM was not required. The lack of Koala activity was

contributed to the very poor connectivity to near identified Core Koala Habitat or other local known habitat

(eg west of the airport) due to extensive open pasture, and possible decline of the Koala population in

the Cundletown area.

The fauna survey found most of the site’s trees to contain hollows to advanced senescence and lack of

recruitment, but no threatened fauna species were detected. Brushtailed Possums were the only

arboreal fauna on site, with only common woodland birds (native and exotic) comprising the remainder

of the simple fauna assemblage.

A handful of mostly wide ranging threatened species were considered to have potential to use the site

as a small part of their home range (Yangochiropteran bats, Square-tailed Kite, and Grey-headed Flying

Fox). The Koala was considered only a low chance of being a rare transient most likely dispersing from

a likely very small aggregate in the Cundletown area, due to major landscape connectivity limitations.

No referral to the Commonwealth Department of the Environment (DotE) or a Species Impact Statement

(SIS) was considered to be required for the development application.

2.4. Soils, Topography and Geology

The study site is largely flat with a uniform elevation of ~1.5-3.5m above sea level, and forms part of and

is adjunct to the Manning River floodplain. Approximately 25% of the land is mapped at risk of inundation

during 1:100 ARI floods (Figure 2). The higher land is on the south which occurs on slightly elevated

terraces adjacent to a very low hill and associated ridgelines on which Cundletown is centred.


16

Figure 3: Quaternary geology


17

One well defined watercourse (a paleochannel infilled by more recent historical flooding, and reduced to

an open drainage depression) headed by a dam occurs in the central area on Lot 1 & 2 DP733715; with

a poorly defined head of another drainage line in the northwest end of the site on Lot 16. Both drain north

onto the lower floodplain.

The dam at the head of the main watercourse on Lot 1 & 2 DP733715 is about 2ha in extent and is at

least several decades old (as suggested by vegetation within the dam and on the embankments). Below

the dam, the original channel of the paleo-watercourse appears to have been artificially formalised and

deepened into a uniformly wide channel to facilitate drainage both from local flooding and from

stormwater directed onto the property from Cundletown. Another small dam or possibly originally a

natural billabong occurs in this watercourse on the northern boundary of the study site.

Quaternary soil landscape mapping (see Figure 3) and other sources (eSPADE) show the site lies on

an alluvial plain, with the eastern end on a high level terrace. The soil profile is reportedly slowly

permeable and poorly drained in some areas, as evidenced by waterlogging especially in the western

end (eSPADE). The site is underlain by carboniferous bedrock (about 300 million years old) (Byabarra

beds), comprising of lithic sandstone, siltstone, tuff, shale and limestone (R.A.S.C. 1966).

2.5. Landuse and Disturbance History

As shown in Figure 4, the site is currently zoned as RU1 Primary Production under the GTCC Local

Environmental Plan (LEP) 2010.

As stated previously the site has been extensively cleared in the past for agricultural practices, and much

of the land is expected to have been cultivated for improved pasture and crops in the past given the high

agricultural capability. Agricultural practices still continue throughout the site, with some recent (last 5

years at least) relaxation of maintenance in the far west of the study site where lack of seasonal slashing

has allowed regeneration of tall shrubland from the seedbank and adjacent remnants. Maintenance and

improved pasture prevent any regeneration in other areas of the site, and exhausted in situ seedbanks.

Four dwellings currently occur on the site, with one formerly pursuing dairying. Currently, beef cattle and

horses are grazed on improved pasture mostly comprising Kikuyu, Paspalum and Carpet Grass, with

some cultivation of rye.

Land to the north, southeast and east of the Pacific Highway are also used for grazing on improved

pasture over land with very limited native vegetation.

As noted above, the large dam was formed by establishment of an earthen wall about 1m high several

decades ago across the head of a former drainage line/vestigial creek which was previously cleared

(evidenced by lack of any dead trees in the dam). Remnant infrastructure indicates that although the

dam was shallow, it was used for irrigation of nearby land for cropping.

Downstream of the main dam, a channel appears to have artificially established/formalised within the

original drainage line probably within the last 30 years (lack of direct connection to the main dam indicate

it was not previously present), with aerial photographs showing reshaping in the last 5 years. This widens

to a billabong, or possibly a small dam (photos in the last 5 years show excavation presumably to widen

and deepen the waterbody for stock watering) on Lot 1 DP733715, and degenerates to a shallow,


18

ephemeral channel which appears to be part natural watercourse, and then becomes modified to a

narrow drainage channel linked to another drain.

This channel built along the original natural watercourse which was probably once an ephemeral creek

infilled during the floodplain’s formation, is connected to a drain (with adjacent spoil heaps) dug to the

west of the dam which interlinks to stormwater drainage discharged from Cundletown south of Lot 681.

Based on regrowth on spoil adjacent to this drain (about 2m wide and >1m deep), this drain appears to

have been constructed within the last 20-30 years, for the purpose of channelling excess water (which

would have impacted exotic pasture) to the lower floodplain to the north, and eventual off-site drainage

via a network of flood mitigation drains which eventually link to the Manning River.

Another drain indicated by a linear band of Swamp Oak forest also occurs on Lot 16 in the west. This

drain is very shallow (<30cm deep) and <1m wide.

The entire drainage network in the study area has altered the hydrological regime of the local floodplain

(ie reduced standing water times) with associated impacts on vegetation and also water quality (eg

oxidation of materials releasing elevated levels of iron and aluminium).

Cleared land between Cundletown residential area to the southwest forms part of the Taree airport which

mainly occurs to the west-northwest. This land and the airport is zoned as SP2 Infrastructure, as shown

in Figure 4.

During the inspection, it was also noted that an area about 50m wide on the western side of the study

area in the Melaleuca/Forest Red Gum closed forest has been recently cleared. Several large windrows

were present at the time, and included Forest Red Gums as well as understorey species.

Figure 4: GTCC LEP zoning map.

site


19

Fire History and Weed Invasion

The previous fire history of the site was not obtained from landowners, but the vegetation on site

showed no signs of a recent fire.

The groundcover over almost the entire site aside from the dams and swamp forest is dominated by

exotic pasture and associated agricultural weeds eg Carpet Grass (*Axonopus spp), Rhodes Grass

(*Chloris gayana), *Paspalum sp., White Clover (*Trifolium repens), Fireweed (*Senecio

madagascariensis), Kikuyu (*Pennisetum clandestinum), Verbena sp. etc. Lantana (Lantana

camara) and Camphor Laurel occurred along some fences or isolated patches where they escaped

slashing, and widely in the Swamp Oak forest in the south of the site.

3.0 Statutory Framework

The following key statutory provisions apply in considering the ecological constraints of the site for

development.

3.1. Commonwealth

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) is Australia’s

central piece of environmental legislation. It provides the legal framework to manage and protect,

nationally important flora, fauna, ecological communities and heritage places (DotE 2015).

The objectives of the EPBC Act are to:

• Provide streamlined national environmental assessment and approvals process,

• Provide for the protection of the environment, especially matters of national environmental

significance,

• Control international movement of plants and animals,

• Promote ecologically sustainable development through the conservation and ecologically

sustainable use of natural resources

• Recognise the role of the Indigenous people in the conservation and ecologically sustainable

use of Australia’s biodiversity

• Promote the use of indigenous peoples knowledge of biodiversity with the involvement of,

and in cooperation with, the owners of the knowledge

Under the EBPC Act, actions that are likely to have a significant impact on Matters of National

Environmental Significance (MNES) require approval from the Commonwealth Minister of the

Environment. There are 9 MNES protected under the EPBC Act 1999:

• World heritage properties,

• National heritage places,

• Wetlands of international importance,


20

• Listed threatened species and ecological communities,

• Migratory species,

• Commonwealth marine areas,

• The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park,

• Nuclear action,

• A water resource in relation to coal seam gas development and large coal mining

development.

3.2. New South Wales

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (E&PA Act) established a system of

environmental planning and assessment in NSW, and is accompanied by a range of Environmental

Planning Instruments (EPIs) which include:

• State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPP),

• Regional Environmental Plans (REP),and

• Local Environmental Plans (LEP)

EPIs which may be relevant to this proposal include:

• State Environmental Planning Policy No. 44 - Koala Habitat Protection,

• State Environmental Planning Policy No. 14 - Coastal Wetlands

• State Environmental Planning Policy No. 26 - Littoral Rainforest

• Hunter Regional Environmental Plan 1989, and

• Greater Taree City Council, Local Environmental Plan 1995.

Consideration of the EPIs is provided as follows.

3.2.1.1. State Environmental Planning Policy No. 44 - Koala Habitat Protection

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 44 (SEPP 44) is designed to encourage the proper

conservation and management of area of natural vegetation that provide habitat for Koalas to ensure

that present habitat is preserved, and current declining trends in Koala populations are reversed.

The SEPP intends to achieve this:

• By encouraging the identification of areas of Core Koala Habitat.

• By encouraging the inclusion of areas of Core Koala Habitat in environmental protection

zones.

• By requiring the preparation of management before the development consent can be granted

when Core Koala Habitat is identified.


21

3.2.1.2. State Environmental Planning Policy No. 14 - Coastal Wetlands

State Environmental Planning Policy 14 (SEPP 14) aims to ensure the preservation and protection

of coastal wetland areas in the environmental and economic interests of the NSW.

There are no SEPP 14 wetlands on site or the study area. In the locality, the nearest SEPP 14

wetlands are #576a (“The Basin”) located 1.5km to the west, and #576 located 1.2km south on the

Manning River.

3.2.1.3. State Environmental Planning Policy No. 26 - Littoral Rainforest

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 26 (SEPP 26) is aimed at providing a mechanism to assess

applications for development that are likely to impact littoral rainforest areas, with the goal of

preserve such areas in their natural state.

SEPP 26 applies to:

• Land enclosed within SEPP 26 mapped areas

• Land not enclosed by SEPP mapping however falls within 100m of the SEPP 26 mapped

area. Excluding residential land and land to which SEPP 14 applies

• This policy does not apply to land reserved under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 as

an Aboriginal area, historic site, national park, nature reserve, state game reserve, state

recreation area, karst conservation reserve or regional park or land dedicated or set apart

under section 25A of the Forestry Act 1916 as a flora reserve.

There are no mapped areas of SEPP 26 on site or in the study area.

3.2.1.4. Hunter Regional Environmental Plan 1989

The Hunter Regional Environmental Plan 1989 (HREP) has provided a strategy for development of

the Hunter Region for over 25 years. The Greater Taree Local Government Area is the most northerly

government area under HREP.

The aims of the strategy are to:

• Provide for changing agricultural practices,

• Allow for development of small rural holdings and multiple occupancy on land capably of

such developments,

• Protect prime crop and pasture land from degradation,

• Recognise environmental limitations to developments,

• Concentrate populations in major existing centres to make best use of public and private

investments, and

• Permit urban extension around the perimeter of those centres which can expand

economically without environmental degradation.

Detailed planning consideration of the HREP is provided in the planning proposal for the site prepared

by Coastplan, which utilises information collated in this assessment to demonstrate compliance with the

HREP.


22

3.2.1.5. Greater Taree Local Environmental Plan 2010

The Greater Taree Local Environmental Plan 2010 (LEP) aims to make local environmental planning

provisions for land in the Greater Taree City area in accordance with standard environmental planning

instruments under section 33A of the EPA Act 1979.

The key aims of the LEP are to:

• Promote and encourage the ecologically sustainable development of the Greater Taree City

area,

• Encourage the proper management, development and conservation of natural and human

made resources for the purpose of promoting the social and economic welfare of the

community, protecting ecological and cultural heritage,

• Promote and co-ordinate the orderly and economic use and development of land, and

minimise conflict between adjacent land uses,

• Facilitate the provision and co-ordination of community service facilities,

• Encourage the protection of the environment, including the protection and conservation of

native animals and plants, threatened species and endangered ecological communities and

their habitats,

• Minimise the exposure of development to natural hazards and natural risks,

• Seek the provision of adequate and appropriate infrastructure to meet the needs of future

development, and

• Encourage a strong, growing and diversified economy that promotes local self-reliance, and

recognises and strengthens the local community and its social capital in ways that safeguard

the quality of the future generations.

This ecological constraints assessment assists the planning proposal to address these key aims of the

GTCC LEP.

Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995

In NSW, the key piece of legislation in relation to the protection and management of biodiversity and

threatened species is the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act).

The TSC Act aims to:

• Conserve biological diversity and promote ecologically sustainable development,

• Prevent the extinction and promote the recovery of threatened species, populations and

ecological communities,

• Protect the critical habitat of endangered species, populations and ecological communities,

• Eliminate or management certain Key Threatening Processes (KTP’s) that threaten the

survival or evolutionary development of threatened species, populations and ecological

communities

• Ensure that the impact of any action affecting threatened species, populations and ecological

communities is properly assessed


23

• Encourage the conservation of threatened species, populations and ecological communities

through cooperative management.

In a planning context, the key influence of the TSC Act is amendment of Section 5A of the EP&A Act via

the Seven Part Test. The identification of land suitable for development is preferred to avoid a significant

impact on any threatened species, Endangered Population, Endangered Ecological Community (EEC)

or their habitats.

Where a significant impact is identified in the Seven Part Tests or the proposed development lies within

land defined as Critical Habitat under Part 3 of the TSC Act, a Species Impact Statement (SIS) must be

prepared and considered by the Director General of the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH).

The constraints assessment in section 7 of this report considers a range of development outcomes which

may avoid the requirement for an SIS, or require an SIS for a higher level of yield.

4.0 Flora Survey

4.1. Survey and Assessment Methodology

The flora survey essentially routinely consists of three components:

• Identification, description and mapping of the major vegetation communities on the property.

• Identification, mapping and condition assessment of any Endangered Ecological

Communities listed under the TSC Act, and EPBC Act.

• Searches for and (if found) mapping of threatened species listed under the TSC Act, and

EPBC Act.

Vegetation Communities

4.1.1.1. Vegetation Community Description and Mapping

Vegetation communities on site were surveyed by a foot traverse of the entire site, rather than via

plots and transects. This was the most effective survey method due to the simplified nature of the

vegetation present and limited site extent.

Sub-formation names for vegetation types were adapted from the classification proposed by Keith

(2004) e.g. ‘Dry Sclerophyll Forest’ to assist the fauna habitat evaluation, and the structural

classification used by Walker and Hopkins (1990). Biometric classifications were determined by

reference to the Biometric Vegetation Types Database

(http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/vegetation/eoam/index.htm).

Species identification was made with the assistance of PlantNET, GTCC (2007), Bale (1993), Beadle

(1982), Harden (1990, 91, 92, 93, 2000), Williams and Harden (1984), Williams and Harden (1980),

Robinson (1994), and Brooker and Kleinig (1999). Plant species were identified to species or

subspecies level and nomenclature conforms to that currently recognized by the Royal Botanic

Gardens and follows Harden and PlantNET for changes since Harden (1990-1992, 2000).


24

4.1.1.2. Conservation Status Assessment

Identification of possible Threatened Ecological Communities (TECs) was based on the data

collected by the survey and review of the relevant listings on the OEH website

(www.environment.nsw.gov.au) and Department of Environment – MNES SPRAT website (DotE

2015a).

Threatened Flora Species Searches and Occurrence Assessment

4.1.2.1. Searches

Searches for the locally recorded threatened flora recorded in the LGA and regionally (OEH 2015a,

DotE 2015b) in similar habitats to those occurring on the site (see Appendix 1), were carried out over

the survey period.

The site was intensively searched over 3 dedicated person days, and incidentally during other survey

activities. Survey methods consisted of undertaking random meanders throughout all habitats on

site, with targeted searches of potential habitat for locally and regionally recorded threatened

species. A targeted search was made for Asperula asthenes in all wetland habitats.

4.1.2.2. Potential Occurrence Assessment

Potential occurrence assessment of threatened flora species is provided in Appendix 1. This section

assesses all considered threatened species listed under the TSCA 1995 and EPBCA 1999 for their

potential to occur on site based on the following factors (DEC 2004, Forest Fauna Surveys 1997,

DECC 2007):

• Presence/absence of suitable habitat.

• Condition and disturbance history of habitat.

• Local and regional records.

• Location of site within known distribution of the species.

• Connectivity with habitat where species is known to occur.

Survey Limitations

The study site was intensively traversed by foot during specific flora surveys and during other survey

activities throughout the survey period. This ensured maximum detection of the diversity of flora

present.

The survey was undertaken in spring when most plants are generally flowering. Weather conditions

for the previous month were moderately wet and provided good growth conditions for aquatic plants.

Overall, the extremely high accessibility of the site and limited diversity resulted in a very high

detection rate of plants present.

Regardless, any short-term survey will only provide a list of plants detected during a brief interval of

time (DEC 2004). The total species list of an area is usually much greater than can be detected in

such a short time and it can be influenced by factors such as: size of the property, fire history, time

since disturbance, flowering season (particularly orchids), and presence of reproductive material


25

(DEC 2004). As the focus was on detection of threatened species, a comprehensive inventory of all

species present was not obtained.

4.2. Flora Survey Results

Site Vegetation Communities

Six generally highly modified and often derived vegetation communities were recorded on the study

site, most of which were in poor condition due to disturbance associated the current and historical

landuses. A description of their floristics and structure is provided in the following tables.

Refer to the Figure 5 and site photos following the descriptions for illustration, the flora species list

provided in Appendix 2.

Table 1: Exotic Pasture

Vegetation Community

Derived Pasture (exotic pasture)

Biometric Vegetation Type

Other/Disturbed/NA

Keith (2000) Formation and

Class

N/A

Location Dominates the site aside from small patches of remnant woodland, swamp forest and

immature swamp forest regrowth. Also includes lawns around houses.

Description

(a) Canopy:

Structure and Species:

Variable with location. Usually absent, but may include single trees and stags to small

clumps of young Swamp Oak or paperbarks. Few senescent Forest Red Gum (Eucalyptus

tereticornis).

Trunk diameter at breast height (DBH) ranges from 20-120cm, with height ~10-25m.

(b) Understorey:


Not a true stratum. Limited to a few planted or self-sown Weeping Bottlebrush

(Callistemon salignus), melaleucas, patches to single Camphor Laurel, and Swamp Oaks,

often along fencelines, around 3-8m tall with trunk DBH 10-20cm.

(c) Shrub Layer:


Absent apart from a localised patch of sparse regrowth and Leptospermum spp in the

west adjacent to a narrow band of swamp forest; and Lantana, Camphor Laurels and

young Swamp Oak along drains and fences, and in unmaintained paddocks in the

southern central area.


26


Derived Pasture (exotic pasture)

(d) Ground Layer


Dominated by exotic pasture grasses such as Kikuyu (*Pennisetum clandestinum),

Paspalum spp., *Axonopus spp., *Lolium spp Setaria spp. with White Clover (Trifolium

repens). Fireweed (*Senecio madagascariensis) and at times Tussock Rush (Juncus

usitatus) are commonly scattered throughout the site. A number of other common native

sedges occur mixed with pasture in the wetter, low-lying portions on the northern margins.

Mostly <10-30cm high due to grazing, with an unmaintained paddock in the central south

dominated by tall rank, dead grass about 1.5m high.

(e) Lianas, scramblers, etc:

Structure and Species :

Absent

Condition

Converted into improved pasture based on exotic pasture species. Likely to have been

widely cultivated at various times for various purposes eg winter pastures and cropping.

Artificial fertilisers likely to have been added at times, and irrigated. Some areas not

recently maintained eg paddock southwest of dam is tall rank and dead, and not grazed.

Wet areas subject to compaction and soil disturbance by stock, especially around hay

feeding stations.

Threatened plants recorded or

potential habitat

Long history of modification has modified the habitat to a point where it is extremely

unlikely that threatened species may occur

Conservation Value

Some areas form part of highly degraded Coastal Floodplain EECs, however regrowth is

suppressed by grazing and maintenance. Some areas have no seedbank to support

regeneration and are too distant from seed sources. See section 4.3.

Table 2: Derived Forest Red Gum woodland


Derived Tall Very Open/Forest Red Gum Woodland.


Forest Red Gum Grassy Open Forest of the Coastal Ranges of the North Coast

Keith (2000) Formation and Class

Dry Sclerophyll: Hunter-Macleay Dry Sclerophyll Forest (highly modified).

Location

Occurs as two small non-viable small remnant patches in a very derived state on the

northern boundary of Lot 1 & 2 DP733715, and eastern end of Lot 1 DP1096868, and

one patch of regrowth in very good condition on the mid-south boundary of Lot 681.

Description

(a) Canopy:


Dominated by Forest Red Gum (Eucalyptus tereticornis) with crowns well separated

and foliage cover about 50%. Trunk diameter at breast height (DBH) ranges from 65-

230cm, with height ~20-25m. Most of the trees are senescent or in the final stages of

senescence i.e. crown-shedding.


27


Derived Tall Very Open/Forest Red Gum Woodland.

(b) Understorey:


Present only in southern clump where it is semi-closed. Dominated by dense

Melaleuca nodosa and M. styphelioides with some Callistemon salignus. These are

about 3-5m tall with trunk DBH 10-20cm.

(c) Shrub Layer:


Absent apart from some Leptospermum spp in the southern patch

(c) Ground Layer


Dominated by exotic pasture grasses as previously detailed in the northern and eastern

areas. Southern patch is a sparse mix of pasture and native species such as Bladey

Grass (Imperata cylindrica) and Wiry Panic (Entolasia spp).

(d) Lianas, scramblers, etc:

Structure and Species :

Absent

Condition

Northern and eastern areas are highly modified into pastoral woodland. No recruitment

other than artificial plantings and a localised area adjacent to swamp forest stands in

the west.

Southern patch is immature regrowth essentially comprising an island established by

self-colonisation from remnant trees, and lax maintenance.

Threatened plants recorded or potential

habitat

Long history of modification has modified the habitat to a point where it is unlikely that

threatened species may occur.

Conservation Value

Floristic and soils match for Coastal Floodplain EEC, but above 1:100 ARI (see section

4.3). Northern and eastern stands are senescent with no recruitment – will become

extinct due to natural attrition. Southern stand has no diversity and isolated from similar

forest off southwest of site.


28

Figure 5: Vegetation communities of the site


29

Photo 1: Derived Forest Red Gum Open Woodland

Table 3: Swamp Oak swamp forest


Tall Open Forest/Swamp Oak swamp forest


Swamp Oak swamp forest of the coastal lowlands of the North Coast.


Class

Forested Wetlands: Coastal Floodplain Wetlands

Location Southeast boundary of site and partially within proposed Cundletown bypass on Lot 681;

and as a narrow linear band along a drain in the west on Lot 16.

Description

(a) Canopy:


Canopy dominated by Swamp Oak (Casuarina glauca) with many Camphor Laurel and

a handful of remnant and regrowth eucalypts and Angophora sp. 10-20m in height.

Density is high with crowns often touching, and cover about 70%.

(b) Understorey:


Poorly defined and mostly limited to edges. Consists of young Swamp Oak, Camphor

Laurel, Small-leaved Privet and some Callistemon salignus. These are about 3-5m tall

with trunk DBH 5-15cm.


30


Tall Open Forest/Swamp Oak swamp forest

(c) Shrub Layer


Absent apart from Lantana occurring in open patches and edges in the main patch. Some

horticultural Callistemon cultivars have established on the eastern edge in a stormwater

drain. Height ranges from ~1-5m.

(c) Ground Cover


Groundcover ranges from sparse to quite dense (80-90%). Within the forest, it is

generally a mix of native grasses with occasional Kidney Weed (Dichondra repens),

Common Groundfern (Hypolepis muelleri) and Tassel Sedge (Carex fascicularis). This

grades to a mix of exotic grasses such as Setaria and Paspalum species on the edge,

especially along the eastern and southern boundaries.

Western linear remnant is a mix of sedges and pasture grasses.

Condition

Southern remnant in generally good condition, despite being regrowth over former

pasture. Limited senescent trees suggest previous community was more likely to have

been an ecotone of swamp forest and eucalypts like the remnant forest in the far west.

Western linear band is regrowth along a drain where has escaped maintenance. Very

low diversity and exposed to edge effects.


potential habitat

Previous clearing suggests any such species would have been long displaced and

unable to recruit given state of surrounding habitat.

Conservation Values

Floristic and soils match for Coastal Floodplain EEC, but mostly of the occurrences are

above 1:100 ARI (see section 4.3).

Photo 2: Swamp Oak swamp forest in south


31

Table 4: Tall Open/Paperbark Swamp Forest


Tall Open/Paperbark swamp forest


Paperbark swamp forest of the coastal lowlands of the North Coast

Keith (2000) Formation and Class

Forested Wetland: Coastal Swamp Forests

Location Remnant clump in northwest corner of site, near the barn on Lot 16.

Description

(a) Canopy:


Canopy consists of monospecific stand of Broad-leaved Paperbark (Melaleuca

quinquenervia) up to 20m in height.

(b) Ground Cover


Consists of an open mix of Carex spp sedges and native grasses, plus Kidney Weed

and Native Violet (Viola hederacea).

Condition Grazed and cultivated by cattle traffic, but floristically in very good condition, with

limited diversity but not unusual for this community.

Threatened plants recorded or potential

habitat

Not threatened species present. No significant potential habitat.

Conservation Values At least partially (given 1:100 ARI mapping) forms part of the EEC – Swamp Sclerophyll

Forest on Coastal Floodplains of the NSW North Coast. See section 4.3

Photo 3: Paperbark swamp forest


32

Table 5: Immature swamp forest regrowth


Tall Shrubland/Very Tall Very Open Woodland (immature swamp forest regrowth)


Paperbark swamp forest of the coastal lowlands of the North Coast


Class

Forested Wetland: Coastal Swamp Forests

Location Western half of Lot 16. Adjoined to west and south by Melaleuca/Red Gum Closed Forest

(Terra 2003), and bound by linear band of Swamp Oak forest along eastern side.

Description

(a) Canopy:


Canopy consists of low density (<10% total cover) remnant Swamp Oak and Broad-

leaved Paperbarks with a few Forest Red Gum and Red Mahogany (E. resinifera) up to

23m in height. Present as widely scattered trees or small clumps. Scattered large stags

are also present.

(b) Shrub Layer


Shrub layer is moderately dense (50-60% total cover) and is dominated by Sieber’s

Paperbark (Melaleuca sieberi) and Flax-leaved Paperbark (M. linariifolia), with scattered

Swamp Oak, Broad-leaved Paperbark and Forest Red Gum. Leptospermum spp also

common to at times locally dense in small patches.

Height ranges from ~1-5m.

(c) Ground Cover


Very well developed, with 80-90% cover, 0.1-1.3m in height.

Groundcover is quite dense (80-90%) and is dominated by Carpet Grass (*Axonopus

fissifolius) and Whisky Grass (*Andropogon virginicus) with occasional Kidney Weed and

a range of sedges including Tassel Sedge, Juncus spp, Isolepis spp. Agricultural weeds

such as Fireweed (Senecio madagascariensis) are also common. Floristics varies with

local relief, with sedges dominating waterlogged areas.

Condition

Previously cleared and converted to improved pasture, but limited by poor drainage and

waterlogging, as evident by co-dominance with sedges. Lax maintenance has seen

regeneration from seedbank and colonisation from adjacent forest leading to advanced

regrowth. Closing in of canopy coupled with grazing pressure is slowly seeing shift in

groundcover floristics to native sedges and grasses.


potential habitat

Not threatened species present. No significant potential habitat given disturbance

history. Potential habitat for the Endangered Population - Eucalyptus seeana Population,

Greater Taree Local Government Area.

Conservation Values

Forms part of local occurrence of Coastal Floodplain EECs.

Inspection of the adjacent Melaleuca/Red Gum Closed Forest (especially to west) noted

a few Red Gums which could not be confidently to be either E. tereticornis or E. seeana.

If present, the latter would as the Endangered Population - Eucalyptus seeana

Population, Greater Taree Local Government Area.


33

Photo 4: Regenerating swamp forest on western half of Lot 16

Table 6: Aquatic vegetation


Aquatic vegetation

Biometric Vegetation Class

Coastal floodplain sedgelands, rushlands, and forblands (partially artificial)

Keith (2000) Classification

Freshwater Wetlands: Coastal Floodplain Wetlands (partially artificial)

Location Main dam on Lot 681 and Lot 2, and associated drainage line and billabong/dam; and

the drains from Lot 681 to Lot 1, and on Lot 16.

Description

Species and Structure:

Main dam is dominated by a tall dense sward of sedges, primarily comprising Tassel

Sedge with patches of Giant Spikerush (Eleocharis sphacelata), and Cumbungi (Typha

orientalis). Slender Knotweed (Persicaria decipiens) and River Buttercup (Ranunculus

inundatus) are common throughout. Setaria has also encroached in the shallow margins.

The deepest point which appears to be the original channel of the dammed drainage

line, is lined with a few stunted Broad-leaved Paperbarks about 4m tall, around a small

pool covered with Feathered Mosquito Fern (Azolla pinnata), Floating Primrose

(Ludwigia peploides), and Swamp Lily (Ottelia ovalifolia). Water Ribbons (Triglochin

striata) and Frogsmouth (Philydrum lanuginosum) are common around the shallow

edges.

The drain/channel and original drainage line leading down to the billabong is lined with

Tassel Sedge and Tussock Rush mixed with pasture grasses and weeds, with Water

Ribbons and Floating Primrose in the channel itself. The billabong is dominated by Giant

Spikerush with some Azolla and Primrose.

The stormwater drain which connects to this channel is lined with the same vegetation.

The drain in the west on Lot 16 is lined with a simpler and sparser assemblage of Violets,

Carex, Juncus and Isolepis sedges with no floating vegetation.


34

Condition

Two drains are artificial or modified natural habitat. Possible that the billabong has been

excavated in the last 5 years.

Large dam and possible billabong in very good condition despite catchment dominated

by agricultural and residential development. All areas can be accessed by cattle. Main

dam appears to have once been a source of water for crop irrigation.


potential habitat

No threatened plant records however large dam provides generic potential habitat for

Trailing Woodruff (Asperula asthenes) and Tall Knotweed (Persicaria elatior). Not found

by targeted survey by Terra (2003) or this survey, hence appear absent.

Conservation Value

See section 4.3: main dam and billabong as well as sedgeland adjacent to drain on Lot

2 appear to qualify as the EEC – Freshwater Wetlands on Coastal Floodplains.

Photo 5: Main dam

Photo 6: Billabong on northern boundary.


35

4.3. Threatened Ecological Communities

Site and Study Area EECs

As detailed in the following analysis and Figure 6, this site and study area contains examples in varying condition of the following Coastal Floodplain

Endangered Ecological Communities listed under the TSC Act 1995:

• Swamp Sclerophyll Forest on Coastal Floodplains of the NSW North Coast, Sydney Basin and South East Corner Bioregions, and

• Swamp Oak Floodplain Forest on Coastal Floodplains of the NSW North Coast, Sydney Basin and South East Corner Bioregions, and

• Subtropical Coastal Floodplain Forest of the NSW North Coast, Sydney Basin and South East Corner Bioregions, and

• Freshwater Wetlands on Coastal Floodplains of the NSW North Coast, Sydney Basin and South East Corner Bioregions.

No Threatened Ecological Communities listed under the EPBC Act occur on site or in the study area.

4.3.1.1. EEC - Freshwater Wetland on Coastal Floodplains

The following table demonstrates that an occurrence of the EEC - Freshwater Wetland on Coastal Floodplains, occurs on site in some form, with extent

subject to uncertainty due a range of factors.


36

Figure 6: 1:100 ARI and vegetation communities on site


37

Table 7: Evaluation of the EEC – Freshwater Wetlands on Coastal Floodplains

Key Criteria Final Determination Criteria/Legal Precedent Site attributes/evaluation Attribute

Met?

Soils

Typically occur on silts, muds or humic loams.

Legal precedents (Gales Holdings Pty Limited v

Tweed Shire Council [2008] NSWLEC 209,

Motorplex (Australia) Pty Limited v Port Stephens

Council [2007] NSWLEC 7474) have also clarified

that the soils of the Coastal Floodplain EECs must

be fluvial in origin (as per the ecological processes

responsible for defining the physiognomic

character of the supported vegetation) and hence

alluvial; and that this should dominate the overall

character of the soil profile to be considered an

influence.

Confirmed – entire site falls on Quaternary alluvial soils (Troedson & Hashimoto

2008).

Yes

Landform

Typically occurs on depressions, flats, drainage

lines, back swamps, lagoons and lakes

associated with coastal floodplains.

Legal precedents (Gales Holdings Pty Limited v

Tweed Shire Council [2008] NSWLEC 209,

Motorplex (Australia) Pty Limited v Port Stephens

Council [2007] NSWLEC 7474) have clarified that

‘associated with’ can indicate ecological

processes associated with this EEC (eg fluvial

deposition, etc), as well as hydrological (flooding,

drainage, groundwater, waterlogging, etc) and

vegetation linkages. Hence a particular feature

does not have to be on a major floodplain, but

may be directly connected to such a landform eg

fingers of alluvial soils extending off the main

floodplain into drainage lines which flow onto the

A paleochannel which is now a drainage line or possibly an open depression runs

from Lot 681 to Lot 1 DP 733715, and onto the lower floodplain to the north. This

topographical feature meets the landform feature described in the Final

Determination.

This landform has been modified by establishment of the 2ha dam in the head, and

downstream via excavation of a formal natural channel to increase drainage and

reduce inundation periods. A possible pre-existing natural billabong in the northern

end may have also been converted to a dam, or a dam was created via excavation

of the original bed of the watercourse. As the origin of this feature is indeterminable,

the Precautionary Principle applies and it is assumed to originally be a natural feature

which has been subject to modification.

Notwithstanding the change to the natural hydrological regime and lowering of the

watertable by the drain, main dam and changes to the original landform: this has not

effectively extinguished ecological processes associated with the natural landform ie

flooding and waterlogging, as indicated by the sedges lining the channel. Similarly,

Yes


38


Met?

floodplain. as subsequently detailed, habitat suitable for the EEC would have occurred in the

large dam footprint prior to its establishment.

Associated

with a Coastal

Floodplain

Floodplains are level landform patterns on which

there may be active erosion and aggradation by

channelled and overbank stream flow with an

average recurrence interval of 100 years or less

(adapted from Speight 1990)

Figure 2 shows the 1:100 year flood occurrence includes the majority of the main

dam, and the entire drainage depression/line.

Yes

Latitudinal and

regional range

Generally occurs below 20m (rarely above 10m)

elevation in the NSW North Coast, Sydney Basin

and South East Corner bioregions.

Site elevation ranges from 1-4m

Yes

Structure/

indicator

species

The structure and composition of the community

varies both spatially and temporally depending on

the water regime, but overall is dominated by

herbaceous plants and has very few woody

species.

Wetlands or parts of wetlands that lack standing

water most of the time are usually dominated by

dense grassland or sedgeland vegetation, often

forming a turf <0.5m tall and dominated by

amphibious plants including Paspalum distichum

(water couch), Leersia hexandra (swamp rice-

grass), Pseudoraphis spinescens (mud grass) and

Carex appressa (tussock sedge). Wetlands or

parts of wetlands subject to regular inundation and

drying may include large emergent sedges >1m

tall, such as Baumea articulata, Eleocharis

equisetina and Lepironia articulata, as well as

emergent or floating herbs such as Hydrocharis

The current vegetation of the constructed dam, drain and billabong/small dam

consisted of indicator species such as Juncus usitatus, Eleocharis sphacelata,

Ludwigia peploides, Ottelia ovalifolia, Philydrum lanuginosum, Persicaria decipiens,

Triglochin striata, Typha orientalis, Ranunculus inundatus, etc. Hence all areas show

a strong floristic and structural match with the Final Determination.

While some or all of these species could have colonised the dams after construction,

the original habitat within the centre of the dam preceding this event is likely to have

contained these species (as indicated by remnant species in the same habitat

downstream), and hence in situ seedbanks are likely to have existed, and hence

formed part of the recolonization. Legal precedents have determined that this must

be considered in the absence of evidence to the contrary (Murlan Consulting Pty

Limited v Ku-ring-gai Council [2007] NSWLEC 374, Newcastle & Hunter Valley

Speleological Society Inc v Upper Hunter Shire Council and Stoneco Pty Limited

[2010] NSWLEC 48, Commercial & Industrial Property Pty Ltd v Holroyd City Council

[2013] NSWLEC 1000).

Despite the excavation of the drainage channel and the lowering of the water table,

as well as pastoralism, the bed of the drainage line contains a strip of common sedges

and wetland herbs eg Dichondra repens, Carex appressa, Juncus usitatus, etc.

Yes


39


Met?

dubia (frogbit), Philydrum lanuginosum

(frogsmouth), Ludwigia peploides subsp.

montevidensis (water primrose), Marsilea mutica

(nardoo) and Myriophyllum spp. (milfoils).

Artificial

Wetlands

Artificial wetlands created on previously dry land

specifically for purposes such as sewerage

treatment, stormwater management and farm

production, are not regarded as part of this

community.

Dr David Keith (whose paper formed a key basis

for the Final Determination) advised that where a

dam has been created on previously dry land

(which may include a floodplain) and develops

vegetation indicative of this EEC – it does not

qualify as this EEC.

The 2ha dam has clearly created artificial habitat by altering the hydrological regime

on an area of floodplain ie increasing the height and standing time of inundation. As

this would have raised the watertable, any vegetation which pre-existed would have

been extinguished, unless it was adapted to wetland habitats as current in the dam.

Based on Dr Keith’s advice, this appears to exclude most of the dam area from the

Final Determination for this EEC, as its topography suggests most of the current dam

footprint would have been largely dry and originally occupied with forest, aside from

the lowest lying area ie the central channel. The lack of standing stags suggest the

area was cleared and presumably converted to pasture.

The lowest lying parts of the dam footprint (ie the bed of the drainage line/depression)

however is likely to have been wet/subject to waterlogging, as indicated by the

remainder of the landform downstream, and hence contained species indicative of

this EEC prior to the dam wall construction.

As noted above, the downstream habitat, despite artificial drainage and conversion

to pasture, still contains such indicator species in natural habitat mixed with pasture

species, and qualifies as a very low quality example of this EEC as ecological

processes have not been extinguished (Murlan Consulting Pty Limited v Ku-ring-gai

Council [2007] NSWLEC 374, Newcastle & Hunter Valley Speleological Society Inc v

Upper Hunter Shire Council and Stoneco Pty Limited [2010] NSWLEC 48,

Commercial & Industrial Property Pty Ltd v Holroyd City Council [2013] NSWLEC

1000). Hence, within the current footprint of the dam, it is indeterminable whether or

not wetland species and/or a seedbank pre-existed the dam construction, or the

plants have entirely colonised the area eg from adjacent remnant vegetation, flooding

and waterfowl.

No.


40


Met?

Given the Precautionary Principle, and the evident topography of the dam (ie a former

channel can be found in cross-section), it also cannot be determined that the original

vegetation, which could have been wetland vegetation, was extinguished prior to or

during construction of the dam eg via excavation.

Hence it cannot be determined with certainty that the entire footprint of the large dam

was ‘on previously dry land’ and did not include an area of Freshwater Wetland EEC

habitat, which by definition does not occur on ‘dry land’.

Similarly the lower drain and associated dam/billabong occur where Freshwater

Wetland EEC previously existed (as indicated by persistence of indicator species)

could also be argued to form part of this EEC with the adjacent remnant wetland

vegetation, as these species and associated ecological processes were not

extinguished. Thus while the habitat may be artificial, it has only enhanced an existing

Freshwater Wetland EEC habitat.

4.3.1.2. EEC - Subtropical Coastal Floodplain Forest

The table below demonstrates that the site and more so the study area contains vegetation that meets both the floristic and geomorphological criteria of the

EEC - Subtropical Coastal Floodplain Forest. However, almost all of this vegetation both on site and in the study area is above the modelled 1:100 ARI.

Legal precedents (Gales Holdings Pty Limited v Tweed Shire Council [2008] NSWLEC 209, Motorplex (Australia) Pty Limited v Port Stephens Council [2007]

NSWLEC 7474) and the DECC (2007b) guidelines for Coastal Floodplain EECs strongly infer that the 1:100 ARI is the upper limit of a ‘coastal floodplain’ (the

habitat of Coastal Floodplain EECs), but the limitations of modelling the 1:100 ARI could be argued to be weighed with the other key criteria at the specific

site situation, to rely on other key diagnostic criteria eg alluvial soils, floristics and evidence of waterlogging.

Subject to clarification by the Land and Environment Court: for the purposes of this assessment, the 1:100 ARI is treated as the upper limit, hence only a

small part of two patches of qualifying vegetation qualify as this EEC on site, and both are in a highly derived state and non-viable in the long term due to

historical and on-going landuses which are preventing recruitment. The northern half of the remnant forest to the northwest of Lot 16 (in the study area) is

also part of the local occurrence of this EEC, and is in very good condition.


41

Table 8: Evaluation of the EEC – Subtropical Coastal Floodplain Forest on Coastal Floodplains


Met?

Soils Typically clay-loams and sandy loams The soils on the property are alluvial silt and clay-loams (Site survey, Troedson &

Hashimoto 2008). Yes

Landform

Typically on periodically inundated alluvial flats,

drainage lines and river terraces associated with

coastal floodplains.

Area where qualifying vegetation occurs on is an alluvial plain and part of an elevated

terrace. Yes

Associated

with a

Coastal

Floodplain





(adapted from Speight 1990)

On site, only a fraction of 2 of the 3 areas floristically qualifying at this EEC partially

fall on land below the 1:100 ARI.

Vegetation broadly meeting the floristic criteria is mostly above the 1:100 ARI (eg the

strips of remnant forest in the study area to the south and west of Lot 16), despite

being on suitable soils and showing signs of waterlogging. This, the slope, and

continuity of the alluvial soil landscape as well as the limitations of the estimation of

the 1:100 ARI suggest it may be an underestimate in the study area given soil

landscape, watertable and floristic evidence.

Partially

Latitudinal

and regional

range



and South East Corner bioregions


Yes

Structure/

indicator

species

The most widespread and abundant dominant trees

include Eucalyptus tereticornis (forest red gum), E.

siderophloia (grey ironbark), Corymbia intermedia

(pink bloodwood) and, north of the Macleay

floodplain, Lophostemon suaveolens (swamp

turpentine). Other trees may be scattered throughout

at low abundance or locally common at few sites,

particularly where there is an influence from lithic

substrates upslope. These include Eucalyptus

moluccana (grey box), E. propinqua (grey gum), E.

seeana (narrow-leaved red gum), Angophora

All three areas mapped as Derived Tall Very Open (Forest Red Gum) Woodland on

site floristically match this EEC in broad terms, although the northern and eastern

areas contain only the last vestiges of this EEC, with no recruitment. These areas are

clearly non-viable long term, with long term attrition of the senescent trees likely to

see extinction of these two areas.

The strips of forest to the adjacent southwest and northwest of Lot 16 in the study

area also floristically match this EEC and occur on alluvial soils, but are mostly

mapped as falling above the 1:100 ARI.

Yes


42


Met?

subvelutina (broad-leaved apple), E. robusta

(swamp mahogany), Eucalyptus resinifera subsp.

hemilampra (red mahogany), E. acmenoides (white

mahogany), Angophora woodsiana, A. paludosa and

rainforest trees such as Ficus spp. (figs) and

Cupaniopsis spp (tuckeroos).

4.3.1.3. EEC - Swamp Oak Floodplain Forest on Coastal Floodplains

This EEC occurs as a single line of trees along a drain on Lot 16, where it falls below the 1:100 ARI, and in forest to the north of Lot 16 in the study area. The

largest stand of vegetation which floristically matches this EEC on site (in the southeast) also falls on alluvial soils, but appears to mostly be above the 1:100

ARI, and hence legally does not appear to qualify as this EEC.

The local occurrence of this EEC may be a derivation of the EEC – Swamp Sclerophyll Forest on Coastal Floodplains due to being regrowth, and not a true

occurrence of the EEC, but the Final Determination allows for such seral stages and complex intergrades of all the Coastal Floodplain EECs.

The EEC is considered generally viable due to the co-occurrence with swamp sclerophyll on Lot 16 which provides genetic diversity, and the extent of Swamp

Oak forest in the southeast occurrence and in the northwest study area. Limited floristic and fauna diversity and ongoing weed invasion (especially in the

southeast stand) however limits value.


43

Table 9: Evaluation of the EEC – Swamp Oak Floodplain Forest on Coastal Floodplains


Met?

Soils

Typically clay-loams and sandy loams associated

with grey-black clay-loams and sandy loams, where

the groundwater is saline or sub-saline,

The soils on the property are alluvial silt and clay-loams. (Site survey, Troedson &

Hashimoto 2008).

No information on groundwater salinity, but groundcover strongly suggests freshwater,

hence this criteria is not strictly met. However, the Final Determination lists

groundcover species which are not saline tolerant, hence it can be interpreted to cover

situations where saline groundwater is not a key edaphic influence.

Yes

Landform

Typically on waterlogged or periodically inundated

flats, drainage lines, lake margins and estuarine

fringes associated with coastal floodplains.

Both locations fall on alluvial plains.

Yes

On a Coastal

Floodplain





(adapted from Speight 1990).

DECC (2007a) defines a coastal floodplain as

follows:

“Floodplains are level landform patterns on which

there may be active erosion and deposition by

flooding where the average interval is 100 years or

less”

Only about half of the western occurrence and a small fraction of the southeast

occurrence occur below the 1:100 ARI.

This, the slope, and continuity of the alluvial soil landscape as well as the limitations of

the modelling of the 1:100 ARI, suggest the 1:100 ARI may be an underestimate in the

study area. Yes -

partially

Latitudinal

and regional

range



and South East Corner bioregions


Yes

Structure/

indicator

Typically has a dense to sparse tree layer in which

Casuarina glauca (swamp oak) is the dominant

species northwards from Bermagui. Other trees

Both areas mapped as Swamp Oak swamp forest readily meet the floristic and

structural criteria. Floristics does not suggest sub-saline or saline influence. Yes


44


Met?

species including Acmena smithii (lilly pilly), Glochidion spp.

(cheese trees) and Melaleuca spp. (paperbarks)

may be present as subordinate species, and are

found most frequently in stands of the community

northwards from Gosford. Tree diversity decreases

with latitude, and Melaleuca ericifolia is the only

abundant tree in this community south of Bermagui

(Keith and Bedward 1999). The understorey is

characterised by frequent occurrences of vines,

Parsonsia straminea (common silkpod),

Geitonoplesium cymosum (scrambling lily) and

Stephania japonica var. discolor (snake vine), a

sparse cover of shrubs, and a continuous

groundcover of forbs, sedges, grasses and leaf litter.

The composition of the ground stratum varies

depending on levels of salinity in the groundwater.

Most of the vegetation broadly meeting the floristic criteria on site appears to above the

1:100 ARI (eg the southeast stand), despite being on suitable soils and showing signs

of waterlogging. This, the slope, and continuity of the alluvial soil landscape as well as

the limitations of the calculation of the 1:100 ARI suggest it may be an underestimate

in the study area.


45

4.3.1.4. EEC - Swamp Sclerophyll Forest on Coastal Floodplains

Based on the current 1:100 ARI mapping correlated with the vegetation mapping, this EEC comprises about two thirds of the paperbark swamp forest remnant

on Lot 16, and at least half of the tall shrubland/immature swamp forest regrowth dominating the western half of Lot 16. As for the other EECs, the modelled

1:100 ARI may be lower than it actually is in the study area, if the vegetation, waterlogging and soil landscape is assumed to be a better indication of the

ecological processes underlying these EECs in the study area. Hence the extent of this EEC may be more extensive than shown eg at least includes all of

the paperbark swamp forest remnant, and most if not all of the immature regrowth on Lot 16, which in turn could form part of a complex intergrade with the

EEC -Subtropical Floodplain Forest on Coastal Floodplains and the EEC – Swamp Oak Floodplain Forest on Coastal Floodplains on Lot 16 and the adjacent

study area.

The local occurrence of this EEC at least includes the on-site occurrence below the 1:100 ARI, and adjoining similar vegetation in the study area to the north

and north-northwest. Viability is evidently high despite historical clearing and pastoralism, as evidenced by the regeneration of the immature swamp forest

on Lot 16 after lax maintenance.

Table 10: Evaluation of the EEC – Swamp Sclerophyll Forest on Coastal Floodplains


Met?

Soils Typically clay-loams and sandy loams The soils in the area are alluvial sandy silt and clay-loams (Troedson & Hashimoto

2008). Yes

Landform

Typically on periodically inundated alluvial flats,

drainage lines and river terraces associated with

coastal floodplains.

Locations fall on alluvial plains associated with a coastal floodplain.

Yes

On a Coastal

Floodplain

Floodplains are level landform patterns on which there

may be active erosion and aggradation by channelled

and overbank stream flow with an average recurrence

interval of 100 years or less (adapted from Speight

1990)

About two thirds of the mature paperbark forest on site and about half of the immature

swamp forest occur below the 1:100 ARI.

This, the slope, and continuity of the alluvial soil landscape as well as the limitations

of the modelling of the 1:100 ARI, suggest the 1:100 ARI may be an underestimate.

Yes – in

part.

Latitudinal

range

Generally occurs below 50 m (rarely above 10 m)

elevation

Site elevation ranges from 1-3m Yes


46


Met?

Structure/

indicator

species

The structure of the community is typically open forest,

although partial clearing may have reduced the

canopy to scattered trees. In some areas the tree

stratum is low and dense, so that the community takes

on the structure of scrub. The community also includes

some areas of fernland and tall reedland or sedgeland,

where trees are very sparse or absent.

The most widespread and abundant dominant trees

include Eucalyptus robusta (swamp mahogany) and

Melaleuca quinquenervia (paperbark). Other trees

may be scattered throughout at low abundance or may

be locally common at few sites, including Callistemon

salignus (sweet willow bottlebrush), Casuarina glauca

(swamp oak) and Eucalyptus resinifera subsp.

hemilampra (red mahogany), Livistona australis

(cabbage palm) and Lophostemon suaveolens

(swamp turpentine). The groundcover is composed of

abundant sedges, ferns, forbs, and grasses including

Gahnia clarkei, Pteridium esculentum (bracken),

Hypolepis muelleri (batswing fern), Calochlaena dubia

(false bracken), Dianella caerulea (blue flax lily), Viola

hederacea, Lomandra longifolia (spiny-headed mat-

rush) and Entolasia marginata (bordered panic) and

Imperata cylindrica var. major (blady grass).

Main stand of mature paperbark forest closely matches the Final Determination.

The regenerating area on Lo t16 consists of a residual canopy of Melaleuca

quinquenervia, Eucalyptus tereticornis and Casuarina glauca. The shrub layer

contains Melaleuca sieberi, Melaleuca linariifolia, Casuarina glauca. The ground

cover consists of a mix of pasture and wetland species including sedges, herbs and

grasses. The regeneration suggests that a healthy seed bank still exists.

Yes

Study Area Endangered Populations

Cursory inspection of the adjacent (off-site) Melaleuca/Red Gum Closed Forest (especially to west of Lot 16) noted a few Red Gums could not be confidently to be

either E. tereticornis or E. seeana. Targeted survey of these trees would be needed to confirm if E. seeana is present, but it is noted that Terra (2003) did not record


47

this species in the remnant strip to the southwest of Lot 16, hence occurrence appears unlikely. If present in the west, a local population of E. seeana would as the

Endangered Population - Eucalyptus seeana in the Greater Taree Local Government Area.

Survey of the regrowth on Lot 16 failed to detect any E. seeana, hence this population does not appear to be present on site.

Other listed Threatened Ecological Communities and Populations

A summary review of TECs and Endangered Populations listed under the TSC Act 1995 and EPBC Act 1999 which occur in the North Coast Bioregion (OEH

2015b, DotE 2015a) and their potential for occurrence on site or in the study area, is provided in the following table.

Table 11: Review of TECs and Endangered Populations

TSC Act

“River-flat Eucalypt Forest on Coastal Floodplains of the NSW North Coast, Sydney Basin and South

East Corner bioregions” is an EEC associated with silts, clay-loams and sandy loams on periodically

inundated alluvial flats, drainage lines and river terraces associated with coastal floodplains. River-flat

Eucalypt Forest on Coastal Floodplains (RfEF) generally occurs below 50m elevations, but may occur on

localised river flats up to 250m above sea level. In the North Coast, the most widespread and abundant

dominant trees include Eucalyptus tereticornis, E. amplifolia, Angophora floribunda, A. subvelutina, E.

saligna and E. grandis.

The floristic and geomorphological

characteristics of the Forest Red Gum

woodland on site may broadly conform to

the criteria of this EEC. However it was

determined that the area conformed

better to the Subtropical Coastal

Floodplain Forest EEC.

TSC Act

“Lowland Rainforest on Floodplains on the NSW North Coast Bioregion” generally occupies riverine

corridors and alluvial flats with rich, moist silts often in sub-catchments dominated by basic volcanic

substrates. Small, scattered remnants remain on the floodplains of the Tweed, Richmond, Clarence,

Bellinger, Macleay, Hastings, Manning, and Hunter Rivers. In its natural state, this community supports a

rich diversity of flora and fauna. Tree species often present include Figs, (Ficus spp.), Palms

(Archontophoenix cunninghamiana, Livistona australis), Lilly Pilly’s (Syzygium spp.) and vines (Cissus spp.,

Pandorea pandorana, Flagellaria indica).

Vegetation meeting the floristic and

geomorphological criteria of this EEC

does not occur on the study site.

TSC Act

“Lowland Rainforest in the NSW North Coast and Sydney Basin Bioregion” has been listed as an

Endangered Ecological Community since December 2006 on Schedule 1 – Part 3 of the TSC Act 1995.

Lowland Rainforest, in a relatively undisturbed state, has a closed canopy, characterised by a high diversity

of trees whose leaves may be mesophyllous and encompass a wide variety of shapes and sizes. Typically,




Act Literature Review Significance


48

the trees form three major strata: emergents, canopy and sub-canopy which, combined with variations in

crown shapes and sizes, give the canopy an irregular appearance (Floyd 1990). The trees are taxonomically

diverse at the genus and family levels, and some may have buttressed roots. A range of plant growth forms

are present in Lowland Rainforest, including palms, vines and vascular epiphytes. Scattered eucalypt

emergents may occasionally be present. In disturbed stands the canopy continuity may be broken, or the

canopy may be smothered by exotic vines.

EPBC Act

“Lowland Rainforest of Subtropical Australia” is found from Maryborough to the Hunter. Predominantly

occurs on basalt and alluvial soils, or enriched rhyolitic and metasediments. Generally occurs <300m above

sea level but may occur >300m on north-facing slopes, and only in areas with annual rainfall >1300mm.

May intergrade with Littoral Rainforest and Coastal Vine Thickets but usually occurs >2km from ocean.

Typically tall (20-30m) closed forest often with multiple tree layers dominated by diversity of rainforest

species with emergent non-rainforest species constituting <30%. Emergents are typically figs, Hoop Pine

and Brushbox.




TSC Act

“Littoral Rainforest in the NSW North Coast, Sydney Basin and South East Corner Bioregions” is

typically a closed forest, the structure and composition of which is strongly influenced by its proximity to the

ocean. The plant species of this community are predominantly rainforest species while emergent Eucalypts

or Lophostemons are present in some stands. This community grows only in coastal areas within maritime

influence on sand dunes and soil derived from underlying rocks.




EPBC Act

“Littoral Rainforest and Coastal Vine Thickets of Eastern Australia” is a Critically Endangered

Ecological Community listed under the EPBC Act 1999, which is generally identical to the TSC Act listing.




TSC Act

A localised population of a distinctive variation of Glycine clandestina, identified as Glycine sp. “Scotts

Head”, has been listed as an Endangered Population. This population is restricted to part of the headland

complex at Scotts Head.

The site does not contain suitable habitat

for this species and is beyond its known

range.

TSC Act

“White Box Yellow Box Blakely’s Red Gum Woodland” is an EEC predicted to occur in Macksville,

Dorrigo, Grafton, Kempsey, Korogoro Part, Nambucca, Coffs Harbour and Bare Part Atlas of Wildlife

databases. This community is generally restricted to the tablelands and western slopes.

The site/study area does not meet the

floristic requirements of this EEC, hence

it does not occur.


49

TSC Act

“Hunter Lowland Red Gum Forest in the Sydney Basin and North Coast Bioregions” is an EEC found

on gentle slopes arising from depressions and drainage flats on Permian sediments of the Hunter Valley

floor in the Sydney Basin and NSW North Coast Bioregions.

Vegetation meeting the floristic criteria of

this EEC does not occur on site.

TSC Act

“White Gum Moist Forest in the NSW North Coast Bioregion” is an ECC characteristically dominated

by White Gum (Eucalyptus dunnii) either in pure stands or with E. saligna, E. microcorys and/or

Lophostemon confertus (NSWSC 2008a).White Gum Moist Forest typically occurs on the escarpment

slopes and foothills of the north-east NSW, most commonly between 400 and 650 m elevation, where mean

annual rainfall exceeds approximately 1000 mm and has a summer maximum (DECC 2007) on fertile soils.

It is currently known from the local government areas of Clarence Valley, Coffs Harbour, Kyogle and

Tenterfield.

White Gum does not occur on the site,

thus the EEC does not occur.

TSC Act

“Hunter Valley Vine Thicket in the NSW North Coast and Sydney Basin Bioregions” is a Critically

Endangered Ecological Community (CEEC). This CEEC occurs on Carboniferous sediments (often on

limestone) mainly on rocky slopes. The community typically forms a low closed forest dominated by low

trees, shrubs and vines. The canopy is dominated by both varieties of Elaeodendron australe (Red Olive

Plum), Geijera parviflora (Wilga), Notelaea microcarpa var. microcarpa (Native olive), and Alectryon

oleifolius subsp. Elongatus (Western Rosewood). Emergent eucalypts are common and include Eucalyptus

albens (White Box), E. dawsonii (Slaty Box), and E. crebra (Narrow-leaved Ironbark). Hunter Valley Vine

Thicket has been recorded from the local government areas of Muswellbrook, Singleton, and Upper Hunter

(NSWSC 2007b).

This community does not occur on the

site which is located outside the

prescribed range, thus the EEC does not

occur.

TSC Act

“Lower Hunter Valley Dry Rainforest in the Sydney Basin and NSW North Coast Bioregions” is an

EEC which occurs on Carboniferous sediments of the Barrington footslopes along the northern rim of the

Hunter Valley Floor, where it occupies gullies and steep hill slopes with south facing aspects. The community

usually forms a closed forest 15-20m high with emergent trees 20-30m high. Vines are abundant and there

is a dense shrub and ground layer (NSWSC 2007c).


site which is located outside the


occur.

TSC Act

“Themeda grassland on seacliffs and coastal headlands in the NSW North Coast, Sydney Basin and

South East Corner Bioregions” is an that belongs to the Maritime Grasslands vegetation class of Keith

(2004) and its structure is typically closed tussock grassland, but may be open shrubland or open heath with

a grassy matrix between the shrubs.



does not occur on the site.


50

TSC Act

“Carex Sedgelands of the New England Tableland, Nandewar, Brigalow Belt South and NSW North

Coast Bioregions” is a preliminarily listed EEC in marshy regions dominated by sedges, grasses and semi-

aquatic herbs. The species dominants are Carex appressa, Stellaria angustifolia, Scirpus polystachyus,

Carex gaudichaudiana, Carex sp. Bendemeer, Carex tereticaulis and Isachne globosa, either as single

species or in combinations. Other common species include Geranium solanderi var. solanderi, Haloragis

heterophylla, Lythrum salicaria, Epilobium billardierianum subsp. Hydrophilum and Persicaria

hydropiper (Hunter and Bell 2009).


location criteria of this EEC does not

occur on the site.

TSC Act

‘Hunter Floodplain Red Gum Woodland in the NSW North Coast and Sydney Basin Bioregions’ is an

EEC that generally occurs on floodplains and on floodplains and associated floodplain rises along the Hunter

River and tributaries.


site, which is located outside the


occur.

TSC Act

‘Coastal Cypress Pine Forest in the NSW North Coast Bioregion’ is a distinctive vegetation community

dominated by Coastal Cypress Pine (Callitris columellaris) and is typically found on coastal sand plains,

north from the Angourie area on the far north coast of NSW.

The site is far beyond the known range of

this EEC and the Coastal Pine does not

occur, thus the EEC does not occur.

Ecological Constraints Assessment | Northern Gateway Project | October 2015

51

4.4. Threatened Flora

Survey Results

No threatened plants were recorded on the study site during this survey, confirming the earlier results

of Terra (2003). No threatened plants have been recorded on adjacent lands (OEH 2015a).

Potential Occurrence Assessment

Searches of relevant literature and databases (OEH 2015a) found records of only 1 threatened flora

species in the locality:

Table 11: Threatened flora species recorded in the locality

Common Name Species Legal Status Location/Distance from Study Site

Slaty Red Gum Eucalyptus

glaucina V- TSCA

V- EPBCA

Taree

This species was not found and suitable habitat for this species does not occur in the study area

(see Appendix 1).

Terra (2003) previously considered part of the site to contain suitable habitat for Asperula asthenes,

and the main dam was considered to have generic potential for Persicaria elatior. Targeted survey

of aquatic habitats on site failed to detect either species which have not been recorded locally (OEH

2015a).

It was considered that the site and most of the study area’s significant disturbance history (eg

logging, clearing, underscrubbing, slashing, agricultural activities and weed invasion) have resulted

in major habitat changes (eg to dispersal of propagules, microclimates, soil characteristics, etc) that

have likely excluded any threatened species from occurring on the site/study area.

Given this and that no threatened flora species were detected on the site during this survey or

previous surveys on adjoining lands, it is considered unlikely that any such species would occur on

the study site.

5.0 Fauna and Habitat Survey and Assessment

5.1. Survey Methods

In consideration of the threatened species recorded in the locality (OEH 2015a, DotE 2015a) and

previous surveys of adjacent land (Terra 2003, Naturecall 2014), available habitats on site, and

potentially occurring species: the following survey methods were employed:

• Qualitative and quantitative habitat assessment.

• Koala survey.


52

• Spotlighting and stag watching over 4 nights.

• Call playback and detection over 4 nights.

• Hollow-bearing tree survey.

• Diurnal reptile and bird survey.

• Physical searches of habitat e.g. leaf litter, etc.

• Opportunistic sightings, scratches and scats.

• Anabat surveys

It is acknowledged that the full range of techniques (e.g. pitfall trapping and harp trapping) which could

have been used and extent of effort for some methods (eg owl call playback) is less than specified by

the DEC (2004) guidelines. However, as provided for in the guidelines, use of these techniques and effort

is not considered warranted in this instance given the previous surveys on adjacent land, lack of habitat

for some locally recorded species, and the consultant’s high level of ecological knowledge of the area.

In contrast, effort was expended well above DEC (2004) minimum standards for species would which

would be at risk of the greatest impact if present eg Koala.

Survey was undertaken by Naturecall’s principal ecologist and an ecologist under Naturecall’s scientific

license and animal research authority.

Habitat Evaluation

The site was surveyed to determine the available potential habitats, and the support value of these

habitats for threatened species. Habitats were defined according to parameters such as:

• Structural and floristic characteristics of the vegetation e.g. understorey type and

development, crown depth, groundcover density, etc.

• Degree and extent of disturbance e.g. fire, logging, weed invasion, modification to structure

and diversity, etc.

• Soil type and suitability e.g. for digging and burrowing.

• Presence of water in any form e.g. dams, creeks, drainage lines, soaks.

• Size and abundance of hollows and fallen timber.

• Availability of shelter e.g. rocks, logs, hollows, undergrowth.

• Wildlife corridors, refuges and proximate habitat types.

• Presence of mistletoe, nectar, gum, seed, sap, etc. sources.

Species identification was assisted by Morcombe and Stewart (2010), Pizzey and Knight (2003),

Tyler and Knight (2009), Wilson and Knowles (1992), Strahan (2008), Triggs (1996), Robinson

(1996), Swan et al (2004) and Schodde and Tideman (1990).


53

Koala Survey

Survey for Koalas consisted of diurnal searches of all trees on site and within at least 50m adjacent

over 3 days, and Spot Assessment Technique (SAT) surveys on site. Koalas were also surveyed by

spotlighting and call playback over 4 nights for a total effort of 10hrs of nocturnal survey.

The SAT surveys consisted of checking the ground and leaf litter for Koala scats in a 2m radius

around 30 trees tree per sample site for a period of two minutes per tree or until a scat was found.

This technique is recognised as a very efficient method of detecting Koala presence, and in some

instances, is a method used to identify areas of major Koala activity/significance eg Core Koala

Habitat (Phillips and Callahan 2011, Jurskis and Potter 1997, NPWS 2001, DECC 2008, Biolink

2013b).

Spotlighting, Torch Searches and Stag Watching

Spotlighting was conducted for at least 1.5 hours over 4 separate sessions with the first within 45

mins of dusk and others after 8pm, over 4 nights. This was more than sufficient to cover the majority

to all of the site’s limited tree cover per session; and minimise disturbance to surrounding residents

caused by barking dogs. The procedure involved walking with a hand held 50-100 watt spotlight over

the site, targeting the trunks and branches of canopy trees and understorey, and periodically

scanning the ground.

Torch searches for frogs were undertaken in conjunction with spotlighting around the detention

basins on and adjacent to the site, and the drainage depression on Lot 681 to Lot 1 & 2. A total of 4

hours was dedicated to this activity.

Conditions were overcast with showers on the first night and fourth nights, and clear on the other

nights. Wind ranged from placid to moderate.

Call Playback, Identification and Recording

Recorded calls of the following species were routinely played in the site and study area:

• Wallum Froglet

• Masked, Barking and Powerful Owls

• Yellow Bellied Glider

• Squirrel Glider

• Koala

Calls for the birds and arboreal mammals were played through a portable MP3 player via a 30W PA

system from a vehicle at a level approximating natural intensities of the species. The general

methodology involved an initial period of listening and spotlighting; followed by playback of the calls

simulating a natural pattern. This was followed by 10 minutes of listening and 10-15 minutes

spotlighting for fauna attracted by the calls (but not responding vocally), within 100m radius of the


54

playback point. Calls were played during each spotlighting session at a different location at the

southern and northern end of the site.

Calls were generally played soon after dusk, when such calls are normally heard. Playback was

utilised over the area over 4 nights for a total of 4 hours of this activity.

Diurnal Bird Survey

Birds were surveyed by detecting calls and searching by binoculars during area searches over the

whole site and actively listening/searching for birds in the morning before 8am and in the afternoon

from 4pm.

Bird surveys were also conducted opportunistically during other activities (e.g. flora survey and

habitat evaluation) as transects and spot surveys were redundant given the limited habitat. Binocular

scans were also periodically undertaken over the adjacent saltmarsh for waders.

This information provided short-term data on bird occurrences in the area for the particular season

(DEC 2004).

Herpetofauna and Secondary Evidence Searches

Physical habitat searches of the site were undertaken during the survey which involved:

• Lifting up of debris (eg logs) to search for reptiles and frogs.

• Inspection of dense vegetation for bird nests.

• Raking of leaf litter for frogs and reptiles.

• Observation of likely basking sites (i.e. reptiles and frogs).

• Searches for scats, tracks, digging, sap incisions and scratches (e.g. Koala, gliders, etc.)

over the site.

• Searches for scats, owl regurgitation pellets and guano deposits.

A total of 4 hours was specifically spent on general habitat searches with opportunistic searches

also undertaken during other activities.

Hollow Bearing Tree Survey

All hollow bearing trees and stags on the study site were located and recorded via hand held GPS.

Each tree was quantified (height, trunk diameter, number of hollows, location in tree and aperture

diameter), marked with pink spray paint, and assigned an identifier number.

Limitations

Fauna detectability is limited by seasonal, behavioural or lifecycle characteristics of each species,

and even by habitat variations (e.g. flowering periods), which can occur within a year, between years,

decades, etc. (DEC 2004).


55

The fauna survey period fell in spring which is a period moderate to high activity for arboreal

mammals, Yangochiropteran bats and birds, breeding of frogs and detection of seasonal migrants

(DEC 2004). Detection of seasonal breeding frogs would be limited for species breeding in spring,

or year-round. Longitudinal and latitudinal migrants such as the Swift Parrot may not be present at

this time of year. Rainfall preceding and occurring during the survey increased frog detection for

species known to breed at this time of year, but timing and season is recognised as a limitation for

some frogs (eg. Wallum Froglet).

To counter any limitations, qualitative and quantitative habitat evaluation was used as well as a

standard ecological field survey to assess the site’s significance to threatened species. Habitat

evaluation conservatively assesses the potential occurrence of threatened species based on

potentially suitable habitat and local records, providing a prediction of the likelihood of a particular

threatened species occurring in the study area (DEC 2004, DECC 2007, Forest Fauna Surveys

1997). This approach is considered best practice to address the Principle of Uncertainty.

5.2. Corridors and Key Habitats

See Figure 7 showing the following:

Regional Corridors

Regional corridors are typically >500m wide and provide a link between major and/or significant

areas of habitat in the region. Ideally they are of sufficient size to provide habitat in their own right

and at least twice the width of the average home range area of fauna species identified as likely to

use the corridor (OEH 2015c, Scotts 2002).

The study site does not form part of any regional corridors.

Sub-regional Corridors

Sub-regional corridors connect larger landscaped features and are of sufficient width to allow

movement and dispersal (generally >300m), but may not provide substantial species habitat (OEH

2015c, Scotts 2002).

The site does not form part of any sub-regional corridors.

Local Corridors and Habitat Links

Local corridors provide connections between remnant patches of habitat and landscape features. Due

to their relatively small area and width (they may be <50m), these corridors are subject to edge effects

(OEH 2015c, Scotts 2002). Habitat links are evaluated in this report as links from habitat on-site directly

to similar habitat on adjacent land. These would be used by fauna, which depend solely or at least

partially on the site for all of their lifecycle requirements, and/or dispersal (Lindenmayer and Fisher 2006).


56

Figure 7: OEH Corridors and Key Habitats


57

As evident in Figure 7, remaining forest habitat in the study area (and the locality) is both limited in extent

and highly fragmented by rural land uses, major linear infrastructure, the airport, and urban growth. This

poses a major constraint in terms of both carrying capacity and local connectivity from a local corridor

and habitat linkage perspective, and hence critical limitation on biodiversity in term of species diversity

and population viability

The most significant body of habitat in the study area is the approximately 30ha of mixed forest to the

south and west of Lot 16, however this vegetation is effectively isolated for virtually all non-flying terrestrial

species by the airport to the west, cleared pasture to the north and east (and the Pacific Highway); and

an open paddock and residential area (and then the Manning River) to the south. These physical and

behavioural barriers are thus a major constraint on both migration and immigration from other habitat in

the landscape eg Brimbin.

Connectivity between the main remnants in the study area and the much smaller remnants on site is

also constrained by extensive areas of open pasture, and hence gap shy species and those vulnerable

to predation would avoid these areas (Elkin and Possimgham 2008, Ford 1993, Lindenmayer and Fisher

2006, Deacon and MacNally 1998, Johnson et al 2007, Law and Dickman 1998) eg due to fox predation

risk (May and Norton 1996, NPWS 2001). This thus severely limits the diversity of fauna potentially

recolonising regrowth on Lot 681, and use of the hollows in the Forest Red Gums and other scattered

trees across the pastoral area to highly mobile habitat generalists and exotic species eg birds, bats,

introduced rodents and the Brushtailed Possum. This has been demonstrated by previous survey of

adjoining land off Emerton Close (Naturecall 2014).

The wetland habitats on site are only tentatively connected via the drainage network to other wetland

habitats in drains, with dispersal likely to be only during major flooding periods due predator exposure.

While floods could be extensive over the wider floodplain, refuge habitats for frogs are very limited in and

beyond the study area due to pastoralism and drainage networks which significantly modified both the

hydrological regime and wetland habitats. Hence only the most common habitat generalist species are

expected to occur.

Habitat links and corridors in the study area are however also subject to extreme edge effects, which

is a further major limitation on their effectiveness, and the biodiversity and long term viability of

populations in the remaining remnants (Fisher and Lindenmayer 2006).

Overall, the site offers very little value in regards to local corridors and habitat links due to a long

history of clearing for agricultural practices; and the remaining remnants in the study area are subject

to processes and threats which will progressively undermine their ability to support biodiversity in

the long term (Fisher and Lindenmayer 2006).

If allowed to mature, the area of regeneration in the site’s west on Lot 16 offers some potential value

for fauna moving throughout the remaining forest remnants which surrounds this area, mitigating

some of the edge effects, and increasing carrying capacity. The regenerating area also contains

species common with the EEC and contains primary Koala browse species. However, this area and

adjacent remnant vegetation will continue to be bound by the aforementioned constraints and subject

to those identified threats, with consequently limitations on its ability to support a diverse fauna

assemblage in the long term.


58

Key Habitat

Key Habitats are areas of predicted high conservation value for forest faunal assemblages, endemic

forest vertebrates or endemic invertebrates; spatially depicted as a merging of mapped assemblage

hubs, assemblage hot spots and centres of endemism (OEH 2015c, Scotts 2002).

The site is not mapped as key habitat.

5.3. Fauna Survey Results

Habitat Evaluation

The following table summarises the results of the habitat evaluation survey:

Table 12: Habitat evaluation summary

Habitat Attribute/Type

Site/Study Area Potential Values to Threatened Species

Occurrence

Groundcover

Virtually all of site is dominated by pasture

grasses, pasture weeds and scattered

Tussock Rush. This offers no significant

cover; and no significant seeds for

granivores.

Some dense cover in parts of the Swamp

Oak forest in southeast, but dominated by

exotic species. Offers habitat (cover and

forage) for exotic and perhaps common

native rodents, reptiles and frogs.

Cover noted to be sparse to open in the

adjacent forest to west and southwest – not

suitable cover for dependent species.

No significant value for cover-dependent

mammals such as Common Planigale and

Eastern Chestnut Mouse.

No significant source of seeds for

granivorous woodland birds.

Leaf litter

Very sparse and limited to proximity of large

trees. This increases slightly in the small

patch of M. quinquenervia in the west of the

site and in the Swamp Oak swamp forest.

No potential value to dependant species such

as Green-thighed Frog and Three-toed

Snake-toothed Skink; or fossorial threatened

species such as Long-nosed Potoroo.

Logs and debris

Mostly removed for firewood. Some

scattered old stumps etc.

Limited debris such as roofing iron on

ground, but abandoned dairy and feeding

shed contained a range of debris suitable for

common reptiles and exotic rodents.

No specific value to any threatened species

for refuge.


59



Occurrence

Hollows

As shown in Appendix 3 and the following

figure, at least 62 hollow-bearing trees occur

on site with hollows ranging from chimneys

extending from near ground level to the

crown; to hollows in limbs and trunk. Most

trees have multiple hollows. Many hollows

are a single extensive cavity (a pipe) with

several entrances. These are of limited value

and undermine structural integrity.

The relative abundance of hollow-bearing

trees on site is reflection of the fact that these

trees are vestigial remnants of the original

forest historically cleared to establish

pasture, and subsequently exposed to

processes which have encouraged hollow-

formation eg wind damage, stress due to

watertable and fertility changes, etc

(Gibbons and Lindenmayer 2002). Most of

these trees, especially the Forest Red

Gums, are in the last or approaching the last

stages of senescence ie beginning to shed

crown limbs. This and the extreme exposure

(via being in a very open woodland situation)

will see natural attrition of many of the trees

in the short to medium term especially via

storms.

As there is no recruitment, this will see

eventual loss of this habitat component

under the current landuse, with associated

impacts on local biodiversity ie increased

competition for a limited resource.

Hollows range in size to potentially suit a

broad range of threatened species, from

Yangochiropteran bats through the forest

owls.

However most are isolated from sufficient

support habitat, and competition in the

pastoral woodland is extreme, with common

woodland birds (Rainbow Lorikeets, Scaly-

breasted Lorikeets, Kookaburra, Wood

Duck), non-indigenous natives (eg Sulphur-

crested Cockatoo), Brushtail Possums, and

especially exotic birds (ie Starling and Indian

Mynas) clearly dominating the hollows.

Nest predation risk also likely to be very high

from Brushtailed Possums due to limited

forage options for these generalist

omnivores.


60



Occurrence

Nectar Sources

Forest Red Gum is key winter-spring

flowering tree for nectarivores, but their

location is likely to see dominance by

common woodland species eg lorikeets and

Noisy Miner. In the adjacent remnant forest

strips, other species occur in low abundance

including Tallowwood, Red Mahogany, Pink

Bloodwood, Grey Ironbark and Grey Gum.

These are mainly spring-summer flowering

species but provide some other support.

Broad-leaved paperbark flowers prolifically

in late summer to early winter (usually early

autumn).

Weeping Bottlebrush is a low value (limited

size flowers) spring nectar source. River

Bottlebrush occurs as a few shubs and small

trees established from adjacent residential

areas in the drain near the dam. These offer

low value only to agricultural woodland

specialists.

Range of foraging resources for Grey-headed

Flying Fox (recorded on site foraging) which

may form small part of local seasonal range.

Number of potential nectar sources for Little

Lorikeet, and Forest Red Gum is preferred by

the migratory Swift Parrot and Regent

Honeyeater, but likelihood of threatened birds

using site trees is limited by extreme

competition with common woodland birds

and harassment by Noisy Miner and Indian

Myna.

Nests

A number of bird nests were found

throughout the study area, including a large

raptor nest. The vast majority of these were

contributed to crow, magpie and butcherbird

nests due to their size and shape as well as

the abundance of these species in the area.

The large raptor nest in the west of the study

site was identified as an Eastern Osprey

(Pandion cristatus) nest, due to the presence

of two Osprey’s actively defending the nest

during the latter part of the survey (see

photos below).

Wattles, Melaleucas, Callistemons and Banksias

(shrub layer)

The site contains only a small number of

Sydney Wattles (Acacia longifolia) and

horticultural escapee River Bottlebrush

(Callistemon viminalis).

Some small tree/tall shrub varieties of

Melaleuca as well as Leptospermums also

occur, offering an insect attractant.

Due to low abundance of these species as

well as the high fragmentation, isolation and

small size of the remnant, these resources

have no likely value for threatened species

such as Squirrel Gliders.

Sap and gum sources

Forest Red Gums and Red Mahogany are

preferred sap source for gliders on site, but

no evidence of sap incisions were noted.

Adjacent to the site are other species eg Pink

Bloodwood, Grey Ironbark and Grey Gum.

No potential gum sources on site or in study

area (non-preferred wattle species).

No active sap incisions on site, and trees in

pastoral area far too isolated to be used.

Some old incisions noted in remnant forest

strips in western study area, but isolation of

this collective habitat from other forest and

insufficient extent precludes Yellow-bellied

Glider and severely limits Squirrel Glider -

which was not detected by previously survey

(Terra 2003).


61



Occurrence

Primary preferred

Koala browse trees

There are ~70-80 large Forest Red Gums

present on site, with more in the adjacent

strips of remnant forest to the southwest

and west.

Tallowwood occurs as a few trees in the

study area (southwest closed forest strip).

The Forest Red Gums found on the site were

searched for evidence of Koala scat, however

no scats of this species were found,

confirming survey of adjacent land to the

southeast which has similar habitat also

isolated from known Koala habitat.

The Melaleuca/Eucalyptus tereticornis

Closed Woodland in the study area has

previously been identified as Core Koala

Habitat (Terra 2003).

Allocasuarinas

Absent on site.

Few Black Oak (Allocasuarina littoralis)

found in the southwest strip of forest in the

study area.

Some potential foraging value for the Glossy

Black Cockatoo but very isolated from other

habitat. Unlikely to be used, although

potential nest sites offered by large tree

hollows in the remnant strips could be an

attraction if habitat occurred within sufficient

distance to the west. Brushtail Possum

predation however would be a key limitation

on breeding.

Aquatic

Comprised by the 2ha dam, and the

associated drain and dam/billabong, as well

the western drain.

Main dam offers excellent frog habitat due to

dense emergent vegetation and connectivity

to small remnant of swamp forest, but is

isolated from other significant habitat by

extensive pastoralism. Water quality was

good, but indeterminable if Plague Minnow

present. Only likely to be used by habitat

generalist frogs capable of persisting in

agricultural woodlands and urban areas.

Dam/billabong and associated drain offers

potential habitat for common frogs and

waterfowl, but exposed to edge effects eg

predation.

Western drain was shallow and prone to

drying out, and had minimal vegetative

cover. Not considered significant to frogs or

waterfowl.

Main dam and less so the drains and

billabong offer potential foraging habitat for a

number of migratory species such as Great

Egret (Ardea alba), Latham’s Snipe

(Gallinago hardwickii), and Cattle Egret

(Bubulcus ibis).

These areas also provides potential foraging

habitat for the Black-necked Stork

(Ephippiorhynchus asiaticus).

Marginal generic potential habitat for Green

and Golden Bell Frog in main dam but lack of

historical records in locality (OEH 2015a) and

failure by any survey to detect strongly

evidences not present. Similar for Green-

thighed Frog.

Area overall has been too modified to support

Wallum Froglet – no refuge habitat to north

on lower floodplain as converted to pasture.

Main dam too heavily vegetated, and drains

and billabong probably too low in quality and

too vegetated to be used by Southern Myotis.

Fruiting species

Nil aside from Camphor Laurel. Small potential for few larger trees to be used

by Grey-headed Flying Fox, but more likely to

be used by common woodland frugivores eg

Noisy Miner.


62



Occurrence

Passerine bird habitat

Understorey and dense shrub layer best

developed in western regrowth area, which if

allowed to regenerate, will expand the

carrying capacity of the habitat in the

adjacent closed forest which is the best

habitat in the study area. Rest of site

unsuitable or small isolates of habitat subject

to extreme edge effects.

Edge effects and isolation are however

overall major limitations on the potential

occurrence of passerine birds in the study

area, especially threatened species

(Lindenmayer and Fisher 2006).

No grassy woodland habitat nor significant

extent of coarse woody debris.

Very low abundance and diversity of small

passerines observed. Area dominated by

medium to large passerines typical of

agricultural woodland habitats.

Poor prey potential for raptors dependant on

smaller passerines.

Lack of sufficient habitat for threatened

passerines such as Varied Sittella.

No suitable habitat for grassy woodland

specialists.

Caves, cliffs, overhangs,

culverts, bridges, unused

buildings

Limited to agricultural sheds eg former

dairy, barn and various small sheds.

Very limited value for bats as most have

open roof hence offer limited cavities for

roosting.

Wader habitat

Main dam, drains and billabong on site offers

some marginal potential habitat for habitat

generalist species but not mudflats or

estuarine habitat.

Limited wader habitat on site. During wetter

seasons, the low lying portions of the

floodplain to the north would be more likely to

support these birds.

Terrestrial prey

Arboreal Prey

The site is largely void of potential habitat for

common terrestrial mammals, or at very high

predation risk if present (eg foxes). May be

Black Rats and House Mouse using sheds

and colonised the swamp forest in

southeast.

Arboreal prey on site likely to be limited to

Brushtail Possums, exotic rats and possibly

Sugar Glider in western study area.

Isolation of the habitat in the western study

area and associated edge effects suggests

terrestrial diversity would be very low.

Minimal prey for forest owls and Quoll.


63

Photo 7: Typical hollow bearing trees in pastoral areas


64

Photo 8: Eastern Osprey nest on Lot 16


65

Figure 8: Approximate location of hollow-bearing trees


66

Call Playback, Identification and Recording

5.3.2.1. Birds

Call playback failed to gain a response from any of the target species. A number of common birds were

detected by call identification (see following table).

5.3.2.2. Frogs

Frogs were observed and heard calling in relatively low abundance in the main wetland and from the

billabong, and around the former dairy in the east. Only the following common species were heard:

• Common Sedge Frog (Litoria fallax)

• Peron’s Tree Frog (Litoria peroni)

• Australian Green Tree Frog (Litoria caerulea)

5.3.2.3. Arboreal Mammals

No mammal species responded to call playback.

5.3.2.4. Yangochiropteran Bats

Bat activity was low, with most activity noted in the western end over the immature regrowth and the

interface with the adjacent remnant forest.

Yangochiropteran bat calls recorded during the survey were sent to Dr Anna McConville, Echo Ecology,

a recognised Yangochiropteran bat ecologist for identification. The results are shown in the table below.

Table 13: Yangochiropteran bat call identification

Note: # indicates species listed as Vulnerable on Schedule 2 of the TSCA Act 1995

Scientific Name Common Name Confidently

Identified

Not Confidently Identified

Gould’s Wattled Bat Chalinolobus gouldii ✓

Chocolate Wattled Bat Chalinolobus morio ✓

#Little Bentwing Bat Miniopterus australis ✓

Eastern Forest Bat Vespadelus pumilus ✓

Eastern Bentwing Bat Miniopterus schreibersii oceanensis ✓

#East Coast Freetail Bat Mormopterus norfolkensis ✓

Eastern Freetail Bat Mormopterus ridei ✓

Large Forest Bat Vespadelus darlingtoni ✓

Southern Forest Bat Vespadelus regulus ✓

Little Forest Bat Vespadelus vulturnus ✓


67

As shown in the table above, the Little Bentwing Bat ((V-TSCA) was confirmed foraging on the site during

the survey. The East-coast Freetail Bat (V-TSCA) was only a precautionary ‘possible’ due to the limited

sample and similarity with sister species, associated limitation of call identification (Reinhold et al 2001).

This species has been recorded in similar habitats (Churchill 2009, pers. obs.), and is considered a likely

potential occurrence.

Spotlighting

The occasional Grey-headed Flying Fox (Vulnerable TSCA & EPBCA) was observed flying over the site

during spotlighting and foraging in flowering eucalypts on the site.

Other fauna recorded during spotlighting were common species including Brushtail Possum, Eastern

Grey Kangaroo, Red-necked Wallaby, rabbits and a number of sleeping birds. Most of these species

were observed along the southern or western edges of the site.

Secondary Evidence

5.3.4.1. Trunk Scratches

Trunk scratches were very prevalent on almost all of the Forest Red Gums throughout the site. Due to

the size, depth and spread of the scratches present it was considered likely that these were from Brushtail

Possums and not from Koala’s.

5.3.4.2. Scats, Tracks and Bones

All Forest Red Gums found in the open pasture lands swamp forest were searched for Koala scats

without result. Brushtail Possum scats were found under the Forest Red Gums in the east, confirming

with previous survey of the adjoining land in Emerton Close.

For reference, 3 SAT surveys were conducted in the Melaleuca/Eucalyptus tereticornis woodlands in the

west of the study area as well as around the few mature Forest Red Gums which in the regenerating

swamp forest area. The SAT surveys resulted in zero scats being found and therefore a 0% activity

recorded.

The only other scats detected were of Eastern Grey Kangaroo and rabbit.

5.3.4.3. Chewed Allocasuarina Cones

Allocasuarina and Casuarina stands were searched throughout the field survey. No chewed cones

were recorded.

5.3.4.4. Sap Incisions

Al eucalypts on site were opportunistically searched however no sap incisions were found on site.

Old and some possibly active incisions were noted on gums in the strips of remnant forest in the

western study area. The Sugar Glider is considered likely to be the causal species given this species


68

can persist in more marginal habitats, but the isolation of this area will see eventual loss of any glider

species via inbreeding or stochastic events.

Opportunistic observations

5.3.5.1. Birds

A total of 24 bird species were recorded, either observed or identified from calls during the bird

surveys and opportunistically. No threatened species were recorded, however a few EPBCA

Migratory were recorded. Cattle Egret and Great Egret were observed around the dams and drains;

an Osprey nest on Lot 16; and a few Latham’s Snipe were flushed from the main dam during surveys.

The most significant record was of the Eastern Osprey (V-TSCA, M-EPBCA) nesting in a large,

isolated Forest Red Gum on Lot 16. This tree also had a crow nest with crows and an Australian

Kestrel roosting, however a pair of Osprey’s returned to defend the nest over the survey period.

Some fresh materials were noted on the nest, indicating it is active.

An abundance of Indian Mynas were noted around the dwelling and sheds in the eastern end of the

site, and these would be expected to dominate nesting opportunities in hollows. Two non-indigenous

Cacatua species were noted – one nesting. These have been established by artificial releases and

now compete with local indigenous natives for hollows.

Noisy Miners were noted in abundance. This species is listed as a Key Threatening Process

(NSWSC 2013), and hence is a strong negative influence on the occurrence of threatened woodland

and forest passerines eg Regent Honeyeater.

5.3.5.2. Reptiles

The Eastern Water Dragon, Dark-flecked Garden Sun Skink and Red-bellied Black Snake were

recorded opportunistically whilst conducting other surveys within the study site.

Reptile diversity and abundance was as expected very low due to the extent of habitat modification

and historical clearing, as well as very limited microhabitat eg fallen logs for refuge. Such features

are more common in the remnant strips in the western study area.

5.3.5.3. Mammals

A resident mob of Eastern Grey Kangaroo were noted in the western study area, and a Red-necked

Wallaby was disturbed in the southeast Swamp Oak forest.

Total Fauna Observed

The following table lists all the species confidently detected by this survey on and adjacent to the study

site (excluding Yangochiropteran bats due to call identification limitations).


69

Table 14: Fauna recorded on and adjacent to the site

Group Common Name Species Detection Method

Mammals

Eastern Grey Kangaroo Macropus giganteus Obs.

Red-necked Wallaby Macropus rufogriseus Obs.

*Grey-headed Flying Fox Pteropus poliocephalus Obs/Heard

Brushtailed Possum Trichosurus vulpecula Obs.

Birds

*Common/Indian Myna Acridotheres tristis Obs./call

Chestnut Teal Anas castanea Obs.

#Great Egret Ardea alba Obs./call

#Cattle Egret Bubulcus ibis Obs.

Sulphur-crested Cockatoo Cacatua galerita Obs./call

Little Corella Cacatua tenuirostris Obs./call

Australian Wood Duck Chenonetta jubata Obs.

Black-faced Cuckoo-shrike Coracina novaehollandiae Obs.

Australian Raven Corvus coronoides Call

Torresian Crow Corvus orru Call

Spangled Drongo Dicrurus bracteatus Obs.

White-faced Heron Egretta novaehollandiae Obs.

Galah Eolophus roseicapilla Obs./call

#Latham’s Snipe Gallinago hardwickii Obs./call

Magpie Lark Grallina cyanoleuca Obs.

Australian Magpie Gymnorhina tibicen Obs./call

Welcome Swallow Hirundo neoxena Obs.

Wonga Pigeon Leucosarcia melanoleuca Obs.

Noisy Miner Manorina melanocephala Obs./call

Golden Whistler Pachycephala pectoralis Call

*Eastern Osprey Pandion cristatus Obs./Nest

Eastern Rosella Platycercus eximius Obs./call

Grey Fantail Rhipidura albiscapa Obs.

Willie Wagtail Rhipidura leucophrys Obs./call

Scaly-breasted Lorikeet Trichoglossus chlorolepidotus Obs./call

Rainbow Lorikeet Trichoglossus moluccanus Obs./call

Reptiles Eastern Water Dragon Intellagama lesueurii Obs.


70

Group Common Name Species Detection Method

Dark-flecked Garden Sun

Skink

Lampropholis delicata Obs.

Red-bellied Black Snake Pseudechis porphyriacus Obs.

Amphibians

Eastern Sedge Frog/Dwarf

Green Tree Frog

Litoria fallax Call

Peron's/laughing Tree Frog Litoria peroni Call

Green Tree Frog Litoria caerulea call

Key: Bold: Vulnerable under TSCA + Vulnerable under EPBCA

* Indicates introduced species. # Migratory species

Locally Recorded Threatened Fauna

The following table lists threatened species known to occur in the locality (OEH 2015a, Terra 2003,

Naturecall 2014).

Table 15: Threatened species recorded in the locality

Group Common Name Species Legal Status

Distance From Study Site/General Location

Mammals

Koala Phascolarctos

cinereus V-TSCA

Within study area, adjacent

property

Spotted-tailed Quoll Dasyurus maculatus V-TSCA,

E-EPBCA Northwest of airport

Brushtailed

Phascogale Phascogale tapoatafa V-TSCA

Forest ~4km northwest of

site

Common Planigale Planigale maculata V-TSCA Halls Creek

Squirrel Glider Petaurus norfolcensis V-TSCA Cundletown

Little Bent-wing Bat Miniopterus australis V-TSCA Forest ~4km northwest of

site

Eastern Bent-wing Bat M. orianae oceanensis V-TSCA Forest ~4km northwest of

site

Grey-headed Flying

Fox

Pteropus

poliocephalus

V-TSCA,

V-EPBCA On site

Aves

Glossy Black-Cockatoo Calyptorhynchus

lathamii V-TSCA Northwest, Melinga

Square-tailed Kite Lophoictinia isura V-TSCA Forest ~4km northwest of

site

Powerful Owl Ninox strenua V-TSCA Forest ~4km northwest of

site


71

Group Common Name Species Legal Status

Distance From Study Site/General Location

Masked Owl Tyto novaehollandiae V-TSCA Taree

Varied Sittella Daphoenositta

chrysoptera V-TSCA

Forest ~4km northwest of

site

Eastern Osprey Pandion cristatus

V-TSCA,

Migratory-

EPBCA

On Site

Black Necked Stork Ephippiorhynchus

asiaticus E-TSCA North of site

White Tern Gygis alba

V-TSCA,

Migratory-

EPBCA

Chatham

Little Eagle Hieraaetus

morphnoides V-TSCA Halls Creek

The study area is located on land and does not encompass any ocean, thus sea birds and marine

mammals and reptiles are not considered in this assessment.

The following species are considered likely to occur in the locality (excluding sea birds, etc.) due to

suitable habitat and regional records in similar habitat (some have been recorded within 20km).

Table 16: Threatened fauna potentially occurring in the locality

* listed under the EPBC Act 1999.

Mammals

Rufous Bettong, Long-nosed Potoroo*, Yellow-bellied Glider, Eastern Chestnut Mouse,

Eastern Pygmy Possum, East-coast Freetail Bat, Greater Broad-nosed Bat, Eastern

False Pipistrelle, Yellow-bellied Sheathtail Bat, Eastern Blossom Bat, New Holland

Mouse*

Birds

Barking Owl, Sooty Owl, Grass Owl, Spotted Harrier, Flame Robin, Scarlet Robin,

Hooded Robin, Bush Stone-curlew, Grey-crowned Babbler, Brown Treecreeper,

Australasian Bittern*, Eastern Curlew*, Curlew Sandpiper*, Painted Snipe*, Brolga,

White-fronted Chat, Swift Parrot*, Regent Honeyeater*, Painted Honeyeater*

Reptiles Pale-headed Snake, Stephens Banded Snake, Three-toed Snake-tooth Skink*

Frogs Stuttering Frog*, Giant Barred Frog*, Wallum Sedge Frog*, Wallum Froglet, Green and

Golden Bell Frog*

5.4. Potential Occurrence Assessment

Each of the species listed in the above two tables and from the MNES search (DotE 2015b) have

been evaluated for their potential to occur on the study site/area, as well as for the likely significance

of the proposal and thus their eligibility for statutory assessment, in Appendix 1.

Animal Group Potentially Occurring Species


72

The following analysis details those species considered to have potential to occur at least as

infrequent foragers, based on the presence of suitable habitat, local records or records in similar

regional habitat, and sufficient connectivity. This analysis in line with DECC (2007) guidelines.

New South Wales

The following species listed under the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 are

considered to potentially occur in the study area:

Table 17: Threatened species potentially occurring on the site/study area

Species Occurrence Type Occurrence Likelihood

(See Appendix 1)

Square-tailed Kite

Potential to form minute portion of large

foraging territory. Generic potential nest trees.

Low to fair likelihood of occurrence

Little Eagle

Low potential to form minute portion of large

foraging territory as limited prey. Generic

potential nest trees.

Low chance as periodic forager as no

local records.

Powerful Owl

Study area contains broadly suitable foraging

habitat that may form small part of a territory

which would be very large. Unlikely to nest

due to isolation from expansive areas of

potential foraging habitat

Low chance of periodic forager.

Masked Owl

Study area contains broadly suitable foraging

habitat that may form small part of a territory

which would be very large. Unlikely to nest

due to isolation from expansive areas of

potential foraging habitat

Low to fair chance of periodic forager.

Varied Sittella

Remnant closed forest in study area with

immature swamp forest contains broadly

suitable foraging habitat but isolation

suggests.

Unlikely to low likelihood of occurrence

Glossy Black Cockatoo

Study area contains limited foraging habitat

that may be used as a minute part of a much

wider foraging range. Potential nest sites

unlikely to be used due to isolation from

foraging habitat.

Low likelihood of occurrence

Little Lorikeet

Site has potential foraging habitat which may

be used as a small part of a wider seasonal

foraging range. Potential nesting habitat

unlikely to be used due to competition with

common species.

Low likelihood of occurrence as seasonal

foraging.


73

Species Occurrence Type Occurrence Likelihood

(See Appendix 1)

Black-necked Stork

Main dam and drainage line has some

potential foraging which may be used as a

small part of a wider seasonal foraging range.

Low to fair likelihood of non-breeding

occurrence.

Koala

Study area has Core Koala Habitat identified

in the immediate vicinity. Western end of site

may form part of this area but no evidence of

activity. No Koalas detected by survey –

possibly locally extinct, or very small

population.

Low – no evidence of Koala usage on

site. Possibly locally extinct.

Squirrel Glider

Site offer some foraging and denning

opportunities with best potential in west due

to connectivity with about 30ha of mostly

intact forest. Lack of understory and distance

between Forest Red Gums in pasture lands is

a limiting factor.

Low likelihood of occurrence in the west

in the study area based in adjacent

remnant closed forest.

Eastern Bent-wing Bat

Suitable foraging habitat over parts of site and

potential non-breeding roosts in hollows.

Possibly recorded in Anabat analysis.

Low to fair chance foraging infrequently

over western end where habitat most

extensive in study area.

East-coast Freetail Bat


potential roosts in hollows. Possibly recorded

in Anabat analysis.

Low to fair chance foraging infrequently

over western end where habitat most


Greater Broad-nosed Bat


potential roosts in hollows.

Low chance foraging infrequently over

western end where habitat most


Yellow-bellied Sheathtail Bat


potential roosts in hollows.

Low chance foraging infrequently over

western end where habitat most


Commonwealth

The following species are considered by the DotE (2015b) Matters of National Environmental

Significance search tool as potential occurrences in the locality. Marine birds, mammals and reptiles

and all fish listed in the search are irrelevant as the site/study area does not contain habitat and the

proposal has no potential to impact these species.

5.4.2.1. Threatened Species

The following table summarises the species predicted by the search tool as potential occurrences,

and other species with potential to occur in the locality, for their potential to occur on site or in the

study area. The potential for these species to occur on the site is also reviewed in Appendix 1.

Constraints Assessment | Northern Gateway Project, Cundletown | October 2015

74

Table 18: EPBC Act threatened fauna species potential occurrence assessment

Note: Likelihood of occurrence derived from opinions of consultants in consideration of known ecology of each species (see Appendix 1); and quality of habitat on-site.

Birds

Regent

Honeyeater

Xanthomyza

phrygia CE N Few preferred foraging resources on site.

Unlikely to occur due to very limited area of

habitat; extreme edge effects including

Noisy Miners; and extreme rarity.

Painted

Honeyeater Grantiella picta V N No preferred foraging resources on site. Unlikely to occur

Australian

Painted Snipe

Rostratula

australis V N Large dam and lower floodplain to north.

Unlikely to very low chance of occurrence –

at best may occur in lower floodplain during

minor to major local flooding which sees

extensive inundation.

Red Goshawk Erythrotriorchis

radiatus E N

Generic potential habitat forming minute

fraction of such habitat.

Unlikely as not seen south of Clarence

River.

Eastern

Bristlebird

Dasyornis

brachypterus E N No suitable habitat. Unlikely to occur.

Curlew

Sandpiper Calidris ferruginea CE N No suitable habitat. Unlikely to occur.

Eastern Curlew Numenius

madagascariensis CE N Marginal potential habitat in large dam.

Unlikely to occur as habitat is isolated from

other potential habitat and only suitable for

temporary foraging.

Australasian

Bittern

Botaurus

poiciloptilus E N

Large dam offers generic potential

habitat.

Unlikely to occur as habitat is isolated from

other potential habitat and only suitable for

temporary foraging.

Group Common Name Scientific Name Listing Status

Recorded In Locality

(10km Radius)

Suitable Habitat On Site/Study Area Likelihood Of Occurrence


75

Swift Parrot Lathumus discolor CE N Few preferred foraging resources on site.

Unlikely to occur due to very limited area of

habitat; extreme edge effects including

Noisy Miners; and extreme rarity.

Mammals

Long-nosed

Potoroo

Potorous

tridactylus V N Very limited suitable habitat.

Unlikely potential to occur – no local

records, extreme edge effects and patchy

coastal records throughout its distribution.

Koala Phascolarctos

cinereus V Y

Preferred browse species present on site

and Core Koala Habitat has been

identified in neighbouring highly

connected remnant.

Recorded in study area in 2002. No

evidence on site. Possibly locally extinct.

Spotted-tail Quoll Dasyurus

maculatus E Y

Very minimal, poorly connected habitat in

study area

Unlikely to occur in study area as local

habitat too fragmented and major barriers

to movement, and foxes likely to be

present.

Grey-headed

Flying Fox

Pteropus

poliocephalus V Y

Eucalypts and Melaleucas on site

suitable for seasonal nectar foraging. Recorded on-site

Dwyer’s/Large

Pied Bat

Chalinolobus

dwyeri V N Generic forage habitat over forest.

Unlikely to occur due to lack of local

records.

Brushtailed Rock

Wallaby

Petrogale

penicillata V N

No suitable habitat in locality. Unlikely to occur.

New Holland

Mouse

Pseudomys

novaehollandiae E N

Site habitat too disturbed and adjacent is

not preferred type. Unlikely to occur.

Frogs

*Green and

Golden Bell Frog Litoria aurea V N Dams offer generic potential habitat

Unlikely to occur as no local records and

isolated habitat.

*Stuttering Frog Mixophyes balbus V N No suitable habitat Unlikely to occur


76

Wallum Sedge

Frog

Litoria

olongburensis V N

Large dam offers some marginal

potential but isolated from any suitable

habitat.

Unlikely to occur as no local records, not

recorded south of Coffs Harbour, and

isolated habitat.

*Giant Barred

Frog M. iteratus E Y No suitable habitat Unlikely to occur

Migratory Species

Four EPBC Act migratory species recorded on the site by the survey: Great Egret, Eastern Osprey, Little Egret and Latham’s Snipe.

A significant number of other EPBC Act 1999 listed migratory bird species are known (OEH 2015a) or considered potential occurrences in the locality (DotE

2015a). A search of the MNES website and literature review (Readers Digest 1990, DotE 2015b) also produced a list of likely occurrences.

All of these species plus some considered by the consultant as potential occurrences in the LGA in similar habitat to that on the site are also shown in the

following table, with an evaluation made on likelihood of occurrence based on cited ecology. Note this list excludes seabirds, etc, due to lack of habitat in the

study area, as detailed above.


77

Table 19: EPBC Act migratory species potential occurrence assessment

White-Bellied

Sea-Eagle

Haliaetus

benghalensis

Species and/or habitat likely

to occur within area N

No suitable foraging habitat on

site, some potential nesting

habitat.

Low likelihood of occurrence on site

– Osprey unlikely to tolerate

presence near nest.

Osprey Pandion cristatus - Y As for White-Bellied Sea-Eagle. Recorded on-site

Latham’s Snipe Gallinago

hardwickii

Species or habitat may occur

in area Y

Potential habitat in Freshwater

wetland EEC’s Recorded on-site

Australian

Painted Snipe

Rostratula

benghalensis

(australis)

Species and/or habitat may

occur in area N Large dam and lower floodplain

to north.

Unlikely to very low chance of

occurrence – at best may occur in

lower floodplain during minor to

major local flooding which sees

extensive inundation.

Eastern Curlew Numenius

madagascariensis Species and/or habitat may

occur in area N No suitable habitat. Unlikely to occur.

Curlew

Sandpiper

Calidris ferruginea Species and/or habitat may

occur in area N

Marginal potential habitat in large

dam.

Unlikely to occur as habitat is

isolated from other potential habitat

and only suitable for temporary

foraging.

Common Name Scientific Name Predicted Type of Occurrence

Recorded In Locality

(10km Radius)

Suitable Habitat On Site/Study Area Likelihood Of Occurrence


78

Cattle Egret Ardea ibis Breeding likely to occur in

area Y

General pasture land on site

provides potential foraging

habitat

Recorded on-site

Great Egret Egretta alba Species/habitat may occur in

area

Y

Potential foraging habitat in dams

and associated drain Recorded on-site

Rainbow

Bee-eater

Merops ornatus Species/habitat may occur in

area Y

Suitable foraging habitat over

western parts of the site but

isolation is a limitation.

Low to fair likelihood of occurrence

Regent

Honeyeater

Xanthomyza

phrygia

Species/habitat may occur in

area N Few preferred foraging resources

on site.

Unlikely to occur due to very limited

area of habitat; extreme edge

effects including Noisy Miners; and

extreme rarity.

Swift Parrot Lathumus

discolor

Species/habitat likely to occur

in area N Few preferred foraging resources

on site.

Unlikely to occur due to very limited

area of habitat; extreme edge

effects including Noisy Miners; and

extreme rarity.

Rufous Fantail Rhipidura

rufifrons

Breeding or breeding habitat

may occur in area Y

Marginal at best habitat in

western study area but isolated

from preferred habitat and

extreme edge effects.

Unlikely to occur.

Satin Flycatcher Myiagra

cyanoleuca


likely in area Y





Unlikely to occur.


79

Black Faced

Monarch

Monarcha

melanopsis


may occur in area Y





Unlikely to occur.

Spectacled

Monarch M. trivirgatus


likely in area Y





Low likelihood of occurrence

White-throated

Needletail

Hirundapus

caudacutus

Species/habitat likely to occur

in area Y Yes as part of a broader area

Fair, as transient, between Dec-

April

Fork-tailed Swift Apus pacificus Species/habitat may occur in

area Y Yes as part of a broader area

Fair potential, as transient,

between Oct-April


80

6.0 SEPP 44 - Koala Habitat Assessment

6.1. Potential Koala Habitat

Introduction

The identification of an area of land as Potential Koala Habitat is determined by the sufficient

presence of primary preferred Koala food tree species. These species are listed under Schedule 2

of SEPP 44: Koala Habitat Protection. Potential Koala Habitat is defined as areas where the tree

species listed under Schedule 2 constitute at least 15% of the total number of trees in the upper and

lower strata of the tree component.

The Schedule 2 Primary Preferred food species occurring in GTCC are: Tallowwood (Eucalyptus

microcorys), Swamp Mahogany (E. robusta), Scribbly Gum (E. signata), Grey Gum (E. punctata),

and Forest Red Gum (E. tereticornis).

Methods and Results

A Koala habitat assessment was carried out on the site during the field survey. A visual inspection

of the composition of canopy trees found that Forest Red Gum (Eucalyptus tereticornis) comprised

100% the upper tree stratum within at least 1ha of habitat eg the remnant trees in the southeast.

Conclusion

The site vegetation has readily met the 15% criterion to qualify as Potential Koala Habitat.

Consequently, Part 2 of the Policy legally applies, and formal assessment for presence of Core Koala

Habitat is required.

6.2. Core Koala Habitat Assessment

Overview of Koala Ecology

6.2.1.1. Diet

General

Koalas feed primarily but not exclusively on (and also intra-specifically, depending on poorly understood

edaphic, chemical and socio-behavioural factors) selected species of the genus Eucalyptus. Nationally,

they have been observed feeding or resting in at least 120 eucalypt species (~ 66 in NSW) and many

non-eucalypt species. In the Hastings and Macleay regions, a number of eucalypt species that are not

listed on Schedule 2 of SEPP 44 appear to be of some importance to Koalas including: E. amplifolia, E.

seeana and E. propinqua. Non-endemic species also used by Koalas in the area include E. nicholii and

Corymbia citriodora. Some non-eucalypt species reported to be used for feeding or shelter (some in this

region) include Angophora costata, Acacia mearnsii, A. melanoxylon, Allocasuarina torulosa, Bombax

malabrica, Lophostemon confertus, L. suaveolens, Exocarpus cupressiformis, Leptospermum

laevigatum, Melaleuca ericifolia, M. quinquenervia, Pinus radiata and Cinnamonum camphora (Martin

and Lee 1984, Kel Mackay pers. comm.). Koalas have also been observed using trees with dense foliage


81

or retreating to rainforest during adverse weather such as high temperatures, strong wind or heavy rain

(Jurskis and Potter 1997).

In general though, Koalas generally utilise a wide variety of non-preferred eucalypt species and non-

eucalypt species for supplementary food and shelter resources in any given area (as long as the

preferred browse species are present in the area). Work by Phillips and Callaghan (2001, 1995, 2011,

etc) and Phillips (eg Phillips 2005a, 2005b) have recorded a far wider range of non-eucalypt species via

faecal pellet surveys and field observations than reported by Martin and Lee (1984), although generally

with relatively low strike rates, with the exception of a small number of key shelter and/or supplementary

browse species.

Research by the Australian Koala Foundation (AKF) suggests that usage of habitat by Koalas may be a

function of the abundance of the preferred species. The AKF describes Primary Habitat as areas where

primary browse species are dominant, with their usage being independent of the species’ density.

However, in areas where primary tree species are poorly represented, secondary browse species and

Secondary Habitat may play the most significant role in sustaining local Koala populations (Mr John

Callaghan, pers. comm.).

A Koala food tree can often be identified by the presence of scats at its base, though such trees may

also be used for roosting. Contrary to a long held assumption though, observation of Koalas resting in a

tree does not always indicate it is a feed tree (Phillips 2000b, Biolink 2008, DECC 2008).

Koalas sometimes appear to prefer young leaves over mature leaves, and preferred foliage is thought

to have a threshold for minimum moisture content (which may vary seasonally) and nitrogen content

(Jurskis and Potter 1997, Pahl and Hume 1990). Other studies have also shown threshold levels for

essential oils, with preferred species having more volatile oils and less heavy oils (Hume 1995);

preferences for higher concentrations of crude protein, phosphorous and potassium, and lower

concentrations of fibre (Ullrey et al 1981); and more simple sugars and less complex sugars (Osawa

1993). These components all vary interspecifically and intraspecifically, and factors such as species,

age, size and crown condition also influence the physiological processes that ultimately affect nutritional

quality and palatability, especially in a suboptimal environment (Jurskis and Potter 1997). Other research

suggests that concentrations of plant chemical defences (especially diformyl-phloroglucinols or DFPs)

may be a key factor. Koalas may be selecting trees with lower concentrations of DFPs. This may help to

explain why Koalas appear to not only prefer particular Eucalyptus species, but also particular individual

trees, as DFP levels have been shown to vary intraspecifically as well as interspecifically (eg Anon 1999;

Moore et al. 2004).

Species, individual tree and foliage selection for browsing by Koalas hence, is still poorly understood. In

addition to the above, it also varies with season (which may be an indication of varying nutritional value),

as well as location (Koalas may feed on one particular species at a specific location, and ignore it at

another); and may also be influenced by local abundance of food species, as well as social organisation

of the population (Hindell and Lee 1990; Reed, Lunney and Walker 1990). As mentioned above,

nutritional quality of individual trees may also be a factor, with nutrition shown to vary inter and

intraspecifically (Braithwaite, Turner and Kelly 1983, Anon 1999).

Usage may also be determined by site-dependant edaphic factors eg soil type (Sharp and Phillips 1999;

Phillips and Callaghan 2000), which affects the nutrient quality of forage. A gradient in nutrient

concentration in soils and foliage is a major determinant of the distribution of arboreal fauna (Anon 1999,

Gibbons and Lindenmayer 2002). Forest consisting of primary browse species associations located on


82

deep, fertile soils on floodplains, in gullies and along watercourses are generally considered to provide

the highest quality Koala habitat.

Structural features may also be important in individual tree selection eg on hot days, Koalas are often

observed in trees with greater foliage cover. Large trees are thought by some researchers to be preferred

for their greater amount of foliage which reduces the need for returning to the ground to move to another

tree, and thus risking predator attack (Hindell and Lee 1990; Reed, Lunney and Walker 1990) although

research in other areas has found highest activity on younger trees eg 20-30cm trunk DBH (Mackay

1996) which could be a function of nutrition (eg varies with vigour/health or age) or forest structure (eg

age classes may have been modified by logging) (Jurskis and Potter 1997).

Research for the Pine Creek State Forest KPOM (Smith and Andrews 1997) found a preference for trees

with trunk DBH 40-100cm (and a dislike for <20cm DBH), while Lunney et al (1999) found a preference

for trees from 50-60cm DBH in the Coffs Harbour area.

Jurskis and Potter (1997) suggest that climbing “mechanics” may be a factor, as they found Koalas near

Eden to prefer trees 30-90cm diameter. They suggest Koalas climb more efficiently if tree diameter is

close to the combined reach of the forelegs, and are physically/mechanically disadvantaged when tree

width is significantly less than the Koala’s reach.

North Coast Preferred Species

Phillips (2000a) produced a list of Primary, Secondary and Tertiary preferred browse species per Koala

Management Area for NSW, which are detailed in the Koala Recovery Plan (DECC 2008). For the North

Coast Management area, the following table lists the species considered as Primary, Secondary and

Tertiary Species that occur in the LGA. Species used to map Koala habitat in the GTCC LGA in the draft

CKPoM (AKF 2002) are also listed.

The significance of this information is that several of the species previously considered (mostly on the

basis of observation of Koalas within these trees) to be Primary Preferred Browse Species in some areas

of the mid-north coast (eg Connell Wagner 2000a, 2000b), such as Blackbutt and Melaleuca

quinquenervia, are not listed even as Tertiary species in the Recovery Plan. Most significantly, Scribbly

Gum (E. signata), currently listed as a Primary Preferred Browse Species under SEPP 44, is not listed,

while two other species not listed in Schedule 2 are considered Primary Browse.

The basis of the Koala Recovery Plan food tree species list also refutes the assumption that the

observation of a Koala within a specific tree can be considered a reliable indicator of the tree being a

preferred food species (DECC 2008e, Phillips 2000a, 2000b). This dismissal of such species has been

further reiterated in studies for UIA 13 – Thrumster (Biolink 2008, 2003) and other areas (Biolink 2013,

2005a, 2005b, 2005c). Personal communication with Dr Phillips led to advice following extensive work

in the Hastings Valley, that species such as Blackbutt and Melaleuca quinquenervia are often in

association with preferred species such as Tallowwood and Swamp Mahogany, and hence Koala use

of these non-browse species was considered to be either due to non-foraging purposes (eg shelter) or

detection of scats falling from the adjacent food tree.


83

Table 20: Preferred Koala browse species in the GTCC coastal LGA

(Source: Phillips 2000a cited in DECC 2008, *AKF 2002)

However, Scribbly Gum and other species such as Broad-Leaved Paperbark may be used intensively in

some situations even constituting Core Koala Habitat as found by this consultant (Darkheart 2004m,

2004q), and Dr Phillips acknowledges that while these species may not be preferred, they can be eaten

and hence form part of their diet. Consequently, it is considered by this consultant that each site should

be treated individually, in order to encompass the full range of habitats and browse species utilised by

Koalas, the circumstances they exist in, and the complexity of Koala socio-ecology (Biolink 2008, 2005a,

2005b, 2005c, 2003, DECC 2008e).

6.2.1.2. Population and Lifestyle Characteristics

Koalas are solitary, and territorial (particularly males), yet live in established, sedentary polygynous

breeding aggregates arranged in a matrix of overlapping home ranges, whose size varies according to

sex (males tend to be larger so that they overlap the ranges of several females), and carrying capacity

of the habitat (usually measured in terms of density of primary browse species) (Phillips and Callaghan

1995). These aggregates generally consist of an alpha (dominant) male and at least 2-4 females and

their offspring (juveniles and/or sub-adult Koalas) of varying stages of maturity and independency

(Phillips 1997).

Adult Koalas appear to generally avoid each other, except during mating season (generally warmer

months from Spring, but as early as July-August) when the males actively seek females, with most births

occurring late November-March (Martin and Lee 1984). Social cohesion is maintained in a population by

interactions through common tree usage, scent marking, vocalisations and agonistic behaviour patterns

(Phillips 1997).

Primary Secondary Tertiary

*Tallowwood

(E. microcorys)

*Small Fruited Grey Gum

(E. propinqua)

White Stringybark

(E. globoidea)

*Forest Red Gum

(E. tereticornis)

Large-fruited Grey Gum

(E. biturbinata)

Blue-Leaved Stringybark

(E. agglomerata)

*Swamp Mahogany

(E. robusta)

Narrow-Leaved Red Gum

(E. seeana)

*Red Mahogany

(E. resinifera)

Cabbage Gum

(E. amplifolia)

Red Mahogany

(E. resinifera)

*Narrow-Leaved Red Gum

(E. seeana)

Grey Box

(E. moluccana)

Broad-leaved White Mahogany

(E. umbra)

Slaty Red Gum

(E. glaucina)

Spotted Gum

(Corymbia maculata)

*Grey Ironbarks:

E. placita

E. paniculata,

E. siderophloia

*Thin-Leaved Stringybark

(E. eugenioides)


84

A Koala may live for around 15 years (especially females), with breeding for most females occurring at

3 years, and for males about 4 years (when they reach a sufficient size to defend a territory) (Martin and

Lee 1984). Young remain in the pouch for 5-6 months, and associate with the mother until at least about

11 months (and up to 2 years), after which they disperse into a population.

Female Koalas do not necessarily breed every year; perhaps due to the dependence on quality foraging

resources (dependant on a variety of factors eg seasonality and condition of habitat), density of other

breeding females/competition for resources, demand for high site philopatry (movement is restricted to

known areas within their home range with high quality forage potential required for lactation), and the

physiological demand of raising offspring (Phillips 1997).

Young, sub-dominant and senescent males are often forced into secondary habitats by dominant males.

Such habitat is generally located on the outer periphery of the core breeding/high quality habitat, and

characterised by poorer soils, greater disturbance, and lower frequency/poorer condition of preferred

browse species (Martin and Lee 1984). These animals have more ephemeral home ranges, sometimes

moving between established populations, which is desirable for maintaining genetic flow. Consequently

though, this group has a higher mortality rate (Phillips 1997).

6.2.1.3. Home Range and Home Range Trees

Home Range

A home range is the territory of a single Koala, usually occupied for at least several years, or more

commonly throughout its life (Phillips 1997, Sharp and Phillips 1999). Size may vary from a hectare to

hundreds of hectares (eg Jurskis and Potter 1997 report home ranges of 38-520ha, with average of

169ha, near Eden); varying with habitat quality (eg if primary browse species dominate the tree

component, home range size is expected to be small and carrying capacity high), sex (males have larger

territories and may make forays into other areas), age of the animals (eg sub-adults versus adults), and

location (Jurskis and Potter 1997, Phillips 1997, Sharp and Phillips 1999).

Home range and hence Koala density varies per region due to the above factors. For example, Jurskis

and Potter (1997) collated Koala densities from Queensland to Victoria, and showed Koala density

ranging from 0.006-7.5 Koalas/ha. Koalas have been recorded at very low densities in areas as a result

of dispersed food resources, semi-arid climatic conditions, and possibly due to historical disturbances eg

clearing of fertile lands for agriculture (eg Jurskis and Potter 1997). Within such large home ranges, a

few specific areas may be subject to a relatively higher level of use, while others are less commonly used

(Jurskis and Potter 1997).

As mentioned previously, the alpha male would be expected to have a relatively large home range to

overlap with those of several females, thus he may include secondary (lower quality) habitat within his

home range to achieve this. The alpha male’s home range is also vigorously defended from other males

to ensure rights to food resources and females (Phillips 1997).

Dispersing individuals of both sexes may travel and are also capable of traversing large distances,

depending on demand (eg up to 50km over a few weeks or months), which is more often driven by the

need to find other Koalas (ie to mate), than potential habitat (Phillips 1997). Movements, distances and

reasons for such are considered complex and poorly understood (Dr Steven Phillips, pers. comm.).

Distance travelled per day will vary with many factors such as topography, distance between forage

trees, season/climate, breeding state, and threats. Koalas have been recorded moving from 10m to

several hundred metres during the day, and >1.3km overnight when they are typically more active


85

(Jurskis and Potter 1997, Kel Mackay pers. comm.). Movement is greatest during the breeding season,

especially by males (Kel Mackay, pers. comm.), with a female recorded moving 2.6km out of its range

to mate, presumably in response to male territorial calls, and returned to its home range (Lee and Martin

1998, Lee et al 1998).

Home Range Trees

Within a home range, a few specific trees (home range trees) are used by Koalas to mark territories and

identify individual Koalas. Such trees are recognisable by heavy scratching and collections of scats close

to the tree base, and may also have significant forage value (Phillips and Callaghan 1995, Hume 1989).

Male Koalas may leave their scent by rubbing the gland on their chest against the bark. Koalas frequently

return to these trees, or deliberately seek them out during travel (Koalas have been recognised to have

the ability to know where they are and return to a discrete location (Phillips 1997).

Such trees are very important as they maintain social cohesion through identification of population

members and assist geographical location (Phillips 1997, Sharp and Phillips 1999).

Site Core Koala Habitat Assessment

Information to determine if a resident population of Koalas exists on the site was obtained by direct survey

of the site using standard survey techniques (direct survey of Koalas, call playback, scat searches, and

tree usage/activity assessment) and review of other relevant published information and database

records.

6.2.2.1. Literature Review

Database Records

Bionet (OEH 2015a) records 60 Koalas in the locality (see Figure 9). The overwhelming majority are

located north of Taree, and considered remote to the site due to physical barriers including the river,

extensive pastoral land, and urban areas.

There are 7 records within the Cundletown area. All but one are from a community survey, and are listed

as having a 10km accuracy, hence have limited precision, and may be multiple sightings of the same

Koala/s, which is a limitation of such surveys (Wilkes and Snowden 1998, Connell Wagner 2000a,

Lunney et al 2009, Biolink 2013).

The single record from an OEH license dataset is from 2002, and is the Terra (2003) record, adjacent to

which is a community record detailing Koala sightings from 1980-2004. All of the community records

range from 1980 to 2006, with most recording sighting Koalas in 2004-2006.

Other Sources

A review of Koalas In Care (KiC) newsletters noted two females being recorded in Cundletown in 2012.

This suggests that a small aggregate may still be persisting in the Cundletown area, despite apparent

habitat limitations and high risks eg vehicle strike.


86

The southern half of the adjacent remnant of Melaleuca/Forest Red Gum closed forest to the south of

Lot 16 has been previously identified by Terra Consulting (2003) as Core Koala Habitat. Terra reported

survey of 52 trees for evidence of Koala usage, and recorded high activity levels (assumedly based on

application of the Spot Assessment Technique). They also recorded a single male Koala, and suggested

that smaller scats indicated a sub-adult Koala.

In survey of Lot 17 DP 856622, and Lots 44 & 46 DP 1191326 to the southeast of the site (Naturecall

2014), and the eastern end of the current site, numerous scats were found of varying ages and sizes,

but all were considered to be of a resident colony of Brushtail Possums due to the shape, content and

often smell. It was noted than some scats could be confused with the Koala, but microscope inspection

detected materials such as hair and insect residues, and fresh scats were collected for review the

morning after possums were seen. This confirmed the scats were not of the Koala via their consistency

in shape, content and smell with the range of scats found.

6.2.2.2. Methods and Field Survey Results

Methods

The site was surveyed for Koalas by the following methods:

• Opportunistic observations over 3 days and 4 nights,

• Scat searches under a majority of potential Koala food trees,

• Spot Assessment Technique (SAT) at 2 locations over the site and one reference site in the

study area (latter chosen due to local concentration of key food trees eg Tallowwood, and

hence best chance of detecting Koala activity).

• Spotlighting and call playback over 4 nights,

• Searches for definitive Koala scratches.

Searches for scats consisted of checking the ground and leaf litter in a 2m radius around a designated

tree. This technique is recognised as a very efficient method of detecting Koala presence, and in some

instances, is a method used to identify areas of major Koala activity/significance eg Core Koala Habitat

(Phillips and Callahan 1995, 2000, Biolink 2009, 2005a, 2005b, Jurskis and Potter 1997, NPWS 2001,

2004a).

The survey was intended to be prolonged to maximise potential for detection. The survey also occurred

in the early stages of the Koala breeding season, which is the peak period for Koala activity and likelihood

of detection.

This technique is limited by the following factors:

• Scat life – scats naturally deteriorate over time due to insect attack, weather condition (eg

rain), fire (though scats have been recorded surviving wildfire) and other disturbances eg

mowing and slashing, bulldozing, etc.

• Groundcover/leaf litter density: Scats may be hidden in dense groundcover or leaf litter, or

searches may be physically impossible in areas of tall, dense groundcover, or

waterlogged/swampy areas.

• Identification: The observer must be able to identify Koala scats and scratches from other

scats and scratches.


87

Figure 9: Local Koala records

site


88

Figure 10: SAT locations


89

• Bark type: Rough barked trees do not show evidence of scratch marks like smooth barked

gums, thus identification or even detection of climbing may not be determinable. Scratch

marks are not usually obvious on Tallowwood unless the tree is heavily used, for example a

home range tree

Koala Observations and Call Playback Response

As noted above, the site and study area was surveyed for Koalas via spotlighting for 4 nights and 3 days

spread over 2 weeks, which coincided with the Koala breeding season.

No Koalas were observed on site or in the study area, nor was any response made to call playback,

which was undertaken to ensure all habitat on site and in the study area was sampled. Similarly,

spotlighting included a check of emergent canopy trees visible from the immature swamp regrowth edge

for Koalas. Residents on site also reported a lack of sighting any Koalas.

Scats and Scratches/Activity Levels

(i) Scats:

Every Koala food tree on site was searched for scats within a 2m radius of the trunk base.

Numerous scats were found mostly in the eastern pastoral woodland adjacent to Emerson Close, but

these were all considered to be of the resident Brushtail Possums due to their irregular shape, tendency

to clump together, smell, and presence of hairs and occasional insect remnants.

No Koala scats were found in the SAT sample in the study area.

(ii) Scratches:

As for scats, several trees in the eastern end were well-scratched, suggesting Koala usage. These trees

however were den trees of the Brushtail Possum, as confirmed by stag watches.

(iii) Activity Levels:

Standard procedure when assessing a site for Core Koala Habitat is to utilise the Spot Assessment

Technique (Phillips and Callaghan 2011) to determine if the site contains and area of major activity (an

indication of resident Koalas).

Failure to detect Koala scats determined that an activity level of 0% was recorded.

6.2.2.3. Distribution of Koala Populations, Site Context and Linkages

Regional and Local Government Area Distribution of Koalas

(i) Regional Distribution of Koalas

Koala numbers have declined throughout most of their previous range in NSW, with the main

occurrences being in the northeast of the state (DECC 2008). Most coastal populations now persist in

fragmented and isolated areas of habitat (predominantly secondary class A with some localised primary

areas supporting high density populations), with extensive areas of potential habitat appearing to be

devoid of Koalas (DECC 2008). In contrast, some well-known western populations appear to be

increasing. The difference is considered to primarily be due to increasing development pressure eg from

agriculture and urban expansion in the coastal region (DECC 2008, AKF 2008, 2007).


90

In the north coast and mid-north coast regions, areas with large numbers of records are restricted to

localities such as Ballina, Port Stephens, Port Macquarie, Coffs Harbour, Tweed and Lismore (Connell

Wagner 2000b, Lunney et al 1999, Port Stephens Council 2001, DECC 2008, AKF 2008, 2007). The

NSW Koala Recovery Plan (DECC 2008) notes that in addition to these major population centres are

numerous small populations many of which are disjunct to urban and rural development, as well as

natural barriers (DECC 2008).

(ii) Distribution and Abundance of Koalas in the GTCC LGA:

Figures 11 and 12 shows Koala records in the Greater Taree LGA have a contagious distribution, with

the highest number of records coinciding with human settlement patterns (including roads). This pattern

is typical of Koala records (Lunney et al 2009, Lunney et al 1999, Connell Wagner 2000a), often being a

combination of observer bias (eg high density of observers, multiple records of same Koalas) and human

settlement occurring in prime Koala habitat (eg fertile soils). Other records are centred in State Forests

and state conservation reserves, with scant records in the more heavily cleared rural areas.

This figure suggests that the GTCC Koala populations are generally in the following localised areas:

• West and north Taree to Wingham to Brimbin, and Yarratt State Forest/Goonook National

Park.

• Kiwarrak State Forest/Talawahl Nature Reserve.

• Nowendoc National Park and associated State Forests.

• Lansdowne State Forest

• Crowdy Bay National Park

• Halliday’s Point area

Connectivity between the GTCC Koala metapopulation however is clearly constrained by large areas of

cleared land, and natural physical barriers such as the Manning River.


91

Figure 11: GTCC LGA Koala records 2015

© OEH 2015


92

Figure 12: Coastal GTCC Koala records 2015

© OEH 2015

site

Constraints Assessment | Northern Gateway Project, Cundletown | April 2016

93

Linkages and Site Context

Figure 12 shows the coastal distribution of Koalas in the GTCC LGA. This figure further reinforces the

clustering of records associated with human settlement patterns, but also illustrates both the key

population centres and the contagious nature of records. The latter as noted above, also reflects the

history of habitat and hence population fragmentation and isolation of Koalas in the GTCC LGA, as noted

by the AKF (2002).

The key linkage in this coastal context for the largest GTCC population is clearly to the west and north

of Taree to Wingham via the Brimbin to Yarratt State Forest/Goonook National Park corridor, which links

to the upper Hastings. Some regional connectivity also occurs along the northern boundary of the LGA

to the coast, but hinterland to coast linkages west and south of Taree are constrained by cleared rural

land and physical barriers.

In a local context from the point of view of a local breeding aggregate, it is very clear from aerial photos

that habitat east of the airport is effectively limited by poor local connectivity to the chevron-shaped strip

of remnant forest and associated pastoral woodland in the study area, and the urban woodland of

Cundletown village itself.

The approximately 30ha remnant in the study area is the relatively more significant area in this context,

as demonstrated by previous findings of Terra (2003) of significant activity levels and an adult male

Koala; and an inspection noted Forest Red Gum to dominate the emergent tree layer, with a few other

Koala browse species scattered on the southern margins eg Grey Ironbark, Red Mahogany and

Tallowwood. This remnant is however effectively separated from habitat west of the airport by at least

400m of open land and security fencing around the airport; and a gap about 200m of open ground from

Cundletown to the south. The gap to the south while exposed, is considered reasonable for a Koala to

cross, but to navigate around the airport, Koalas would have to get around the northern end of the airport

and use remnants and pastoral woodland in the small acreage area on the western side of the airport,

with associated risks of dogs and traffic.

While the Koala will use scattered trees in a pastoral woodland in some situations (eg intervening trees

between proximate remnants), the majority of primary browse species on site occur over 800m east

across mostly open paddock with scattered trees, aside from two small forest remnants in the southeast

which could offer temporary refuge. A Koala crossing such expanse of open ground would be exposed

to predation risk eg Wedge-tailed Eagles, foxes and domestic dogs; and also very visible to human

detection. This and the lack of a residential Koala population thus provide limited incentive for Koalas to

move east.

Urban woodland within Cundletown was also noted via a drive-by inspection to contain only very limited

preferred browse species (with the most significant being a clump of Tallowwoods on the northwest

corner within range of the nearby area of known Koala habitat), and hence a very low carrying capacity.

This is in stark contrast to urbanised Koala populations in areas such as Port Macquarie and Coffs

Harbour which have a range of urban remnants enclosed within the township and an urban woodland

with numerous Koala food trees. This reinforces the likelihood that the Melaleuca/Forest Red Gum

closed forest remnant in the west of the study area is likely to comprise the majority of habitat used by a

local Koala aggregate; but also that the local area has extremely limited capacity to support viable Koala

aggregate in the long term.


94

Aside from attempting to directly cross the airstrip or circle around its northern end, an alternative but

very tenuous route for dispersing Koalas to leave or enter the area would be along Lansdowne Rd to

Main Street in Cundletown. There are however very few trees here until the western side of Cundletown

is reached (and here they are rare and mostly non-browse). In addition to walking over open ground for

some time, a Koala would have to navigate the roundabout a busy road. The KiC 2012 newsletter records

a Koala being retrieved due to risk of vehicle strike in Cundletown, indicating the mortality threat.

Another also tenuous option would be for Koalas to follow the increasingly sparse riparian vegetation

from the northern limits of Dawson River, to Cundletown. Barriers to this route comprise fences and

Manning River Drive/Main St, and this route is slightly less arduous than coming down Lansdowne Rd.

Overall thus, movement across or around the airport and across extensive pasture to Cundletown from

other Koala habitat to the far west and northwest, would thus be unlikely to be regular: at most being a

sub-adult male seeking a new home range after being driven out of Core Koala Habitat to the west.

In summation, the study area and Cundletown area have both limited carrying capacity and very poor

connectivity to known Koala habitat. This means that resident Koalas would be significantly challenged

in maintaining long term viability by both genetic bottlenecks and maintaining recruitment/mortality

equilibrium in an environment of low carrying capacity and high mortality threat from vehicles and dogs

(DECC 2008, McAlpine et al 2007, AKF 2007, Smith and Smith 1990, Lunney et al 2002, Lunney et al

2007, DEC 2003)

Discussion and Conclusion

SEPP 44 defines Core Koala Habitat as “an area of land with a resident population of Koalas, as

evidenced by attributes such as breeding females (that is, females with young) and recent sightings of

and historical records of a Koala population”. The attributes are provided as examples of only some of

characteristics a Core Koala Habitat may demonstrate, and thus to meet the definition of Core Koala

Habitat, a site does not necessarily need to show all of these attributes, and may even show other

evidence indicating the site is Core Koala Habitat.

In regards to the two identified attributes though, the following is provided:

1. “Breeding females (that is, females with young)”. No female with young were recorded by this

survey, nor are there other records indicating previous sightings. No territorial calls of Koalas

have been reported, and no response was made to call playback despite playback occurring in

the Koala breeding season, and the most significant local habitat in the Cundletown area being

surveyed (ie the strips of remnant forest in the western study area). This suggests breeding does

not occur on site or in the study area.

2. “Recent sightings and historical records of a Koala population”. Koala records in the Cundletown

area are limited in age and extent, and localised: suggesting Koalas may occur in low abundance

or appear sporadically, and are at high risk of local extinction. No evidence of Koalas was found

on site, and the last reported sighting in the study area was 2003.

In addition to the above, the failure to detect Koala scats led to the default finding of no activity via the

Spot Assessment Technique.


95

This combined evidence thus leads to the conclusion that the site is not Core Koala Habitat.

Consequently, a Koala Plan of Management is not required.

The other outcome of this assessment suggests that the remnant strips of forest in the study area no

longer support a Koala population and are no longer Core Koala Habitat. This would need to be

confirmed by a corresponding survey of Cundletown and a systematic search for Koala scats in the

remnant strips, but it is possible that the local aggregate has become extinct due to gradual attrition (eg

old age, vehicle strike, relocation), and lack of new recruits eg lack of a dominant male could prevent

breeding (DECC 2008, Phillips 2000b, AKF 2007). Such outcomes for small populations have occurred

in other areas and are typical of Koala decline (DECC 2008, AKF 2007, 2002).

7.0 Constraints Identification and Development Opportunities

As detailed previously, the objective of this assessment was to identify ecological constraints of the

site and study area, to assist in identification of development opportunities over the approximately

67.09ha site.

The identified constraints to future development are described and categorised below.

7.1. Constraints Assessment

Based on ecological values (or lack of) as detailed, the study site has been separated into nil, low,

medium and high constraint, as shown in Figure 13. Figure 14 shows the potential maximum

development which may occur with cognisance of the key constraint and current statutory

exemptions and controls.

Nil Constraint

Land mapped as nil constraint is of very low to no ecological value as it:

• Is simply pasture.

• Is not EEC (occurs above the 1:100 ARI).

• Is not used by Koalas, or likely to be used as part of previously identified Core Koala Habitat.

• Does not contain critical breeding habitat ie Osprey nest.

• Lacks hollow-bearing trees, or such trees are isolated single trees in a paddock isolated from any

support habitat.

• Recovery potential is negligible due to historical and on-going landuses and management

practices on site and in the study area.

• Edge effects and Key Threatening Processes are extreme.


96

Low Constraint

The area of low constraint generally runs along the northern site boundary, within the 1:100 ARI.

This area is characterised by open improved pasture with scattered old growth Forest Red Gums,

Swamp Oak and Broad-leaved Paperbark. Some parts of this area are very highly disturbed Coastal

Floodplain EECs, with floristic elements reduced to single trees and/or a few common herbs and

sedges, and insufficient recruitment. These areas are currently subject to grazing, pasture

improvement and maintenance which effectively prevents effective regeneration. Consequently

floristic and fauna diversity is minimal and limited to generalist species. Hence despite the underlying

edaphic conditions associated with this EEC, ecological processes are disrupted. The EEC here is

thus considered dysfunctional and non-viable in the long term, and will progressively decline to

extinction under the current landuse

Potential Koala Habitat occurs in parts of this area, but consists of isolated or scattered trees, and

many are senescent trees. All show no usage (most likely due to isolation). Most of these trees are

located hundreds of metres from reported Core Koala Habitat, with minimal if any likelihood of being

used by Koalas due to a range of limitations and threats eg exposure to predators such as dogs and

raptors.

Hollow-bearing trees also occur in this area, but are highly senescent trees with limited life span with no

recruitment, hence this habitat component will progressively become extinct in the short to medium term

via natural attrition eg storms. Only common and introduced species (eg Indian Myna) are known or

expected to use this habitat component due to their location and extent of local habitat modification.

Several Key Threatening Processes are active here (eg NSWSC 2013, 2004j, 2000b); and edge

effects are extreme (Lindenmayer and Fisher 2006, Ford 1993).

Medium Constraint

An area in the far west of the study site has been identified as having medium constraint.

There are two key factors which contribute to this area being mapped as medium level of constraint:

• Includes a patch of relatively good condition Swamp Sclerophyll Forest on Coastal

Floodplains EEC.

• The northwestern part of this area has been identified as a complex of regenerating Coastal

Floodplain EECs, demonstrating excellent resilience to historical disturbances, a viable

seedbank, and functioning ecological processes. The regeneration in the area includes E.

tereticornis, which is a Schedule 2 primary browse species for the Koala, and lies adjacent

to the area identified as containing Core Koala Habitat. Hence if the latter status remains

valid, this area could be important to increasing the viability of this aggregate.

Notwithstanding these values, aside from a handful of remnant trees, the patch of Paperbark swamp

forest and perhaps the line of Swamp Oak along the drain, the regrowth can be cleared and the area

cultivated under the Routine Agricultural Management Activities exemptions under the Native Vegetation

Act 2003. This would see the area relegated to low constraint aside from the mature swamp forest patch.


97

7.1.3.1. Maintenance of Coastal Floodplain EECs Diversity and Viability

The northern half of the area mapped as medium constraint fits the floristic and geomorphological

criteria of the EEC - Subtropical Coastal Floodplain Forest and the EEC – Swamp Sclerophyll Forest

on Coastal Floodplains. This area, unlike the area mapped as low constraint, shows excellent

regeneration potential despite historical pastoralism, and it is clear that a seedbank is still present

and ecological processes which define this EEC are functional.

The regeneration of this area provides an offset to development of the remainder of the medium

constraint area which as noted above, can be re-cleared and cultivated under the current zoning (as

can the northern area). Hence allowing the northern and western area to regenerate is a

compromise.

This regeneration will assist long term genetic viability by increasing both the extent and genetic

diversity of the floristic assemblage of these EECs in the west, and providing more functional support

habitat for fauna indicative of this EEC.

7.1.3.2. Koala Food Trees and Core Koala Habitat

As noted above, part of the Melaleuca/Forest Red Gum closed forest in the study area has been

previously identified as Core Koala Habitat. Assuming this remains a fact, it is necessary to address

the objectives of SEPP 44 and address factors which threaten the viability of the local population

and assist recovery.

The medium constraint area adjoins the identified Core Koala Habitat, and adjacent areas contain

many regenerating E. tereticornis and other Eucalyptus sp. Allowing the regeneration of this area

adjacent to the existing remnant will both increase connectivity and also carrying capacity, hence

potentially increasing carrying capacity for the local Koala population.

This issue may not be a constraint in this aspect however if further survey is undertaken to re-

evaluate the assessment of Core Koala Habitat in the adjacent forest remnants. As noted above,

this assessment found no signs of the Koala by methods which should have detected Koalas in the

study area eg call playback in the breeding season. This suggests the local aggregate may have

become locally extinct, or was using habitat in another part of its range at the time eg in Cundletown.

Hence should further study determine the local population is extinct, there is limited justification for

regenerating this area for the Koala, as given the limited carrying capacity, isolation and threats (eg

vehicle strike and domestic dog attack), long term viability is unlikely, and the area would only

function as a sink for recruits (Lunney et al 2007, DECC 2008).

Notwithstanding these potential values, it also has to be acknowledged that this regrowth can be cleared at any given time under RAMA exemptions under the Native Vegetation Act 2003.


98

Figure 13: Ecological constraints mapping of the site


99

Figure 14: Potential development and conservation areas


100

High Constraints

High constraint areas are as follows:

• Eastern Osprey nest and associated buffer zone.

• EEC with high value and unable to be offset on site.

7.1.4.1. EEC - Freshwater Wetland on Coastal Floodplains

This EEC appears to occur within at least part of the large dam where it is very high quality condition;

and in very low condition in the downstream drainage line/depression which has been degraded by

drainage and grazing, and hence unlikely to recover.

Based on current information, the local occurrence of this EEC is largely restricted to the site, hence

the most intact and viable portion is mapped as high constraint primarily for this reason..

Should the high value EEC area be retained on site, indirect impacts and edge effects must be

controlled. Stormwater runoff can pose a potential impact to the Freshwater Wetland EEC, and

hence any stormwater runoff which flows into the EEC must be of sufficient quality to ensure that

elevated nutrient levels and eutrophication does not occur.

Rehabilitation around the margins of the dam to provide biological and mechanical filtration of water

before it enters the EEC is also recommended. A fully vegetated buffer (at least 30m from top of

bank each side) to increase resilience against edge effects is suggested.

7.1.4.2. Eastern Osprey Nest

The Eastern Osprey is listed a Vulnerable under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995

and as a Migratory species under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Act

1999.

A standard buffer generally comprising a 100m radius of the nest with no buildings or source of

disturbance is preferred for nests (Clancy 1991), and hence this buffer is mapped as high constraint.

The Osprey has a demonstrated acceptance of utilising artificial nest sites and successful relocation.

It is noted that the nest tree is senescent, and hence will eventually succumb to natural attrition.

Further investigations can be made into relocating the nest (or establishing an alternative) to a site

where a buffer will not be impacted by disturbances such as artificial lighting, but still satisfies Osprey

site selection preferences eg northeast aspect. This may potentially see delayed development of the

current affected area ie when the pair has been successfully relocated.

There are two options which could be undertaken following specialist advice.

Passive Relocation of Eastern Osprey Nest

This option involves the construction of an alternative nesting site for the Eastern Osprey in a better

location (ie. closer to the river) in order for the Osprey to potentially use the structure either as a

better nesting site or once the current nest succumbs to attrition from severe weather events.


101

This option is expected to take a number of years to achieve success, but there is no guarantee that

the Eastern Osprey pair will take to the new site under their own accord, and has the risk that another

pair or the White-breasted Sea-eagle may claim the artificial nest site.

The following minimum specifications should be used in relation to the artificial nesting site (Clancy

1991, Poole 1989, Martin et al 1986):

• Top platform not less than 1m²;

• Use strong, durable wood;

• Platform support should be made of lumber no less than 2.5 x 7.5cm thickness, with the

nesting platform itself being no less than 1.9cm thick;

• Platform may be solid or form a frame; and

• Fixing a base of sticks from Melaleuca quinquenervia and/or Casuarina glauca to encourage

Eastern Osprey settlement.

Active Re-location of Eastern Osprey

There have been many examples of successful relocation of active Eastern Osprey nests both in

Australia and the USA (eg GoWA 2013, GCCC 2012, Ewins 1996).

This option involves the manual relocation of the entire osprey nest to a suitable artificial nest

structure during the non-breeding season; or erection of the new nest site, and destruction of the

current nest site in the non-breeding season.

This process may require a Species Impact Statement, or at least a S91 licence under the

Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995, after specialist advice sought and a management plan

has been approved.

8.0 Recommendations and Mitigation Measures

The following are recommended to be included as conditions of consent where relevant to future

development proposals in order to mitigate general ecological impacts.

8.1. Vegetation Clearing

Clearing Timing

Clearing should be planned to be undertaken outside the peak breeding season and torpor seasons

ie winter to late summer. This will minimise the potential mortality risk of fauna within tree hollows

and nests.

Hollow-bearing Tree Marking and Two Stage Clearing

Once the proposed development has been marked at the pre-construction stage, all hollow-bearing

trees are to be physically marked (eg marking paint).


102

This information will be used to easily identify hollow trees during clearing supervision and quantify

the amount of hollows to be removed.

All vegetation except for the hollow-bearing trees is to be cleared first. The hollow-bearing trees are

to be left for a maximum of 48hrs (minimum 12hrs), preferably over-night at least. The two stage

clearing encourages fauna to abandon hollows within the development envelope via disturbance

(RMS 2011). This process has demonstrably reduced the occurrence and injury risk of fauna during

hollow-bearing tree felling (Darkheart 2010, pers. obs.).

Hollow-bearing Tree Felling Protocol

The hollow bearing trees that may be removed could contain fauna at the time of clearing. Such

fauna may be placed under stress, injured or killed during tree felling via:

• Being nocturnal or in torpor, and unable to escape prior to the tree falling.

• Collapse of the hollow when it impacts the ground.

• Collision with internal walls or via being thrown out when the tree falls.

• Being present as young eg eggs.

Any hollow bearing tree removal must be undertaken via a method that will minimise the risk of

injury/mortality of potentially denning/roosting fauna within the limitations of Workplace Health and

Safety (WH&S) Guidelines. Undertaken with due care, this practice can demonstrably avoid mortality

of common and threatened species during felling of hollow-bearing trees, thereby substantially

reducing the potential significance of development impacts. The following general guidelines are

recommended:

1. Clearing should occur in two stages. Stage 1 should see removal of all non-habitat (hollow-

bearing) trees and all lower stratums, with habitat trees left standing for at least 24hrs after

Stage 1 clearing to allow voluntary evacuation of resident fauna. Stage 2 is the removal of

the habitat trees. This strategy is widely employed by NSW RMS and throughout Qld with

high levels of success.

2. Hollow-bearing trees are to be removed via a method that does not require traditional tree

felling methods i.e. clear-drop chainsaw cut or bulldozer/excavator “rip and push” methods

are not to be utilised due to the violence of tree-ground impact and associated high risk of

injury/mortality to fauna (e.g. via hollow collapse, collision with walls, etc). Options include:

• The use of an excavator or similar machine with a pincer/harvester head

attachment, which can hold the trunk while the tree base is sawn, and then the

lowers the tree to the ground for inspection (preferred method but limited by

practicality to only small to medium trees).

• Employment of an arborist to lop hollow-bearing limbs or tree sections, and lower

to the ground with ropes and pulleys or crane, with the non-hollow bearing

remainder of the tree later felled by traditional methods (preferred method but

limited by WH&S constraints).


103

• An ecologist and arborist to use a man-box, and be lifted by crane to inspect the

hollows (eg with torches and inspection cameras). If hollows are vacant, the

entrance is to be blocked (eg trunk hollow) or the hollow-limb felled (limited

practicality for trunk hollows and very long pipes). If fauna can be removed, the

ecologist is to remove the fauna.

• If the above is not practical, an excavator can cut the roots and slowly push over

the tree, counterbalancing the fall rate by pushing down on the root ball to

minimise acceleration and final impact (least preferred method).

3. If a ‘rip and push’ method is employed, the tree is to be bumped at least 3-5 times at

approximately one-minute intervals to initiate evacuation of any residents. Caution will be

required not to risk personal injury via falling branches.

4. An ecologist/fauna spotter-catcher must be present during felling of the hollow bearing trees

to monitor clearing, capture any resident animals injured or not evacuating, and undertake

appropriate emergency actions if required e.g. transport animal to veterinary treatment (care

at proponent’s cost) or care by FAWNA (with a donation by proponent to cover costs).

Hollows are to be immediately inspected once the tree is felled (within WH&S guidelines) for

injured individuals or abandoned offspring, and appropriate measures undertaken. All

rehabilitated animals are to be released in the retained habitat directly on/or adjacent to the

site.

A report detailing dates, personnel, qualifications, licenses and results is to be provided to GTCC

within 14 days of the monitoring event.

Clearing Monitoring

In addition to the hollow-bearing tree removal protocol, the following is recommended to be

implemented to minimise impacts on native fauna:

• The area of clearing work is to be inspected for Koalas and other fauna (eg bird nests) by an

ecologist immediately prior to commencement of any vegetation removal involving machinery

and/or tree-felling. Pre-clearing checks will include searches of habitat eg lifting and

destruction of logs, searches for bird nests, and raking of leaf litter. Other than Koalas, any

detected fauna is to be relocated off-site to nearby suitable areas (preferably within their

natural home range) prior to clearing.

• If practical in terms of WH&S restrictions, any bird nest considered active is to be removed

in a manner that allows retrieval of eggs/young, and these are to be taken into care by

FAWNA/WIRES.

• If a Koala is present in the proposed clearing envelope, works are to be suspended until the

Koala moves along on its own volition. If the Koala is located in a position that a 25m buffer

may be established, works may proceed outside this buffer.

• The ecologist is to remain on site to supervise clearing to retrieve any fauna detected during

works, undertake appropriate action (eg euthanize severely injured animals), and ensure

Koalas do not enter the site during clearing works.


104

• A report detailing the results of the clearing monitoring is to be provided to GTCC within 14

days of works completion.

Fencing

Lots which back onto any offset areas, retained habitat or the areas of Core Koala Habitat adjacent

to the study site are recommended to use sheet metal fencing for boundaries. This is recommended

to minimise native fauna entering the industrial areas and being at risk of injury.

Street Lighting

Artificial lighting will likely be required for security reasons as well as for street lights etc.

In general, lighting design and location must ensure lighting is directed to the ground within the site

and not onto retained or adjacent vegetation to minimise impacts on fauna potentially using this

habitat. This is particularly important in relation to the Eastern Osprey nest if it is retained on site. If

retained, lighting must not impact this nest.

Stormwater Management

Standard soil and sedimentation control measures will be required by Council in the construction

stage of the proposal to ensure that habitats on the site and in the study area, as well as subsequent

wetlands/aquatic habitats nearby are not substantially affected by the proposed development.

Stormwater management systems need to be adequately designed and effectively established to

prevent the risk of any substantial impacts (eg erosion and sedimentation) on EECs retained on site

and in the study area. This is of particular concern to the Freshwater Wetland EEC if it is retained.

Any stormwater runoff which enters any EEC must be of suitable quality and not introduce an

excessive sediment or nutrient load and cause eutrophication.

9.0 Conclusion

This report has identified a number of ecological constraints for the subject site, which have been

categorised into nil, low, medium and high levels.

The constraints map takes into consideration both development potential and impacts on the

ecological values of the study area; current exclusions under the Native Vegetation Act 2003; and

the role of the study area habitat in the local context given identified limitations.

Development of the majority of the study site is permissible with adequate mitigation (eg offsets and

stormwater management).


105

10.0 References

Andrews, A. (1990). Fragmentation of habitat by roads and utility corridors: A review. Aust. Zool. 26(3&4):

Australian Koala Foundation (2007). Planning Guidelines for Koala Conservation and Recovery: A Guide to Best Planning

Practice. Australian Koala Foundation, Brisbane. Website: www.savethekoala.com.au

Australian Koala Foundation (2002). Greater Taree City Council Draft Comprehensive Koala Plan of Management. Part 1:

The CKPoM. Australian Koala Foundation, Brisbane.

Belcher, C.A. (1994). Studies on the Diet of the Tiger Quoll (Dasyurus maculatus). M. Sc. Thesis, LaTrobe University,

Melbourne.

Belcher, C.A. (1995). Diet of the Tiger Quoll (Dasyurus maculatus) in East Gippsland, Victoria. Wildlife Research, 22: 341-

357.

Bennet, A., Kimber, S., and Ryan, P. (2000). Revegetation and wildlife: A guide to enhancing revegetated habitats for

wildlife conservation in rural environments. Bushcare – National Projects Research and Development Program.

Environment Australia, Canberra.

Biosis Research (2004) Terrestrial Flora and Fauna Report – Pacific Highway Upgrade Moorland to Herons Creek.

Birds Australia (2009). Swift Parrot Lathumus discolor. www.birdsaustralia.com

Bischoff, T., Lutter, H. and Debus, S. (2000). Square-tailed Kites breeding on the mid north coast of NSW. Aust. Bird

Watcher. 18:133-152.

Bowen, M. and Goldingay, R. (2000). Distribution and status of the Eastern Pygmy Possum (Cercartetus nanus) in NSW.

Aust. Mamm. 21: 153-164.

Braithwaite, L.W., Turner, T. and Kelly, J. (1984). Studies on the arboreal marsupial fauna of eucalypt forests being

harvested for woodpulp at Eden, NSW. III. Relationship between faunal densities, eucalypt occurrence and foliage

nutrients, and soil parent materials. Aust. Wildlife Res. 11:41-48.

Briggs, B. (1996). Tracks, Scats and Other Traces. Oxford University Press, Melbourne.

Brown, C.L., Hall, F., and Mill, J. (2003). Plant conservation: approaches and techniques from an Australian perspective.

Australian Network for Plant Conservation, Canberra.

Cann, B., Williams, J. and Shields, J.M (2000). Monitoring Large Forest Owls and Gliders After Recent Logging in

Production Regrowth Forests of the Mid-North Coastal Region of NSW. In: Ecology and Conservation of Owls. Newton, I.,

Kavanagh, R., Olsen, J. and Taylor, I. (Editors) (2002). CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood.

Churchill, S. (2008) Australian Bats. Reed-New Holland, Sydney.

Clancy, P, Greg. (1991) The biology and management of the Osprey (Pandion haliartus cristatus) in NSW. NSW National

Parks and Wildlife Services.

Clout, M.N. (1989). Foraging behaviour of Glossy Black Cockatoos. Aust. Wildl. Res. 16: 467-73.

Cogger, H.G. (1992). Reptiles and Amphibians of Australia. Reed, Sydney.

Connell Wagner Pty Ltd (2000a). Koala Plan of Management – Coastal Area. Part A: The KPOM – Hastings Council.

Connell Wagner Pty Ltd, Neutral Bay.

Connell Wagner Pty Ltd (2000b). Koala Plan of Management – Coastal Area. Part B: Resource Study – Hastings Council.

Connell Wagner Pty Ltd, Neutral Bay.

Cooke, R., Wallis, R. and Webster, A. (2000). Urbanisation and the Ecology of Powerful Owls (Ninox strenua) in Outer

Melbourne, Victoria. In: Ecology and Conservation of Owls. Newton, I., Kavanagh, R., Olsen, J. and Taylor, I. (Editors)

(2002). CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood.

Corben, C.J. (1991). Comments on frog decline in southeast Qld. In: Report of a Workshop on Declining Frog Populations

in Qld. Unpublished report to QNPWS, Brisbane.


106

Craig, S.A. (1985) Social Organization, Reproduction and Feeding Behaviour of a Population of Yellow-bellied Gliders,

Petaurus Australis (Marsupialia: Petauridae). Australian Wildlife Research 12 : 1 – 18.

Dadds, B. (2000). Reproductive, population and movement ecology of adult Litoria brevipalmata (Anura: Hylidae) in a

heterogeneous dry eucalypt forest in southeast Queensland. Honours Thesis, Science, Griffith University.

Date, E.M., Recher, H.F and Ford, H. (1992). Status of Rainforest Pigeons in northern NSW. Unpublished Report to NPWS.

Davey, S.M. (1984). Habitat preferences of arboreal marsupials within a coastal forest in southern NSW. pp 509-16. In:

Smith, A. and Hume, I.D. (Eds) (1984). Possums and Gliders. Australian Mammal Society.

Davis, W.E. and Recher, H.F. (1993). Notes on the breeding biology of the Regent Honeyeater. Corella, 17(1): 1-4.

Deacon, J.N. and MacNally, R. (1998). Local extinction and nestedness of small mammal faunas in fragmented forest of

central Victoria. Pacific Conservation Biology 4: 122-131.

Debus, S. (2012). Birds of Prey of Australia: A Field Guide. CSIRO publishing, Collingwood.

Debus, S. (1994). Aspects of the Biology, Conservation and Management of the Threatened Forest Owls and Raptors in

NSW. Thesis, Master of Science (Zool.), University of New England, Armidale.

Debus, S. and Czechura, G.V. (1989). The Square Tailed Kite, Lophoictinia isura in Victoria. Aust. Bird. Watcher 13:118-

123.

DECCW (2009). Draft National Recovery Plan for the Grey-headed Flying Fox. NSW DECCW, Hurstville.

DECC (2008). Recovery Plan for the Koala (Phascolarctos cinereus). NSW DECC, Hurstville.

DECC (2007a). Threatened Species Assessment Guidelines: The Assessment of Significance. NSW DECC, Hurstville.

DECC (2007b). Identification Guidelines for Threatened Species - Swamp Oak Floodplain Forest. NSW DECC, Hurstville.

Dept of the Environment (2015a). Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act – Matters of National

Environment Significance Search Tool. www.environment.gov.au

DotE (2015b). Species Profile and Threats Database - Homepage. www.environment.gov.au

DotE (2013). Matters of National Environmental Significance – Significant Impact Guidelines 1.1 – Environment Protection

and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. DoE, Canberra.

Dept of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (2013). Conservation Advice for Subtropical and Temperate Coastal

Saltmarsh. Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra.

Dept of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (2009). Littoral Rainforest and Vine Thickets of Eastern Australia: EPBC

Act 1999 – Policy Guide 3.9. Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra.

Dickman, C. (1996). Overview of the Impacts of Feral Cats on Australian Native Fauna. Report prepared for the Australian

Nature Conservation Agency, Canberra.

Dique, D.S., Preece, H.J., Thompson, K. and de Villiers, D.L. (2004). Determining the distribution and abundance of a

regional koala population in southeast Queensland for conservation management. Wildlife Research 31(3): 109-119.

Dique, D.S., de Villiers, D.L. and Preece, H.J. (2003). Evaluation of line transect sampling for estimating koala abundance

in Pine Rivers Shire, southeast Queensland. Wildlife Research 30(2): 127-135.

Dwyer, D. (1968). The biology, origin and adaptation of Miniopterus australis in NSW. Aust. J. Zool. 16: 49-68.

Dwyer, D. (1966). The population pattern of Miniopterus schreibersii in northeastern NSW. Aust. J. Zool; 14: 1073-1137.

Eby, P. (2000a). A Case for Listing Grey-Headed Flying Fox (Pteropus poliocephalus) as Threatened in NSW Under IUCN

Criterion A2. In: Proceedings of a Workshop to Assess the Status of the Grey-Headed Flying Fox in NSW. Richards, G.

(Ed.). Australasian Bat Society, Sydney.

Eby, P. (2000b). Low Reproductive Periods in Grey-Headed Flying Foxes Associated With a Short Period of Food Scarcity.

In: Proceedings of a Workshop to Assess the Status of the Grey-Headed Flying Fox in NSW. Richards, G. (Ed.).

Australasian Bat Society, Sydney.


107

Eby, P. (2002). Using NSW planning instruments to improve conservation and management of Grey-Headed Flying Fox

(Pteropus poliocephalus) camps. In: Managing the Grey-Headed Flying Fox as a Threatened Species in NSW. Eby, P and

Lunney, D. (Eds.). Royal Zoological Society of NSW, Sydney.

Ehmann, H. (1996). Green-Thighed Frog. In: Ehmann, H. (Ed.). Threatened Frogs of NSW: Habitats, Status and

Conservation. Frog and Tadpole Study Group of NSW Inc.

Elkin, C.M. and Possingham, H. (2008). The Role of Landscape-Dependent Disturbance and Dispersal in Metapopulation

Persistence. The American Naturalist 172 (4). 563-575.

Ewins J Peter. 1996. The Use of Artificial Nest Sites by an Increasing Population of Ospreys in the Canadian Great Lakes

Basin. Academic Press Ltd.

Ford, H.A. (1993). The role of birds in ecosystems: Risks from eucalypt forest fragmentation and degradation. Pp 33-40

in: Birds and Their Habitats: Status and Conservation in Queensland. Catterall, C.P., Dricoll, P.V., Hulsman, K. Muir, D

and Taplin, A. (eds_). Qld Ornithological Society, Brisbane.

Garnett, S.T. and Crowley, G.M (2000). The Action Plan for Australian Birds 2000. Environment Australia Website.

Garnett, S.T., Pedler, L.P. and Crowley, G.M. (1999). The breeding biology of the Glossy Black Cockatoo, Calyptorhynchus

lathamii, on Kangaroo Island, South Australia. Emu, 99: 262-279.

Gibbons, P. and Lindenmayer, D. (2002). Tree Hollows and Wildlife Conservation in Australia. CSIRO Publishing,

Collingwood.

Gill, A.M., Woinarski, J.N.Z., and York, A. (1999). Australia’s Biodiversity – Response to Fire: Plants, Birds and

Invertebrates. Biodiversity Technical Paper No. 1. Dept. of Environment and Heritage, Canberra.

Gilmore, A. and Parnaby, H. (1994). Vertebrate fauna of conservation concern in northeast NSW forests. Northeast Forests

Biodiversity Study Report No. 3e. Unpublished report, NSW NPWS.

Goldingay, R.L. and Kavanagh, R.P. (1991). The Yellow-bellied Glider: a review of its ecology, and management

considerations. In: Lunney, D. (Ed.) (1991). Conservation of Australia’s Forest Fauna. Royal Zoological Society of NSW,

Mosman.

Goosem, M. (2002). Effects of tropical rainforest roads on small mammals: fragmentation, edge effects and traffic

disturbance. Wildl. Res. 2: 1035-3712.

Government of Western Australia (GoWA) (2013). Osprey nest relocation at Point Samson.

http://www.dpaw.wa.gov.au/news/item/106-osprey-nest-relocated-at-point-samson. Taken 6.10.2015

Hall, L and Richards, G. (2000). Flying Foxes: Fruit and Blossom Bats of Australia. Australian Natural History Series.

University of NSW, Sydney.

Harden, G.J. (Editor). Flora of NSW. Vols 1-4. NSW Press, Sydney.

Harden, G.J, McDonald, B. and Williams, J.B. (2007).Rainforest Climbing Plants – A field guide to their identification. Gwen

Harden Publishing, Nambucca Heads.

Hero, J.M., Hines, H., Meyer, E., Lemckert, F. and Newell, D. (2002). AmphibiaWeb: Information on amphibian biology

and conservation [web application]. http://amphibiaweb.org/. Accessed Nov 20, 2002.

Hindell, M.A. and Lee, A.K. (1990). Tree preferences of the Koala. pp117-21 In: Biology of the Koala. Ed. by A.K. Lee,

K.A. Handayde and G.D. Sanson. Surrey Beatty and Sons, Sydney.

Hourigan, C.L., Catterall, C.P., Jones, D. and Rhodes, M. (2009). A comparison of the effectiveness of bat detectors and

harp traps for surveying bats in an urban landscape. Aust. Wildl. Res. 35: 768-774.

Hulm, C. (1994). The status and distribution of Miniopterus australis in northern NSW. Integrated Project, Faculty of

Resource Science and Management, Southern Cross University.

Johnson, C., Cogger, H., Dickman, C. and Ford, H. (2007). Impacts of Land Clearing: The Impacts of Approved Clearing

of Native Vegetation on Australian Wildlife in New South Wales. WWF -Australia Report. WWF Australia, Sydney.

Jones, M. E. (2000). Road upgrade, road mortality and remedial measures: Impacts on a population of Eastern Quolls and

Tasmanian Devils. Wildlife Research 27: 289-296.


108

Jurskis, V. and Potter, M. (1997). Koala Surveys, Ecology and Conservation at Eden. Research Paper No. 34. State

Forests, Sydney.

Jurskis, V., Rowell, D. and Ridley, D. (1994). Survey Techniques and Aspects of the Ecology of the Koala Near Eden.

Research Paper No. 22. State Forests, Sydney.

Kavanagh, R.P. (2000a). Comparative diets of the Powerful Owl (Ninox strenua), Sooty Owl (Tyto tenebricosa) and Masked

Owl (T. novaehollandiae) in Southeastern Australia. In: Ecology and Conservation of Owls. Newton, I., Kavanagh, R.,

Olsen, J. and Taylor, I. (Editors) (2002). CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood.

Kavanagh, R.P. (2000b). Conservation and Management of large forest owls in Southeastern Australia. In: Ecology and

Conservation of Owls. Newton, I., Kavanagh, R., Olsen, J. and Taylor, I. (Editors) (2002). CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood.

Kavanagh, R.P. (1997). Ecology and Management of Large Forest Owls in Southeastern Australia. PhD Thesis. School of

Biological Sciences, University of Sydney, Sydney.

Kavanagh, R.P. and Stanton, M.A. (2000). Response to Habitat Fragmentation by the Powerful Owl (Ninox strenua), Sooty

Owl (Tyto tenebricosa) and Masked Owl (T. novaehollandiae)and Other Nocturnal Fauna in Southeastern Australia. In:

Ecology and Conservation of Owls. Newton, I., Kavanagh, R., Olsen, J. and Taylor, I. (Editors) (2002). CSIRO Publishing,

Collingwood.

Keith (2004). Ocean shores to desert dunes: the native vegetation of New South Wales and the ACT. NSW Department

of Environment and Conservation, Sydney.

Keith, D. and Scott, J. (2005). Native vegetation of coastal floodplains – a diagnosis of the major plant communities in New

South Wales. Pacific Conservation Biology, 11: 81-104.

Lae Kortner, G, Gresser, S., Mott, B., Tamayo, P, Pisanu, P., Bayne, P. and Harden, R.H. (2004). Population structure,

turnover and movement of Spotted-Tailed Quolls on the New England Tablelands. Wildl. Res 31(5):475-484.

Klaphake, V. (2006). Guide to the Grasses of Sydney. Van Klaphake, Byabarra.

Klaphake, V. (2004). Key to the Commoner Species of Sedges and Rushes of the Sydney and Blue Mountains. Van

Klaphake, Byabarra.

Law, B., Chidel, M. and Turner, G. (2000). The use by wildlife of paddock trees. Pacific Conservation Biology, 6: 130-143.

Law, B.S and Dickman. C.R. (1998). The use of habitat mosaics by terrestrial vertebrate fauna: implications for

conservation and management. Biodiversity and Conservation 7:323-333.

Law, B.S. (1994a). Banksia nectar and pollen: Dietary items affecting the abundance of the Common Blossom Bat

(Syconycteris australis): in southeastern Australia. Australian Journal of Ecology 19: 425-434.

Law, B.S. (1994b). Climatic limitations of the southern distribution of the Common Blossom Bat (Syconycteris australis) in

NSW. Australian Journal of Ecology 19: 366-374.

Law, B.S. (1993). Roosting and foraging ecology of the Queensland Blossom Bat (Syconycteris australis) in northeastern

NSW: Flexibility in response to seasonal variation. Wildl. Res. 20: 419-431.

Lee, A.K. and Martin, R.W. (1998). The Koala – A Natural History. NSW University Press, Kensington.

Lindenmayer, D. and Fisher, J. (2006). Habitat fragmentation and Landscape Change: An ecological and

conservation synthesis. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood.

Lindenmayer, D. (2002). Gliders of Australia – A Natural History. University of NSW Press, Sydney.

Lindenmayer, D.B. (1998). The Design of Wildlife Corridors in Wood Production Forests – Forest Issues 4. NSW NPWS,

Hurstville.

Lunney, D. Gresser, S. O’Neill, L.E., Matthews, A. and Rhodes, J. (2007). The impact of fire and dogs on Koalas at Port

Stephens, New South Wales, using population viability analysis. Pacific Conservation Biology 125: 243-258.

Luo, J., Fox, B.J. and Jeffreys, E. (1994). Diet of the Eastern Chestnut Mouse (Pseudomys gracilicaudatus) I: Composition,

Diversity and Individual Variation. Wildl. Res. 21: 401-17.

Luo, J., and Fox, B.J. (1995). Competitive effects of Rattus lutreolus presence on the resource use by Pseudomys

gracilicaudatus. Aust. J. Ecol.. 21: 556-564.


109

Luo, J., and Fox, B.J. (1994). Diet of the Eastern Chestnut Mouse (Pseudomys gracilicaudatus) II: Seasonal and

Successional Patterns. Wildl. Res. 21: 419-31.

Mackowski, C.M (1988). Characteristics of eucalypts incised by the Yellow-bellied Glider in northeastern NSW. Aust.

Mamm. 11(1) pp 1-13.

Mahony, M. (1996a). Draft Final Report: Great Barred River Frogs Research Plan. Unpublished report to the ANCA,

Canberra and NSW NPWS, Hurstville.

Mahony, M. (1996b). Survey of the distribution and abundance of declining frogs in northern NSW. Unpublished report to

Australian Nature Conservation Agency.

Martin, C.O. Mitchell W.A & Hammer.D.A. (1986). Osprey nest platforms. Section 6.1.6. US Army Corps of Engineers

Wildlife Management Manual. Technical Report EL-86-21.31 (Dept. of Army, Waterways Experiment Station, Corps of

Engineers, Environment Library, P.O. Box 631, Vicksburg, MS 39180 USA).

Marchant, S. and Higgins, P.J. (eds) (1990). The Handbook of Australian, New Zealand and Australian Birds. Oxford

University Press, Melbourne.

Martin, R.W. and Lee, A. (1984). The Koala, Phascolarctos cinereus, The Largest Marsupial Folivore. In: Possums and

Gliders. Smith, A.P. and Hume, I.D. (Eds). Australian Mammal Society, Sydney.

McAlpine, C., Bowen, M., Callaghan, J., Rhodes, J. Mitchell, D., Pullar, D. and Possingham, H. (2006). Testing alternative

models for the conservation of Koalas in fragmented rural-urban landscapes. Austral Ecology 31:529-544.

McIntyre, A.D. and Henry, S.R. (2000). Large Forest Owl Conservation in East Gippsland Forest Management Area,

Victoria. In: Ecology and Conservation of Owls. Newton, I., Kavanagh, R., Olsen, J. and Taylor, I. (Editors) (2002). CSIRO

Publishing, Collingwood.

May, S.A. and Norton, T.W. (1996). Influence of fragmentation and disturbance on the potential impact of feral predators

on native fauna in Australian forest ecosystems. Aust. Wildl. Res. 23: 387-400.

McDonald, R.C., Isbell, R.F, Speight, J.G., Walker, J. and Hopkins, M.S. (1990). Australian Soil and Land Survey Field

Handbook. 2nd Edition. Goanna Printing, Canberra

Menkhorst, P., Schedvin, N. ad Geering, D. (1999). Regent Honeyeater (Xanthomyza phrygia) Recovery Plan 1999-2003.

Dept of Natural Resources and Environment, Melbourne.

Menkhorst P.W. and Collier M. (1987) Diet of the squirrel glider Petaurus norfolcensis (Marsupialia: Petauridae), in Victoria.

Aust. Mamm. 11: 109-16.

Menkhorst, P.W., Weavers, B.W. and Alexander, J.S.A. (1988). Distribution of habitat and conservation status of the

Squirrel Glider in Victoria. Aust. Mamm. 11: 109-16

Milledge, D., Palmer, C. and Nelson, J. (1991). “Barometers of Change”: The distribution of large owls and gliders in

montane ash forests of the Victorian Central Highlands and their potential as management indicators. In: Conservation of

Australia’s Forest Fauna. Lunney, D. (Ed.). The Royal Zoological Society of NSW, Sydney, pp. 53-65.

Naturecall (2014). Statutory Ecological Assessments for Proposed Truck Stop Lot 17 DP 856622, and Lots 44 & 46 DP

1191326, Cundletown. Naturecall Environmental, Port Macquarie.

Noske, R.A (2008). Social Organisation and Nesting Biology of the Cooperatively Breeding Varied Sittella Daphoenositta

chrysoptera in North-eastern New South Wales. Emu 98: 85-96.

NRE (2000). Powerful Owl, Ninox strenua – Action Statement No. 92. Victorian Dept Natural Resources and Environment,

Melbourne.

NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (2003a). Recovery Plan for the Bush Stone-Curlew (Burchinus grallaris). NSW

NPWS, Hurstville.

NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (2003b). Recovery Plan for the Yellow-bellied Glider (Petaurus australis). NSW

NPWS, Hurstville.

NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (2003c). Recovery Plan for the Barking Owl (Ninox connivens). NSW NPWS,

Hurstville.


110

NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (2002a). Recovery Plan for the Red Goshawk. NSW NPWS, Hurstville.

NPWS (2001). Threat Abatement Plan: Predation By the Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes). NSW NPWS, Hurstville.

NPWS (2000a). Threatened Species of the Lower North Coast. NSW NPWS, Hurstville.

NPWS (2000b). Threatened Species of the Upper North Coast. NSW NPWS, Hurstville.

NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (1999a). Integrated Forest Ecosystem Classification And Mapping For Upper

And Lower North East CRA Region. NSW NPWS, Coffs Harbour.

NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (1999b). Threatened Species Management – Species Information. NPWS,

Hurstville.

NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (1995). Integrated faunal information for public lands in northeastern NSW. NSW

NPWS.

NSW Scientific Committee (2013). Decline in woodland and forest birds due to aggressive exclusion by

abundant Noisy Miners. Key Threatening Process. www.environment.nsw.gov.au.

NSW Scientific Committee (2011). Loss and degradation of native plant and animal habitat by invasion of

escaped garden plants, including aquatic plants. Key Threatening Process. www.environment.nsw.gov.au.

NSW Scientific Committee (2010a). Final Determination to list the Little Eagle (Hieraaetus morphnoides) (Gould 1841), as

a Vulnerable Species. www.environment.nsw.gov.au.

NSW Scientific Committee (2010b). Final Determination to list the Flame Robin (Petroica phoenicea) Gould 1837, as a

Vulnerable Species. www. environment.nsw.gov.au.

NSW Scientific Committee (2010c). Final Determination to list the Varied Sittella (Daphoenositta chrysoptera) (Latham

1802), as a Vulnerable Species. www environment.nsw.gov.au.

NSW Scientific Committee (2009a). Final Determination to list the Little Lorikeet (Glossopsitta pusilla) (Shaw, 1790), as a

Vulnerable Species. www.environment.nsw.gov.au.

NSW Scientific Committee (2007a). Loss of hollow-bearing trees: final determination. www environment.nsw.gov.au.

NSW Scientific Committee (2004a). Subtropical coastal floodplain forest of the NSW North Coast bioregion - endangered

ecological community listing: final determination. www environment.nsw.gov.au

NSWSC (2004b). Swamp Oak Floodplain Forest of the NSW North Coast, Sydney Basin and South East Corner bioregions

- endangered ecological community listing: final determination. www environment.nsw.gov.au

NSWSC (2004c). River-flat eucalypt forest on coastal floodplains of the NSW North Coast, Sydney Basin and South East

Corner bioregions - endangered ecological community listing: final determination. www environment.nsw.gov.au

NSWSC (2004d). Swamp Sclerophyll Forest on Coastal Floodplains of the NSW North Coast, Sydney Basin and South

East Corner bioregions - endangered ecological community listing: final determination. www environment.nsw.gov.au.

NSWSC (2004e). Freshwater wetlands on coastal floodplains of the NSW North Coast, Sydney Basin and South East

Corner bioregions - endangered ecological community listing: final determination. www environment.nsw.gov.au.

NSWSC (2004f). Coastal saltmarsh in the NSW North Coast, Sydney Basin and South East Corner bioregions -

endangered ecological community listing: final determination. www environment.nsw.gov.au

NSWSC (2004g). Littoral rainforest in the NSW North Coast, Sydney Basin and South East Corner bioregions - endangered

ecological community listing: final determination. www environment.nsw.gov.au

NSWSC (2004h). Alteration to the natural flow regimes of rivers, streams, floodplains & wetlands - key threatening process

declaration. www environment.nsw.gov.au

NSWSC (2004i). Removal of dead wood and dead trees - key threatening process declaration. www

environment.nsw.gov.au

NSWSC (2004j). Invasion of native plant communities by exotic perennial grasses - key threatening process declaration.

www environment.nsw.gov.au


111

NSWSC (2002a). Lowland rainforest on floodplain in the NSW North Coast Bioregion - endangered ecological community

listing: final determination. www environment.nsw.gov.au

NSW Scientific Committee (2002b). Final Determination f21206g – Infection by Psittacine Circoviral (beak and feather)

Disease affecting endangered psittacine species and populations. www environment.nsw.gov.au

NSW Scientific Committee (2002c). Final Determination f021213s –Infection of native plants Phytophthora cinnamomi.

www environment.nsw.gov.au

NSWSC (2002d). Final Determination f021213s –Infection of native plants Phytophthora cinnamomi. www


NSWSC (2001a). Hooded Robin (south-eastern form) Melanodryas cucullata cucullata (Latham 1802), as a VULNERABLE

SPECIES on Schedule 2 of the Act – Final Determination. Gazetted 26/10/01. www environment.nsw.gov.au

NSWSC (2001b). Brown Treecreeper (eastern subspecies) Climacteris picumnus victoriae (Mathews, 1912), as a

VULNERABLE SPECIES on Schedule 2 of the Act – Final Determination. Gazetted 26/10/01. www


NSWSC (2001c) Grey-Crowned Babbler (eastern subspecies), Pomatostomus temporalis temporalis (Vigors and

Horsfield, 1827), as a VULNERABLE SPECIES on Schedule 2 of the Act – Final Determination. Gazetted 26/10/01. www


NSWSC (2007). Loss of Hollow-Bearing Trees - Key Threatening Process declaration. www environment.nsw.gov.au

NSWSC (2001d) Final Determination - Clearing of native vegetation” as a Key Threatening Process under Schedule 3 of

the TSC Act 1995. www environment.nsw.gov.au

NSWSC (2000a). Predation by feral cats - Key Threatening Process declaration. www environment.nsw.gov.au

NSWSC (2000b). Predation by the European red fox - Key Threatening Process declaration. www environment.nsw.gov.au

NSWSC (2000c). Human-caused climate change - key threatening process declaration. www environment.nsw.gov.au

NSWSC (2000d). Ecological consequences of high frequency fires - key threatening process declaration. www


NSWSC (1999). Predation by the plague minnow (Gambusia holbrooki) - Key Threatening Process declaration. www


Office of Environment and Heritage (2015a). BIONET (http://www.bionet.nsw.gov.au/)

OEH (2015b) Threatened Species. http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/threatenedSpeciesApp/

OEH (2015c) Regional Corridors and Key Habitats. www.environment.nsw.gov.au

Olivier, D.L. (1998). The breeding behaviour of the endangered Regent Honeyeater, Xanthomyza phrygia, near Armidale,

NSW. Aust. J. Zool. 46: 153-170.

O’Neill, M. and Williams, J. (2003). Species Impact Statement for Proposed Residential Subdivision on Lot 223 DP 754396

and Lot 511 DP 1048157. Prepared for Machro Pty Ltd and Eric Norman Developments. Northern NSW Forestry Services,

Casino.

Phillips, S., Callaghan, J. and Thompson, V. (2000). The tree preferences of Koalas (Phascolarctos cinereus) inhabiting

forest and woodland communities on Quaternary deposits in the Port Stephens area, NSW. Wildl. Res. 27: pp 1-10.

Phillips, S.S. (2000a). Tree species preferences of the Koala (Phascolarctos cinereus) as a basis for the delineation of

management areas for recovery planning in NSW. Unpublished report for the Koala Recovery Plan.

Phillips, S.S. (2000b). Population trends and the Koala conservation debate. Conservation Biology, 14 (3): 650-659.

Poole, A. (1989). Ospreys, A natural and unnatural history. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge England.

Port Stephens Council (2001). Port Stephens Council Comprehensive Koala Plan of Management (CKPoM) – June 2001).

Prepared by Port Stephens Council with the Australian Koala Foundation.

Priest, B., Straw, P. and Weston, M. (2002). Shorebird conservation in Australia. Supplement to Wingspan 12(4).


112

Preston, B.J. and Adam, P. (2004a). Describing and listing threatened ecological communities under the Threatened

Species Conservation Act 1995 (NSW): Part 1 – the assemblage of species and the particular area. Environmental and

Planning Law Journal, 21:250-263

Preston and Adams (2004b). Describing and listing threatened ecological communities under the Threatened Species

Conservation Act 1995 (NSW): Part 2 – the role of supplementary descriptors and the listing process. Environmental and

Planning Law Journal, 21:372-390

Pyke, G.H. and White, A.W. (1996). Habitat requirements of the Green and Golden Bell Frog (Litoria aurea). In: Pyke, G.H.

and Osborne, W.S. (eds: The Green and Golden Bell Frog (Litoria aurea) – Biology and Conservation. Aust Zool 30(2)

218-224

Quin D.G. (1995) Population ecology of the squirrel glider (Petaurus norfolcensis).Aust. Zool.

Quin, D.G. (1993). Socioecology of the Squirrel Glider and the Sugar Glider. PhD Thesis. University of New England,

Armidale.

Radle, A.L. (undated). The Effect of Noise on Wildlife: A Literature Review. University of Oregon, Eugene.

Recher, H.F., Date, E.M. and Ford, H. (1995). The Biology and Management of Rainforest Pigeons in NSW. Species

Management Report Number 16. NSW NPWS, Hurstville.

Rhind, P.C. (1996). Habitat requirements and the effects of removal during logging on the marsupial Brushtailed

Phascogale in Western Australia. The Western Australian Naturalist, 21: 1-22.

Rhind, S. (1998). Ecology of the Brushtailed Phascogale in Jarrah Forest of south-western West Australia. PhD Thesis,

Murdoch University, Perth, W.A.

Rhodes, J.R., Callaghan, J.G., McAlpine, C.A., de Jong, C., Bowen, M.E., Mitchell, D.L., Lunney, D. and Possingham, H.P.

(2008). Regional variation in habitat–occupancy thresholds: A warning for conservation planning. Journal of Applied

Ecology 45: 549–557

Richards, G.C. (1991a). Forest bat conservation: Do we know the problems and solutions? In: Conservation of Australia’s

Forest Fauna. Lunney, D. (Ed). Royal Zoological Society of NSW.

Robinson, L. (1994) Field Guide to the plants Native Plants of Sydney. 2nd Edition. Kangaroo Press, NSW.

Robinson, M. (1996). A Field Guide To Frogs of Australia. Australian Museum/Reed, Sydney.

Royal Botanical Gardens. Plantnet website (www.plantnet.rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au/search)

Sainty, G.R. and Jacobs, S.W.L. (1994). Waterplants in Australia. CSIRO, Collingwood.

Scotts, D. (2002) editor. Key Habitats and Corridors for Forest Fauna of North-East NSW: A regional landscape to focus

conservation, planning, assessment and management. NSW NPWS, Hurstville.

Simpson, K. and Day, N. (1996). Field Guide to the Birds of Australia. Viking, Sydney.

Sinclair Knight Mertz (2010). Warrell Creek to Urunga: Upgrading the Pacific Highway Environmental Assessment Volume

1. Sinclair Knight Mertz, St Leonards.

Small Planet Environmental Consulting Specialists (2002). Flora and Fauna Impact Assessment for Possible Rezoning of

DP 512170, Valla Beach, NSW. SPEC, Maroubra.

Smith A.P. and Murray M. (2003) Habitat requirements of the Squirrel Glider on the New South Wales central coast. Wild.

Res. 30: 291-301.

Smith, A.P., Andrews, S.P. and Moore, D.W. (1995). Coffs Harbour-Urunga Management Area - Proposed Forestry

Operations - Fauna Impact Statement. State Forests Of NSW

Smith, M. (2002). Management of Roost Sites of the Grey-Headed Flying Fox (Pteropus poliocephalus) on the north coast

of NSW: A National Parks and Wildlife Perspective. In: Managing the Grey-Headed Flying Fox as a Threatened Species

in NSW. Eby, P and Lunney, D. (Eds.). Royal Zoological Society of NSW, Sydney.

Sinclair Knight Merz (2010) Warrell Creek to Urunga Environmental Assessment Volume 2 – Flora and Fauna. SKM,

Sydney.


113

Soderquist, T.R and Ealey, L. (1994). Social interactions and mating strategies of a solitary carnivorous marsupial,

Phascogale tapoatafa, in the wild. Wildl. Res. 21: pp 527-42

Soderquist, T.R. (1993a). Maternal strategies of Phascogale tapoatafa. 2. Juvenile thermoregulation and maternal

attendance. Aust. J. Zool., 41: 567-576.

Soderquist, T.R. (1993b). Maternal strategies of Phascogale tapoatafa. 1. Breeding seasonality and maternal investment.

Aust. J. Zool., 41: 549-566.

Soderquist, T.R., Lowe, K.W., Loyn, R.H and Price, R. T. (2000). Habitat quality of Powerful Owl territories in the box-

ironbark forests of Victoria, Australia. Proceedings of International Owl Conference. Canberra, 2000.

Soderquist, T.R., Traill, B.J., Faris, F. and Beasley, K. (1996). Using nest boxes to survey for the Brushtailed Phascogale.

Victorian Naturalist, 113: 256-261.

Strahan, D. (Editor) (2000). Complete Book of Australian Mammals. Cornstalk Publishing, Sydney.

Swan, G., Shea, G. and Sadlier, R. (2004). Field Guide to the reptiles of NSW, New Holland Sydney.

Swift Parrot Recovery Team (2001). Swift Parrot Recovery Plan. Dept of Primary Industries, Water and Environment,

Hobart.

Terra Consulting (2003). Abandonment of Cundletown Bypass Corridor and Taree Airport – Local Environmental Study for

Greater Taree City Council. Terra Consulting, Tuncurry.

Thompson, B.(2002).Australian Handbook for the Conservation of Bats in Mines and Artificial Cave-Bat Habitats. Australian

Centre for Mining Environmental Research.

Tidemann, C. R. (2002). Sustainable management of the Grey-headed Flying Fox Pteropus poliocephalus. In: Managing

the Grey-Headed Flying Fox as a Threatened Species in NSW. Eby, P and Lunney, D. (Eds.). Royal Zoological Society of

NSW, Sydney.

Townplanning Consultants and Drafting (2002). Statement of Environmental Effects, Lot 31 DP 1044587, Valla Beach.

Townplanning Consultants and Drafting, Hope Island.

Traill, B.J. (1995). Coexistence and competition in a community of forest vertebrates. PhD Thesis, Monash University,

Melbourne.

Traill, B.J. and Coates, T.D. (1993). Field observations on the Brushtailed Phascogale (Phascogale tapoatafa). Aust. Mam.

16: pp61-65

Triggs, B. (1996). Scat, track and other traces. New Holland, Sydney.

Troedson A.L. & Hashimoto T.R. (2008). Coastal Quaternary Geology – north and south coast of NSW. Geological Survey

of New South Wales, Bulletin 34.

Tyler, M.J. (1992). Encyclopaedia of Australian Animals: Frogs. Angus and Robertson, Sydney

Tyler, M.J. (1997). The Action Plan for Australian Frogs – Recovery Outline No. 18: Southern Barred Frog. Environment

Australia Website.

Tyler, M.J. (1997). The Action Plan for Australian Frogs – Recovery Outline No. 18: Southern Barred Frog. Environment

Australia Website.

Vallee, L., Hogbin, T., Monks, L., Makinson, B., Matthes, M., and Rossetto, M. (2004). Guidelines for the Translocation of

Threatened Plants in Australia. Australian Network for Plant Conservation, Canberra.

van der Ree, R., Clarkson, D.T., Holland, K, Gulle, N. Budden, M (2008). Review of Mitigation Measures Used to Deal

With the Issues of Habitat Fragmentation by Linear Infrastructure. Report for Dept of Environment, Water, Heritage and

the Arts, Canberra.

van der Ree, R. (2002) The population ecology of the squirrel glider(Petaurus norfolcensis) within a network of remnant

linear habitats. PhD Thesis. School of Ecology and Environment, Deakin University, Victoria.

van der Ree, R., Soderquist, T. and Bennet, A.F. (2001). Home range use by the Brushtailed Phascogale (Phascogale

tapoatafa) in high quality, spatially limited habitat. Wildl. Res. 28: pp 517-525


114

Ward, S.J. (1990). Life history of the Eastern Pygmy Possum, Cercartetus nanus in Southeastern Australia. Aust. J. Zool.

38: 287-304

Watson, J., Watson, A., Paull, D. and Freudenberger, D. (2003). Woodland fragmentation is causing the decline of species

and functional groups in southeastern Australia. Pacific Conservation Biology 8: 261-70.

White, A.W. and Burgin, S. (2004). Current status and future prospects of reptiles and frogs in Sydney’s urban-impacted

bushland reserves. In: Urban Wildlife- more than meets the eye. Lunney, D. and Burgin, S. (eds). NSW Royal Zoological

Society of NSW, Sydney.

White, A.W. and Burgin, S. (2004). Current status and future prospects of reptiles and frogs in Sydney’s urban-impacted

bushland reserves. In: Urban Wildlife- more than meets the eye. Lunney, D. and Burgin, S. (eds). NSW Royal Zoological

Society of NSW, Sydney.

Williams, J.B, Harden, G.J, and McDonald. (1984).Trees and Shrubs in Rainforests of NSW and Southern Qld. University

of New England, Armidale.

Woodford, J (1999). How our fences fell our precious birds of prey. The Age (15/9/99): 9

World Wildlife Fund (2002). Threatened Species Network Fact Sheets: Brushtailed Phascogale and Spotted-Tailed Quoll.

www.wwf.org.au. Accessed 21/11/02.

Land and Environment Court Citations:

CBD Prestige Holdings Pty Ltd v Lake Macquarie City Council [2005] NSWLEC 367

Commercial & Industrial Property Pty Ltd v Holroyd City Council [2013] NSWLEC 1000

Dazdon Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council [2009] NSWLEC 1147

Gales Holdings Pty Limited v Tweed Shire Council [2008] NSWLEC 209

Motorplex (Australia) Pty Limited v Port Stephens Council [2007] NSWLEC 7474

Murlan Consulting Pty Limited v Ku-ring-gai Council [2007] NSWLEC 374

Newcastle & Hunter Valley Speleological Society Inc v Upper Hunter Shire Council and Stoneco Pty Limited [2010]

NSWLEC 48


115

Appendix 1: Potential Occurrence Assessment

A1.0 Methodology

The following tables are used as a summary of determining the potential occurrence of a threatened

species in the study area. Threatened species are assessed as a potential occurrence if it is:

a) Recorded within a 10km radius (the locality), and may occur to some degree on-site or in the

study area (land within 100m of site) due to potential habitat, key habitat component, etc.;

b) Not recorded in the locality as yet, but recorded in the bioregion, and thus may occur in the

locality, and possibly to some extent, may occur on the site, due to potential habitat.

The “habitat requirements” column is derived from the previously listed references. Likelihood of

occurrence is based on the probability of occurrence in terms of:

• Habitat extent (e.g. sufficient to support an individual or the local population; comprises all of

home range; forms part of larger territory, etc.); quality (i.e. condition, including an

assessment of threats, historical land uses on and off-site, and future pressures);

interconnectivity to other habitat; and ability to provide all the species life-cycle requirements

(either the site alone, or other habitat within its range);

• Occurrence frequency (i.e. on-site resident; portion of larger territory; seasonal migrant or

transitory opportunist and thus when and how often, etc.)

• Usage ie breeding or non-breeding; opportunistic foraging (e.g. seasonal, migratory or

opportunistic); marginal fringe of core range; refuge; roosts; etc.

An indicative 1-5 scale used by the author to indicate the likelihood of the species to potentially occur

in the habitat on the study site (if they have not been recorded in the locality) is as follows:

• 0: Unlikely (<1% probability) - no potentially suitable habitat; too disturbed; or habitat is very

poor. No or few records in region or records/site very isolated eg by pastoral land,

urbanisation, etc.

• 1: Low (1-10%)- few minor areas of potential habitat; highly modified site/habitat; or few

habitat parameters present, but others absent or relatively insignificant (sub-optimum

habitat). Usually very few records in locality.

• 2: Fair (11-25%) - some significant areas of potential habitat, but some habitat parameters

limited. Potential for occasional foraging eg from nearby more optimal areas or known

habitat. Records at least within 10-15km radius of site.

• 3: Good (26-50%) - significant abundance of habitat parameters/areas of habitat, and more

locally e.g. adjacent. Potential part of larger territory, but probably unable to support breeding

in isolation. Recorded within 10km in similar habitat/environs.

• 4: Moderate (51-75%) - quite good potentially suitable habitat on and adjacent to the site,

and/or good quality and abundance of some vital habitat parameters. Records within <10km,

or adjacent to site, or adjacent to high quality habitat where species likely to occur.


116

• 5: High (>75%) - very good to optimum habitat occurring on or adjacent to the site (support

breeding pair or population). Recorded within 5-10km of site in same or similar habitat.


117

A1.1 Flora

Searches of relevant literature and databases (OEH/Bionet 2015a) found records of 1 threatened flora species in the locality. This species and two others

with potential to occur due to suitable habitat are assessed in the following table:

Table 21: Likelihood of occurrence - Flora

Species Status Habitat Requirement No. of

records Likelihood of Occurrence

Slaty Red Gum

(Eucalyptus

glaucina)

V- TSCA

V- EPBCA

Slaty Red Gum is known to occur in grassy woodland and

dry eucalypt forest. The species requires deep, fertile and

well-watered soils.

2

Only 2 records exist within the

locality. No suitable habitat on site.

Thorough site survey failed to detect.

Unlikely to occur

Trailing Woodruff

(Asperula asthenes)

V-TSCA

V-EPBCA

Often occurs in damp sites, along river banks.

0

Study site offers some potential

habitat however no records in the

locality, and not found on site by this

or previous survey.

Tall Knotweed

(Persicaria elatior)

V-TSCA

V-EPBCA

The species normally occurs in damp places, especially

beside streams and lakes 0

Study site offers some potential

habitat however no records in the

locality, and not found on site by this

or previous survey

A number of other species (see table below) are known or considered potential occurrences within the locality. However due to a number of factors, these

species were not considered potential occurrences on site.


118

Table 22: Threatened flora unlikely to occur

Preferred Habitat Species Site considered

unsuitable habitat Disturbance history likely to have excluded this species

Lack of local records

Dry Sclerophyll

Open Forest

Woodland

Acacia ruppii X X

Ancistrachne maidenii X X

Angophora inopina X X

Angophora robur X X

Babingtonia prominens X X

Banksia conferta subsp.

Conferta X X

Bertya sp.(Chambigne NR, M

Fatemi 24) X X

Bertya ingramii X X

Bertya sp. Cobar-Coolabah X X

Boronia hapalophylla X X

Caesia parviflora var. minor X X X

Chiloglottis anaticeps X X

Cynanchum elegans X X

Diuris venosa X X X


119




Diuris disposita X X

Diuris pedunculate X X X

Diuris praecox X X X

Dillwynia tenuiflora X X

Eucalyptus tetrapleura X X X

Grevillea banyabba X X

Grevillea beadleana X X

Grevillea caleyi X X X

Grevillea quadricuada

X X

Hakea archaeoides X X

Hakea trineura X X

Hibbertia superans X X

Leucopogon confertus X X

Lindsaea incisa X X

Macrozamia johnsonii X X


120




Melichrus hirsutus X X

Rainforest

Wet Sclerophyll Forest Riparian

Olax angulata X X

Philotheca obovatifolia X X

Polygala linariifolia X X

Corybas dowlingii X X

Dracophyllum macranthum X X

Acalypha eremorum X X X

Arthraxon hispidus X X

Arthropteris palisotii X X

Boronia umbellata X X

Calophanoides hygrophiloides X X

Corynocarpus rupestris subsp.

Rupestris X X

Dendrocnide moroides X X

Desmodium acanthocladum X X

Diospyros mabacea X X


121




Diploglottis cambelli X X

Eidothea hardeniana X X

Endiandra floydii X X

Endiandra hayesii X X

Eucalyptus tetrapleura X X X

Gingidia montana X X

Grammitis stenophylla X X

Grevillea guthrieana X X X

Haloragis exalata subsp.

velutina. X X

Harnieria hygrophiloides X X

Lindsaea brachypoda X X

Macadamia tetraphylla X X

Olearia flocktoniae X X X

Peristeranthus hillii X X X

Phyllanthus microcladus X X


122




Plectranthus nitidus X X

Pomaderris queenslandica X X

Psilotum complanatum X X

Quassia sp. Moonee Creek X X

Sarcochilus dilatatus X X

Sarcochilus fitzgeraldii X X

Sarcochilus hartmannii X X

Siah’s Backbone (Streblus

pendulinus/brunonianus ) X X X

Syzygium paniculatum X X

Tinospora smilacina X X

Tinospora tinosporoides X X

Triplarina imbricata (formerly

Baeckea camphorata) X X X

Swamp Forest

Aquatic

Freshwater Wetland Estuarine

Alexfloydia repens X X

Maundia triglochinoides X X

Oberonia titania X X


123




Typhonium sp. aff. brownii X X

Uromyrtus australis X X

Cyperus aquatilis X X

Eleocharis tetraquetra X

Phaius tancarvilleae X X X

Phaius australis X X X

Melaleuca biconvexa X X

Melaleuca tamariscina ssp

irbyana X X

Heathland

Shrubland

Grasslands

Allocasuarina defungens X X

Allocasuarina simulans X X

Sophora tomentosa subsp.

australis X X

Babingtonia silvestris X X

Centranthera cochinchinensis X X

Chamaesyce psammogeton X X

Diuris sp. aff. chrysantha X X


124




Lindernia alsinoides X

Rotala tripartita X X

Elyonurus citreus X X

Eucalyptus approximans X X

Glycine clandestina (Broad leaf

form) X X

Pimelea spicata X X X

Rutidosis heterogama X X

Zieria prostrata X X

Various Habitats,

Miscellaneous,

Other.

Pultenaea maritima X X

Cryptostylis hunteriana

(Leafless Tongue Orchid) X X

Galium australe

(Tangled Bedstraw) X X X

Zieria prostrata X X

Hibbertia hexandra X X X


125




Neoastelia spectabilis X X

Zieria lasiocaulis X X

Kennedia retrorsa X X

Tetratheca juncea X X X

Prostanthera spinosa X X

Senecio spathulatus X X

Styphelia perileuca X X


126

A1.2 Fauna

As previously noted in section 4, a number of threatened fauna have been recorded in the locality, and a number of others are considered potential

occurrences by the consultant. In the table below, these species are evaluated for their potential to occur on the site.

Table 23: Eligibility for Seven Part Test Assessment – Fauna

Animal Group Common Name (Scientific Name)

Local Records

Legal Status

Habitat/Ecology Profile Likelihood Of Occurrence?

BIRDS

Glossy Black

Cockatoo

(Calyptorhynchus

lathamii)

2 V-TSC

Act

Dry sclerophyll forest and woodland containing

Allocasuarina and Casuarina, and large tree hollows.

Preferred regional forage species are A. littoralis and A.

torulosa. Requires sufficient extent of forage within home

range to support breeding. Breeds Mar-Aug, takes 90

days to hatch and fledge (Lindsey 1992).

Site contains only Casuarina glauca. Some

A. littoralis in adjacent study area. Few

records in the locality. Low likelihood of

occurrence as rare visitor at best but limited

by isolation from other habitat.

Powerful Owl

(Ninox strenua) 2

V-TSC

Act

Wet and dry sclerophyll forests. Nests in tree hollows.

Requires high diversity and abundance of medium-sized

arboreal prey. Very large territory (500-5000ha).

Only low chance of rare visitation to western

study area for opportunistic predation.

Nearest potential habitat nearly 4km

northwest.

Masked Owl

(Tyto

novaehollandiae)

1 V-TSC

Act

Eucalypt forest and woodlands with sparse understorey.

Nests in tree hollows. Requires high diversity and

abundance of prey 200-600g weight. Large territory.

Only low chance of rare visitation to western

study area for opportunistic predation.

Nearest potential habitat nearly 4km

northwest.

Barking Owl

(Ninox connivens) 0

V-TSC

Act

Well-forested hills and flats, eucalypt savannah

(especially), and riverine woodland in coastal and

subcoastal areas. Prefers hunting in more open country

for mammals (rabbits, rats, mice, small bats and small

marsupials) and birds (small up to Frogmouths and

Generic low quality potential foraging habitat

in western study area, but very poor habitat

overall locally, and isolation from other

potential habitat, plus lack of local record and

sparse NSW distribution indicates unlikely to


127

Magpies). Large territories. Nest in hollows. occur.

Square-tailed Kite

(Lophoictinia

isura)

2 V-TSC

Act

Open forests and woodlands in coastal and sub-coastal

areas. Forages low over, or in, canopy for eggs, nestlings,

passerines, small vertebrates and invertebrates. Large

home range (>100km2). Observed foraging in residential

areas of Port Macquarie. Large stick nest in high fork of

living tree. Breeds July-December. Lays 2-3 eggs with 1-

2 birds fledging after 100days. Appears to be adapting to

an abundance of passerines in well-vegetated outer

fringes of cities. Probably migrates to northern Australia

in winter. (Debus 1998, NSW NPWS 2000)

Low to fair likelihood of occurrence as

generic potential foraging habitat mainly in

the western study area, but limited habitat in

locality and few sightings suggest only as a

bird on fringe of territory.

Little Eagle

(Hieraaetus

morphnoides)

1 V-TSC

Act

Occupies habitats rich in prey within open eucalypt forest,

woodland or open woodland, sheoak or acacia

woodlands and riparian woodlands of interior NSW are

also used (Marchant and Higgins 1993; Aumann 2001a).

For nest sites it requires a tall living tree within a remnant

patch, where pairs build a large stick nest in winter and

lay in early spring. It eats birds, reptiles and mammals,

occasionally adding large insects and carrion (Marchant

and Higgins 1993; Aumann 2001b; Debus et al. 2007). It

is distributed throughout the Australian mainland

excepting the most densely forested parts of the Dividing

Range escarpment (Marchant and Higgins 1993). It

occurs as a single population throughout NSW.

Low likelihood of occurrence as generic

potential foraging habitat mainly in the

western study area, but limited habitat in

locality and few sightings suggest only as a

bird on fringe of territory.

Spotted Harrier

(Circus assimilis) 0

V-TSC

Act

Occurs in grassy open woodland including acacia and

mallee remnants, inland riparian woodland, grassland

and shrub steppe (e.g. chenopods) (Marchant and

Higgins 1993; Aumann 2001a). It is found mostly

commonly in native grassland, but also occurs in

General area including site largely unsuitable

in structure and no local records – more of a

hinterland and western slopes species.

Unlikely to occur.


128

agricultural land, foraging over open habitats including

edges of inland wetlands. The species builds a stick nest

in a tree and lays eggs in spring (or sometimes autumn),

with young remaining in the nest for several months. Diet

includes terrestrial mammals, birds and reptiles,

occasionally large insects and rarely carrion (Marchant

and Higgins 1993; Aumann 2001b). Many of the

remaining key prey species (e.g. terrestrial grassland

birds such as quail, button-quail, pipits, larks and

songlarks) require ground cover and are sensitive to

habitat degradation from grazing (Marchant and Higgins

1993).

Swift Parrot

(Lathumus

discolor)

0

E-TSC

Act,

E-EPBC

Act

Breeds in Tasmania and winters on mainland, from

Victoria to southern Queensland. Feeds mostly on pollen

and nectar of winter flowering eucalypts and banksias,

but also on fruit, seeds, lerps and insect larvae (Schodde

and Tideman 1990). Favoured species are E. robusta,

Corymbia gummifera, E. globulus, E. sideroxylon, E.

leucoxylon, E. labens, E. ovata, E. maculata, Banksia

serrata and B. integrifolia. In coastal NSW, Swamp

Mahogany, Spotted Gum and Bloodwood forests are

important foraging habitats and larger trees may be

selected. Disperse according to changing local food

resources.

Some potential foraging value in study area,

however no local records to indicate locality

is a seasonally significant area for non-

breeding migration. Likely to be subject to

extreme competition with common species.

Unlikely to occur.

Little Lorikeet

(Glossopsitta

pusilla)

0 V-TSCA

Gregarious, usually foraging in small flocks, often with

other species of lorikeet feeding primarily on nectar and

pollen in the tree canopy, particularly on profusely-

flowering eucalypts, but also on a variety of other species

including melaleucas and mistletoes. Mostly occurs in

dry, open eucalypt forests and woodlands. They have

Some potential foraging value in study area,

however no local records to indicate locality

is at least a seasonally significant area.

Likely to be subject to extreme competition

with common species.


129

been recorded from both old-growth and logged forests in

the eastern part of their range, and in remnant woodland

patches and roadside vegetation on the western slopes.

In south-east Queensland (Smyth et al. 2002), were more

likely to occupy forest sites with relatively short to

intermediate logging rotations (15–23 years) and sites

that have had short intervals (2.5– 4 years) between fires.

Low potential to occur most likely as

opportunistic transient using site as small

part of local foraging range. Unlikely to nest

due to competition, isolation from sufficient

foraging habitat, and insufficient carrying

capacity of study area.

Varied Sittella

(Daphoenositta

chrysoptera)

1 V-TSC

Act

Sedentary and inhabits most of mainland Australia except

the treeless deserts and open grasslands, with a nearly

continuous distribution in NSW from the coast to the far

west (Higgins and Peter 2002; Barrett et al. 2003). It

inhabits eucalypt forests and woodlands, especially

rough-barked species and mature smooth-barked gums

with dead branches, mallee and Acacia woodland. Feeds

on arthropods gleaned from crevices in rough or

decorticating bark, dead branches, standing dead trees,

and from small branches and twigs in the tree canopy. It

builds a cup-shaped nest of plant fibres and cobweb in an

upright tree fork high in the living tree canopy, and often

re-uses the same fork or tree in successive years.

Western study area has some generic

potential habitat, but separated by a gap of

over 1.5m from the nearest potential source

habitat. This, edge effects and limited

carrying capacity strongly suggest this

species has an unlikely to low likelihood of

occurrence. If present, a residual population

would have long term viability constraints.

Brown

Treecreeper

(Climacteris

picumnus)

0 V-TSCA

Medium-sized insectivorous bird occupying eucalypt

woodlands, particularly open woodland lacking a dense

understorey. Sedentary and nests in tree hollows within

permanent territories, breeding in pairs or communally in

small groups (Noske 1991). Birds forage on tree trunks

and on the ground amongst leaf litter and on fallen logs

for ants, beetles and larvae (Noske 1979). Distributed

through central NSW on the western side of the Great

Not preferred habitat type, isolated from

other habitat and extreme edge effects, plus

lack of local records means unlikely to occur


130

Dividing Range and sparsely scattered to the east of the

Divide in drier areas such as the Cumberland Plain of

Western Sydney, and in parts of the Hunter, Clarence,

Richmond and Snowy River valleys, Coffs Harbour and

Great Lakes Shire.

Black-necked

Stork

(Ephippiorhynchus

asiaticus)

20 V-TSCA

Usually occurs alone or in pairs. Inhabits lakes, swamps,

freshwater pools, mudflats and mangroves. Wary, shuns

cover and forages in extensive open shallows for fish,

frogs and invertebrates (Lindsey 1992). Occasionally

forages in grassy woodland. Breeds in a large stick nest

in a tree, usually near water or in a secluded swamp

(NSW NPWS 2000).

Well known to occur on modified floodplains

especially during all levels of flooding, and

may use large dams such as that on site.

Occurrence would be non-breeding, as a

seasonal nomad. Low to fair chance

occurrence in most times.

Brolga

(Grus rubicunda)

0 V-TSCA

Usually occurs alone or in pairs. Inhabits lakes, swamps,

freshwater pools, mudflats and mangroves. Wary, shuns

cover and forages in extensive open shallows for fish,

frogs and invertebrates (Lindsey 1992). Occasionally

forages in grassy woodland. Breeds in a large stick nest

in a tree, usually near water or in a secluded swamp (OEH

2015b).

Well known to occur on modified floodplains

especially during all levels of flooding, and

may use large dams such as that on site.

Occurrence would be non-breeding, as a

seasonal nomad. However lack of local

records and sparse occurrence this south

suggests unlikely to occur.

Eastern Osprey

(Pandion cristatus)

5 V-TSCA

Fish (mostly Mullet) and carrion eater. Forages along

coastal rivers, lakes, beaches, creeks and inlets. Tall,

dead tree for staging or feeding roost. Nests on exposed

tree within 2km of water, but rarely adjacent, and with

access to Paperbark or Swamp Oak for nest material.

Breeds April-Sept. (Clancy, 1991).

Recorded on-site.


131

White Tern (Gygis

alba)

1 V- TSCA

Nomadic, marine birds roost in trees during the night.

Nesting occurs in damaged section or depression on a

branch, no nest. Common in coastal NSW waters,

especially after storms.

No suitable habitat in study area and only 1

unusual record in the locality. Unlikely to

occur

Comb-crested

Jacana

(Irediparra

gallinacean)

1 V-TSCA

Inhabits freshwater wetlands with good surface

vegetation especially lilies or fringing aquatic vegetation.

Very marginal potential habitat in the large

dam but not preferred structure. Only 1

record in the locality. Unlikely to occur

MAMMALS

Spotted-tailed

Quoll

(Dasyurus

maculatus)

2

V-TSC

Act,

E-EPBC

Act

Various forested habitats with preference for dense

forests. Requires tree hollows, hollow logs or caves for

nesting. Large home range (>500ha) and may move over

several kilometres in a few days. Tends to follow drainage

lines.

General area including site largely unsuitable

in structure with extreme edge effects, and

local records limited to more extensive

habitat areas. Unlikely to occur.

Brushtailed

Phascogale

(Phascogale

tapoatafa)

7 V-TSC

Act

Range of forest habitats but prefers drier sclerophyll

forest with sparse ground cover. Forages on large rough-

barked trees for small fauna, also utilises eucalypt nectar.

Rests in tree hollows, stumps, bird nests. Requires tree

hollows for nesting. (NPWS, 2000) Breeds May-July.

Occupies territory of 20-100ha. Has been recorded in

swamp forest.

Potential habitat in western remnants but

isolated by >1.5km from any marginally

suitable habitat by expansive open low

pasture. Unlikely to occur due to edge effects

and genetic viability.

Common

Planigale

(Planigale

maculata)

1 V-TSCA

Wide variety of habitats. Preference for areas of dense

groundcover due to heat/dehydration problems. May

prefer ecotones of dry/wet habitats (Denny 1982). Preys

on arthropods, small vertebrates, shelters in nest under/in

fallen timber or rock (Strahan 1995). Home range about

0.5ha. Breeds Oct-Jan (NSW NPWS 2000).

Potential habitat in western remnants but

isolated by >1.5km from any marginally

suitable habitat by expansive open low

pasture. Unlikely to occur due to edge effects

and genetic viability.


132

Koala

(Phascolarctos

cinereus)

57

V-TSCA

V-

EPBCA

A large arboreal marsupial to 12kg for males and 8kg for

females. Spends most of its time in trees and has large

claws adapted for climbing. Largest populations in NSW

occur on the central, mid-north and north coast with

scattered populations on the south coast, tablelands and

western districts. Koalas inhabit eucalypt forests and

woodlands where they feed on the leaves of a wide range

of eucalypts and will select preferred browse species in

an area. Home range size varies depending on quality of

habitat, ranging from two to several hundred hectares in

size (DECCW 2010; Van Dyck and Strahan, 2008).

Study site contains Potential Koala habitat

and adjoins area of Core Koala Habitat.

Numerous records in the locality, but failure

to detect anywhere on site or in proximate

sections of study area suggest unlikely to low

potential to occur. More investigations

needed to confirm if still found in Cundletown

or in study area.

Yellow-bellied

Glider

(Petaurus

australis)

0 V-TSCA

Moist and dry tall mature eucalypt forest and woodland.

Requires mature hollow-bearing trees, winter-flowering

eucalypts, suitable sap-feeding eucalypt species and a

mosaic of forest types (NPWS 1999). Sap trees utilised

include: E. propinqua, E. tereticornis, E. microcorys, & E.

resinifera (NPWS 2000). Home range of 30-65ha (NPWS

1999).

Generic potential habitat in western study

area, but too small to maintain a viable

population, isolated from other habitat, and

no local records. Unlikely to occur

Squirrel Glider

(P. norfolcensis) 2

V-TSC

Act

Moist and dry tall mature eucalypt forest and woodland.

Requires mature hollow-bearing trees, winter-flowering

eucalypts, suitable sap-feeding eucalypt species and a

mosaic of forest types (NPWS 1999). Sap trees utilised

include: E. propinqua, E. tereticornis, E. microcorys, & E.

resinifera (NPWS 2000). Home range of 30-65ha (NPWS

1999).

Marginal habitat in western study area, but

isolated from other habitat or other records,

and too small to maintain genetic diversity.

Low likelihood of occurrence pending

targeted survey confirm absence in study

area.


133

Common Blossom

Bat

(Syconycteris

australis)

0 V-TSCA

Found in well-timbered habitats. Roosts in rainforest and

wet sclerophyll forest. Feeds in heathlands and

paperbark swamps up to 4km from roost. Key food

species include Banksia, Melaleucas, Callistemons and

Bloodwoods.

Lack of suitable habitat, isolation from

suitable habitat, and lack of records in the

locality. Unlikely to occur

Yellow-bellied

Sheathtail Bat

(Saccolaimus

flaviventris)

0 V-TSC

Act

Ecology poorly known. Found in almost all habitats,

particularly wet and dry sclerophyll forests and woodlands

below 500m altitude, and also open woodland, Acacia

shrubland, mallee, grasslands and desert. Roosts mainly

in tree hollows, but also under bark, under roof eaves and

in other artificial structures. Fast flying species, believed

to forage above the canopy or closer to the ground in

open areas. Insectivorous. May be Summer migrant.

Site (especially western study area) offers

low value potential foraging and good

roosting potential. However lack of records in

the locality and isolate of habitat with limited

prey abundance. Low likelihood of

occurrence, at best as incidental transient.

Eastern False

Pipistrelle

(Falsistrellus

tasmaniensis)

0 V-TSCA

A large vespertilionid which feeds on moths and insects.

Known to roost in caves, abandoned buildings, but mostly

in trees hollows higher rainfall forested areas. It is

suspected that some populations migrate in Winter from

higher altitudes to coastal areas, or may simply enter

torpor. Prefers tall forests (>20m high) and extensive

movements (eg 12km recorded between foraging and

roost sites).

Lack of sufficient preferred foraging habitat

renders hollows unlikely to be used for

roosting. Not recorded in locality, unlikely to

occur.

Eastern Cave Bat

(Vespadelus

troughtoni)

0 V-TSCA

Rare and poorly known bat. Cave dwelling bat roosting in

small (5-50) to large (500) groups in sandstone overhang

caves, boulder piles, mines, tunnels and sometimes

buildings. Tend to roost in well-lit portions of caves in

avons, domes, cracks and crevices. Occasionally found

Lack of sufficient preferred foraging habitat

and not preferred potential roost sites. Not

recorded in locality, unlikely to occur.


134

along cliff lines in wet eucalypt forest and rainforest on the

coast and dividing range, but extend into drier forest on

western slopes.

Eastern Bent-wing

Bat

(Miniopterus

schreibersii

oceanensis)

2 V-TSCA

Habitat generalist - forages above well-forested areas.

Roosts in old buildings, caves, mines etc and in tree

hollows. Dependant on nursery caves and communal

roosts. Recorded foraging along vegetated roadside

verges; along tracks in forest, and interfaces of forest and

pasture.


low value potential foraging and roosting

potential in hollow-bearing trees. Low

likelihood of occurrence, at best as incidental

transient.

Little Bent-wing

Bat

(Miniopterus

australis)

6 V-TSCA

Generally forages above and below canopy of well-

forested areas. Roosts in old buildings, caves, mines etc.

Recently found roosting in tree hollows and bananas.

Dependant on nursery caves and communal roosts.

Recorded foraging along vegetated roadside verges;

along tracks in forest, and interfaces of forest and

pasture.

Recorded on site. May use western study

area for short term foraging and roosting as

part of seasonal range.

East Coast

Freetail Bat

(Mormopterus

norfolkensis)

0 V-TSCA

Specific habitat requirements of this species are poorly

known. Has been recorded in habitats ranging from

rainforest to dry sclerophyll and woodland, with most

recorded in the latter (State Forests 1995, Allison 1991).

Roosts in small colonies in tree hollows and under loose

bark; has been found under house eaves, in roofs and

metal caps on telegraph poles. Recorded roosting in roof

in Hat Head village. Probably forages above forest or

woodland canopy, and in clearings adjacent to forest.

Most records are of single individuals, and is likely to

occur at low densities over its range.





transient.


135

Greater Broad-

nosed Bat

(Scoteanax

rueppellii)

0 V-TSCA

Forages over range of habitats including rainforests and

moist forests, but prefers ecotones between riparian

forest, woodland and cleared land. Requires sparse

understorey and will forage over water. Roosts in tree

hollows. Feeds on larger insects, small vertebrates and

perhaps other bats. Recorded foraging in rural residential

areas and on edge of large forest remnants and pasture.





transient.

Hoary Bat

(Chalinolobus

nigrogriseus)

0 V-TSCA

Occurs in a range of habitats, such as monsoon forest,

tall open forest, open woodland, vine thickets, coastal

scrub, sand dunes, grasslands, floodplains, watercourses

and dams. Roosts in eucalypt tree hollows, as well as

rock crevices. Breeding colonies have been recorded in

roofs of buildings. Preferred prey is beetles and moths,

but also spiders, mantids, crickets, grasshoppers,

cicadas, bugs, diving beetles, flies and ants (thus may

land and forage).



potential in hollow-bearing trees. However

located south of known southern limit.

Unlikely to occur.

FROGS

Green-thighed

Frog

(Litoria

brevipalmata)

0 V-TSC

Act

Poorly known. Found in range of habitats such as warm

temperate open forest, rainforest, wet sclerophyll,

paperbark swam forest, to forestry dams and ephemeral

drainage lines in dry open forest; breeding aggregations

around oxbow lakes, ditches, flooded paddocks,

overflows, ephemeral creeks and drainage lines, and

grassy semi-permanent ponds. Males call only for few

days after spring and early summer rains. Possibly a

lowland forest ground-dweller. Seeks refuge in dense

groundcover, leaf litter and cavities such as cicada nymph

burrows.

Large dam offers some generic potential but

disturbance history of site and study area

(total loss of refuge habitat in almost all of

study area at some time), isolation and lack

of records indicates unlikely to occur.


136

A number of other species (see table below) are known or considered potential occurrences within the locality. However due to a number of factors, these

species were not considered potential occurrences on site. Thus the proposal is not considered to have a significant impact on the viability of any local

population of the subject species and Seven Part Test evaluation was not required.

Wallum Froglet

(Crinia tinnula)

0 V-TSCA

Predominantly confined to acidic paperbark swamps and

heaths of coastal areas (Cogger 1992). Also found in wet

heathland and Melaleuca sedgelands, and flooded

pasture adjacent to these areas. Breeds in late winter but

also recorded calling in autumn and summer.

Some marginal generic potential in main dam

if sufficiently acidic and a population once

occurred in this area, but habitat type (not

found in farm dams), lack of connectivity to

known habitat and local of local records

indicate unlikely to occur.


137

Table 24: Fauna unlikely to occur on site


unsuitable habitat

Presence of predators likely to have excluded

the species

Disturbance history likely to have excluded this

species


Dry Sclerophyll/Open

Woodland/Grassy Open

Woodland

Painted Honeyeater

(Grantiella picta)

X X X

Black-chinned Honeyeater

(Melithreptus gularis gularis) eastern

subspecies

X

Regent Honeyeater

(Anthochaera phrygia)

X X

Scarlet Robin

(Petroica boodang)

X X

Flame Robin

(Petroica phoenicea)

X X

Hooded Robin

(Melanodryas cucullata cucullata)

southeastern form

X X

Bush-stone Curlew

(Burchinus grallaris)

X X X X

Diamond Firetail

(Stagonopleura guttata)

X X

Grey-crowned Babbler

(Pomatostomus temporalis

temporalis) eastern subspecies

X X X

Rainforest/Wet Sclerophyll

Forest

Olive Whistler

(Pachycephala olivacea)

X X

Sooty Owl

(Tyto tenebricosa)

X X


138


unsuitable habitat


the species


species


Wompoo Fruit Dove

(Ptilinopus magnificus)

X X

Rose-Crowned Fruit Dove

(P. regina)

X X

Superb Fruit Dove

(P. superbus)

X X

Barred Cuckoo Shrike

(Coracina lineata)

X X

Parma Wallaby

(Macropus parma)

X X X X

Three-Toed Snake-Tooth Skink

(Coeranoscincus reticulatus)

X X X

Pale-Headed Snake

(Hoplocephalus bitorquatus)

X X X

White-Crowned Snake

(Cacophis harriettae)

X X X

Long-nosed Potoroo

(Potorous tridactylus)

X X X X

Red-Legged Pademelon

(Thylogale stigmatica)

X X X X

Giant Barred Frog

(Mixophyes iteratus)

X X X

Stuttering Frog

(M. balbus)

X X X

Pink Underwing Moth

(Phyllodes imperialis)

southern species

X X


139


unsuitable habitat


the species


species


Swamp/ Aquatic/

Freshwater Wetland/

Estuarine/ Marine

Blue-Billed Duck

(Oxyura australis)

X X

Freckled Duck

(Stictonetta naevosa)

X X

Magpie Goose

(Anseranas semipalmata)

X X

Painted Snipe

(Rostratula benghalensis)

X X

Comb-crested Jacana

(Irediparra gallinacea)

X X

Green and Golden Bell Frog

(Litoria aurea)

X X X

Wallum Froglet

(Crinia tinnula)

X X

Olongburra Sedge Frog

(Litoria olongburensis)

X X X

Shrubland/Heathland/

Grassland

Eastern Pygmy Possum

(Certatetus nanus)

X X X X

New Holland Mouse

(Pseudomys novaehollandiae)

X X X X

Eastern Chestnut Mouse

(Pseudomys gracilicaudatus)

X X X X

Grass Owl

(Tyto capensis)

X X

Ground Parrot

(Pezoporus wallicus wallicus)

X X X X


140

Appendix 2: Site flora species list

* Denotes an introduced species

Common Name Scientific Name Sydney Wattle Acacia longifolia

*Mist Flower Ageratina riparia

Black Oak Allocasuarina littoralis

Whisky Grass Andropogon virginicus

Rough-barked Apple Angophora floribunda

Carpet Grass Axonopus fissifolius

Mosquito Fern Azolla pinnata

*Farmers Friend Bidens pilosa

Coffee Bush Breynia oblongifolia

Weeping Bottlebrush Callistemon viminalis

*Camphor Laurel Camphor Laurel

Tall Sedge Carex appressa

Tassel Sedge Carex fascicularis

Swamp Oak Casuarina glauca

Pink Bloodwood Corymbia intermedia

Kidney Weed Dichondra repens

Tall Spike Rush Eleocharis sphacelata

Bordered Panic Entolasia marginata

Tallowwood Eucalyptus microcorys

Grey Ironbark Eucalyptus paniculata

Grey Gum Eucalyptus propinqua

Forest Red Gum Eucalyptus tereticornis

Twining Glycine Glycine clandestina

Blady Grass Imperata cylindrica

Jointed Rush Juncus articulatus

Common Rush Juncus usitatus

*Lantana Lantana camara

Prickly Tea Tree Leptospermum juniperinum

*Rye Grass Lolium sp.

Floating Pimrose Ludwigia peploides

Swamp Paperbark Melaleuca ericifolia

Flax-leaved Paperbark Melaleuca linariifolia

Teatree Melaleuca nodosa

Broad Leaved Paperbark Melaleuca quinquenervia

Sieber's Paperbark Melaleuca sieberi

Prickly-leaved Paperbark Melaleuca styphelioides

*Scotch Thistle Onopordum acanthium

Swamp Lily Ottelia ovalifolia

Monkey Rope Parsonsia straminea

*Paspalum Paspalum sp.

Sickle Fern Pellaea falcata

Slender Knotweed Persicaria decipiens

Frogmouth Philydrum lanuginosum

Yellow Pittosporum Pittosporum revolutum

Sweet Pittosporum Pittosporum undulatum


141

Common Name Scientific Name *Lambs Tongue Plantago lanceolata

Woolly Pomaderris Pomaderris lanigera

White Root Pratia purpurascens

Bracken Fern Pteridium esculentum

River Buttercup Ranunculus inundatus

*Blackberry Rubus fruticosus

*Curled Dock Rumex crispus

*Salvia Salvinia molesta

*Fireweed Senecio madagascariensis

*Milk Thistle Silybum marianum

*Wild Tobacco Solanum mauritianum

*Rats-tail grass Sporobolus africanus

*Dandelion Taraxacum officinale

Kangaroo Grass Themedia triandra

*White Clover Trifolium repens

Water Ribbons Triglochin microtuberosum

Water Ribbons Triglochin procera

Cumbungi Typha orientalis

*Purple Top Verbena bonariensis


142

Appendix 3: Hollow-bearing tree data

Table 25: Site hollow-bearing tree data

Within development footprint (estimated area). GPS locations may vary by 50m.

Hollows

Trunk Limbs

No. Species Latitude

Longitude DBH

(cm)

Small Medium

Large

Small

Medium Large

H1 Forest Red Gum -31.896107 152.534767 17 110 2 4 1

H2 Forest Red Gum -31.896074 152.534626 17 120 2 2

H3 Forest Red Gum -31.89584 152.534371 16 100 1 1

H4 Forest Red Gum -31.896313 152.532888 16 120 2

H5 Forest Red Gum -31.895952 152.533229 17 130 2

H6 Forest Red Gum -31.895921 152.533053 16 110 1 1

H7 Forest Red Gum -31.895901 152.532889 18 120 1

H8 Forest Red Gum -31.895672 152.53291 22 160 1 3

H9 Forest Red Gum -31.896002 152.532392 16 70 3

H10 Forest Red Gum -31.896116 152.532456 16 65 3

H11 Forest Red Gum -31.896143 152.532222 17 120 2 1 6 4

H12 Deadwood -31.896121 152.531913 15 64 2 1 1 3

H13 Forest Red Gum -31.896038 152.531956 16 80 1

H14 Forest Red Gum -31.89599 152.531887 15 180 1 3

H15 Forest Red Gum -31.895518 152.53198 17 160 2 1


143

H16 Forest Red Gum -31.895743 152.531629 16 120 3 2

H17 Swamp Oak -31.895777 152.531265 12 35 2 2

H18 Deadwood -31.895776 152.531163 16 110 1 3

H19 Forest Red Gum -31.895962 152.531273 16 115 2 3

H20 Forest Red Gum -31.895452 152.530908 15 110 2 3

H21 Swamp Oak -31.895709 152.530018 12 35 2

H22 Broad-leaved

Paperbark

-31.894367 152.529973 16 100 2

H23 Broad-leaved

Paperbark

-31.893242 152.528615 15 90 2

H24 Red Mahogany -31.893192 152.521992 15 110 1 3

H25 Deadwood -31.892813 152.521078 16 120 1 2

H26 Deadwood -31.892378 152.52135 23 150 1

H27 Forest Red Gum -31.894122 152.523169 16 80 1 2

H28 Forest Red Gum -31.895065 152.524233 15 100 1

H29 Forest Red Gum -31.895065 152.524231 16 70 2 1

H30 Deadwood -31.895118 152.524471 16 100 3 1

H31 Forest Red Gum -31.895125 152.524585 18 120 2 3

H32 Deadwood -31.891809 152.519787 12 110 2 1 3

H33 Broad-leaved

Paperbark

-31.892484 152.520038 15 100 2

H34 Deadwood -31.892383 152.520848 15 100 3 3


144

H35 Deadwood -31.890876 152.519303 12 100 1 2 1

H36 Deadwood -31.891277 152.518618 16 70 2 4

H37 Deadwood -31.891193 152.518163 12 60 1 2

H38 Red Mahogany -31.89163 152.518287 14 60 3

H39 Pink Bloodwood -31.891026 152.517521 16 110 2

H40 Eucalyptus sp. -31.890703 152.517432 17 80 2 2

H41 Deadwood -31.890575 152.517527 17 80 2 2

H42 Siebers

Paperbark

-31.890323 152.517724 9 60 2 2

H43 Deadwood -31.889712 152.520748 17 120 1 2 2

H44 Forest Red Gum -31.890763 152.524618 12 130 2

H45 Forest Red Gum -31.891231 152.524846 25 150 2 2

H46 Deadwood -31.892024 152.524535 20 120 2 1

H47 Deadwood -31.891556 152.52567 7 50 1

H48 Forest Red Gum -31.891391 152.525771 23 120 2 1 2

H49 Grey Ironbark -31.891478 152.525817 18 50 2

H50 Forest Red Gum -31.891685 152.525915 23 150 1

H51 Tallowwood -31.892119 152.525766 23 120 3

H52 Forest Red Gum -31.891931 152.526325 20 120 2

H53 Forest Red Gum -31.892412 152.525969 22 130 1 1 1

H54 Deadwood -31.892435 152.525991 16 130 1

H55 Deadwood -31.892433 152.525846 12 110 1


145

H56 Forest Red Gum -31.892345 152.526631 23 120 1 2

H57 Forest Red Gum -31.892641 152.526722 18 100 1 3

H58 Deadwood -31.894458 152.528771 16 45 1 2

H59 Swamp Oak -31.89446 152.528758 23 40 2

H60 Deadwood -31.894457 152.529148 14 80 3

H61 Broad-leaved

Paperbark

-31.894569 152.529026 14 60 3

H62 Deadwood -31.894261 152.52877 20 55 3


146

Documents

Ecological Constraints Assessment