NATURAL VALUES ASSESSMENT - Kingborough Council

17154-01

1

LARK & CREESE

62 Channel Highway, Kingston 7050 Ph 6229 6563 [email protected]

NATURAL VALUES

ASSESSMENT

Adventure Bay Road, Adventure Bay

for

S.J. Kay & J.L. Jones

D. Summers (BAppsc)

June 2017

lbromley

Stamp

17154-01

2

LARK & CREESE


Table of Contents

Summary……………………………………………………………………………………. 3

Proposal and Site Description……………………………………………………………... 6

Native Vegetation…………………………………………………………………………... 7

Introduced Plants…………………………………………………………………………... 13

Conservation Values…………………………………………………………………………17

Comment on proposed development ................................................................................... 22

Legislative Implications ........................................................................................................ 24

Conclusions and Recommendations .................................................................................... 26

References .............................................................................................................................. 27

Plant Species List................................................................................................................... 30

lbromley

Stamp

17154-01

3

LARK & CREESE


Summary

The following is a natural values assessment of the property 102713/1 Adventure Bay, Bruny

Island C.T. 116307/1, 102713/1 & 102713/2 on behalf of S.J. & J.L. Jones. Currently the

property is zoned Environmental Management under the Kingborough Interim Planning

Scheme 2015 (KIPS2015). This report looks at the potential for visitor accommodation

development and assesses potential short term and long term residual impacts on ecological

functions within and surrounding the proposed site.

Key Findings

Flora

No plant species on Schedules under Commonwealth Environment Protection and

Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 were found.

The study site within potential range for species listed within Commonwealth

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 however the study site

does not represent suitable habitat.

Study site supports two native vegetation communities as per TASVEG 3.0

o Dry Eucalyptus pulchella forest (DPU), and

o Regenerating dry Eucalyptus ovata woodland (DOV)

DOV is listed as a threatened vegetation community on Schedule 3A of the Tasmania’s

Nature conservation Act 2002.

Fauna

No fauna species on Schedules under Commonwealth Environment Protection and

Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 were found.

The study site within potential range for species listed within Commonwealth

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. The study represents

potential habitat for nationally endangered bird species such as the Swift parrot and

Forty-spotted Pardalote.

Introduced Plants

One introduced species classified as a ‘Weed of National Significance’ under the

Tasmanian Weed Management Act 1999 was found within the study site.

Two introduced species classified as a ‘declared weed’ under the Tasmanian Weed

Management Act 1999 was found within the study site.

One introduced species that should be considered for listing as an ‘environmental weed’

Discussion

The development has been designed and positioned to minimise the amount of Eucalyptus

ovata and Eucalyptus globulus trees required to be disturbed by locating majority the bushfire

hazard management areas within previously cleared agricultural land.

lbromley

Stamp

17154-01

4

LARK & CREESE


E. ovata and E. globulus currently constitute potential foraging resources for the Swift parrot. It

anticipate the development will not result in a significant loss of important existing nesting

habitat for this critically endangered bird species (see Tonia Cochran’s report).

It is also unlikely the proposed development will result in the loss of significant refuge or

critical foraging habitat for individuals or populations of Eastern Quolls. Ad such referral to the

states policy Conservation assessment Branch is not required.

Recommendations

Whilst the final development may not significantly impact threatened fauna species, in the short

term it may temporarily displace other marsupials, birds and reptiles species. Under Table

E10.1 of the KIPS2015 the site is within the Biodiversity Protection Area and due to the

presence of dry Eucalyptus ovata vegetation community the site is classified as having ‘High

Priority Biodiversity Values’. The low impact development does not comply with Acceptable

Solution under the Biodiversity Code E10.7 building or Works. However it appears the

proposal satisfies Performance Criteria P1 c) in that;

• Development sites are limited to proposed sites

• Proposed sites utilise existing modified vegetation whilst elevated bushfire attack level

construction standards minimise impacts on existing high priority vegetation

• Recommendations include implementing best practice hygiene management protocols to

prevent an increase of existing weed species during the construction phase.

• Implement a 5 year weed management plan to control and eradicate Ragwort post

construction to protect and maintain existing high priority biodiversity values on site and

surrounding Fluted Cape National Park. In addition active management of the site will

include undertaking restoration, rehabilitation and revegetation of identified degraded

areas.

• Proposal complies with provision iii) of special circumstances in that the amount of high

priority vegetation requiring removal in insignificant relative to the extent of that

community elsewhere on the property. Amelioration of degraded areas will be undertaken

through revegetation and rehabilitation.

• Removal of high priority vegetation and potential threatened species habitat is

satisfactorily offset in-situ in accordance with Councils Biodiversity Offsets Policy 6.10

and guidelines in Local Planning Approval Process as a Part 5 Agreement formal

vegetation covenant.

• Proposed development including wastewater management is unlikely to lead to an

unacceptable loss of priority biodiversity values and in my opinion will not substantially

compromise or detract from the conservation status of existing biodiversity values in

vicinity of the development.

Additional management prescriptions for proposed development have been recommended to

ensure the retention and protection of existing biodiversity and ecological functions for

threatened and non-threatened marsupial, birds, reptiles and bat species that inhabit the area.

lbromley

Stamp

17154-01

5

LARK & CREESE


Management prescriptions to address the construction phase of the development and potential

future land use could include:

• Implement measures to protect Eucalypts retained within proposed development sites and

during construction and upgrade of access in accordance with ‘Protection of trees on

development sites’ (AS 4970-2009).

• In conjunction with soil, water and erosion implement hygiene management prescriptions

to prevent accidental importation of new weed species and Phytophthora cinnamomi

during construction phase and address colonisation post construction.

• Specific management prescriptions within the soil, water and erosion management plan for

all development sites detailing location for soil, waste material storage and parking in

accordance with Tasmanian Washdown Guidelines for Weed and Disease Control:

Machinery, Vehicles and Equipment (Edition 1, 2004).

• Stage development to avoid blanket clearance when undertaking earthworks within the

designated development sites.

• Identify appropriate storage sites for soil and implement appropriate management

mechanisms to avoid mobilisation of sediment

• Avoid any unnecessary traffic outside the development envelope particularly when

constructing access for 102713/2

lbromley

Stamp

17154-01

6

LARK & CREESE


Proposal and Site Description

This report has been undertaken as part of a development application to the Kingborough

Council for the construction visitor accommodation within 102713/1 with access passing

through 102713/1 & 116207/1. The survey encompassed majority of the allotments however

focus was on natural values within the proposed development sites and the potential impacts on

existing ecological functions of the site and interaction with surrounding vegetation

communities. Survey methodology based on ‘Site Examination for Threatened and Endangered

Plant Species’ 1 supported by methodology outlined in “Manual for Assessing Vegetation

Condition in Tasmania” 2.

The allotments are currently zoned Environmental Management3 with the proposed

development sites boarded by similarly zoned allotments to the south. The allotment is boarded

by Fluted Cap National Park to the north and east while a Crown Reserve and public walking

track boarders the western boundary. The proposed development site is encompassed by

Councils Biodiversity Protection Area with a narrow band on the western boundary

encompassed by the Waterways Protection Area overlay and classified as a potential land slip

site (see Figure 7).

The study site supports Jurassic igneous rocks exists comprising mainly of Dolerite (tholeiitic)

with locally developed granophyre4. A survey found no geomorphic conservation features or

geoconservation sites within the property 4 nor any Aboriginal or cultural heritage sites have

been documented within the study site 4. Research also indicted no documented cases of

Phytophthora cinnamomi (Pc) were found within the property 4

.

Figure 1 – Locality map, 102713/1 Adventure Bay, Bruny Island (red)

4.

_____________________ Dawson & Rochow, 1982 1 DPIPWE, 2009 2 KPS2000 3 Natural Values Atlas 3.0

lbromley

Stamp

17154-01

7

LARK & CREESE


Native Vegetation

The report assesses flora and fauna values within the study site with specific focus on possible

negative impacts to existing threatened vegetation communities and threatened species habitat.

No vascular plant species of national conservation significance, listed in the Commonwealth

Environment Protection & Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 was recorded on site. No

vascular plant species listed under Schedule 3, 4 or 5 of the Threatened Species Protection Act

1995 was recorded on site 5. 23 native plant species were recorded – refer to Appendix A.

a), b)

c)

Figure 2 a,b & c – Historical images showing extent of clearing from 1950, 1989, and 1995.

The precise history of the land use is unclear but it appears the previous extent of land clearing

was limited by topography and the rocky substrate as gradients increased to the east. It appears

the cleared land was primarily used as pasture but surveys indicted harvesting of timber was

also practised with some recent evidence of harvesting. The allotment can be roughly

lbromley

Stamp

17154-01

8

LARK & CREESE


delineated by the western boundary of DPU vegetation community that approximately

represents the extent of previous clearing and an increase in gradient to the east (see above)

Tasveg 3.0 classify the linear strip of land adjacent to dry Eucalyptus globulus veg community

as Agricultural land with the remaining land to the east classified as Regenerating land. Since

my first visit in 2015 a rough access road had been constructed within the previous footprint of

an old service track. The majority of the land in this half is dominated by a mosaic of sedges,

rushes, bracken fern and old pasture. Scattered young eucalypts and wattles emerge from larger

more established clumps of sedges with cleared grassy areas consisting of a mix of native and

exotics that appear to be heavily grazed by wildlife.

Figure 3 – TASVEG 3.0 distribution of vegetation communities within the subject properties

(light green)8.

DGL – dry Eucalyptus globulus coastal forest/woodland, DPU – dry Eucalyptus

pulchella coastal forest/woodland, FAG -Agricultural land and FRG - Regenerating cleared

land.

As shown in Figure 2 this previously cleared agricultural land only occupies a section of land

on the western boundaries of C.T. 102713/2 & 116307/1 but occupies approximately half of the

land within 102713/1 with the remainder consisting of regenerating dry Eucalyptus ovata. The

distribution of sedges and rushes appeared to be even throughout the significantly altered

landscape of 102713/1. Surveys indicate distribution of young eucalypts in agricultural land

appear to be limited to western and southern boundaries except for a small clump of mixed

species eucalypts located centrally within allotment.

Assessment indicated the vegetation community within the regenerating land/ vegetation in

102713/2 & 116307/1 has not been cleared to the extent of that in 102713/1. Surveys indicate

the bushland regeneration is more advanced within 102713/2 & 116307/1 with higher stem

densities, bigger average DBH and increased complexity within ground and shrub/small tree

structures. Whilst DBH were larger survey found no obvious hollows however canopy showed

evidence of senescence and wind damage with these attributes commonly associated with

generating nesting hollows.

lbromley

Stamp

17154-01

9

LARK & CREESE


Surveys appear to indicate the larger eucalypts within Agricultural and regenerating dry

Eucalyptus ovata vegetation community are part of a recruitment cohort but unclear if the

process was driven by an episodic event. Given the cessation of previous land management

practices it also appears the existing on-going recruitment of woody species could be classified

as continuous. Recruitment of woody species such as small/tall shrubs appeared to be limited

and deficient in comparison to typical benchmarks species (≥ 50%) associated with existing

vegetation communities present. Given the previous land use, level of modification within the

site and regenerating status persistence potential of the site is considered medium in that:

Natural regeneration has been modified through previous land use and as such capacity

is restricted

Natural species provide more than half the cover in all vegetation layers however some

benchmark species are absent

Weed species present including high threat species such as Ragwort

Tussocks and shrubs provide habitat for smaller species to germinate and survive.

Figure 4 – Image looking south at newly constructed access. Also shows the modified

understory dominated by a mosaic of graminoids and emergent eucalypts.

Figure 4 – Looking north at newly constructed access. This access will require further upgrades

to comply with council standards.

lbromley

Stamp

17154-01

10

LARK & CREESE


Figure 5 – Image looking westerly at typical colonisation of rushes and sedges within 102713/1

Agricultural land. Also shows eucalypts in Crown Reserve on the western boundary

(background).

Figure 6 – Image looking north at disused pasture (foreground) within 102713/1 and

regenerating dry Eucalyptus ovata veg community (background).

Figure 7 – Image looking the proposed site of visitor accommodation in 102713/1 and two of

the Eucalyptus ovata requiring removal in background. Also shows the modified veg structure

within the old agricultural area.

lbromley

Stamp

17154-01

11

LARK & CREESE


Figure 8 – Image of DPU vegetation community to the east of the proposed development site in

102713/1

Figure 9 – Image looking north at proposed location of access and visitor accommodation in

102713/1 (background).

Figure 10 – Image looking south west at typical vegetation composition and structure within

Agricultural classified land in 102713/1.

lbromley

Stamp

17154-01

12

LARK & CREESE


The eastern section is dominated by increased gradients and rocky substrate. It appears the

vegetation this section of the property has not been modified to the same extent however there

is evidence of timber harvesting but these stumps appear blackened by a fire episode. The

lower slopes consist of mixed canopy with possibly Eucalyptus obliqua dominating. However

the canopy in the eastern section with moderate to steep gradients and rock substrate is

dominated by E. pulchella with evidence of possible stress and dieback. The average height of

canopy is reduced to approximately 15-18 metres with the understory limited to shrubs and

herbs with few grass species present.

Figure 11 – Image looking proposed development site in 102713/2 showing typical veg

structure and species composition.

Figure 12 – Image looking proposed development site in 116307/1 showing typical veg

structure and species composition.

lbromley

Stamp

17154-01

13

LARK & CREESE


Figure 13 – Image looking south vegetation structure within southern section of C.T. 102713/2

Figure 14 – Image showing photo identification and location.

________________________________ 7 Forestry Practices Authority 8 Harris & Kitchener, 2005 9 TASVEG 3.0, DPIPWE 10 Threatened species Unit, NP&WS & Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995, Commonwealth Environmental

Protection, Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 and Tasmanian Nature Conservation Act 1999.

lbromley

Stamp

17154-01

14

LARK & CREESE


Introduced Plants

Thistles and to a lesser extent Ragwort are well established on Bruny Island occupying

disturbed sites, road corridors, open pasture and to lesser extent margins of bushland. It is well

document this site has a history of Ragwort infestation but also includes Thistles and

Blackberry. Within the study site current land management practices implemented and

undertaken by existing owners has controlled the population and distribution of these species.

Recent disturbance of the substrate associated with the construction of an approved access has

resulted in significant germination of Ragwort and Thistles within the works corridor. The

owners were aware of this environmental issue and have conducted follow-up control work

before the plants flower. This germination event could indicate the site has a significant

Ragwort seedbank stored within the previously cleared areas. Surveys found Ragwort, Thistles

or blackberry within the modified western section however individual plants were sparse

however plants may have been missed due to the large area surveyed.

Figure 15 – Image showing the distribution of freshly germinated Ragwort and Thistles within

the newly constructed access (yellow linear strip). The yellow dot represents a single Ragwort

plant while the red dot represents a single blackberry plant.

Given the potential for an extensive Ragwort and Thistle seed bank within the proposed

development sites it is recommended and hygiene management plan is implemented before and

during the construction phase. If complied with these measures will mitigate potential

introduction and exportation of weed seeds and is widely accepted as best practice reducing

environmental impacts and costs for land owners. Therefore is proposed contractors adopt

recommended hygiene practices for washing down machinery and earthmoving equipment

prior to commencement of works to mitigate the accidental introduction of additional weed

species. In addition it is recommended all machinery and equipment washdown at the hygiene

facility prior to leaving site to prevent the accidental exportation of Ragwort weed seeds offsite.

lbromley

Stamp

17154-01

15

LARK & CREESE


Figure 16 – Image looking south at germination of Ragwort and Thistles within the corridor of

newly constructed access.

Figure 17 – Image showing immature Thistle and Ragwort rosettes with pen providing scale.

lbromley

Stamp

17154-01

16

LARK & CREESE


Figure 18 - Image looking north showing extent of Ragwort and Thistle germination within access

corridor.

Table 1 – Weed species present on site. (Excludes exotic grass, century plant and Plantago

species).

Weed Species Status 11

Distribution

Rubus fruticose

Blackberry

Weed Of National

Significance

Declared Weed (TAS)

BIWMS –

Zone B - containment

Limited to a few individual small plants in

102713/1. Distribution limited to

previously cleared areas

Cirsium vulgaris

Thistles

Declared Weed

BIWMS –


Distribution limited to previously cleared

areas and newly constructed access. No

flowering plants found. Some rosettes

were found in open pasture

Senecio jacobaea

Ragwort

Declared Weed

BIWMS –


Distribution generally limited to newly

constructed access and previously cleared

areas. No flowering plants found. Some

rosettes found in open pasture

lbromley

Stamp

17154-01

17

LARK & CREESE


Phytophthora cinnamomi (Pc)

Recent survey of the Natural Values Database indicated no Pc infestation within the property or

close by 14

with dry Eucalyptus pulchella within the study site is not considered susceptible to

Phytophthora cinnamomi 13

. Bruny Island has a number of Phytophthora Management Areas

located to the south at Labillardiere Peninsular, West Cloudy Head, Tasman Head and Cape

Queen Elizabeth to contain Pc9.

Project manager should seek a guarantee from earthmoving contractors that machinery,

equipment and vehicles have not recently worked within the areas above or other known

Pc infested areas. If contractors have been exposed to management areas listed above

contractor should provide guarantees that all vehicles have been cleaned offsite to a standard

that complies with Tasmanian Washdown Guidelines for Weed and Disease Control:

Machinery, Vehicles and Equipment (Edition 1, 2004) before commencement of works to

prevent accidental introduction of Pc.

Figure 19 – Image showing distribution of Phytophthora cinnamomi on Bruny Island in

proximity to proposed subdivision (yellow).

___________________

11 Natural Values Atlas Database 3.0, DPIPWE 12

Kingborough Weed Management Strategy 2013-2018

13 Flora Technical Note No. 8. 14 Southern Tasmanian Weed Management Strategy 2005

lbromley

Stamp

17154-01

18

LARK & CREESE


Conservation Values

Historical images indicate the area had been cleared of native veg as far back as 1920 and

remained clear until 1950’s. The area supports an area of modified but regenerating dry

Eucalyptus ovata eucalypt veg community and provides potential foraging habitat for the

critically endangered Swift parrot. Survey of eucalypt species within the previously cleared site

found Eucalyptus globulus, E. ovata and to a lesser extent E. obliqua are common in the poorly

drained western areas with shallow soil.

Studies have found it is the distribution and intensity of E. globulus flowering, rather than the

location of the nesting hollows, that largely determines the distribution of nesting swift parrots.

A survey for nesting hollows within the proposed development site found the modified and

regenerating vegetation community offers only limited nesting habitat10

. Only three trees

exceeding 700mm diameter at breast height (DBH) were found within the study site (to be

retained) with most averaging between 300 – 500mm DBH. The vast majority of eucalypts

lacked attributes associated with mature trees such as senescence, disease and wind damage.

The Crown Reserve adjacent to the western boundary supports a narrow band of mature

Eucalyptus globulus with many trees exceeding 700mm DBH with similar habitat found to the

east within Fluted Cape National Park. Whilst this area is small in area surveys indicate these

trees constitute core foraging habitat and potential critical nesting habitat.

Surveys indicate the regenerating dry Eucalyptus ovata and dry Eucalyptus pulchella in the east

of allotment supports some mature characteristics attributed to aging such as senescence and

wind damage necessary for production of nesting hollows. However the trees do not yet have

the capacity to support nesting hollows for the Masked owl that generally requires large nesting

hollows in mature forests11

. It is anticipated the scale and location of future development will

not impact on existing nesting sites or future breeding activities for the Wedge-tailed eagle and

White-bellied sea eagle as not within known ≥ 10 ha of relatively undisturbed forest is

preferred12

. No core foraging or nesting habitat for the Forty-spotted pardalote was found13

.

Figure 20 - Image showing distribution of mature habitat within and surrounding the proposed

subdivision site (red).

lbromley

Stamp

17154-01

19

LARK & CREESE


Figure 21 – Image showing extent of Swift Parrot Important Breeding Area in relation to the

subdivision site (yellow). (Ref: Forestry Practice Authority’s Biodiversity Values Database)

Figure 22 – Image showing core Forty-spotted Pardalote habitat (dark areas) and

potential foraging habitat (light purple area) in proximity to the proposed subdivision site

(yellow). (Ref: Forestry Practice Authority’s Biodiversity Values Database)

The site supports Eastern-barred Bandicoot’s favoured open disused pasture juxtaposed to

native vegetation containing sedges and tussocks that provided shelter. However as their

potential range is reportedly limited to north Bruny Island (see Figure 18) the site only

lbromley

Stamp

17154-01

20

LARK & CREESE


constitutes marginal habitat. The site represents potential habitat for the Eastern Quoll as they

inhabit a diverse range of habitats with both utilising hollow logs, caves, rock piles and disused

rabbit or wombat burrows. Quolls prefer dry grassland and forest mosaics which are bounded

by agricultural land, particularly where pasture grubs are common10

. Given the proposal

requires clearance and conversion of modified vegetation the proposal may potentially impact

foraging or critical refuge habitat of this threatened species (see Table 3)9

(see Figure 18).

Despite the clearance and conversion I do not believe the proposal will result in a loss of core

or critical foraging habitat nor displace individual or populations.

Figure 23 – Image showing the potential range of the Eastern Quoll in relation to the proposed

subdivision site. (Ref: Forestry Practice Authority’s Biodiversity Values Database)

Figure 24 – Image showing distribution of core Eastern-barred bandicoot (dark areas) and

potential foraging habitat (light grey) in proximity to proposed subdivision site (yellow).

(Ref: Forestry Practice Authority’s Biodiversity Values Database).

lbromley

Stamp

17154-01

21

LARK & CREESE


Table 2 - Significant Plant species previously recorded within 5 km radius of the study area 5 &

6 Threatened species Unit, NP&WS & Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995, Commonwealth Environmental

Protection, Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 and Tasmanian Nature Conservation Act 1999.

CONSERVATION STATUS

SPECEIES TSPA EPBC COMMENTS

Crassula moschate

Musky stonecrop rare -

Not recorded. Development sites do not represent suitable

habitat. Found in the littoral zone on beach rock stacks on

humic sandy soils on rocky shores and thin peaty soil on

beach pebbles. Often found near fresh water run-off and pools

Cythodes platystoma

Tall cheese berry rare -

Not recorded on site. No development sites do not represent

suitable habitat. Prefers wet eucalypt forests in areas of high

rain fall and high energy coastal environments including

South Bruny Island

Lepidium

pseudotasmanicum rare -

Not recorded. Prefers growth suppression zone beneath

large trees in grassy woodlands. Occurs in dry, warm and

fertile areas generally on flat ground between 40 to

500metres. Now primarily found on roadsides and home yards

on farms

Phyllangium

divergens vulnerable -

Not recorded. Occurs mostly in near-coastal situations

growing on rock plates on a variety of substrates.

Development site constitute marginal habitat.

Schoenus brevifolius

Zigzag bogsedge rare -

Not recorded. Development sites represents unsuitable

habitat. Usually found in shallow water around the fringes of

lagoons

Table 3 - Significant fauna species previously recorded within 5 km radius of the study area and

likelihood of them occurring on site13

Threatened species Unit, NP&WS. TSPA - Tasmanian Threatened Species

Protection Act 1995, EPBC -Commonwealth Environmental Protection, Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

CONSERVATION STATUS

SPECEIES

TSPA EPBC COMMENTS

Accipiter

novaehollandiae endangered -

No previously recorded within or near proposed development

site. Vegetation communities do not constitute potential

foraging or nesting habitat. Prefer tea-tree lined waterways

Aquila audax fleayi endangered Endangered

Not previously observed on site but nest has been observed

within 3000m. Proposed development envelopes will not

encroach into forested areas. Forested areas not deemed

suitable nesting habitat as veg community not assessed as

mature habitat

Dasyurus viverinus - Endangered

Not previously recorded on site. Study site constitutes

potential habitat. Surveys indicate potential denning habitat

available to the east within dry Eucalyptus obliqua and ovata

lbromley

Stamp

17154-01

22

LARK & CREESE


and steep gradients

Haliaeetus

leucogaster endangered Vulnerable

Not previously recorded. Vegetation community present does

not constitute potential habitat as not deemed mature enough

to support potential nesting habitat.

Lathamus discolor endangered Critically

Endangered

Previously recorded in forested area to east. Site within Swift

parrot important breeding area. Proposed development sites

do not constitute core foraging or nesting habitat. Unlikely the

proposal will cause a decline in population or impact on

survival of species

Pardalotus

quadragintus endangered Endangered

Not previously recorded within 3000m. Development site

does not constitute potential critical habitat as no Eucalyptus

viminalis present.

Perameles gunnii - Vulnerable

Not previously recorded on site. Mainly restricted to north

Bruny Island Occupies a variety of habitats from forest,

woodland and urban environments. Requires long dense grass

and low shrub cover for foraging and refuse juxtaposed to

open grassland. These bush/pasture interface within survey

site constitutes potential habitat.

Thinornis rubricolis vulnerable -

Site does not constitute potential habitat as these birds are

restricted to beach and coastal dunes. Proposal will not impact

this bird species

Tyto

novaehollandiae endangered Vulnerable

Not previously recorded within study site. This endangered

species requires mature old growth forest that supports large

nesting hollows.

lbromley

Stamp

17154-01

23

LARK & CREESE


Comment on Proposal

Majority of the infrastructure including carparks, main building and visitor accommodation are

located clear of regenerating dry Eucalyptus ovata (see figure 25). The long access via an

existing right-of-way passes through the tree protection zone of a number of high priority

eucalypt species12

. Whilst majority of these tree species are young they represent potential

foraging habitat for the Swift parrot. Arborist assessment indicates construction associated with

the upgrade of the bridge at the entry via Adventure Bay Road access will not / should not

significantly impact the health of Eucalyptus ovata identified (see Arborist report).

Figure 25 – Site plan of proposed development including location of significant eucalyptus.

lbromley

Stamp

17154-01

24

LARK & CREESE


Figure 26 – Site plan of trees identified on site.

The alignment of the access utilises the footprint of an existing vehicular track but a licence

was require to traverse a short section of Crown Land prior to entering private land.

Assessment indicates large eucalypts adjacent with in the Crown reserve will not be impacted

by the access upgrade. One small E. globulus in private land (C.T. 28579/1) will require

removal to make way for preventative construction methods recommended by the consultants

to mitigate impacts to tree #1. These mechanisms should be implemented prior to the

commencement of construction works. Other eucalypts potentially impacted by the proposal

have been assessed by the arborist and proposals compliance against AS4970-2009; Protection

of Trees in Development Site (see report).

Figure 27 – Image looking north at section of access within the tree protection zone large

Eucalyptus globulus (#1). This section requires alternative construction methodology to

lbromley

Stamp

17154-01

25

LARK & CREESE


mitigate compaction damage to roots and allow for transfer of water and gasses. The small E.

globulus on the right will require removal (see arborist report).

In line with arborist recommendations access construction methodology will raise the level of

existing natural surface level to avoid further disturbance of tree roots upslope. The new right-

of-way access runs parallel with the western boundary passing through private allotments prior

to entering the clients land. It is proposed runoff generated from the access will be dispersed

into a series of absorption trenches however for the first half of the access these trenches will

be located in Crown Land. Advice indicates a licence is required for this activity but anticipated

the alterations to drainage and hydrology will not result in long term residual impacts on the

health of trees and vegetation within the Crown Reserve.

Figure 28 - Image of Eucalyptus ovata #22 proposed to be removed. Right image showing the

presence of disease in the form of bracket fungi (see arborist report).

lbromley

Stamp

17154-01

26

LARK & CREESE


Figure 29 – Image of E. ovata (#20) and E. obliqua (#19) proposed to be removed (see arborist

report)

The design and site layout has attempted to mitigate disturbance to native bushland however

three Eucalyptus ovata and one E. obliqua will require removal. Given the trees high priority

status Tonia Cochran’s opinion, in conjunction with an arborist’s assessment, was sought. Field

assessments indicated the E. ovata earmarked for removal represents potential foraging habitat

for the Swift parrot but do not have the maturity to offer nesting habitat (see reports). In

addition the elevated bushfire attack level (BAL-29) construction standards has further

minimised the area required to be maintained in a reduced fuel condition in accordance with

bushfire hazard management regulations.

Figure 30 – Image showing E. ovata (red) proposed to be removed.

Figure 31 - Image of E. ovata that requires limb removal to raise canopy branches to reduce

ladder fuel for bushfire management compliance.

Wastewater Disposal

Geotechnical assessment of the site indicates the substrate is generated from Dolerite with

locally developed granophyre. The wastewater treatment system adopted will treat waste to a

tertiary level. Dispersal of wastewater will use a technique that does not require earthworks or

lbromley

Stamp

17154-01

27

LARK & CREESE


disturbance of the substrate. Irrigation like lines will disperse waste water amongst the sedges

and rushes. Irrigation lines will be placed on the surface covered with 200-300mm of mulch

(see wastewater report). Assessment from arborist indicated wastewater dispersal methodology

and projected flow rates will not impact eucalypts adjacent or down slope from these areas.

Surveys of the proposed absorption sites indicate existing vegetation in the form of graminoids

provide a good natural mechanism to mitigate the potential for surface flow, erosion and

mobilisation of sediments within the Crown Reserve.

Figure 32 – Image showing typical vegetation structure that exists between the proposed

development site and Crown Reserve. The proposed the wastewater dispersal areas will be

located in similar locations but set back from property boundaries .

lbromley

Stamp

17154-01

28

LARK & CREESE


Legislative Implications

Commonwealths’ Environmental Protection & Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBCA).

There are 5 issues of national significance relating to the Act, the nationally endangered and

vulnerable fauna 21

• Aquila audax subsp fleayi (Tasmanian Wedge-tailed eagle) Endangered TSPA & EPBCA

• Dasyurus viverinus (Eastern Quoll) Endangered EPBCA

• Lathamus discolour (Swift parrot) - endangered TSPA & Critically endangered EPBCA

• Pardalotus quadringintus (Forty-spotted Pardalote) endangered TSPA & EPBCA

• Tyto novaehollandiae (Masked owl) , endangered TSPA & Vulnerable EPBCA

There are no issue relating to nationally endangered flora that could potentially occupy the site 21

Under the EPBC Act referral is required if:

‘An action has, will have, or is likely to have a significant impact on a vulnerable/endangered

species if it does, will or is likely to (amongst other things):

• Modify, destroy, remove, isolate or decrease the availability or quality of habitat to the

extent that the species is likely to decline

• Adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of a species’

The proposal will not significantly impact core foraging or existing nesting habitat for the Swift

parrot Forty-spotted pardalote, Masked Owl, Tasmanian Wedge-tailed eagle or White-bellied

sea eagle. It is also unlikely the proposal will impact the Eastern Quoll. On this basis the

proposal is unlikely to lead to a decline in listed species populations or the habitat used by these

species. Therefore, on this basis a referral under the EPBC Act will not be required 21

.

Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 (TSPA)

Any impacts to threatened species listed under the TSPA will require a permit from the Policy

and Conservation Assessment Branch (PCAB) DPIPWE 20

. No threatened species were

recorded within the study site. The Study site constitutes potential habitat for a number of

threatened plant species however when the ecology of these species is taken into consideration

it is anticipated the development proposal will not affect the survival of these species23

and as

such referral under the PCAB will not be required.

Tasmanian Nature Conservation Act 2002 and Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993

Vegetation communities present within the study site is considered threatened under the Nature

Conservation Act 2002 and as such considered potential threatened species habitat. The

removal of more than 1 ha is required to be assessed by the Forest Practices Authority. If

removal of threatened veg community is less than 1 ha the proposal will only require approval

from the Kingborough Council.

lbromley

Stamp

17154-01

29

LARK & CREESE


Tasmanian Weed Management Act 1999 (WMA)

Declared weeds are subject to management plans under the WMA. Ragwort and Thistle species

have widespread infestations on Bruny Island and are listed as Declared weeds under

Tasmania’s Weed Management Act 1999 and classified as both Zone B under the Bruny Island

Weed Management Plan 2015-2020 24

. Surveys indicate historically Ragwort has been in the

area for many years with known distribution extending south into the old Adventure Bay

Caravan Park and north and east to the boundary of Fluted Cape National Park.

Recent access construction works has resulted in the germination of Ragwort and Spear thistles

within the access corridor. Current owners are aware of the Ragwort infestation and have

undertaken control actions with objectives to eradicate the species from the area. The

germination of these weed species resulting from disturbance possibly indicates both weeds

have established a significant seed bank from previous infestations. Both species produce many

seeds that remain viable for years after flowering.

Despite the infestation of these two declared weed species the allotments appear to be mostly

free of Spanish heath and other invasive weed species that are well established on Bruny Island.

It is therefore suggested a hygiene management facility be established at an appropriate site to

mitigate the accidental importation of other weed species.

Quarantine measures should include assurances from contractors all earth moving machinery

and equipment is washed down offsite at an appropriate site before entering the work site

to avoid the introduction of new weed species. Due to the presence of Ragwort and Thistles on

site it is also recommended all earth moving machinery and vehicles are appropriately cleaned

prior to leaving to avoid accidental exportation or at an appropriate facility prior. The weed

hygiene mechanism is also designed to prevent accidental introduction of Phytophthora

cinnamomi as the site represents potential habitat and susceptible plant species and when

established cannot be eradicated.

__________________________

18 Commonwealths’ Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 19 Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 20 Tasmanian Nature Conservation Act 1999 & Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 21 KIPS2015 22 Southern Tasmanian Weed Management Strategy 2011-2016 23 Flora Technical Notes No. 8

lbromley

Stamp

17154-01

30

LARK & CREESE


Discussion and Recommendations

A survey of the study site found the vegetation community consistent with Kingborough

Council’s vegetation overlay classification of regenerating but threatened dry Eucalyptus ovata

woodland. The site is within potential range for a number of threatened flora species however

none were recorded on site.

The location and vegetation community present represent significant habitat for critically

endangered Swift Parrot and forty-spotted pardalote. Development has been positioned to

minimise removal of potential habitat for these threatened bird species, only requiring removal

of 4 eucalypts. Despite this I do not think a referral to the Policy Conservation Assessment

Branch is required (se Tonia Cochran’s habitat assessment for threatened bird species).

It is anticipated the small scale development is not considered a threatening process for the

nationally vulnerable Eastern Quoll. It is also anticipated post-construction residual impacts

will not result in the loss of core foraging or burrowing habitat and therefore a referral to the

PCAB will not be required. Whilst the final development may not directly impact threatened

fauna species, in the short term it may temporarily displace other marsupials, birds and reptiles

species. However it is anticipated future development will not result in long term residual

impacts to existing ecological functions of native vegetation communities present.

It is my opinion the proposal is consistent with the objectives under E10.7.1 Buildings and

Works in that:

• Clearance and conversion or disturbance associated with the proposal will not have an

unnecessary or unacceptable impact on priority biodiversity values

• Future development is unlikely to lead to an unnecessary or unacceptable residual impact

on priority biodiversity values

Provisions within the KIPS2015 require the loss of native vegetation within the Biodiversity

Protection Area to be offset in accordance with Guidelines for the Use of Biodiversity Offsets

in the Local Planning Approval Process, Southern Tasmanian Councils Authority 2013 and

Council’s Biodiversity Offset Policy 6.10. Given small scale of the development it is proposed

a suitable offset could be in the form of a Management Plan for the site.

Management prescriptions have been recommended to ensure the retention and protection of

existing biodiversity and ecological functions to address the construction phase of the

development and potential future land use could include:

• Stage development to avoid blanket clearance when undertaking earthworks within the

designated development envelopes.

• Identify appropriate storage sites for soil and implement appropriate management

mechanisms

• Avoid any unnecessary traffic outside the development

• In conjunction with soil, water and erosion implement a hygiene management plan for all

development including prescriptions to prevent accidental importation of new weed

species and Phytophthora cinnamomi during construction and address colonisation post

construction.

lbromley

Stamp

17154-01

31

LARK & CREESE


APPENDIX A: VASCULAR PLANT SPECIES LIST

Plant list for Lot 1, Adventure Bay Road, Adventure Bay, Bruny Island

DICOTYLEDONAE

FAMILY NAME

Name Common name

ASTERACEAE

Bedfordia salinina

Senecio spp Groundsel

CASUARINACEAE Allocasuarina verticillata

CYPERACEAE Lepidosperma sp

DENNSTAEDTIACEAE Pteridium esculentum Bracken fern

EPACRIDACEAE Astroloma humisfusum Native cranberry

Epacris impressa Common heath

FABACEAE Pultenaea juniperina Bush pea

GOODENEACEAE Goodenia ovata

HEMEROCALLIDACEAE

Dianella tasmanica / revoluta Dianella

HALORAGACEAE

Gonocarpus teucrioides Raspwort

LAURACEAE

Cassytha spp. Dodderal

MIMOSACEA Acacia dealbata Silver wattle

Acacia melanoxylon

Acacia myrtifolia

Acacia terminalis Black wattle

lbromley

Stamp

17154-01

32

LARK & CREESE


APPENDIX A: VASCULAR PLANT SPECIES LIST CONT.

MYRTACEAE Eucalyptus globulus

Eucalyptus obliqua

Eucalyptus ovata

Eucalyptus pulchella

Eucalyptus viminalis

Leptospermum scoparium

ORCHIDACEAE

Unknown species

PITTOSPORACEAE

Billardiera heterophylla

PROTEACEAE

Banksia marginata Banksia

RHAMNACEAE Pomaderris sp

ROSACEAE Acaena novae-zelandiae

RUBIACEAE Coprosma quadrifida

SANTALACEAE Exocarpos cupressiformis Native cherry

MONOCOTYLEDONAE

FAMILY NAME

Name Common name

CYPERACEAE Gahnia sp

Lepidosperma spp. Sword sedge

JUNCACEAE

Juncas sp

LOMANDRACEAE

Lomandra longifolia

lbromley

Stamp

17154-01

33

LARK & CREESE


POACEAE Austrodanthonia spp Wallaby grass

Poa spp. Tussock grass

PTERIDOPHYTA

FAMILY NAME

Name Common name

DEMMSTAEDTIACEAE Pteridium esculentum Bracken fern

lbromley

Stamp

17154-01

34

LARK & CREESE


References

Bruny Island Weed Management Strategy 2007.Kingborough Council.

Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment, 2000, TASVEG 2000

Manual, Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment, Hobart.

Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment. Threatened Native

Vegetation Communities 2014, Released May 2015. Tasmanian Vegetation Monitoring and

Mapping Program, Natural and Cultural Heritage Division

Duncan, F. (1996). ‘A field key to Tasmanian species of Eucalyptus’ Tasforests vol. 8, Forestry

Tasmania. Tasmanian State Government, Government Printer, Hobart, Tasmania.

Environmental Protection & Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Commonwealth Government,

Office of Legislative Drafting and Publishing, Canberra.

Forest Practices Act (1985). Tasmanian State Government, Government Printer, Hobart,

Tasmania.

Forest Practices Authority. ’Eagle Nest Searching, Activity Checking and Nest Management’

Version 2.2 Fauna Technical Note No. 1, Forest Practices Authority, Hobart, Tasmania.

Forest Practices Authority. ’Identifying swift parrot breeding Habitat’, Fauna Technical Note

No. 3 Forest Practices Authority, Hobart, Tasmania.

Forest Practices Authority. ’Mt Mangana stag beetle survey protocol’, Fauna Technical Note

No. 5 Forest Practices Authority, Hobart, Tasmania.

Forest Practices Authority. ’Identifying Tasmanian devil and Spotted-tail Quoll habitat’, Fauna

Technical Note No. 10. Forest Practices Authority, Hobart, Tasmania.

Forest Practices Authority. ’Phytophthora cinnamomi in working forests’, Flora Technical Note

No. 8. Forest Practices Authority, Hobart, Tasmania.

Forest Practices Authority 2010, ‘Goshawk habitat categories’, Fauna Technical Note No. 12,

Forest

Practices Authority, Hobart, Tasmania.

Forest Practices Authority.’ Nest identification’, Fauna Technical Note No. 14 ‘Forest

Practices Authority, Hobart, Tasmania.

Forest Practices Authority (2005). Forest Botany Manual: Module 6 – D'Entrecasteaux Region.

Forest Practices Authority, Tasmania.

lbromley

Stamp

17154-01

35

LARK & CREESE


Forest Practices Authority (2013), ‘Wedge-tailed Eagle Nest Monitoring Project 2007–12: Nest

site use, timing of breeding, and a review of the nesting habitat model’, Report to Roaring 40s,

Threatened Species and Marine Section (DPIPWE), April 2013, Forest Practices Authority

Scientific Report.

Forest Practices Authority 2012, Biodiversity landscape planning guideline: a framework for

managing biodiversity values, including RFA priority species, across the landscape in areas

covered by the Tasmanian forest practices system - a report to the Commonwealth Government

and the Forest Practices Authority, July 2012.

Forest Practices Authority (2010) Interim Species Habitat Planning Guideline for the

conservation management of Lathamus discolor (Swift Parrot) in areas regulated under the

Tasmanian Forest Practices System. Internal report to the Forest Practices Authority, Hobart,

Tasmania.

Goff, F.G, Dawson, G.A. and Rochow, J.J. (1982). ‘Site Examination for Threatened and

Endangered Plant Species’. Environmental Management 6 (4) pp 307-316.

Kingborough Council. Kingborough Interim Planning Scheme 2015.

Harris, S & Kitchener, A. eds (2005). From Forest to Fjaeldmark: Descriptions of Tasmania’s

Vegetation. Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment, Printing Authority of

Tasmania, Hobart.

HYPERLINK "http://www.dpiw.tas.gov.au/inter" http://www.dpiw.tas.gov.au/inter

Koch, A. ‘Tree hollows in Tasmania: A Guide’ FPA Hollows Project Officer.

CRC for Forestry and the Forest Practices Authority, November 2009.

Land Use Planning and Approvals Act (1993). Tasmanian State Government, No. 70 of 1993.

Government printer, Hobart, Tasmania.

Nicolle, D. 2006, ‘Eucalypts of Victoria and Tasmania’ Blooming Books, Melbourne,

Australia.

Schrammeyer, E., 2005. Southern Tasmanian Weed Strategy, Management Regional

Committee

(NRM South) NRM South, Hobart

S. Pfennigwerth. 2007. ‘Minimising the swift parrot collision threat, Guidelines and

recommendations for parrot-safe building design. Melampus Media. WWF-Australia.

Tasmanian State Government (1993). Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993. No. 70 of

1993. Government Printer, Hobart, Tasmania.

lbromley

Stamp

17154-01

36

LARK & CREESE


Tasmanian State Government (2002). Nature Conservation Act 2002. No. 63 of 2002.

Government Printer, Hobart, Tasmania.

Tasmanian State Government (1995). Threatened Species Protection Act 1995. No. 83 of

1995. Government Printer, Hobart, Tasmania.

Tasmanian State Government (1999). Tasmanian Weed Management Act 1999. Government

Printer, Hobart, Tasmania.

Tasmanian State Government (1997). Tasmanian Plant Quarantine Act: Section 12 –

Publications of pests and diseases. Government Printer, Hobart, Tasmania.

Threatened Species Unit; Threatened Flora of Tasmania. DPIPWE, 2003.

http://dpipwe.tas.gov.au/conservation/threatened-species/lists-of-threatened-

species/threatenedspecies-vertebrates/wedge-tailed-eagle

Wapstra, M., Wapstra, A., Wapstra. H. 2010. ‘Tasmanian Plant Names Unravelled’ Fullers

Books, Launceston, Tasmania.

Wapstra, M., Roberts, N., Wapstra, H. & Wapstra, A. (2010). Flowering Times of Tasmanian

Orchids: A Practical Guide for Field Botanists. Self-published by the authors (September 2010

version).

lbromley

Stamp

17154-01

37

LARK & CREESE


VASCULAR PLANT SPECIES LIST

ADVENTURE BAY ROAD, BRUNY ISLAND

DICOTYLEDONAE

FAMILY NAME

Species name Common name

ASTERACEAE

Bedfordia salicina

Helichrysum spp Everlasting

Senecio spp Groundsel

APIACEAE Hydrocotyle sicthorpioides

EPACRIDACEAE Astroloma humifusum Native cranberry

Epacris gunnii / lanuginosa

Epacris impressa Common heath

Lissanthe strigosa Peach berry

FABACEAE Pultenaea daphnoides obcordata native daphne

Daviesia ulicifolia Native gorse

Pultenaea juniperina

GOODENEACEAE Goodenia ovata Hop-Native primrose

HEMEROCALLIDACEAE Dianella tasmanica

HALORAGACEAE Gonocarpus micranthus

MIMOSACEA Acacia dealbata Silver wattle

Acacia melanoxylon Black wood

Acacia mucronata Native willow

Acacia terminalis Sunshine wattle

Acacia verticillata Prickly moses

MYRTACEAE Eucalyptus globulus

lbromley

Stamp

17154-01

38

LARK & CREESE


Eucalyptus obliqua

Eucalyptus ovata

Eucalyptus pulchella

Leptospermum scoparium Common Teatree

Melaleuca squarrosa

VASCULAR PLANT SPECIES LIST CONT.

PITTOSPORACEAE Bursaria spinosa Prickly box

PROTEACEAE Banksia marginata Silver Banksia

Lomatia tinctoria Guitar plant

RESTIONACEAE Baloskion

RHAMNACEAE Pomaderris spp

ROSACEAE Acaena novae-zelandiae

RUBIACEAE Coprosma quadrifida Native currant

SANTALACEAE Exocarpos cupressiformis Native cherry

SAPINDACEAE Dodonaea viscosa spatulate Broadleaf hop bush

SCROPHULARIACEAE Veronica gracillis Slender speedwell

MONOCOTYLEDONAE

FAMILY NAME


CYPERACEAE

lbromley

Stamp

17154-01

39

LARK & CREESE


Gahnia radula Thatch saw sedge

Lepidosperma spp Swordsedge

POACEAE Austrodanthonia spp Wallabygrass

Austrostipa spp Speargrass

Poa sp lababerdierisi

XANTHORRHOEACEAE Lomandra longifolia Sagg

PTERIDOPHYTA

FAMILY NAME


DEMMSTAEDTIACEAE Pteridium esculentum Bracken

Polystichum proliferum

INTRODUCED PLANT SPECIES

Cirsium vulgare Spear thistles

Centaurium sp Century plant

Genista monspessulana Canary Broom

Erica lusitanica Spanish heath

Senecio jacobea Ragwort

lbromley

Stamp

Documents

NATURAL VALUES ASSESSMENT - Kingborough Council