Annual Floristic Monitoring Report 2015

Prepared for Ulan Coal Mines Limited

15 March 2016

2015 Annual Floristic Monitoring Report

2015 Floristic Monitoring Report

PREPARED FOR Ulan Coal Mines Limited

PROJECT NO 15MUD-2554

DATE March 16

DOCUMENT TRACKING

ITEM DETAIL Project Name Ulan Coal Mines Limited Floristic Monitoring Report 2015 Project Number 15MUD-2554 File location N:\Projects\15MUD\2554 UCML Floristic Monitoring - Spring 2015\Reports\Final Prepared by Sarah Dickson-Hoyle, Rachel Murray Technical review Daniel Magdi Approved by Daniel Magdi Status Final Version Number V2 Last saved on 15 March 2016

Clockwise from top left: Acacia ausfeldii, Open Cut rehabilitation; Eucalyptus dwyeri fruit; Cover photo Xerochrysum viscosum; natural regeneration area, Bobadeen East; BOBE2. Photo credits: Sarah-Dickson Hoyle and David Allworth, 2015.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This document has been prepared by Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd with support from Ulan Coal Mines Limited.

Disclaimer This document may only be used for the purpose for which it was commissioned and in accordance with the contract between Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd and Ulan Coal Mines Limited. The scope of services was defined in consultation with Ulan Coal Mines Limited, by time and budgetary constraints imposed by the client, and the availability of reports and other data on the subject area. Changes to available information, legislation and schedules are made on an ongoing basis and readers should obtain up to date information. Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever for or in respect of any use of or reliance upon this report and its supporting material by any third party. Information provided is not intended to be a substitute for site specific assessment or legal advice in relation to any matter. Unauthorised use of this report in any form is prohibited.

Contents

Contents ...... ii

List of Figures ...... iv

List of Tables ...... v

Abbreviations ...... vi

1 Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Project Area ...... 1 1.2 Biodiversity Management Plan ...... 2 1.2.1 Ecological Management Domain Objectives ...... 2 1.2.2 Floristic Monitoring ...... 4 1.2.3 Performance and Completion Criteria – Revegetation/regeneration sites ...... 7

2 Methodology ...... 8 2.1 Floristic Monitoring...... 8 2.1.1 Residual Vegetation Monitoring ...... 10 2.1.2 Revegetation/Regeneration Area Vegetation Monitoring ...... 15 2.1.3 Floristic-based Subsidence Monitoring ...... 18 2.2 Landscape Function Analysis ...... 20 2.2.1 Landscape Organisation...... 21 2.2.2 Soil Surface Assessment...... 21 2.3 Targeted Acacia ausfeldii surveys ...... 24 2.4 Salinity Offset Area Monitoring ...... 25 2.4.1 Pivot Fence Tree-line Monitoring ...... 26 2.5 Natural Regeneration Monitoring ...... 28 2.6 Weather Conditions ...... 30

3 Results ...... 32 3.1 Floristic Monitoring...... 32 3.1.1 EEC/CEEC communities ...... 32 3.1.2 Non EEC/CEEC communities ...... 33 3.1.3 Biometric Plot Baseline Data ...... 48 3.1.4 Rapid Assessment ...... 50 3.1.5 Floristic-based Subsidence Monitoring ...... 53 3.1.6 Weeds and Other Disturbances ...... 56 3.2 Landscape Function Analysis ...... 58 3.3 Acacia ausfeldii Surveys ...... 61

3.3.1 Highett Road Population...... 61 3.3.2 Open Cut Translocation Area Population ...... 61 3.4 Salinity Offset Area Summary ...... 62 3.4.1 Pivot Fence Tree-line Monitoring ...... 63 3.5 Natural Regeneration Monitoring ...... 67

4 Discussion & Recommendations ...... 68 4.1 Floristic monitoring...... 68 4.1.1 EEC/CEEC Communities ...... 68 4.1.2 Non EEC/CEEC Communities ...... 69 4.1.3 Biometric Data ...... 69 4.1.4 Rapid Assessments ...... 70 4.1.5 Floristic-based Subsidence Monitoring ...... 70 4.1.6 Weeds and Disturbances ...... 71 4.1.7 Future Monitoring ...... 72 4.2 Landscape Function Analysis ...... 73 4.2.1 Future Monitoring ...... 74 4.3 Acacia ausfeldii ...... 74 4.3.1 Highett Road ...... 74 4.3.2 Open Cut Translocation Area ...... 74 4.3.3 Open Cut Rehabilitation ...... 75 4.4 Salinity Offset Area Monitoring ...... 75 4.4.1 Pivot Fence Tree-line Monitoring ...... 75 4.5 Natural Regeneration Monitoring ...... 75

5 References ...... 77

Appendix A: Flora List ...... 78

Appendix B: LFA Results ...... 87

List of Figures

Figure 1.1: UCML Ecological Management Domains ...... 6

Figure 2.1: Residual vegetation monitoring sites ...... 12

Figure 2.2: Rapid assessment vegetation monitoring sites ...... 14

Figure 2.3: Revegetation/Regeneration vegetation monitoring sites ...... 17

Figure 2.4: Floristic-based subsidence monitoring sites ...... 19

Figure 2.5: LFA monitoring sites ...... 23

Figure 2.6: Pivot fence tree-line areas ...... 27

Figure 2.7: Natural regeneration monitoring areas ...... 29

Figure 3.1: Native species richness in EEC/CEEC sites...... 44

Figure 3.2: Exotic species richness in EEC/CEEC sites ...... 45

Figure 3.3: Native species richness in non EEC/CEEC revegetation/regeneration sites ...... 46

Figure 3.4: Exotic species richness in non EEC/CEEC revegetation/regeneration sites...... 47

Figure 3.5: Incidental disturbance observations...... 57

Figure 3.6: LO of each LFA monitoring site, 2013-2015 ...... 58

Figure 3.7: Proportion of landscape occupied by each patch, spring 2015 ...... 59

Figure 3.8: Stability, infiltration and nutrient cycling indices for all LFA sites, spring 2015 ...... 60

Figure 3.9: Condition ratings of A. ausfeldii individuals, AA1 and AA2 Open Cut translocation plots ..... 62

Figure 3.10: Healthy trees comparison against 75% healthy target ...... 65

Figure 3.11: Distribution of tree health ...... 66

Figure 3.12: Distribution of tree species ...... 66

List of Tables

Table 1.1: Biometric Vegetation Type Benchmark Values ...... 7

Table 2.1: Modified Braun-Blanquet Crown Cover-Abundance Scale ...... 9

Table 2.2: Residual vegetation monitoring sites (full floristic sites)...... 11

Table 2.3: Residual vegetation monitoring sites (rapid assessments) ...... 13

Table 2.4: Revegetation/regeneration vegetation monitoring sites (full floristic plots) ...... 16

Table 2.5: Floristic-based subsidence monitoring sites ...... 18

Table 2.6: LFA analogue and rehabilitation sites ...... 20

Table 2.7: Acacia ausfeldii rating definitions ...... 24

Table 2.8: Floristic and rapid assessment monitoring sites located within the SOA ...... 25

Table 2.9: Weather conditions ...... 30

Table 3.1: Floristic survey summary ...... 34

Table 3.2: Biometric plot data - spring 2015 ...... 48

Table 3.3: Rapid assessment vegetation structure summary ...... 51

Table 3.4: Floristics-based Subsidence Monitoring Data (spring 2015 results) ...... 54

Table 3.5: Noxious weeds and dominant exotic species summary ...... 56

Table 3.6: Condition and reproductive ratings summary – Highett Road population ...... 61

Table 3.7: Pivot Fence tree-line planting numbers and health ...... 63

Table 3.8: Summary of natural regeneration ...... 67

Table 4.1: Recommended management actions for noxious and other weeds ...... 72

Abbreviations

ABBREVIATION DESCRIPTION

BMP Biodiversity Management Plan

CEEC Critically Endangered Ecological Community

DP&I Department of Planning and Infrastructure

DSEWPAC Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities

DotE Department of the Environment

EEC Endangered Ecological Community

ELA Eco Logical Australia

EPBC Act Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

HBT Hollow-bearing Tree

LFA Landscape Function Analysis

LO Landscape Organisation

OEH Office of Environment and Heritage

NGC Native Ground Cover

NMC Native Mid-storey Cover

NOS Native Overstorey Cover

NSD Native Species Diversity

PCQ Point Centered Quarter

SOA Salinity Offset Area

SSA Soil Surface Assessment

TSC Act Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995

UCML Ulan Coal Mines Limited

2015 Annual Floristic Monitoring Report

1 Introduction

In 2010 the Ulan Coal Continued Operations Project was given Project Approval (PA 08_0184) by the New South Wales (NSW) Department of Planning and Infrastructure (DP&I, now the New South Wales Department of Planning & Environment (DP&E)) under Part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) and was determined by Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (DSEWPaC) (now the Department of the Environment (DotE)), to be a controlled action under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). In November 2010, DSEWPaC granted approval under the EPBC Act (ref 2009/5252).

Ulan Coal Mines Limited (UCML) developed a Biodiversity, Rehabilitation and Offset Management Plan (BROMP) to address the requirements of EPBC Ref: 2009/5252 and Condition 44, Schedule 3 of the Project Approval (PA 08_0184) (granted under Part 3A of the NSW EP&A Act). The BROMP was approved on 18 January 2011.

The BROMP was revised to become the Biodiversity Management Plan (BMP) (ULN SD PLN 0026), which includes the Offset Management Program (OMP) (ULN SD ANN 0048), and re-submitted on 22 December 2011. The revised BMP was approved on 22 March 2012. The BMP includes a framework for ecological monitoring and associated reporting (refer to Section 1.2.2).

The BMP was subsequently revised as a result of the Land and Environment Court final orders, issued on 5 April 2012. Revisions were submitted on 30 November 2012, 30 April 2013 and during April 2014. During 2015, the BMP was revised to address the requirements of the DP&E Draft Best Practice Guidelines for Biodiversity Offset Management Plans.

Eco Logical Australia (ELA) was engaged by UCML to prepare the 2015 Annual Floristic Monitoring Report for the Project Area, in line with the requirements of the BMP.

This Annual Floristic Monitoring Report provides details of the methodology and results obtained during the flora, Landscape Function Analysis, and natural regeneration monitoring conducted during 2015. This report also includes analysis and discussion comparing 2015 results against those from previous monitoring periods, and recommendations for management actions to be implemented during 2016 as well as changes that could be made to improve the quality and relevance of the data collected through the monitoring program.

1.1 PROJECT AREA The Ulan Coal Mine (UCM) is situated in the central west of NSW. It is located in the Mid-Western Regional Council (MWRC) Local Government Area (LGA) near the village of Ulan; approximately 38 km north-northeast of Mudgee and 19 km northeast of Gulgong. UCM is a joint venture between Glencore Coal Pty Limited (90%) and Mitsubishi Development (10%). Glencore Coal Assets Australia (GCAA) maintains management responsibility for the UCM. The mining operations at Ulan are one of a number of mining assets owned and/or managed by Glencore.

The UCM Project Area comprises a total of 13,435 hectares (ha), made up of:

 Open Cut Mining – approximately 239 ha of the recently approved open cut operations;  Previous Mining and Surface Infrastructure Areas – approximately 1,004 ha of previous open cut mining areas that have a combination of rehabilitation areas and final voids that remain to support

2015 Annual Floristic Monitoring Report

future mining activities (water storage, tailings disposal, underground access etc.), the rehabilitation makes up 500 ha of this area;  Residual Project Area – the remainder of the Project Area (approximately 10,711 ha) that is not subject to the current project. This includes large areas that have been previously undermined, agricultural grazing land, irrigation pivots and large areas of remnant native vegetation; and  Biodiversity Offset and Cliffline Management Areas, including: o Bobadeen Vegetation Offset Area – 991 ha o Bobadeen East Vegetation Offset Area – 232 ha o Brokenback Conservation Area – 58 ha o Spring Gully Cliffline Management Area – 211 ha o Bobadeen Vegetation Offset Corridor – 124 ha.

1.2 BIODIVERSITY MANAGEMENT PLAN UCML developed a BMP to satisfy the requirements of Condition 44, Schedule 3 of the Project and to satisfy the requirements of the DotE Approval (EPBC Ref: 2009/5252). This BMP was approved on 22 March 2012.

The BMP (ULN SD PLN 0026), which includes the Offset Management Program (OMP) (ULN SD ANN 0048), was re-submitted in 2014 and approved by the DotE on 14 November 2014. During 2015, the BMP was revised to address the requirements of the DP&E Draft Best Practice Guidelines for Biodiversity Offset Management Plans. The revised BMP was approved on 11/11/2015.

The purpose of the BMP is to describe the ecological management strategies, procedures, controls and monitoring programs and associated reporting that are to be implemented for the management of flora and fauna within the Project Area.

The BMP represents the framework for the overall Biodiversity Management Structure. As part of this structure, the Integrated Mining Operations Plan (ULN SD PLN 0079) (which deals with rehabilitation methodology, monitoring and management), OMP and Bushfire Management Plan (ULN SD ANN 0053) were developed to support the implementation of the BMP.

The BMP divides the Project Area into 10 ecological management domains in order to assist in refining targeted ecological management requirements. These ecological management domains include:

1) Open Cut Domain 2) Surface Infrastructure Domain 3) Residual Project Area Domain 4) Salinity Offset Area Domain 5) Goulburn River Remediation Domain 6) Bobadeen Vegetation Offset Domain 7) Bobadeen East Vegetation Offset Domain 8) Bobadeen Vegetation Offset Corridor 9) Brokenback Conservation Domain 10) Spring Gully Cliffline Management Domain.

1.2.1 Ecological Management Domain Objectives The BMP establishes objectives for the post-mining rehabilitation areas (Open Cut Domain), the Goulburn River Remediation Domain and each offset domain within the Project Area (Figure 1.1). Objectives for these domains include:

2015 Annual Floristic Monitoring Report

 Open Cut Domain: o To create a stable final landform with acceptable post-mining land use capability, being self-sustaining native vegetation communities characteristic of the pre-mining composition; o To rehabilitate and revegetate the post-mining areas progressively over the life of the mine, as soon as practicable after mining disturbance and reforming of the landscape; o To minimise the disturbed area at any point in time; o To use the indicative revegetation strategy developed within the Ulan Coal EA (Umwelt 2009) to return self-sustaining native vegetation communities to the post-mining open cut area; o To rehabilitate the post-mining Open Cut Disturbance Area with the aim of emulating the pre-mining environment, and enhancing local and regional ecological linkages across the Project Area and adjoining areas; o To use local provenance species for revegetation works, unless conditions such as seed availability or climate require the use of species from a wider region; o To re-establish a variety of vegetation types to increase the value of this revegetation for fauna species, particularly threatened species; o To undertake revegetation works that aim at reducing the representation of Unimproved Pasture within the post-mining landscape, replacing this with woodland and forest communities, to provide increased fauna habitat within the post-mining Open Cut Disturbance Area; o To undertake post-mining landscaping with species characteristic of Grey Box Woodland and Ironbark Open Forest Complex on Sandstone communities; and o To include Acacia ausfeldii in revegetation works for the rehabilitation of the post-mining Open Cut Disturbance Area.

 Goulburn River Remediation Domain: o To improve the overall aesthetic appearance of the diversion, particularly for sections of the diversion that are highly visible from Ulan Road; o To improve the surface drainage controls and vegetation establishment; o To increase the geomorphic features and ecological integrity of the diversion where feasible; o To implement erosion control measures; o To strive for a positive improvement on water quality exiting the diversion; and o To gain community and government acceptance of the proposed stability works.

 Bobadeen Vegetation Offset Area: o To provide an immediate, long-term and direct offset for vegetation impacted as a result of the Project; o To protect and improve areas of White Box Woodland Endangered Ecological Community (EEC)/Critically Endangered Ecological Community (CEEC) vegetation; o To protect and improve vegetation and habitat connectivity throughout the Project Area; o To protect and enhance fauna habitat, particularly for threatened fauna species; o To ensure all management actions within this area are supplementary to, and do not duplicate, the existing commitments to the Salinity Offset Area; and o To provide monitoring to ensure mitigation strategies are effective.

 Bobadeen Vegetation Offset Corridor; o to provide a vegetated corridor linking the Bobadeen Vegetation Offset Domain and Bobadeen East Vegetation Offset Domain;

2015 Annual Floristic Monitoring Report

o to protect and improve vegetation and habitat connectivity throughout the Project Area; o to provide an immediate, long-term and direct offset for vegetation lost as a result of the clearing activities of the Project; o to protect and improve areas of Box Gum Woodland EEC/CEEC within the Project Area; o to protect and enhance fauna habitat, particularly for threatened fauna species; and o to provide monitoring to ensure mitigation strategies are effective.

 Bobadeen East Vegetation Offset Area: o To provide an immediate, long-term and direct offset for vegetation lost as a result of the clearing activities of the Project; o To protect and improve areas of White Box Woodland EEC/CEEC within the Project Area; o To protect and improve vegetation and habitat connectivity throughout the Project Area; o To protect and enhance fauna habitat, particularly for threatened fauna species; and o To provide monitoring to ensure mitigation strategies are effective;

 Brokenback Conservation Area and Spring Gully Cliffline Management Area: o To provide for the protection and management of cliffline areas (including associated cave habitat) to compensate for that which will be removed as part of the Open Cut Disturbance Area, as well as that which may be subject to subsidence-related impacts, such as rock fall; o To protect and enhance fauna habitat, particularly cliffline areas for habitat specific threatened fauna species; and o To provide monitoring to ensure mitigation strategies are effective.

1.2.2 Floristic Monitoring A comprehensive floristic monitoring program was developed to assess the performance of biodiversity management measures and to determine whether both Biodiversity Offset and Cliffline Management Areas are progressing towards meeting the specific condition improvement targets.

The BMP outlines a monitoring program that is aimed at:

 Providing a scientific basis for defining rehabilitation objectives and for developing closure criteria and a rehabilitation program that will facilitate lease relinquishment following closure;  Assessing the long-term stability and functioning of re-established ecosystems within post-mining rehabilitation areas, as well as revegetated areas within the Biodiversity Offset and Cliffline Management Areas;  Facilitating continuous improvement in rehabilitation and revegetation practices;  Recording and documenting changes in retained vegetation within the Residual Project Area and Biodiversity Offset and Cliffline Management Areas, through comparison with baseline data from permanent monitoring sites and comparison with predictions in the EA (Umwelt 2009);  Recording and documenting changes in the structure, composition and condition of revegetation within the Biodiversity Offset and Cliffline Management Areas, over time;  Assessing the biogeochemical functioning of the landscape in post-mining rehabilitation areas using Landscape Function Analysis (LFA);  Determining if the impacts on key threatened species are consistent with predictions in the EA (Umwelt 2009);  Assessing progressive changes to flora and fauna species assemblages within the Approved Project Disturbance Areas and Biodiversity Offset and Cliffline Management Areas over time; and

2015 Annual Floristic Monitoring Report

 Ensuring the ecological integrity/function of the Biodiversity Offset and Cliffline Management Areas are maintained or improved as a result of ongoing management practices.

This report provides details of the flora species and ecological communities present within the Project Area and will be used to inform results of and suggested improvements to management actions across the Project Area.

Monitoring undertaken during autumn and spring 2015 is the fifth monitoring period under the BMP. Monitoring undertaken during 2015 included:

 Floristic monitoring – floristic quadrats and Biometric plots;  Rapid assessments of vegetation structure and disturbances;  Landscape Function Analysis (Open Cut, Goulburn River Remdiation and their analogues);  Targeted Acacia ausfeldii surveys; and  Pivot fence tree-line monitoring.

2015 Annual Floristic Monitoring Report

Figure 1.1: UCML Ecological Management Domains

2015 Annual Floristic Monitoring Report

1.2.3 Performance and Completion Criteria – Revegetation/regeneration sites The BMP outlines performance criteria that will be used to assess the success of revegetation and regeneration within the Vegetation Offset Areas. The BMP assigned each mapped vegetation community (and following from this, each monitoring site) within the UCML Project Area to a Biometric Vegetation Type (BVT).

The Biometric Benchmark Values for each BVT will be used to determine the success of revegetation and regeneration in the Vegetation Offset Areas. The benchmark values provide the target range to be achieved post-revegetation and through natural regeneration.

Where monitoring data indicates that regeneration/revegetation areas within the range of the relevant BVT benchmark, these areas will be considered as meeting the performance criteria. However current monitoring within the regeneration/revegetation areas is predominantly focused on tracking trends of natural regeneration and the success of revegetation works to inform ongoing and adaptive management, with the objective of progressing towards meeting the final completion criteria.

Table 1.1 outlines the BVT benchmarks for each BVT present within the revegetation/regeneration management domain. These benchmarks have been adjusted where relevant/required based on results of previous residual vegetation monitoring, in order to more accurately reflect local vegetation formations and variations.

Table 1.1: Biometric Vegetation Type Benchmark Values NGC BioMetric Vegetation Type NGC NGC NOS % NMS % (shrubs) NSD (BVT) (grass) % (other) % %

Blakely's Red Gum - Yellow Box grassy open forest or woodland of the New 10-35 0-30 10-75 0-15 10-60 26 England Tablelands (HU515) Grey Gum - Narrow-leaved Stringybark - ironbark woodland on ridges of the 10-50 10-60 5-15 5-10 5-15 23 upper Hunter Valley, Sydney Basin (HU552) Rough-barked Apple grassy open forest on valley flats of 10-40 5-45 0-50 10-60 5-40 29 the North Coast and Sydney Basin (HU605) White Box - Yellow Box grassy woodland on basalt slopes in the upper Hunter 10-45 5-60 5-45 2-10 5-35 23/27 Valley, Brigalow Belt South (HU654) NOS = Native Tree/Over-Storey Cover; NMS = Native Mid Storey Cover; NGC = Native Ground Cover; NSD = Native Species Diversity (Richness)

2015 Annual Floristic Monitoring Report

2 Methodology

Monitoring during autumn 2015 was undertaken in accordance with the methods and survey techniques used in previous years. Floristic monitoring during spring 2015 incorporated the revised methodology outlined in Section 8 of the BMP.

Floristic monitoring methodologies specific to autumn and spring are outlined separately below in Section 2.1.

Floristic monitoring was undertaken by David Allworth, Sarah Dickson-Hoyle, Kurtis Lindsay, Ben Martin and Jack Talbert of ELA. Monitoring was undertaken between 27 April to 30 April, 5 May to 12 May, 26 October to 29 October, 19 November to 29 November, 2 December to 10 December, and 17 December 2015. Natural regeneration and Pivot Tree Fenceline monitoring was undertaken concurrently with floristic monitoring during May 2015. LFA and Acacia ausfeldii monitoring was undertaken concurrently with floristic monitoring during spring 2015.

2.1 FLORISTIC MONITORING Floristic monitoring was undertaken at 81 sites across the project area (Figures 2.1-2.3) during 2015, consisting of:

 36 floristic sites assessed in autumn 2015  26 floristic sites and 10 rapid assessment sites assessed in spring 2015  9 floristic sites assessed in both autumn and spring 2015

The monitoring consisted of collecting specific biotic and abiotic data at all 81 sites. Floristic monitoring has been split into three targeted categories:

 Residual vegetation monitoring;  Revegetation/regeneration area vegetation monitoring; and  Floristic-based subsidence area monitoring.

Nine new floristic monitoring sites were established in 2015.

During both autumn and spring 2015, data was collected within each floristic quadrat in a manner consistent with previous monitoring periods (ELA 2014).

The monitoring approach involves systematic and repeatable surveys methods that are undertaken at permanent monitoring sites of 20 m x 20 m quadrats. These quadrats are identified by permanent metal star pickets in each corner and tagged with metal tags. These quadrats are used to record species diversity and structural composition.

Quadrats are sampled using the systematic, semi-quantitative, repeatable modified Braun-Blanquet Cover-abundance method (Braun-Blanquet 1927, Poore 1955, Austin et al. 2000) (Table 2.1) to ensure data are comparable over time with as little observer bias as possible.

2015 Annual Floristic Monitoring Report

Table 2.1: Modified Braun-Blanquet Crown Cover-Abundance Scale

Class Cover-abundance Scale* Growth Form Dependent

1 Few individuals (less than 5% cover) Herbs, sedges and grasses: <5 individuals Shrubs and small trees: <5 individuals 2 Many individuals (less than 5% cover) Herbs, sedges and grasses: ≥ 5 individuals Shrubs and small trees: ≥ 5 individuals Medium-large overhanging tree 3 5% – less than 20% cover - 4 20% – less than 50% cover - 5 50% – less than 75% cover - 6 75% – 100% cover - Note: * Modified Braun-Blanquet scale (Braun-Blanquet 1927, Poore 1955; Austin et al. 2000)

Due to the number of monitoring sites required, groups of sites are monitored seasonally (in the same season each year), enabling the collection of comparable seasonal data.

All vascular plant species that were observed in the full floristic monitoring sites are presented in Appendix A. Most taxa were identified in the field. Those unable to be identified in the field were collected for later identification using a microscope and/or combination of field guides, the Flora of New South Wales (Harden 1992; 1993; 2002; The Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust 2012) and by comparison with herbarium specimens held in the Public Reference Collection of the National Herbarium of NSW in Sydney.

Autumn Monitoring In addition to floristic quadrat monitoring as outlined above, photo monitoring points were also established within each of the permanent monitoring sites to enable visual assessment of changes over time. The monitoring surveys assessed the following vegetation characteristics:  floristic composition (including cover and abundance of species) and structure;  general health of vegetation;  evidence of natural regeneration;  occurrence and abundance of weed species;  presence of threatened or other significant species;  signs of disturbance, either by stock or humans;  evidence of feral animals; and  any observable impacts of the Project, such as the effectiveness of fencing and weed control actions.

Spring Monitoring Floristic monitoring during spring 2015 was split between the following two methods:

1. Full floristic monitoring 2. Rapid assessments

Full floristic monitoring involved monitoring of floristic quadrats (20 m x 20 m) and collection of cover (from 1-5 and then to nearest 5%) and abundance (1-10, 20, 50, 100, 500, 1000 or specified greater number) for each species in addition to the Braun-Blanquet method outlined above. Biometric plot data was also collected using the BioBanking assessment methodology (OEH, 2014) within a 20 m x 50 m plot.

In addition, within the permanent 20 m x 20 m quadrats, the following data was collected:

2015 Annual Floristic Monitoring Report

 floristic composition and structure (cover and abundance, and identification of stratum and growth form for each species);  progress of revegetation/regeneration towards target native vegetation community;  general health of vegetation;  success of management actions implemented following previous monitoring inspections; and  the occurrence and abundance of weeds, evidence of animal disturbance and other disturbances.

Rapid assessments were undertaken at residual monitoring sites that had previously been identified as being in good and stable condition and therefore no longer requiring full floristic monitoring. Rapid assessment involved recording the following characteristics:  floristic composition (including cover and abundance of up to three dominant species in each stratum) and structure;  general health of vegetation;  evidence of natural regeneration;  occurrence and abundance of weed species;  presence of threatened or other significant species;  signs of disturbance, either by stock or humans;  evidence of feral animals; and  any observable impacts of the Project, such as the effectiveness of fencing and weed control actions

2.1.1 Residual Vegetation Monitoring

Floristic Sites Residual vegetation monitoring continued at 26 permanent vegetation sites, including 11 established within the Residual Project Area, two within the Surface Infrastructure Area, one within the Brokenback Conservation Area, one within the Spring Gully Cliffline Management Area, five within the Bobadeen Vegetation Offset Area, three within the Bobadeen Vegetation Offset Corridor Area and three within the Bobadeen East Vegetation Offset Area (Table 2.2 and Figure 2.1). In addition to these sites, a new residual monitoring site was established within the Residual Project Area (RPA16) in spring 2015, and baseline data collected.

2015 Annual Floristic Monitoring Report

Table 2.2: Residual vegetation monitoring sites (full floristic sites)

Site Numbers by Location Bobadeen East Bobadeen Corridor Brokenback Spring Surface Vegetation Type Bobadeen (BOB) Residual (RPA) (BOBE) (BOBC) (BB) Gully (SG) Infrastructure (SI) Aut Spr Aut Spr Aut Spr Spr Aut Spr Spr Aut Spr Blakely’s Red Gum Open Forest BOB6 BOBC1 RPA13 Grey Box Woodland RPA7 RPA16* Ironbark Open Forest Complex on BOB3 BOBE3 RPA1 RPA2 SI1 Sandstone BOB8 BOBE10 RPA4 Ironbark Open Forest Complex on Sandstone + Scribbly Gum Woodland SI4 - Heathland on Sand Narrow-leaved Ironbark Open Forest BOB2 on Alluvium/Colluvium Rough-barked Apple Open Forest on RPA3A BOBC4 Alluvium/Colluvium RPA15 Rough-barked Apple Open Forest on RPA10 Alluvium/Colluvium (regenerating) Scribbly Gum Woodland - Heathland RPA6 SG1 on Sand Plateaux Stringybark-Ironbark Open Forest on BOBC3 BB1 Sandstone Slopes Unimproved Pasture RPA14A White Box Woodland BOB4B White Box Woodland Grassland RPA8A Yellow Box – Red Gum Woodland BOBE2 *indicates new site established in 2015

Aut = Autumn; Spr = Spring

2015 Annual Floristic Monitoring Report

Figure 2.1: Residual vegetation monitoring sites

2015 Annual Floristic Monitoring Report

Rapid Assessment Sites Rapid assessments were undertaken at ten permanent vegetation sites during 2015 (spring only), consisting of four within the Bobadeen Vegetation Offset Area, two within the Bobadeen East Vegetation Offset Area, one within Bobadeen Corridor Vedgetation Offset Area, two within the Residual Project Area, and one within the Surface Infrastructure domain (Table 2.3 and Figure 2.1).

Table 2.3: Residual vegetation monitoring sites (rapid assessments)

Site Numbers by Location

Bobadeen Bobadeen Surface Bobadeen Residual Vegetation Type East Corridor Infrastructure (BOB) (RPA) (BOBE) (BOBC) (SI)

Spring Spring Spring Spring Spring

Blakely’s Red Gum Open SI2 Forest Ironbark Open Forest BOB7 BOBE4 BOBC5 RPA5 Complex on Sandstone BOB16 Rough-barked Apple on BOB5 Alluvium/Colluvium

White Box Woodland BOB1 BOBE1 RPA11

2015 Annual Floristic Monitoring Report

Figure 2.2: Rapid assessment vegetation monitoring sites

2015 Annual Floristic Monitoring Report

2.1.2 Revegetation/Regeneration Area Vegetation Monitoring Revegetation/Regeneration monitoring continued at 28 permanent vegetation sites: nine within the Bobadeen Vegetation Offset Area, seven within the Bobadeen East Vegetation Offset Area, three within the Bobadeen Vegetation Offset Corridor Area, seven within the Open Cut (including one Acacia ausfeldii translocation plot), and two within the Goulburn River Remediation Domain (Table 2.4 and Figure 2.3).

Four new sites were established in autumn 2015 and four new sites established in spring 2015. Five new sites were located within the Bobadeen Vegetation Offset Area, one within Bobadeen East Vegetation Offset Area, one within Bobadeen Vegetation Offset Corridor Area, and one within the Acacia ausfeldii Translocation Area within the Open Cut (Table 2.4 and Figure 2.3).

BOBE13 was established in autumn 2015, however following revision of the monitoring schedule within the revised BMP this was assigned to spring monitoring and was re-visited in spring 2015. This site has been counted as a spring monitoring site for the purposes of this report and data presented accordingly.

No rapid assessments were undertaken in revegetation/regeneration areas.

2015 Annual Floristic Monitoring Report

Table 2.4: Revegetation/regeneration vegetation monitoring sites (full floristic plots)

Location & Site Numbers Bobadeen Bobadeen East Bobadeen Corridor Open Cut (OC) Goulburn River Vegetation Type (BOB) (BOBE) (BOBC) (GRRD) Aut Spr Aut Spr Aut Spr Aut Spr Aut Spr Acacia ausfeldii AA2* AA1 Translocation Blakely’s Red Gum BOBC9 BOB11B OC5 Open Forest BOBC10*

Blakely’s Red Gum BOB10B Open Forest Grassland Blakely’s Red Gum BOB14 Open Forest (regenerating)

Derived Native BOBC7 BOBC8B* Grassland Ironbark Open Forest BOB21*

Complex on Sandstone BOB22* (regenerating) BOB23* Modified White Box BOBE9 BOB19 BOBE8 Woodland BOBE12* OC4 Rehabilitation Pre 1997 GRRD1 OC7 OC3 Rehabilitation Post 1997 OC6B Rough-barked Apple Open Forest on OC1 Alluvium/Colluvium Rough-barked Apple

Open Forest on BOB20* Alluvium/Colluvium (regenerating)

Rough-barked Apple BOB15B Open Forest Grassland Rough-barked Apple BOBE5 Open Forest (regenerating) GRRD2 Unimproved Pasture

BOBE11 White Box Woodland

BOB9 White Box Woodland BOB12 BOBE7A BOBE13* BOB17 Grassland BOB18 BOB24*

Yellow Box – Red Gum BOBE6 Woodland Grassland

* Indicates a new revegetation/regeneration floristic site in 2015

Aut = Autumn; Spr = Sprin

2015 Annual Floristic Monitoring Report

Figure 2.3: Revegetation/Regeneration vegetation monitoring sites

2015 Annual Floristic Monitoring Report

2.1.3 Floristic-based Subsidence Monitoring Floristic based subsidence monitoring continued at six sites (Table 2.5 and Figure 2.4) above underground mining areas to monitor the impact of subsidence on vegetation through surveying for any changes in floristic composition and structure. All floristic-based subsidence monitoring sites were surveyed during both spring and autumn surveys if they were established purely for subsidence monitoring purposes.

Two new floristic based subsidence monitoring sites were established above each longwall panel not already being monitored as part of the residual vegetation monitoring during autumn 2015. FBS9 was established above Ulan West Longwall 3, and FBS10 was established above Longwall 30.

Prior to 2015 monitoring, BOB12 was included as a floristic-based subsidence monitoring site for Longwall W3. However, following revision of the BMP, this site was re-mapped to an area targeted for active rehabilitation (i.e. planting) and was no longer deemed appropriate as a floristic-based subsidence site. As such, site BOB13B, which is a natural regeneration area, has been substituted in its place for monitoring of potential subsidence related impacts above Longwall W3. Both BOB13B and BOB12 were surveyed in both autumn and spring, however for the purposes of this report BOB12 has been considered an autumn site (regular season), while spring results are reported for BOB13B as per the other FBS sites.

Table 2.5: Floristic-based subsidence monitoring sites

Site Number Longwall Panel Vegetation Type

Ulan #3 Underground Mine

FBS4 Longwall 27 Rough-barked Apple – Blakely’s Red Gum Woodland

RPA12 Longwall 28 White Box Woodland

FBS8 Longwall 29 Ironbark Open Forest Complex on Sandstone

FBS10 Longwall 30 Scribbly Gum Woodland – Heathland on Sand Plateaux

BOB13B Longwall W3 Rough-barked Apple Open Forest Grassland

Ulan West Mine

FBS5 Longwall 1 White Box Woodland

FBS6 Longwall 2 White Box Woodland

FBS9 Ulan West 3 Blakely’s Red Gum Open Forest

2015 Annual Floristic Monitoring Report

Figure 2.4: Floristic-based subsidence monitoring sites

2015 Annual Floristic Monitoring Report

2.2 LANDSCAPE FUNCTION AN ALYSIS LFA monitoring commenced in 2011, targeting areas that were planned to undergo, or had undergone, rehabilitation, as well as at corresponding analogue sites representative of the vegetation communities undergoing rehabilitation.

In accordance with the revised monitoring schedule outlined in Section 8 of the BMP, during 2015 LFA monitoring continued at 10 rehabilitation sites and four analogue sites across the Project Area (Table 2.6 and Figure 2.5). GRRD1(A) and GRRD2(A) are analogues for GRRD1(R) and GRRD2(R), while RPA3(A) and BOB4(A) are analogues for post-mining open cut rehabilitation sites. No new LFA sites were established during 2015.

LFA monitoring was consistent with the methods of Tongway and Hindley (2005) and previous monitoring periods.

Table 2.6: LFA analogue and rehabilitation sites

Residual Project Goulburn River Vegetation Communities Bobadeen (BOB) Open Cut (OC) Area (RPA) (GRRD)

Analogue Site Number

Grey Box Woodland RPA3(A)

Ironbark Open Forest BOB4(A) Complex on Sandstone Rough-barked Apple Open GRRD1(A)

Forest GRRD2(A) Revegetation/Rehabilitation Site Number

Acacia ausfeldii AA1(R)

Translocation AA2(R) Pre 2001 Rehabilitation Areas OC3(R) (eastern portion) Pre 2001 Rehabilitation OC2(R) Areas OC4(R) (western portion) Post 2001 Rehabilitation OC5(R)

Areas OC6(R)

2009 Rehabilitation Areas OC1(R)

Rough-barked Apple Open GRRD1(R)

Forest GRRD2(R)

At each LFA site, a 50 m transect line was established between permanent transect start and end markers. Along each transect, LFA attributes were recorded on electronic field data sheets, namely:

 Landscape organisation

 Soil surface assessment

2015 Annual Floristic Monitoring Report

2.2.1 Landscape Organisation Landscape organisation characterises and maps the spatial patterns of resource loss or accumulation at a site. The data that was collected recorded the patch/inter-patch parameters along each transect.

According to the LFA method, patches are long-lived/term features that obstruct or divert water flow and/or collect/filter out material from runoff (such as perennial ground cover, rocks > 10 cm, tree branches in contact with the soil) and where there is evidence of resource accumulation. Inter-patches are zones where resources such as water, soil materials and litter may be mobilised and freely transported either down slope when water is the active agent or down-wind when aeolian processes are active.

The following data was recorded for each patch/inter-patch along each transect:

 The distance (metres) from the start of the transect, along the tape;  The patch width (cm); and  The patch/inter-patch identification.

Rill survey was only completed where rills occurred, with the following recorded:

 Rill base (e.g. Rocky, alluvium or gravel);  Start of rill along the tape;  Finish of rill along the tape;  Rill width; and  Rill depth.

Data was entered into the LFA spreadsheets and was used to calculate the results of the LFA.

2.2.2 Soil Surface Assessment Each patch/inter-patch type identified in the landscape organisation data log was subject to a soil surface property assessment according to the Soil Surface Assessment (SSA) Method, via a set of query zones located within a subsample of each patch and inter-patch type. In selecting query zones the following guidelines were observed:

 Observations of soil surface features were estimated on a linear basis through measuring the estimated distance of each feature covered within each particular query zone;

 The transect data record was used to select ‘query zones’ within each patch type, with query zones distributed along the full length of the transect;

 The assessment had a minimum of five query zones (replicates) of each patch/inter-patch type (where possible) to improve statistical reliability. If fewer than five examples were available for a given patch/inter-patch type, more than one query zone was located in a long single patch. Sampling of five replicates was not always possible due to paucity of a given patch/inter-patch type, with a common example being “log” patches that may have only occurred once along a given transect;

 Each query zone was sited symmetrically within the selected zone patch/inter-patch;

 The standard query zone length was 1 m. If the patch/inter-patch length was insufficient for a 1 m query zone, particularly where individual grass plants were patch zones, simple fractions of a metre were used;

 The boundary between two zones was avoided where possible, as is in some cases there is a gradual transition between zones. The boundary was used only where the start and/or end of the zone was very distinct.

2015 Annual Floristic Monitoring Report

Within each query zone the appropriate score for each of the following SSA indicators was recorded:

 Rain splash protection;  Perennial vegetation cover;

 Litter cover, origin and decomposition;

 Cryptogam cover;  Crust brokenness;

 Soil erosion type and severity;

 Deposited materials;  Soil surface roughness;

 Surface nature (resistance to disturbance);

 Slake test; and  Soil surface nature.

The LFA data sheets and spreadsheets were used to calculate the results of the SSA.

2015 Annual Floristic Monitoring Report

Figure 2.5: LFA monitoring sites

2015 Annual Floristic Monitoring Report

2.3 TARGETED ACACIA AUSFELDII SURVEYS Targeted Acacia ausfeldii monitoring was undertaken within a population of A. ausfeldii located along Highett Road. This land is located within UCML ownership and is approximately 1.5 km south-west of the southern extent of Open Cut Disturbance Area). The monitoring was undertaken during spring 2015 by ELA ecologist David Allworth with the assistance of Rachel Murray (ELA environmental scientist).

Within the Highett Road population surveys targeted 100 previously tagged A. ausfeldii individuals and recorded the height, diameter at base and growth stage (seedling, sapling or mature shrub). Additional information was collected for each individual, including reproductive ratings and condition ratings. Table 2.7 below outlines the definition of the ratings.

Table 2.7: Acacia ausfeldii rating definitions

Rating

1 2 3 4 5

Severe Some dead Condition Rating Many dead stems Minor damage Healthy damage/dieback branches

Sparse - Reproductive Low – under 25% Moderate – 25 – High – 75 – 100% Nil occasional Rating of potential 75% of potential of potential flowers/fruit only)

Within the Highett Road A. ausfeldii population, targeted surveys for A. ausfeldii along three randomly placed 50 m transects and twenty randomly placed 1 m x 1 m quadrats were undertaken to locate the presence of A. ausfeldii germinates within the population area.

Data from the surveys was compared to the data previously collected in order to identify changes in the number and condition of individuals, evidence of recruitment, and potential threats such as weeds, disease or other disturbances.

Targeted monitoring of 100 A. ausfeldii individuals tagged within the A. ausfeldii translocation areas continued within the Open Cut during spring 2015. The data collected for each individual was consistent with that collected for the Highett Road population (outlined above). A 50 m transect was laid out through the centre of each plot and the Point Centred Quarter (PCQ) method used to assess A. ausfeldii densities. This involved establishing sampling points at regular 10 m intervals (5, 15, 25, 35 and 45 m) along the transect line. At each sampling point, the distance to the nearest A. ausfeldii individual in each of the 4 quadrants around the tape were measured. For each plant the following was recorded:

 The sampling point (distance from 0 m);

 The point quarter (i.e. a, b, c or d moving in a clockwise direction from the top right side quadrant);  Distance to the plant (m);

CSIRO Ecosystem Function Analysis data sheets and spreadsheets were used to calculate the density (plants per ha) of A. ausfeldii in each translocation plot.

2015 Annual Floristic Monitoring Report

2.4 SALINITY OFFSET AREA MONITORING Table 2.8 below summarises the floristic monitoring and rapid assessment sites that are located within the Salinity Offset Area (SOA). In addition, the natural regeneration monitoring conducted within the Bobadeen Vegetation Offset Area (see Section 2.5 below), and LFA site BOB4(A) are both located within the SOA. A separate, general analysis of results from these sites, specifically comparing against SOA impact mitigation strategies and completion criteria as outlined in Section 6.1.4 of the BMP, has been conducted (see Section 3.4 and recommendations in 4.1.7).

Table 2.8: Floristic and rapid assessment monitoring sites located within the SOA

Location & Site Numbers Floristic- Surface Bobadeen Residual Project based Vegetation Type Infrastructure (BOB) Area (RPA) Subsidence (SI) (FBS) Aut Spr Aut Spr Aut Spr Aut / Spr Floristic Monitoring Sites BOB6 Blakely’s Red Gum Open Forest RPA13 BOB11B Blakely’s Red Gum Open Forest Grassland BOB10B Blakely’s Red Gum Open Forest BOB14 (regenerating) Ironbark Open Forest Complex on BOB3 FBS8 Sandstone BOB8 BOB21* Ironbark Open Forest Complex on BOB22* Sandstone (regenerating) BOB23* Ironbark Open Forest Complex on Sandstone + Scribbly Gum Woodland - SI4 Heathland on Sand

Modified White Box Woodland BOB19

Narrow-leaved Ironbark Open Forest on BOB2 Alluvium/Colluvium Rough-barked Apple Open Forest on BOB13B Alluvium/Colluvium Rough-barked Apple Open Forest on BOB20* Alluvium/Colluvium (regenerating) Rough-barked Apple Open Forest BOB15B Grassland Scribbly Gum Woodland - Heathland on FBS10 Sand Plateaux FBS5 White Box Woodland BOB4B FBS6 BOB9 BOB12 White Box Woodland Grassland BOB17 BOB18 BOB24* Rapid Assessment Sites Ironbark Open Forest Complex on BOB7

Sandstone BOB16

2015 Annual Floristic Monitoring Report

Aut = Autumn; Spr = Spring

2.4.1 Pivot Fence Tree-line Monitoring In autumn 2015, a targeted survey of the pivot fence tree-lines was undertaken to determine the success and health of the tree plantings.

The pivot fence tree-lines were separated into 12 areas (Figure 2.6), with each area being labeled accordingly. Each area was traversed and each tree present counted and ranked to indicate their health. Health scores are shown below.

 0% indicated that the tree was dead or very close to dead  25% indicated that the tree was in very poor health but not quite dead (likely to die in the future)  50% indicated that the tree was in average health and has a chance of survival  75% indicated that the tree was in good health but was not as healthy as could otherwise be  100% indicated that the tree was healthy and thriving.

2015 Annual Floristic Monitoring Report

Figure 2.6: Pivot fence tree-line areas

2 0 1 5 Annual Floristic Monitoring Report

2.5 NATURAL REGENERATION MONITORING Natural regeneration monitoring was undertaken in target ‘natural regeneration’ management areas within the Bobadeen, Bobadeen East and Bobadeen Corridor Vegetation Offset Areas. This involved using the PCQ method to assess the density of natural regeneration of canopy species. Permanent sampling points were established at randomly spaced intervals throughout a defined ‘natural regeneration’ area, with each sampling point marked with a star picket and the location logged with a handheld GPS (Figure 2.7).

At each sampling point, the distance to the nearest “plant of interest” in each of the four quadrants was measured. The “plants of interest” were canopy species of <5 cm diameter at breast height (DBH) and canopy species >5cm DBH. For each plant the following was recorded:

 The sampling point;  The point quarter (i.e. a, b, c or d moving in a clockwise direction from the top right side quadrant);

 Distance to the plant (to a maximum of 100 m);

 Plant species;  Height of the plant (m); and

 Diameter at breast height (cm).

The CSIRO Ecosystem Function Analysis spreadsheet was used to calculate stem densities within each defined regeneration area. Where ‘vacant quarters’ (no plant of interest within 100 m) existed, stem densities were adjusted using correction factors from Warde and Petranka (1981).

2015 Annual Floristic Monitoring Report

Figure 2.7: Natural regeneration monitoring areas

2015 Annual Floristic Monitoring Report

2.6 WEATHER CONDITIONS Temperatures during autumn surveys were cool to mild, with light to heavy rainfall recorded each day from 4 to 7 May (Table 2.9). The area had also received above average monthly rainfall in the majority of months leading up to the survey (December 2014, and January, March and April 2015). Temperates during spring were generally mild to warm, with minimal rainfall recorded during the majority of the survey periods with the exception of October, which received above average rainfall. September 2015 (the month prior to spring surveys) had minimal rainfall, well below the long term monthly average. Weather conditions are taken from the nearest weather station at Gulgong (BoM 2016).

Table 2.9: Weather conditions

9am Wind Min Temp Max Temp Rainfall 9am Date (Dir./Spd (°C) (°C) (mm) Temp (°C) (km/h) Autumn surveys 27/04/2015 5.0 17.5 0 10.0 Calm 28/04/2015 3.8 19.0 0 9.8 Calm 29/04/2015 8.0 20.5 0 14.0 ENE 28 30/04/2015 10.5 20.0 0 15.0 E 9 04/05/2015 14.5 23.2 5.2 17.0 Calm 05/05/2015 7.9 24.5 8.8 13.5 ENE 2 06/05/2015 6.6 16.5 0.2 11.0 SW 28 07/05/2015 3.8 16.5 23.4 9.0 SW 19 11/5/2015 9.5 15.8 0 12.8 SW 37 12/05/2015 9.8 19.0 0 13.5 W 15 Spring surveys 26/10/2015 16.0 - 1.7 22.0 N 4 27/10/2015 - 21.5 7.0 - - 28/10/2015 9.5 24.5 15.0 14.5 ENE 20 29/10/2015 9.5 25.5 0 14.5 ENE 6 19/11/2015 15.0 37.5 0 23.0 Calm 20/11/2015 16.5 38.0 0 27.0 Calm 23/11/2015 12.5 29.0 0 18.5 Calm 24/11/2015 12.0 30.5 0 19.0 Calm 25/11/2015 11.0 34.0 0 21.0 Calm 26/11/2015 19.5 34.0 0 31.0 N 28 27/11/2015 12.0 29.0 0 19.0 E 6 01/12/2015 14.5 36.5 0 24.5 E 6 02/12/2015 19.0 27.5 0.2 20.0 S 19 03/12/2015 13.5 25.3 0 18.0 NE 19 04/12/2015 11.4 28.5 0 17.8 E 13 05/12/2015 11.5 33.5 0 19.5 E 20 06/12/2015 16.0 34.5 0 23.0 ENE 6 07/12/2015 16.5 34.6 0 23.0 ENE 19 08/12/2015 16.6 31.1 0 23.5 NE 2

2015 Annual Floristic Monitoring Report

9am Wind Min Temp Max Temp Rainfall 9am Date (Dir./Spd (°C) (°C) (mm) Temp (°C) (km/h) 09/12/2015 18.4 32.9 4.1 23.0 N 6 10/12/2015 17.4 34.0 8.4 23.9 NE 9 17/12/2015 12.9 28.5 6.3 19.3 NE 24

2015 Annual Floristic Monitoring Report

3 Results

3.1 FLORISTIC MONITORING Floristic surveys identified a total of 382 species, including 287 native species, 83 introduced species and 12 species that could only be identified to genus level and could not be confidently classified as either native or introduced (Appendix A). This represents a slight decrease in native species (by 17 species) and an increase in exotic species (by 21 species) compared to 2014.

Total species richness varied within each floristic site from 21 species (BOB18 - White Box Woodland Grassland) to 61 species (RPA12 – White Box Woodland). Native species richness varied between each floristic site ranging from 14 species (BOBE12 - Modified White Box Woodland) to 48 species (FBS9 – Blakely’s Red Gum Open Forest), while introduced species richness ranged from 0 species (BOB6 - Blakely’s Red Gum Open Forest) to 25 species (BOB19 – Modified White Box Woodland) (Table 3.1).

Natural regeneration of target canopy species was recorded in twenty floristic/FBS sites (BOB2, BOB13B, BOB19, BOB22, BOBE2, BOBE9, BOBE13, BOBC4, SG1, RPA2, RPA13, RPA16, RPA12, FBS4, FBS5, FBS6, FBS8, FBS9, FBS10 and OC6B). Natural regeneration was only recorded within six of the 38 revegetation/regeneration sites.

No threatened flora species listed under the EPBC Act or Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act) were recorded during the 2015 survey (with the exception of A. ausfeldii in the AA monitoring sites).

Structural diversity remains higher in residual vegetation sites compared to revegetation/regeneration sites. Twenty-two of the revegetation/regeneration sites were found to have no canopy, and within these the mid-storey, if present, continues to be dominated by the pioneer species Cassinia arcuata (Sifton Bush). This is reflective of the relatively recent disturbance history (e.g. grazing or clearing) of these sites, and the fact that they are in early stages of natural regeneration, or have only recently (if at all) been revegetated.

Table 3.1 (residual and revegetation/regeneration) and Table 3.4 (floristic based susbsidence monitoring) provide a summary of the floristic data collected during the spring 2015 surveys.

3.1.1 EEC/CEEC communities Native species richness recorded between 2012 and 2015 at both residual and revegetation/regeneration sites within an EEC/CEEC (i.e. Box Gum Woodland variants) is presented in Figure 3.1. Of the 25 sites present within these vegetation communities, 15 sites recorded an increase in native species richness between 2014 and 2015, seven recorded a decrease, and three were surveyed for the first time in 2015. Sites that were used for FBS monitoring in 2015 have not been included within this discussion (RPA12).

Native ground cover was found to be higher within revegetation/regeneration sites compared to residual sites (average of 50% compared to 33% respectively), which is consistent with results obtained from previous years. Native ground cover within all EEC/CEEC sites was dominated by a suite of native perennial grasses; in residual sites, these were most commonly Aristida ramosa (Purple Wiregrass), Aristida vagans (Threeawn Speargrass) and Microlaena stipoides (Weeping Grass), while in revegetation/regeneration sites the most common dominant species were Weeping Grass, Bothriochloa macra (Red Grass) and Aristida spp.

2015 Annual Floristic Monitoring Report

A greater diversity of dominant native perennial grass species was recorded across revegetation/regeneration White Box Woodland sites in 2015 compared to the previous year. In addition to the commonly recorded Aristida and Sporobolus species, Weeping Grass, Dichanthium sericeum (Queensland Bluegrass) and various Austrostipa species were recorded as dominant ground cover species in 2015.

Trends in exotic species richness for sites located within an EEC/CEEC are shown in Figure 3.2. Between 2014 and 2015, exotic species richness increased at 12 of the previously monitored (i.e. not newly established) sites. Of all sites assessed, three sites (BOB19, BOBE12 and BOBE6) had more than half of the species present at the site identified as exotic. For BOB19 and BOBE6, this result is consistent with observations from the previous year, however BOBE12 recorded a large increase in exotic species between 2014 and 2015.

Exotic ground cover within EEC sites in revegetation areas was higher than that found within residual vegetation areas. Sites BOB19, BOB24 and BOBE6 recorded an exotic ground cover of 60%. While for BOB24 this represents baseline data, for both BOB19 and BOBE6 this is a large increase from the exotic covers recorded in 2014 (5% and 20% respectively). Exotic ground cover within these sites was dominated by the annual Carthamus lanatus (Saffron Thistle), which contributed between 15-50% of total ground cover. Relatively large increases in exotic ground cover were also recorded in BOB9 (from 5% to 15%), BOBE7A (5% to 20%), and BOBE12 (1% to 15%), while exotic cover decreased by approximately 10% (absolute) in BOB18 and BOBE9.

3.1.2 Non EEC/CEEC communities Native species richness within all 11 previously surveyed revegetation/regeneration non EEC/CEEC sites either increased (9 sites) or remained stable (two sites) between 2014 and 2015 (Figure 3.3). This trend contrasts to the variability seen across sites between 2013 and 2014, and the decline in native species richness recorded across the majority of sites between 2012 and 2013.

Exotic species were recorded in all non EEC/CEEC revegetation/regeneration sites. The majority of these sites increased in exotic species richness between 2014 and 2015 (Figure 3.4), while exotic species richness declined or remained stable at the majority (approximately 70%) of non EEC/CEEC residual sites. As recorded in 2014, site GRRD1 had greater than 50% of its total species richness constituted by exotic ground cover species. These results for revegetation/regeneration sites continue the trend of increasing exotic species richness recorded between 2013 and 2014.

However, high exotic species richness did not always correlate with high exotic ground cover. Exotic ground cover was less than 5% in the majority of the non EEC/CEEC revegetation/regeneration sites monitored during 2015. The exceptions to this were the newly established revegetation/regeneration sites BOBC8B, which had 90% exotic species cover, consisting largely of exotic grasses (Paspalum dilatatum and Bromus molliformis), and both OC7 and OC6B, which had exotic covers of 15%; in addition, the residual site RPA14A recorded had an exotic ground cover of 20%, consisting largely of Hypochaeris radicata (Catsear) and Trifolium species (Clovers).

Six sites were surveyed for the first time in 2015 (BOB20, BOB21, BOB22, BOB23, BOBC8B, and AA2).

As BOB13B has replaced BOB12 as a floristic-based subsidence monitoring site for Ulan West 3, it has not been included in this analysis (see Section 3.1.5).

2015 Annual Floristic Monitoring R e p or t

Table 3.1: Floristic survey summary

Total Total strata Survey Native Exotic Structural Vegetation Community Site Type Site No. species cover (%) Dominant species (*exotic) Season species species Layer 1 N E Residual Vegetation Monitoring Canopy 10 0 E. blakleyi , Eucalyptus crebra Allocasuarina gymnanthera, Mid-storey 1 1 0 E. crebra Bobadeen BOB6 Autumn 31 31 0 Acacia spp., Cassinia Offset Mid-storey 2 2 0 arcuata, Aristida vagans , Lissanthe Ground 5 0 strigosa Blakely’s Red Gum Open Forest Canopy 10 0 E. blakelyi, E. melliodora Bobadeen Mid-storey 1 3 0 E. blakelyi, E. melliodora BOBC1 Autumn 36 33 2 Corridor Offset Mid-storey 2 20 0 C. arcuata Ground 35 0 Aristida vagans Canopy 10 0 E. blakelyi Residual RPA13 Spring 36 25 9 Austrostipa scabra, Calotis Project Area Ground 25 1 spp. Canopy 15 0 E. microcarpa Residual Acacia verniciflua, Cassinia RPA7 Autumn 37 36 0 Mid-storey 5 0 Project Area arcuata Ground 3 0 A. vagans Grey Box Woodland Canopy 15 0 E. moluccana A. verniciflua, Dodonaea Residual Mid-storey 4 0 RPA16 Spring 36 34 1 viscosa Project Area A. vagans, Microlaena Ground 4 0 stipoides Canopy 10 0 Eucalytpus fibrosa Mid-storey 1 35 0 Allocasuarina gymnanthera Ironbark Open Forest Bobadeen BOB3 Autumn 28 28 0 Astrostricha longifolia, Complex on Sandstone Offset Mid-storey 2 2 0 Persoonia linearis Ground 3 0 Lomandra filiformis

2015 Annual Floristic Monitoring Report

Total Total strata Survey Native Exotic Structural Vegetation Community Site Type Site No. species cover (%) Dominant species (*exotic) Season species species Layer 1 N E Canopy 25 0 Eucalyptus macrorhyncha Mid-storey 1 2 0 Allocasuarina gymnanthera Bobadeen BOB8 Autumn 26 25 0 Offset Mid-storey 2 1 0 Acrotriche rigida Microlaena stipoides, Gahnia Ground 10 0 aspera Canopy 25 0 E. crebra, Acacia linearifolia Mid-storey 1 2 0 E. crebra (regen) Bobadeen BOBE3 Autumn 19 17 0 East Offset Mid-storey 2 20 0 Cassinia quinquefaria Cheilanthes sieberi, Ground 2 0 M.stipoides Canopy 15 0 E. sparsifolia Mid-storey 1 15 0 Acacia linearifolia Bobadeen BOBE10 Autumn 16 15 1 East Offset Mid-storey 2 5 0 E. crebra, E. sparsifolia M. stipoides, Lomandra Ground 1 0 filiformis Canopy 20 0 E. fibrosa, E. agglomerata Residual Leucopogon muticus, RPA1 Autumn 19 19 0 Mid-storey 20 0 Project Area Persoonia linearis Ground 10 0 Lomandra confertifolia E. crebra, E. fibrosa, E. Canopy 30 0 punctata Residual A. gymnanthera, L. muticus, RPA2 Spring 23 23 0 Mid-storey 15 0 Project Area P. linearis Lomandra confertifolia, Ground 5 0 Cleistochloa rigida Canopy 15 0 E. fibrosa Residual RPA4 Autumn 20 20 0 Mid-storey 1 2 0 E. fibrosa Project Area Mid-storey 2 5 0 Pultenea microphylla

2015 Annual Floristic Monitoring Report

Total Total strata Survey Native Exotic Structural Vegetation Community Site Type Site No. species cover (%) Dominant species (*exotic) Season species species Layer 1 N E Gahnia aspera, Lomandra Ground 2 0 filiformis Canopy 25 0 E. agglomerata, E. fibrosa Mid-storey 1 5 0 E. fibrosa Surface SI1 Autumn 27 26 1 Infrastructure Mid-storey 2 3 0 E. fibrosa, P. linearis Phyllanthus sp., Austrostipa Ground 2 0 sp. Ironbark Open Forest Canopy 20 0 A. floribunda, E. blakelyi Complex on Sandstone + Surface Mid-storey 1 15 0 Leptospermum polygafolium Scribbly Gum Woodland - SI4 Autumn 34 33 1 Infrastructure Mid-storey 2 5 0 C. arcuata, S. cunninghammii Heathland on Sand Plateaux Ground 10 0 A. ramosa, Lomandra spp. Canopy 25 0 E. blakelyi Narrow-leaved Ironbark Bobadeen Mid-storey 5 0 C. arcuata Open Forest on BOB2 Spring 41 32 6 Offset A. vagans, M. stipoides, Alluvium/Colluvium Ground 35 <1 Arundinella nepalensis Canopy 20 0 A. floribunda Bobadeen BOBC4 Spring 49 32 13 Mid-storey 30 0 A. floribunda Corridor Offset Ground 65 5 M. stipoides Canopy 10 0 A. linearifolia, E. blakelyii Rough-barked Apple Residual RPA3A Autumn 26 17 6 Mid-storey 5 0 A. linearifolia, E. blakelyii Open Forest on Project Area Alluvium/Colluvium Ground 95 0 M. stipoides Canopy 30 0 C. endlicheri, A. floribunda, Mid-storey 1 1 0 A. floribunda, C. endlicheri, Residual RPA15 Autumn 34 28 4 Project Area Mid-storey 2 2 0 B. daphnoides, A. decora A. vagans, Cheilanthes Ground 5 0 sieberi RPA10 Autumn 31 26 4 Canopy 2 0 E. blakelyi

2015 Annual Floristic Monitoring Report

Total Total strata Survey Native Exotic Structural Vegetation Community Site Type Site No. species cover (%) Dominant species (*exotic) Season species species Layer 1 N E Rough-barked Apple Mid-storey 5 0 A. floribunda, C. arcuata Open Forest on Residual Alluvium/Colluvium Project Area Ground 20 <1 C. sieberi, B. macra (regenerating) Canopy 10 0 E. crebra, Residual Mid-storey 1 2 0 E. crebra, A. gymnanthera RPA6 Autumn 36 36 0 Project Area Mid-storey 2 40 0 L. muticus, C. arcuata Ground 5 0 G. aspera, A. humifusium Scribbly Gum Woodland - Canopy 10 0 E. crebra, A. floribunda Heathland on Sand Acacia linearifolia, Plateaux Mid-storey 1 10 0 Leucopogon muticus, Spring Gully SG1 Spring 32 32 0 Persoonia linearis Mid-storey 2 35 0 Sannantha cunninghamii

Ground 70 0 M. stipoides, C. sieberi

Canopy 25 0 E. sparsifolia, A. floribunda Bobadeen Mid-storey 1 5 0 A. floribunda BOBC3 Autumn 41 37 3 Corridor Offset Mid-storey 2 5 0 Acrotriche rigida

Stringybark-Ironbark Ground 10 0 M. stipoides Open Forest on Canopy 15 0 E. crebra, E. fibrosa Sandstone Slopes Leucopogon muticus, Mid-storey 20 0 Persoonia linearis, Brokenback BB1 Spring 33 32 1 Allocasuarina gymnanthera Offset Goodenia hederacea, Ground 1 <1 Lomandra spp., Austrostipa scabra Residual A. ramosa, S. creber, H. Unimproved Pasture RPA14A Autumn 22 12 9 Ground 55 20 Project Area radicata, T. repens White Box Woodland BOB4B Autumn 29 23 4 Canopy 20 0 E. albens

2015 Annual Floristic Monitoring Report

Total Total strata Survey Native Exotic Structural Vegetation Community Site Type Site No. species cover (%) Dominant species (*exotic) Season species species Layer 1 N E Mid-storey 2 0 E. albens Bobadeen A.ramosa, Geranium Offset Ground 10 1 solanderi, Hydrocotyle laxiflora White Box Woodland Residual A. ramosa, D. sericeum, B. RPA8A Autumn 27 20 5 Ground 70 5 Grassland Project Area macra Canopy 20 0 E. albens Brachychiton populneus, Mid-storey 1 2 0 Acacia implexa Yellow Box - Red Gum Bobadeen BOBE2 Spring 44 34 7 Acacia decora, Cassinia Woodland East Offset Mid-storey 2 1 0 arcuata, Oncinocalyx betchei M. stipoides, Desmodium Ground 50 <1 varians Revegetation/Regenerating Vegetation Monitoring Canopy 15 0 E. blakelyi Mid-storey 1 1 0 E. blakleyi Bobadeen BOB11B Autumn 26 22 1 Offset Mid-storey 2 <1 0 Cassinia arcuata A. nepalensis, M. stipoides, Ground 65 <1 Aristida vagans

Canopy 25 0 E. blakelyi Blakely’s Red Gum Open Forest Mid-storey 1 2 0 E. blakleyi Bobadeen BOBC9 Autumn 25 19 4 Corridor Offset Mid-storey 2 2 0 C. arcuata, H. dentata

Ground 85 0 M. stipoides, A. vagans

Canopy 5 0 E. blakelyi Bobadeen BOBC10 Autumn 33 30 3 Corridor Offset Mid-storey 5 0 Cassinia arcuata

2015 Annual Floristic Monitoring Report

Total Total strata Survey Native Exotic Structural Vegetation Community Site Type Site No. species cover (%) Dominant species (*exotic) Season species species Layer 1 N E

Ground 50 0 A. vagans

Canopy 15 0 E. blakelyi, A. floribunda

Open Cut OC5 Autumn 31 28 3 Mid-storey 1 5 0 E. melliodora, A. floribunda Mid-storey 2 3 0 Cassinia arcuata Ground 55 0 A. ramosa, M. stipoides Blakely’s Red Gum Open Bobadeen Bothriochloa macra, BOB10B Autumn 38 25 10 Ground 60 5 Forest Grassland Offset Sporobolus elongatus Canopy 30 0 E. blakelyi

Blakely’s Red Gum Open Bobadeen Melaleuca thymifolia, BOB14 Spring 45 29 15 Mid-storey 2 0 Forest (regenerating) Offset Cassinia arcuata A. nepalensis, C. sieberi, Ground 65 5 Hypochaeris radicata* Mid-storey 1 0 Cassinia arcuata, Bobadeen BOBC7 Autumn 41 26 13 Derived Native Grassland Corridor Offset Sporobolus creber, Eragrostis Ground 95 0 sp., Trifolium repens Bobadeen P. dilatatum, B. moliformus, BOBC8B Spring 19 13 5 Ground 10 90 Corridor Offset H. radicata Cassinia arcuata, Acacia Mid-storey 5 0 Bobadeen paradoxa BOB21 Spring 46 31 14 Offset B. macra, Aristida spp., Ground 35 5 Gahnia aspera Ironbark Open Forest Complex on Sandstone Canopy 2 0 A. floribunda (regenerating) Bobadeen A. floribunda, Acacia BOB22 Spring 42 26 14 Mid-storey 1 1 0 Offset linearifolia Mid-storey 2 10 0 C. arcuata

2015 Annual Floristic Monitoring Report

Total Total strata Survey Native Exotic Structural Vegetation Community Site Type Site No. species cover (%) Dominant species (*exotic) Season species species Layer 1 N E

Ground 60 <1 M. stipoides, A. vagans C. arcuata, Sannantha Mid-storey 30 0 cunninghamii, Kunzea Bobadeen BOB23 Spring 37 38 9 parvifolia Offset M. stipoides, B. macra, Ground 50 5 Astroloma humifusum

Canopy 20 0 E. moluccana, E. punctate

Mid-storey 1 20 0 A. linearifolia, A. deanei OC3 Spring 42 27 14 Mid-storey 2 20 0 D. viscosa, A. flexifolia

Rehabilitation Post 1997 Open Cut Ground 4 2 A. scabra

Mid-storey 1 15 0 A. linearifolia

OC6B Spring 39 21 17 Mid-storey 2 3 0 A. gladiiformis, A. leucolobia

Ground 15 15 C. dactylon, T. repens* A. linearifolia, Dodonaea Mid-storey 1 5 0 viscosa Goulburn River Mid-storey 2 2 0 C. arcuata GRRD1 Spring 45 20 24 Remediation B. macra, Conyza Rehabilitation Pre 1997 Ground 35 5 bonariensis*, Plantago

lanceolata*

Mid-storey 1 0 C. arcuata Open Cut OC4 Autumn 27 13 11 Bothriochloa sp., Sporobolus Ground 45 <1 sp., Eragrostis leptostachya

2015 Annual Floristic Monitoring Report

Total Total strata Survey Native Exotic Structural Vegetation Community Site Type Site No. species cover (%) Dominant species (*exotic) Season species species Layer 1 N E

Canopy 10 0 C. maculata A. implexa, C. Mid-storey 1 3 0 cunninghamiana OC7 Autumn 35 27 5 Mid-storey 2 3 0 A. implexa, A. baileyana

Ground 5 15 B. subalternans

Mid-storey 1 0 Cassinia arcuata Rough-barked Apple Bobadeen BOB15B Spring 31 20 11 Aristida spp., Bothriochloa Open Forest Grassland Offset Ground 8 2 macra, Cheilanthes sieberi

Canopy 20 0 E.blakleyi, E. crebra

Rough-barked Apple Mid-storey 5 0 A. linearifolia, E. crebra Open Forest on Open Cut OC1 Autumn 33 29 3 Alluvium/Colluvium Mid-storey 5 0 E. stricta, Pomaderris sp.

Ground 40 0 M. stipoides C. arcuata, Eucalyptus spp., Mid-storey 5 0 Bobadeen Acacia paradoxa BOB20 Autumn 30 24 3 Offset Aristida spp., Cymbopogon Ground 55 <1 refractus Rough-barked Apple Open Forest on Canopy 5 0 A. floribunda Alluvium/Colluvium Mid-storey 1 <1 0 Acacia spp. (regenerating) Bobadeen BOBE5 Autumn 30 26 2 East Offset Mid-storey 2 5 0 C. arcuata

Ground 70 <1 M. stipoides

2015 Annual Floristic Monitoring Report

Total Total strata Survey Native Exotic Structural Vegetation Community Site Type Site No. species cover (%) Dominant species (*exotic) Season species species Layer 1 N E

Canopy 15 0 E. blakelyi, A. floribunda

Mid-storey 1 5 0 E. blakelyi, A. floribunda Goulburn River Unimproved Pasture GRRD2 Autumn 24 17 7 Remediation Mid-storey 2 1 0 E. blakelyi

Ground 50 0 A. ramosa, M. stpoides Aristida spp., Sporobolus Bobadeen White Box Woodland BOBE11 Autumn 31 20 7 Ground 80 1 elongatus, Eragrostis East Offset leptostachya

Canopy 10 0 A. floribunda Bobadeen BOB9 Spring 42 25 14 Offset M. stipoides, Paronychia Ground 75 15 brasiliana*, Oxalis perennans

Bobadeen A. ramosa, B. macra, BOB12 Autumn 29 16 10 Ground 70 5 Offset Sporobolus sp. Bobadeen BOB17 Spring 37 19 17 Ground 20 <1 A. ramosa, Oxalis perennans White Box Woodland Offset Grassland Canopy 15 0 E. albens

Bobadeen BOB18 Autumn 21 19 17 Mid-storey 3 0 E. albens Offset Ground 40 <1 A. ramosa, M. stipoides Carthamus lanatus*, Bobadeen BOB24 Spring 47 24 23 Ground 30 60 Microlaena stipoides, Offset Trifolium arvense* Bobadeen Austrostipa aristiglumis, B. BOBE7A Autumn 23 15 7 Ground 50 5 East Offset macra, Dichanthium sericeum

2015 Annual Floristic Monitoring Report

Total Total strata Survey Native Exotic Structural Vegetation Community Site Type Site No. species cover (%) Dominant species (*exotic) Season species species Layer 1 N E

Canopy 5 0 E. albens Bobadeen BOBE13 Spring 52 34 17 East Offset B. macra, Austrostipa scabra, Ground 35 15 P. brasiliana* Bobadeen C. lanatus*, B. macra, BOB19 Spring 50 23 25 Ground 25 60 Offset Trifolium arvense* Bobadeen Aristida spp., Sporobolus Modified White Box BOBE8 Autumn 33 21 10 Ground 85 5 East Offset spp., Hypericum perforatum* Woodland Bobadeen B. macra, Asperula conferta, BOBE9 Spring 37 19 16 Ground 25 5 East Offset Elymus scaber Bobadeen Austrostipa aristiglumis, BOBE12 Spring 30 14 16 Ground 45 15 East Offset Cyperaceae sp., C. lanatus* C. lanatus*, Bromus Yellow Box - Red Gum Bobadeen BOBE6 Spring 33 16 16 Ground 20 60 molliformis*, Austrostipa Woodland Grassland East Offset aristiglumis C. arcuata, E. crebra, E. Mid-storey 70 0 fibrosa Open Cut AA1 Spring 52 34 16 Ground 20 5 M. stipoides, E. leptostachya Acacia ausfeldii translocation Mid-storey 20 0 Acacia linearifolia Open Cut AA2 Autumn 40 30 6 Ground 35 0 Cynodon dactylon 1Species unable to be identified down to species level were included in total species count but excluded from native/exotic count

2015 Annual Floristic Monitoring Report

10 Native species Native species richness

RPA8 (A) RPA8

*OC5 (A) *OC5

BOB6 (A) BOB6

RPA13 (S) RPA13

BOBE2(S)

*BOB9(S)

BOBC1 (A) BOBC1

BOB4B (A) BOB4B

*BOBE9 (S) *BOBE9 (S) *BOBE6

*BOB14(S) *BOB19(S) *BOB17(S) *BOB24(S)

*BOBE7 (A) *BOBE7 (A) *BOBE8

*BOB12(A) *BOB18(A)

*BOBC9(A)

*BOBE12 (S) *BOBE12 (S) *BOBE13

*BOB10B (S) *BOB10B

*BOBE11 (A) *BOBE11

*BOBC10(A) *BOB11B (A) *BOB11B BRG OF BRG BRG WBW M WBW WB WG YBRG YBRG OF OFG W WG (reg)

2012 2013 2014 2015

Figure 3.1: Native species richness in EEC/CEEC sites

(A) Autumn; (S) Spring; *revegetation/regeneration site. BRG OF = Blakely’s Red Gum Open Forest; (reg) = regenerating; BRG OFG = Blakely’s Red Gum Open Forest Grassland; WBW = White Box Woodland; WBW (M) = Modified White Box Woodland; WB WG = White Box Woodland Grassland; YBRG W = Yellow Box – Red Gum Woodland; YBRG WG = Yellow Box – Red Gum Woodland Grassland

2015 Annual Floristic Monitoring Report

10 Exotic species Exoticspecies richness 5

RPA8 (A) RPA8

*OC5 (A) *OC5

BOB6 (A) BOB6

RPA13 (S) RPA13

BOBE2(S)

*BOB9(S)

BOBC1 (A) BOBC1

BOB4B (A) BOB4B

*BOBE9 (S) *BOBE9 (S) *BOBE6

*BOB14(S) *BOB19(S) *BOB17(S) *BOB24(S)

*BOBE7 (A) *BOBE7 (A) *BOBE8

*BOB12(A) *BOB18(A)

*BOBC9(A)

*BOBE12 (S) *BOBE12 (S) *BOBE13

*BOB10B (S) *BOB10B

*BOBE11 (A) *BOBE11

*BOBC10(A) *BOB11B (A) *BOB11B BRG OF BRG BRG WBW M WBW WB WG YBRG YBRG OF OFG W WG (reg)

2012 2013 2014 2015

Figure 3.2: Exotic species richness in EEC/CEEC sites

(A) Autumn; (S) Spring; *revegetation/regeneration site. BRG OF = Blakely’s Red Gum Open Forest; (reg) = regenerating; BRG OFG = Blakely’s Red Gum Open Forest Grassland; WB W = White Box Woodland; WBW (M) = Modified White Box Woodland; WB WG = White Box Woodland Grassland; YBRG W = Yellow Box – Red Gum Woodland; YBRG WG = Yellow Box – Red Gum Woodland Grassland

2015 Annual Floristic Monitoring Report

30 2012 20 2013

Native species Native species richness 2014 10 2015

AA1(S)

AA2(A)

OC4 (A) OC4 (A) OC7 (S) OC3 (A) OC1

OC6B (S) OC6B

BOB21(S) BOB22(S) BOB23(S) BOB20(A)

BOBE5 (A) BOBE5

BOBC7 (A) BOBC7

GRRD1 (S) GRRD1 (A) GRRD2

BOB15B(S) BOBC8B (S) BOBC8B DNG IB OFC (reg) Rehab 1 Rehab 2 RBA OF RBA OF RBA OF (reg) UIP AA G

Figure 3.3: Native species richness in non EEC/CEEC revegetation/regeneration sites (A) Autumn; (S) Spring. DNG = Derived Native Grassland; IB OFC (reg) = Ironbark Open Forest Complex on Sandstone (regenerating); Rehab 1 = Rehabilitation Pre-1997; Rehab 2 = Rehabilitation Post-1997; RBA OF = Rough-barked Apple Open Forest on Alluvium/Colluvium; RBA OF G = Rough-barked Apple Open Forest Grassland; RBA OF (reg) = Rough-barked Apple Open Forest on Alluvium/Colluvium (regenerating); UIP = Unimproved Pasture

2015 Annual Floristic Monitoring Report

2012 15 2013 10 2014 2015 Exotic species richnessspeciesExotic 5

AA1(S)

AA2(A)

OC4 (A) OC4 (A) OC7 (S) OC3 (A) OC1

OC6B (S) OC6B

BOB21 (S) BOB22 (S) BOB23 (S) BOB20 (A)

BOBE5 (A) BOBE5

BOBC7 (A) BOBC7

GRRD1 (S) GRRD1 (A) GRRD2

BOB15B(S) BOBC8B (S) BOBC8B DNG IB OFC (reg) Rehab 1 Rehab 2 RBA OF RBA OF RBA OF (reg) UIP AA G

Figure 3.4: Exotic species richness in non EEC/CEEC revegetation/regeneration sites (A) Autumn; (S) Spring. DNG = Derived Native Grassland; IB OFC (reg) = Ironbark Open Forest Complex on Sandstone (regenerating); Rehab 1 = Rehabilitation Pre-1997; Rehab 2 = Rehabilitation Post-1997; RBA OF = Rough-barked Apple Open Forest on Alluvium/Colluvium; RBA OF G = Rough-barked Apple Open Forest Grassland; RBA OF (reg) = Rough-barked Apple Open Forest on Alluvium/Colluvium (regenerating); UIP = Unimproved Pasture; AA = Acacia ausfeldii translocation

2015 Annual Floristic Monitoring Report

3.1.3 Biometric Plot Baseline Data Biometric plot baseline data recorded in spring 2015 is summarised in Table 3.2. This will act as baseline data to be compared against results from future monitoring.

Much of the overall information captured in this data is also captured in the data presented in Table 3.1 (i.e. canopy, mid-storey and ground cover); any differences in values can be attributed to the different method of data collection and the fact that biometric cover data is collected over a 50 m transect rather than within a 20 m x 20 m quadrat. Native species richness, while included in biometric data, has been omitted from Table 3.2 to avoid direct repetition from Table 3.1. Future reports will consolidate these tables and present all biometric data together.

Only one revegetation/regeneration site is closely approaching the minimum BVT benchmark value for native overstorey (canopy) cover; this is BOBE13, with a canopy cover of 9.5% (benchmark 10-45%). Similarly, the majority of revegetation/regeneration sites have a very sparse to absent shrub layer, with only one site (BOB23) meeting benchmark values (13%, compared to benchmark range of 10-60%). This is to be expected given these sites are in early stages of natural regeneration, or have only recently (if at all) been revegetated. Development of this structural diversity and a greater, mature canopy cover will be a priority for meeting benchmarks and completion criteria.

Revegetation/regeneration sites are performing better against benchmarks in terms of native species diversity (richness) and ground cover. Eleven of the fourteen sites that have been assigned a BVT (i.e. excluding DNG and post-mining open cut rehabilitation sites) are already meeting or exceeding BVT benchmarks for native species diversity.

The greater density of hollow-bearing trees (HBTs) and logs/large woody debris (LWD) in many of the residual and FBS sites reflects their less disturbed state and more mature forest or woodland formation. A lack of HBTs often corresponds to a residual site location within secondary growth and therefore younger aged stands. In contrast no HBTs and only a limited abundance of LWD was recorded in revegetation/regeneration sites.

Table 3.2: Biometric plot data - spring 2015

Vegetation Community Site Type BVT Site No. NOS NMS NGC HBT Logs (m)

Residual Vegetation Monitoring Blakely’s Red Gum Residual HU515 RPA13 18.5 5 28 0 19.5 Open Forest Project Area Residual Grey Box Woodland HU551 RPA16 13.5 5 16 0 50 Project Area Ironbark Open Forest Residual HU552 RPA2 24.5 8 12 1 105 Complex on Sandstone Project Area Narrow-leaved Ironbark Bobadeen Open Forest on HU575 BOB2 13 2 54 0 0 Offset Alluvium/Colluvium Rough-barked Apple - Bobadeen Open Forest on HU605 BOBC4 37.5 2 96 3 30 Corridor Alluvium/Colluvium Scribbly Gum Woodland - Heathland on Sand Spring Gully HU608 SG1 18 3.5 2 0 120 Plateaux

2015 Annual Floristic Monitoring Report

Vegetation Community Site Type BVT Site No. NOS NMS NGC HBT Logs (m)

Stringybark-Ironbark Brokenback Open Forest on HU574 BB1 15 7 12 5 80 Offset Sandstone Slopes Yellow Box - Red Gum Bobadeen HU654 BOBE2 22.5 12 88 3 0 Woodland East Offset Revegetation/Regenerating Vegetation Monitoring Blakely’s Red Gum Open Forest Bobadeen HU515 BOB14 7.5 1.5 60 0 0 (regenerating) Bobadeen Derived Native Corridor DNG BOBC8B 0 0 16 0 0 Grassland Offset Bobadeen BOB21 0 7 28 0 7 Offset Ironbark Open Forest Bobadeen Complex on Sandstone HU552 BOB22 0 3.1 90 0 0 Offset (regenerating) Bobadeen BOB23 0 13 80 0 0 Offset Modified White Box Bobadeen HU654 BOB19 0 0 58 0 0 Woodland Offset Goulburn Rehabilitation Pre 1997 River N/A GRRD1 0 0 64 0 0 Remediation

Open Cut N/A OC3 28 7.5 22 0 0 Rehabilitation Post 1997 Open Cut N/A OC6B 0 11 28 0 0

Rough-barked Apple Bobadeen HU605 BOB15B 0 0 16 0 0 Open Forest Grassland Offset Bobadeen BOB9 6 0 60 0 0 Offset Bobadeen BOB12 0 0 74 0 0 Offset White Box Woodland Bobadeen BOB17 0 0 32 0 0 Grassland Offset Bobadeen HU654 BOB24 0 0 64 0 0 Offset Bobadeen BOBE13 9.5 0 82 0 10 East Offset Bobadeen BOBE9 0 0 34 0 0 Modified White Box East Offset Woodland Bobadeen BOBE12 0 0 72 0 0 East Offset

2015 Annual Floristic Monitoring Report

Vegetation Community Site Type BVT Site No. NOS NMS NGC HBT Logs (m)

Yellow Box - Red Gum Bobadeen HU515 BOBE6 0 0 54 0 0 Woodland Grassland East Offset

Acacia ausfeldii Open Cut NA AA1 0 40.5 54 0 0 translocation Floristic-based Subsidence Monitoring Floristic Blakely’s Red Gum Based HU515 FBS9 14 9.6 28 3 105 Open Forest Subsidence Plot Floristic Ironbark Open Forest Based HU552 FBS8 10 10 16 1 61.5 Complex on Sandstone Subsidence Plot Floristic Rough-barked Apple – Based Blakely’s Red Gum FBS4 26.5 3 72 0 28 Subsidence woodland Plot HU605 Floristic Rough-barked Apple Based BOB13B 27 4 28 0 2 Open Forest Grassland Subsidence Plot Floristic Scribbly Gum Woodland Based - Heathland on Sand HU608 FBS10 39.5 0 0 0 110.5 Subsidence Plateaux Plot Floristic Based FBS5 10 0 24 1 15 Subsidence Plot Floristic White Box Woodland Based HU654 FBS6 7.5 0 44 1 8 Grassland Subsidence Plot Floristic Based RPA12 37 24 50 0 5 Subsidence Plot NOS = Native Tree/Over-Storey Cover; NMS = Native Mid Storey Cover; NGC = Native Ground Cover (grass + shrub + other); HBT = Hollow-bearing Tree.

3.1.4 Rapid Assessment Vegetation structure and cover data collected during rapid assessments in spring 2015 is presented in Table 3.3 below.

2015 Annual Floristic Monitoring Report

Table 3.3: Rapid assessment vegetation structure summary

Total stratum Other ground Vegetation Community Site Type Site number Structural layer cover (%) Dominant species Cover (%) cover

N E

Angophora floribunda, Eucalyptus Canopy 15 0 blakelyi, E. macrorhyncha Bare Soil 40 Surface Blakely’s Red Gum Open Infrastructure SI2 Mid-storey 1 1 0 A. floribunda, E. blakelyi Forest (SI) Mid-storey 2 C.arcuata, S. triflora, B. daphnoides Litter 50 10 0 P. sericea, H. obtusifolia, A. Ground 5 0 Other 2 nepalensis, M. stipoides Canopy 15 0 E. fibrosa Bare soil 45 Bobadeen BOB7 Mid-storey 15 0 Acrotriche rigida Litter 40 Offset Ground 2 0 Joycea pallida Other 13 E. crebra, E. sparsifolia, Callitris Canopy 15 0 endlicheri Bare soil 20 Bobadeen BOBE4 Mid-storey 1 2 0 E. crebra, C. endlicheri East Offset Ironbark Open Forest Mid-storey 2 3 0 A. rigida Litter 60 Complex on Sandstone Ground 2 0 Cheilanthes sieberi, Gahnia aspera Other 15 Canopy 15 0 C. endlicheri, E. fibrosa Bare soil 60 Mid-storey 1 3 0 L. muticus, A. gymnanthera Bobadeen BOBC5 Mid-storey 2 3 0 C. tetragona Litter 20 Corridor Offset Calotis sp., W. gracilis, Gonocarpus Ground 4 0 Other 14 sp. Residual RPA5 Canopy 25 0 E. sparsifolia, E. dwyeri, E. crebra Bare soil 10

2015 Annual Floristic Monitoring Report

E. dwyeri, Persoonia linearis, Mid-storey 1 5 0 Acacia doratoxylon Leucopogon muticus, Persoonia Mid-storey 2 10 0 Litter 75 linearis Cleistochloa rigida, Lomandra Ground 5 0 Other 13 confertifolia Ironbark Open Forest Canopy 25 0 E. fibrosa, E. sparsifolia Bare soil 40 Bobadeen Complex on Sandstone BOB16 Mid-storey 2 0 A. rigida Litter 25 Offset (regenerating) Ground 2 0 Lomandra spp., J. pallida Other 33 Canopy 15 0 E. crebra Cassinia arcuata, Persoonia Bare soil 35 Mid-storey 1 3 0 Rough-barked Apple linearis, Acacia leucolobia Bobadeen Open Forest on BOB5 Sannantha cunninghamii, C. Offset Mid-storey 2 5 0 Litter 50 Alluvium/Colluvium arcuata, Lissanthe strigosa Astroloma humifusum, Aristida Ground 15 0 Other 1 ramosa Canopy - - - Bare soil 10 Bobadeen Mid-storey - - - Litter 5 BOBE1 East Offset Sorghum leiocladum, Austrostipa Ground 40 20 Other 20 spp., Trifolium arvense Canopy 5 0 E. blakelyi, E. crebra Bare soil 70 Bobadeen Mid-storey 1 0 Acacia implexa, E. blakelyi Litter 2 White Box Woodland BOB1 Offset A. ramosa, Bothriochloa macra, Ground 25 1 Other 1 Cassinia arcuata Canopy 5 0 E. albens Bare soil 15 Mid-storey - - - Litter 10 Residual RPA11 A. scabra, B. macra, D. repens, Ground 60 10 Other 5 Trifolium spp., C. lanatus

2015 Annual Floristic Monitoring Report

Of the 10 rapid sites described above, four (BOB7, BOB16, BOBE4 and RPA11) had little to no change in vegetation structure (strata cover) between 2014 and 2015, with any changes being less than 5% and attributable to observer error.

BOBE1 recorded a decline in native ground cover of 10% over this time period, and a corresponding increase in exotic ground cover of 10%. The dominant ground cover species within this site was the native grass Sorghum leiocladum (Wild Sorghum), which had not previously been recorded.

A large decrease in ground cover percentage cover, from 60% in 2014 to 25% in 2015, was recorded in BOB1 (White Box Woodland) between spring 2014 and spring 2015. BOB5 (Rough-barked Apple Open Forest) also saw a decrease in ground cover percentage cover from 40% to 15% over this same period.

Natural regeneration of canopy species was observed at five rapid assessment sites (BOB1, BOB5, BOB7, BOBE4 and RPA5).

3.1.5 Floristic-based Subsidence Monitoring Floristic-based subsidence monitoring data recorded in spring 2015 is shown in Table 3.4.

All six of the existing (i.e. not newly established) sites increased in native species richness between 2014 and 2015. However FBS5 recorded a large decline in native ground cover over this period (from 75% to 45%), and BOB13B declined from 35% to 20%. In addition, FBS4 and BOB13B recorded approximately 10% decreases in canopy cover; this was attributed to dieback in the Rough-barked Apple canopy that has been similarly recorded throughout the Project Area and wider region over the past year of monitoring (see Section 3.1.6 for further details).

FBS9 and FBS10 were established in 2015 and therefore will be included in data analysis in the future.

2015 Annual Floristic Monitoring Report

Table 3.4: Floristics-based Subsidence Monitoring Data (spring 2015 results)

Total strata Total Survey Native Exotic Structural cover (%) Dominant species Vegetation Community Site Type Site No. species Season species species Layer (*exotic) number1 N E

Canopy 25 0 A. floribunda, E. blakelyi Floristic Based A. linearifolia, Blakely’s Red Gum Open Subsidence FBS9 Spring 54 48 3 Mid-storey 10 0 Leptospermum Forest Plot polygafolium, P. linearis Lomandra spp., M. Ground 15 <1 stipoides E. crebra, E. fibrosa, E. Canopy 15 0 macrorhyncha

Floristic Based Mid-storey 1 5 0 A. gymnanthera, E. crebra Ironbark Open Forest Subsidence FBS8 Spring 28 28 0 Complex on Sandstone A. gymnanthera, C. Plot Mid-storey 2 5 0 arcuata, C. quinquefaria B. daphnoides, L. filiformis, Ground 7 0 P. umbellata

Canopy 20 0 A. floribunda, E. blakelyi

Floristic Based Mid-storey 1 1 0 E. blakelyi Subsidence FBS4 Spring 39 32 6 Plot Mid-storey 2 3 0 C. arcuata Rough-barked Apple – Ground 60 <1 A. nepalensis, M. stipoides Blakely’s Red Gum woodland Canopy 2 0 A. floribunda, E. blakelyi Floristic Based A. floribunda, Acacia Sub-canopy 10 0 Subsidence BOB13B Spring 38 34 4 linearifolia Plot A. floribunda, Acacia Mid-storey 5 0 linearifolia, Cassinia arcuata

2015 Annual Floristic Monitoring Report

M. stipoides, B. macra, Ground 20 <1 Gahnia aspera A. linearifolia, E. rossii, E. Floristic Based Canopy 30 0 sparsifolia Subsidence FBS10 Spring 16 16 0 Plot Ground 1 0 L. filiformis, M. stipoides

Floristic Based Canopy 15 0 E. albens Subsidence FBS5 Spring 47 36 10 Austrodanthonia sp., M. Plot Ground 45 <1 stipoides

Canopy 15 0 E. albens Scribbly Gum Woodland Heathland on Sand Floristic Based Mid-storey 1 5 0 A. implexa, E. albens Plateaux Subsidence FBS6 Spring 45 33 11 A. verniciflua, E. albens, C. Plot Mid-storey 2 5 0 arcuata Austrodanthonia sp., M. Ground 40 1 stipoides

Canopy 5 0 E. moluccana Residual RPA12 Spring 37 26 9 Mid-storey 1 0 C. arcuata, E. moluccana Project Area Austrodanthonia sp., M. Ground 30 <1 stipoides 1Species unable to be identified down to species level were included in total species count but excluded from native/exotic count

2015 Annual Floristic Monitoring Report

3.1.6 Weeds and Other Disturbances Many of the sites surveyed during 2015 contained exotic species. Commonly recorded exotic species were:

 Bidens subalternans (Cobbler’s Pegs);  Carthamus lanatus (Saffron Thistle);  Cirsium vulgare (Spear Thistle);  Conyza spp. (Fleabane);  Hypericum perforatum (St John’s Wort); and  Hypochaeris radicata (Catsear)

Twenty-eight sites contained at least one of the four noxious weeds identified during 2015 monitoring. These are outlined below in Table 3.5.

Table 3.5: Noxious weeds and dominant exotic species summary

Botanical name Common name Site(s) Cover (%) Noxious weeds BOB12, BOB14, BOB17, BOB18, BOB19, BOB21, BOB24, BOBC4, BOBC8B, BOBE6, BOBE7A, Hypericum perforatum St John’s Wort BOBE8, BOBE11, BOBE12, <1 BOBE13, FBS5, FBS6, GRRD1, OC3, OC4, OC5, OC6B, OC7, S13B

Opuntia sp. Prickly Pear GRRD1, OC7, RPA15 <1

Rubus ulmifolius. Blackberry RPA3A <1

Xanthium spinosum Bathurst Burr BOBE9, BOB10B, BOB12 <1

Exotics (other) – dominants BOB9, BOB10B, BOB12, BOB14, 15 (BOBE6) BOB17, BOB19, BOB21, BOB24, 30-50 (BOBC8B, Carthamus lanatus Saffron Thistle BOBC7, BOBC8B, BOBE6, BOB19, BOB24) BOBE9, BOBE12, BOBE13, GRRD1, OC3, OC6B, RPA13 <5 (all others)

Extensive areas of Angophora floribunda (Rough-barked Apple) dieback were observed to the north-west of the Bobadeen East Vegetation Offset Area (Figure 3.5). Investigations have been undertaken within these areas, however results of soil analysis show no evidence of fungal pathogens and the cause is still unknown.

One declared pest - Sus scrofa (Feral Pig) was observed during the course of floristic monitoring (Figure 3.5). Direct observations, as well as observations of extensive diggings, were recorded.

Two instances of erosion were recorded; one within the Bobadeen Vegetation Offset Area and one within the Bobadeen Corridor Vegetation Offset Area (Figure 3.5).

2015 Annual Floristic Monitoring Report

Figure 3.5: Incidental disturbance observations

2015 Annual Floristic Monitoring Report

3.2 LANDSCAPE FUNCTION ANALYSIS The average Landscape Organisation (LO) index at analogue sites was 0.93, compared to an average of 0.85 at revegetation/regeneration sites (excluding the most recently established A. ausfeldii rehabilitation sites). Three revegetation/regeneration sites (OC2(R), OC5(R) and OC6(R)) recorded LO scores of greater than 0.9; these are the only three within the range set by analogues (0.89 to 0.99), however an additional three sites were within 10% of the lowest analogue value (Figure 3.6).

LFA results from both of the Acacia ausfeldii translocation plots show very large (two to three fold) increases in LO between 2014 and 2015, from 0.31 and 0.22 to 0.68 and 0.69 for AA1(R) and AA2(R) respectively. In both of these sites, this is due to an increase in ground cover, and an accumulation of litter from ground cover and shrub species.

Litter and perennial ground cover were the dominant patch types at all sites monitored (Figure 3.7). Litter was the dominant patch type in five of the eight post-mining open cut rehabilitation sites, and in both of their analogue sites (RPA3(A) and BOB4(A)), while ground cover was the dominant patch type in both analogue and remediation Goulburn River sites. However, both litter and ground cover were, on average, lower in rehabilitation sites compared to analogue sites.

Conversely, bare soil contributed on average approximately three times as large a proportion to LO in rehabilitation sites compared to analogues (18.5% compared to 6.5%). However, analysis of site specific data shows that sites OC2(R), OC5(R) and OC6(R), all of which have high litter cover (predominantly annuals) have bare soil values equal to or less than that of analogues.

Revegetation/regeneration sites had very limited extents of other patch types (tree/shrub, log, cryptogam, rock or other); cover of each of these within any site was less than 2% (with the exception of shrubs in AA1 and AA2).

1.00

0.90

0.80

0.70

0.60

0.50

0.40

0.30 LandscapeOrganisation 0.20

0.10

0.00

AA1

AA2(R)

OC1(R) OC2(R) OC3(R) OC4(R) OC5(R) OC6(R)

RPA3(A)

BOB4(A)

GRRD1(R) GRRD2(R)

GRRD1(A) GRRD2(A) Revegetation/regeneration Analogue

LO 2013 LO 2014 LO 2015

Figure 3.6: LO of each LFA monitoring site, 2013-2015

2015 Annual Floristic Monitoring Report

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

AA1

AA2(R)

OC1(R) OC2(R) OC3(R) OC4(R) OC5(R) OC6(R)

RPA3(A)

BOB4(A)

GRRD1(R) GRRD2(R)

GRRD1(A) GRRD2(A) Revegetation/regeneration Analogue

Bare soil Ground cover Litter Shrub/tree Rock Log Cryptogam

Figure 3.7: Proportion of landscape occupied by each patch, spring 2015

Average stability, infiltration and nutrient cycling indices for Open Cut rehabilitation sites were 58, 37 and 28 respectively, while the analogue Grey Box Woodland and Ironbark Open Forest Complex sites (the target communities for Open Cut rehabilitation) had average indices of 58, 42 and 35. As this demonstrates, Open Cut sites are performing well in terms of stability, and more variably or less well in terms of infiltration and nutrient cycling. While the average infiltration index for Open Cut sites was 5 less than for relevant analogues, four sites (OC2(R), OC4(R), OC5(R) and OC6(R)) had infiltration values within the range set by analogues (Figure 3.8). In constrast, only one Open Cut site (OC5(R)) had a nutrient cycling index within the range set by analogues, potentially due to the extremely high litter cover (one of four key SSA values that contributes to nutrient cycling). An additional three sites (OC2(R), OC4(R) and OC6(R)had nutrient cycling indices within 10% of the lowest analogue value.

Average stability, infiltration and nutrient cycling indices for Goulburn River Remediation sites were 58, 34 and 24 respectively, compared to an average of 62, 33 and 24 for Goulburn River analogue sites. In contrast to the Open Cut sites as described above, Goulburn River Remediation sites are approaching (within 5% of the lowest analogue value), but have not yet reached, analogue values in terms of stability, and are approaching or have exceeded analogue values for infiltration and nutrient cycling (Figure 3.8). .

2015 Annual Floristic Monitoring Report

AA1

AA2(R)

OC2(R) OC1(R) OC3(R) OC4(R) OC5(R) OC6(R)

RPA3(A)

BOB4(A)

GRRD1(R) GRRD2(R)

GRRD1(A) GRRD2(A) Revegetation/regeneration Analogue

Stability Infiltration Nutrient Cycling

Figure 3.8: Stability, infiltration and nutrient cycling indices for all LFA sites, spring 2015

The above results are also presented in tabular form in Appendix B.

2015 Annual Floristic Monitoring Report

3.3 ACACIA AUSFELDII SURVEYS 3.3.1 Highett Road Population Acacia ausfeldii monitoring during spring 2015 continued the targeted monitoring of 100 individual specimens within the defined Highett Road population. The field survey collected data for a total of 87 individuals, consisting of 51 mature live plants and 36 dead individuals (an increase from 30 dead individuals in 2014). The remaining 13 individuals were unable to be located.

The height of mature living individuals ranged from 0.3 m to 4.0 m, whilst the diameter of the main stem ranged from 0.1 cm to 4.5 cm at the base. The average height of mature individuals decreased to from 2.07 m in 2014 to 1.89 m in 2015, indicating a decline in condition and cessation of growth.

Table 3.6 summarises the condition and reproductive ratings (flower and fruit) given to each individual assessed during the survey. Of the individuals present and not dead, approximately 55% showed either severe dieback or many dead stems, and a further 39% showed minor damage or some dead branches. Very few individuals (3, or 6%) were assessed as being healthy.

Table 3.6: Condition and reproductive ratings summary – Highett Road population

Reproductive Ratings Reproductive Ratings Condition Ratings # (flower) ## (fruit) ## Maturity

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

Seedling 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Sapling 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mature 5 23 16 4 3 51 0 0 0 0 1 11 26 12 1

Total 5 23 16 4 3 51 0 0 0 0 1 11 26 12 1

# Condition Rating: 1 – severe damage/dieback, 2 – many dead stems, 3 – some dead branches, 4 – minor damage and 5 – healthy ## Reproductive Rating: 1 – Nil, 2 – Sparse/occasional flowers or fruit only, 3 – Low/under 25% of potential, 4 – Moderate/25% to 75% of potential and 5 – High/75% to 100% of potential

3.3.2 Open Cut Translocation Area Population Acacia ausfeldii monitoring during spring 2015 continued the targeted monitoring of 100 individual specimens within the two A. ausfeldii translocation plots in the Open Cut (AA1 and AA2).

Of the 50 individuals that were identified and tagged within each plot in 2014, 48 were relocated within AA1 and 43 within AA2 in 2015. While in 2014, 61 of the 100 individuals were seedlings and only 39 saplings, in 2015 all individuals located and assessed were saplings. This maturation and growth of individuals was also reflected in the increase in average height and diameter measurements recorded across both plots. In spring 2014, average height of individuals was 94 cm in AA1 and 52 cm in AA2; by spring 2015 these had increased to 132 cm and 115 cm respectively. Average diameter at base of all individuals in AA1 was 1.3 cm (compared to .77 cm in 2014), and 1.1 for AA2 (compared to .44 in 2014)

While all 100 individuals assessed in 2014 were healthy (condition rating 5), in 2015 this had fallen to 82, with four individuals showing minor damage (condition rating 4), four with some dead branches (condition rating 3), and one dead (suspected due to waterlogging) (Figure 3.9).

2015 Annual Floristic Monitoring Report

As recorded in 2014, the density of A. ausfeldii individuals was much greater in plot AA2 compared to AA1 (5569 compared to 368 plants per ha respectively). In both plots, the density of A. ausfeldii has increased over the past year, indicating ongoing germination from the topsoil seed back, however only AA2 has reached the target densities outlined in the BMP (1 individual per 5 m2 or 2000 individuals per ha).

20 Plot 1 (AA1) Plot 2 (AA2) 15

Number of individuals of Number 5

0 1 2 3 4 5 Condition Rating

Figure 3.9: Condition ratings of A. ausfeldii individuals, AA1 and AA2 Open Cut translocation plots

3.4 SALINITY OFFSET AREA SUMMARY Detailed results from sites located within the SOA are summarized in Section 3.1 above. This section highlights results relevant to completion criteria outlined in the BMP, namely establishment/maintenance and natural regeneration of vegetative cover, and weed infestations.

Of the 26 sites located within the SOA, two revegetation/regeneration sites located within the SOA (BOB19 and BOB24) had particularly high exotic species richness and cover, with exotic species comprising the dominant proportion of species within the ground cover stratum. In BOB19, this corresponded to a 40% decrease in native ground cover between 2014 and 2015. As highlighted in Section 3.1.6, the dominant exotic species in these areas was Saffron Thistle, which was also incidentally observed as dense infestations in cleared areas to the north of BOB24. All other sites located within the SOA had a predominantly native ground cover.

In addition, two FBS sites (BOB13B and FBS5) and two rapid assessment sites (BOB1 and BOB5) showed large declines (between 10% and 35% absolute cover) in native ground cover between 2014 and 2015, and canopy cover markedly declined in BOB13B from 15% in 2014 to 2% 2015. This decline in canopy cover was attributed to dieback in Rough-barked Apple canopy, which was observed at two key locations within or immediately east of the SOA (Figure 3.5) as well as in various locationed throughout the wider Project Area and region.

2015 Annual Floristic Monitoring Report

Natural regeneration of native canopy species was recorded in nine floristic and three rapid assessment sites located within the SOA. Strong natural regeneration of Blakely’s Red Gum was also incidentally observed to the north and north-west of site RPA13. While natural regeneration was relatively dense and progressing well in this aforementioned area, results of natural regeneration monitoring in Bobadeen Vegetation Offset Area (and hence the SOA) demonstrate that natural regeneration densities are still much below typical densities for grassy woodlands (see Section 3.5 below).

3.4.1 Pivot Fence Tree-line Monitoring The results of the targeted survey of the pivot fence tree-line plantings during autumn 2015 surveys are summarised below in Table 3.7. Of the original 6,000 trees planted:

 2,071 were counted in the autumn 2015 survey (35%)  1,709 (82%) of these trees were considered to be at 50% or greater health score (Figure 3.10).

These results show a further decline in the number of trees present along the pivot fence line from the 2,279 (38% of the total planted) trees recorded in autumn 2014; a further loss of 208 trees over this one year period.

Table 3.7: Pivot Fence tree-line planting numbers and health

Health Area Tree Species Total 0-24% 25-49% 50-74% 75-99%

Eucalypt 11 19 63 97 190 Allocasuarina 5 6 23 27 61 Melaleuca/Callistemon Shrub 2 4 42 112 160 Area 1 Trees (other) 0 0 0 0 0 Acacia 4 3 2 1 10 Unknown 0 0 0 0 0 Eucalypt 2 2 5 34 43 Allocasuarina 1 1 1 4 7 Melaleuca/Callistemon Shrub 0 0 0 0 0 Area 2 Trees (other) 0 0 0 0 0 Acacia 0 0 0 0 0 Unknown 0 Eucalypt 14 35 49 54 152 Allocasuarina 2 3 2 26 33 Melaleuca/Callistemon Shrub 2 9 14 25 50 Area 3 Trees (other) 0 Acacia 1 4 0 10 15 Unknown 0 Eucalypt 0 9 21 0 30 Allocasuarina 0 3 2 0 5 Melaleuca/Callistemon Shrub 1 0 3 2 6 Area 4 Trees (other) 0 Acacia 0 0 5 1 6 Unknown 0

2015 Annual Floristic Monitoring Report

Health Area Tree Species Total 0-24% 25-49% 50-74% 75-99%

Eucalypt 3 17 40 7 67 Allocasuarina 0 1 1 2 4 Melaleuca/Callistemon Shrub 0 4 10 5 19 Area 5 Trees (other) 0 Acacia 0 0 0 0 0 Unknown 0 Eucalypt 5 3 3 55 66 Allocasuarina 0 0 0 10 10 Melaleuca/Callistemon Shrub 0 1 3 12 16 Area 6 Trees (other) 0 Acacia 0 0 0 1 1 Unknown 0 Eucalypt 6 9 18 25 58 Allocasuarina 0 1 3 7 11 Melaleuca/Callistemon Shrub 0 6 12 17 35 Area 7 Trees (other) 0 Acacia 0 2 4 5 11 Unknown 0 Eucalypt 22 40 76 156 294 Allocasuarina 1 27 43 62 133 Melaleuca/Callistemon Shrub 3 9 43 55 110 Area 8 Trees (other) 0 Acacia 1 2 3 10 16 Unknown 0 Eucalypt 14 24 53 53 144 Allocasuarina 1 0 15 49 65 Melaleuca/Callistemon Shrub 2 0 12 13 27 Area 9 Trees (other) 0 Acacia 1 0 7 8 16 Unknown 0 Eucalypt 1 9 34 76 120 Allocasuarina 0 0 0 12 12 Melaleuca/Callistemon Shrub 0 0 0 1 1 Area 10 Trees (other) 0 Acacia 0 0 0 0 0 Unknown 0 Eucalypt 0 1 5 16 22 Allocasuarina 0 2 5 4 11 Melaleuca/Callistemon Shrub 0 0 0 0 0 Area 11 Trees (other) 0 Acacia 0 0 0 0 0 Unknown 0 Area 12 Eucalypt 0 1 3 17 21

2015 Annual Floristic Monitoring Report

Health Area Tree Species Total 0-24% 25-49% 50-74% 75-99%

Allocasuarina 0 0 0 10 10 Melaleuca/Callistemon Shrub 0 0 0 1 1 Trees (other) 0 Acacia 0 0 0 2 2 Unknown 0

The pivot fence tree-line survey located 2,071 (35%) of the 6,000 trees originally planted. Figure 3.10 below illustrates the number of healthy trees identified during autumn 2013 (A13), autumn 2014 (A14) and autumn 2015 (A15) against the targeted 75% healthy trees required by the Salinity Offset Management Program. As shown, the number of healthy trees are not meeting required the target, and the number of healthy trees identified has consistently declined over the three years. There was a decrease of 208 trees between autumn 2014 and autumn 2015 monitoring periods. This represents a loss of 9% of the trees between monitoring periods, and an overall loss of 65% of the original trees planted.

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0 A13 A14 A15

No. Healthy Trees 75% Healthy Target

Figure 3.10: Healthy trees comparison against 75% healthy target In terms of overall health of the trees, the number of healthy trees identified has decreased by 197 since autumn 2013. In the 75-100% health category the number of trees has declined by 398 trees, and the lowest health category (0-25%) also saw a decrease in the number of trees. However, the number of trees in the 50-75% health category increased yearly from the autumn 2013 results (Figure 3.11).

2015 Annual Floristic Monitoring Report

1600

1400

1200

1000

800 A13 A14

No. Trees of 600 A15 400

200

0 0-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% Tree Health Category

Figure 3.11: Distribution of tree health Eucalypt species continue to be the most species found within the pivot fence tree line areas, with 1321 of the 2071 trees present identified as a Eucalyptus sp. (approximately 58%). Of these 1321 trees, 960 were considered to be of 50% health or greater. The remaining species planted did not exhibit high establishment rates in comparison to the eucalypt species present. Figure 3.12 below shows the distribution of trees species that were of 50% health or greater.

1200

1000

800

600 A13

No. Trees of 400 A14 A15 200

Figure 3.12: Distribution of tree species

2015 Annual Floristic Monitoring Report

3.5 NATURAL REGENERATION MONITORING Results from natural regeneration monitoring in Bobadeen, Bobadeen Corridor and Bobadeen East Vegetation Offset Areas are presented in Table 3.8 below.

Evidence of natural regeneration was observed in each of the three offset areas listed above. Bobadeen Corridor had the highest density of both regenerating and mature stems (14 and 20 stems per ha respectively), followed by Bobadeen (7 and 6) and then Bobadeen East (3 and 0.5). Currently, the density of all canopy species’ stems (regeneration and remnant) in Bobadeen and Bobadeen East is below that of a typical grassy woodland (30-40 stems/ha) (Kerle, 2005).

The majority of regenerating individuals across all properties (<5 cm DBH) were small seedlings, less than one metre in height. The monitoring also recorded the presence of more advanced regeneration, in the form of some younger trees >0.5 cm DBH.

Table 3.8: Summary of natural regeneration

Median height Median DBH* Stems per ha No. of (m) (cm) Area Dominant species points <5 >5 cm <5 cm >5 cm <5 cm >5 cm cm

Bobadeen 4 A. floribunda 7 6 0.6 5.0 2.8 10.0

Bobadeen Corridor 4 E. blakelyi 14 20 1.1 8.0 1.0 20.0

Bobadeen East 7 E. albens 3 0.5 1.0 4.5 1.0 10.0

*Calculated from individuals ≥1.3m height only

2015 Annual Floristic Monitoring Report

4 Discussion & Recommendations

Floristic and LFA monitoring provides data to determine if the objectives of the monitoring program and management actions outlined within the BMP are being met. This section provides further analysis and discussion of the results obtained during the 2015 monitoring and provides recommendations to improve and enhance future monitoring and biodiversity management to ensure management objectives are being met.

The floristic monitoring methods were consistent with those outlined within the revised BMP. While these incorporate revisions to methodology and monitoring schedule (as outlined in Section 2 of this report), the revised methods build on those used in previous monitoring surveys, and allow for data to be directly compared with, and continue to build on the knowledge gained from, previous years’ ecological monitoring data.

The results of the 2015 floristic monitoring continue to show marked differences between sites that are located in remnant or mature secondary growth vegetation communities (residual monitoring sites) and those sites that have undergone or will undergo assisted natural regeneration or active revegetation/rehabilitation works.

The revised BMP outlines a series of performance criteria against which the success of revegetation/rehabilitation monitoring sites, in terms of their progression towards mature vegetation communities reflective of the vegetation structure and composition of their respective target communities, can be assessed. This section includes additional discussion of trends in native species diversity and density based on the results described in Section 3.1, including the comparison against BVT benchmarks.

4.1 Floristic monitoring The 2015 floristic monitoring highlights the continuing differences between sites that are representative of vegetation communities (residual sites) and sites that will undergo or have undergone works for revegetation/rehabilitation. After five years of monitoring, a large body of benchmark data has been collected across the ecological management domains. Discussion of the findings has been separated into EEC and non-EECs.

4.1.1 EEC/CEEC Communities Consistent with the previous years’ results, 2015 monitoring results show that residual sites have, on average, a greater native species richness compared to revegetation sites (27 compared to 22), and a lower exotic species richness (5 compared to 11). However a positive trend of increasing native species richness across all sites, and an increase in native grass diversity was observed in many revegetation/regeneration sites, with species such as Queensland Bluegrass and Weeping Grass indicating a slight shift from the highly disturbed DNGs dominated by Purple Wiregrass and Sporobolus spp.

The higher native species richness in residual sites was largely due to a greater diversity of native forbs. The high density of native perennial grasses, in particular Purple Wiregrass and Red Grass, in White Box Woodland formation revegetation/regeneration communities may be inhibiting the development of native forb germination and diversity in inter-tussock spaces, as well as germination of eucalypt seedlings. While it is expected that an increase in native forb germination and diversity will occur as the canopy

2015 Annual Floristic Monitoring Report

develops in these revegetation/regeneration, targeted management intervention may be required in some natural regeneration areas (see Section 4.5 for additional discussion).

The high cover of exotic species in many revegetation/regeneration sites is of concern for EEC/CEEC areas, given that the EPBC condition thresholds for Box Gum Woodland require a predominantly native perennial understorey. While Saffron Thistle, the dominant exotic recorded, is an annual species, the dominance of this and a number of other exotic species is likely inhibiting growth of native grasses and forbs. As in previous years, exotics were recorded in significantly higher covers in White Box Woodland formation revegetation/regeneration areas, with exotic cover in Blakely’s Red Gum Open Forest (including regenerating and DNG) consistently between zero and 5%. The history of grazing, and the relatively fertile soils in White Box Woodland basalt areas, are likely to contribute to the increased weed burden. Recommended weed management strategies are outlined in Section 4.1.6 below.

4.1.2 Non EEC/CEEC Communities In contrast to results from 2014, in 2015 regenerating Ironbark Open Forest Complex sites (newly established BOB21, 22 and 23) had native ground cover approaching or equal to that of the majority of grassland or grassy woodland sites. While residual Ironbark forests typically have ground cover of less than 10%, the majority of these sites are located on relatively poor, sandy soils, often on ridges and/or with outcropping rock. In contrast, the regenerating Ironbark sites are located lower in the landscape on moderate soils. As these sites regenerate it may become apparent that they are located within ecotones between Ironbark and adjacent Rough-barked Apple or other grassy woodland sites, and as such comparisons against residual sites should take this into account.

Site GRRD1 was previously identified as being of concern due to a low ground cover and loss of native ground cover species. However, this site increased in both native ground cover and native ground cover species richness between 2014 and 2015, and now has one of the highest ground covers of all post- mining rehabilitation sites. However, sites OC3, OC6B and OC7 continue to have low ground covers of between 4% (OC3) and 15% (OC6B), and both OC6B and OC7 have a high (15%) cover of exotic species. These results support the conclusion stated in ELA (2014) that rehabilitation has not always been successful in re-establishing strong groundcover, which may be of particular concern for future rehabilitation sites where the aim is to rehabilitate to specific grassy woodland communities.

Recommendations therefore follow on from ELA (2014), namely for seed mixes to incorporate a range of native perennial grass species, including stoloniferous grasses such as Couch (at lower ratios compared to other native species more characteristic of Box Gum Woodlands) to ensure ground cover is established and maintained during early vegetation establishment.

Ground cover in OC1 appears to have recovered from its previous reduction in cover; Weeping Grass was once again recorded as a dominant species in 2015. This highlights the impact that macropod grazing can have on both grass cover and ability to identify a proportion of native grasses. Management intervention such as placement of large woody debris has been shown to promote ground cover species germination and protect from grazing.

4.1.3 Biometric Data Biometric data collected in 2015 represents the first, and therefore baseline, set of data. This data will be built upon in future monitoring in order to identify and analyse trends in vegetation structure (covers), native species diversity, and habitat values (HBTs and logs).

While many revegetation/regeneration sites are performing well against BVT benchmarks and thus performance criteria in terms of native species diversity (richness) and native ground cover, the vast

2015 Annual Floristic Monitoring Report

majority are not yet approaching benchmarks for tree or mid-storey/shrub cover. As natural regeneration progresses and matures, and as plantings establish and develop, it is expected that these sites will begin to trend towards these benchmarks. However as noted, natural regeneration was only recorded in six of the 38 revegetation/regeneration sites, and as such supplementary plantings or active management intervention may be required in future.

The lack of HBTs and LWD in revegetation/regeneration sites indicates that these areas would not support hollow-requiring fauna. Given the absence of a source for LWD (i.e. mature trees to drop limbs), and the fact that hollows can take over 100 years to form, it is unlikely these areas will provide such habitat within the next 15 years (and more) without augmentation through nest box installation or placement with LWD or standing hollow stags.

Prior to spring 2016 monitoring, it is recommended that BVT benchmarks be reviewed and adjusted where required/relevant, based on results of spring 2015 and autumn 2016 biometric monitoring of residual sites.

4.1.4 Rapid Assessments With the exception of BOB1 and BOB5, which recorded large declines in native ground cover between 2014 and 2015, results from rapid assessments show that residual vegetation sites are stable, with low to no levels of exotic species or noxious weeds and high structural diversity.

Both BOB1 and BOB5 are located in areas with relatively poor soils, and have been noticeably impacted by macropod grazing. This grazing pressure, in combination with the poor site conditions and very dry September (prior to spring monitoring), may have contributed to the decline in native grass cover over. Should future monitoring show an ongoing decline in native ground cover, it is recommended that these sites return to full floristic monitoring in order to identify any associated changes in species composition or loss of ground cover diversity. Management intervention such as placement of large woody debris or mulch to protect from grazing and promote ground cover species germination may also be required.

4.1.5 Floristic-based Subsidence Monitoring The performance criterion for subsidence with regards to biodiversity requires that mining operations are to have a negligible impact upon threatened species, populations, habitat or ecological communities. Condition 24 of the Ulan Coal Mines Ltd Project Approval (08_0184) states that “The proponent shall ensure that the project does not cause any exceedances of the performance measures”. The results from the monitoring do not show any clear evidence that subsidence has negatively impacted upon vegetation.

Sites at which Floristic-based Subsidence Monitoring concluded in 2015 As part of the monitoring requirements, each Florisitic Based Subsidence (FBS) site must be monitored one year prior to and two years following longwall mining. Conseqently, monitoring of site FBS4 concluded in 2015.

FBS4 was established in spring 2012 for the purpose of monitoring subsidence impacts upon biodiversity above LW28 at Ulan #3 Underground Mine.

Despite large fluctuations in native species richness over the four years of monitoring, both native and exotic species richness in FBS4 were of identical values in spring 2012 and spring 2015 (i.e. pre- and post-mining).

2015 Annual Floristic Monitoring Report

Canopy cover has declined from 30% in spring 2012 to 20% in spring 2015. Some dieback of Rough- barked Apple canopy was observed in this site and surrounding areas, and is likely to be the cause of this decline. However, variations of 5% to 10% in canopy cover may also be attributed to observer variation. It is not clear the cause of this dieback, however an investigation conducted by ELA assessed canopy health across subsided and non-subsided (control) areas and found no statistically significant differences (ELA 2015b).

Native ground cover has fluctuated over the course of monitoring, with year-to-year variations of up to 25% absolute cover. Native ground cover at the conclusion of monitoring was 60%, compared to 75% in spring 2012. These variations are likely due to variations in climatic seasonal conditions, and overall ground cover appears in good stable condition with minimal exotic cover.

Given these results, and the lack of any physical evidence of subsidence at this site, there is no evidence to suggest that subsidence has negatively impacted upon biodiversity at this location.

4.1.6 Weeds and Disturbances The 2014 monitoring survey identified weeds within both residual and revegetation/regeneration areas that should be targeted as part of noxious weed control. Blackberry has been eliminated successfully from BOB4B, however persists in RPA3A. Bathurst Burr was no longer present in any of the four sites it was identified in during 2014, however it has emerged in three new sites in low numbers. Prickly Pear was first recorded in 2014 (in site RPA15), and is now present within two additional sites, both within rehabilitation areas (GRRD1 and OC7). St John’s Wort was the most commonly recorded noxious weed and appears to be spreading; it was recorded 24 sites during 2015 compared to 12 sites in 2014. Management intervention in the form of targeted spraying or manual remove, will be required to reduce the extent and spread of these noxious weeds.

The dominant exotic species recorded during 2015 was Saffron Thistle. This species was not only recorded within monitoring sites, but also as dense infestations throughout the project area, particularly within Bobadeen Vegetation Offset Area and the northern cleared Residual Project Area. This species has been observed in high densities and abundances throughout the region during spring 2015, emerging following early spring rains. Due to the extent of these infestations, wide-scale spraying is not considered an appropriate weed control option. While slashing in the period between Saffron Thistle emergence (usually after early spring rains) and seed head formation can be a recommended management practice in agricultural settings, this could potentially risk negatively impacting native grasses and forbs, or natural regeneration in the Vegetation Offset Areas. Close monitoring and investigation of infestation areas, in particular of any observable impact of Saffron Thistle density on natural regeneration and the impact of increased shading in naturally regenerating areas on Saffron Thistle density (as Saffron Thistle is suspected to be shade intolerant) is recommended.

As noted in the 2014 report (ELA 2015), soil disturbance (ripping and scalping) in recently revegetated areas was associated with dense lines of Saffron Thistle. Pre-planting weed control activities as per methods outlined within the OMP will assist with control of this occurrence and will reduce competition with planted seedlings. Where scalping is being used as a ground preparation method prior to direct seeding, the area of soil disturbance should be minimised. Machines such as the Rodden III, which utilise a ploughshare, can be used to prepare ground without causing extensive ground disturbance as seen with graded areas. It is recommended that a range of methods of ground preparation are trialled to reduce the area of ground disturbance, while still achieving required seedling densities.

Clovers and Vulpia sp., which were both identified in high covers in a number of sites during 2014, were not recorded in high covers or abundances during 2015.

2015 Annual Floristic Monitoring Report

Specific management recommendations for controlling these weeds are presented in Table 4.1 below. Refer to Table 3.5 for identification of which sites these noxious and other weeds were present at. Management actions listed below should be implemented at those sites.

Table 4.1: Recommended management actions for noxious and other weeds

Botanical name Common name Action

Noxious weeds

Hypericum perforatum St John’s Wort Targeted spraying

Physical removal (manual), targeted herbicide Opuntia spp. Prickly Pear application (foliar or basal bark/cut stump)

Rubus ulmifolius Blackberry Targeted spraying

Xanthium spinosum Bathurst Burr Selective herbicide application, strategic slashing.

Exotics (other) – dominants

Minimise ground disturbance in revegetation areas (i.e. scalping, ripping), implement pre- planting and pre-seeding weed control. Carthamus lanatus Saffron Thistle In large areas, monitor closely and slash following emergence (often following early spring rains) before seed heads form. Isolated infestations can be sprayed.

General observations indicate a high level of Feral Pig activity throughout the offset areas. Feral animal control measures, such as baiting or shooting by qualified personnel, should continue to be implemented.

4.1.7 Future Monitoring Seasonal variation, particularly of grasses and annual herbs, can be expected in vegetation types on the slopes and ranges. It is important to continue monitoring vegetation in spring and autumn to ensure that seasonal species are noted, along with impacts from adverse weather and potential weed emergence.

Recommendations for the 2016 floristic monitoring program are listed below: a) For residual vegetation full floristic sites that have had five years worth of data recorded, full floristic monitoring of these sites should be reduced to every three years. However, should there be a major event such as fire, collection of annual data will need to occur and continue to be monitored annually until a new baseline condition has been established. b) Residual vegetation sites which have been monitored for five consecutive years will then undergo an annual rapid assessment in between the three-yearly full floristic monitoring, concentrating on exotic species, erosion, feral animals and other disturbances. c) Biometric monitoring should be continued, with results used to adjust BVT benchmarks (residual sites) and assess the success of revegetation/regeneration activities in terms of progressing these areas towards the target completion communities. Future monitoring reports will develop a single, standard format for presenting all species richness and cover biometric data and reporting on trends as they

2015 Annual Floristic Monitoring Report

emerge. Consideration should be given to development of a ranking or ‘traffic light’ system to assess revegetation/regeneration sites against benchmarks. d) As stated in Section 2.1.3, BOB13B has replaced BOB12 as a floristic-based subsidence monitoring site for Longwall W3. As such, BOB13B should be monitored in both autumn and spring from hereon. e) Following discussions with UCML and more detailed analysis of the location of site FBS10 in relation to the underground mining layout, it is recommended that this site be moved slightly south (and re- named FBS10B) in autumn 2016. The purpose of this will be to move it to a location over the longwall that is more likely to be subjected to subsidence. f) Consideration should be given to incorporating assessments of forest (particularly tree canopy) health in floristic-based subsidence monitoring, for example along transects across longwalls. g) Where active regeneration of a site is undertaken, quantitative stem density and/or survival assessment should be collected during the next scheduled monitoring event. h) Alternative (i.e. changed) locations for analogue sites for the Goulburn River remediation floristic sites should be considered in areas within the Diversion Channel that will not undergo remediation actions, and that are deemed to be of completion condition. Such analogue sites would provide a more appropriate standard against which to compare remediation sites, and would more accurately reflect the objectives of the Goulburn River Diversion Remediation Project.

4.2 LANDSCAPE FUNCTION ANALYSIS Results from 2015 LFA monitoring were compared against results from previous years’ monitoring in order to identify trends in LO, stability, infiltration or nutrient cycling, and any potential land or erosion management issues.

The majority of post-mining open cut and Goulburn River Remediation LFA sites showed an increase in LO between 2014 and 2015, and seven of these sites had higher LO in 2015 compared to their respective first year of monitoring. These results indicate that LO in rehabilitation sites is generally stable (with fluctuations predominantly within 10% each year) or increasing, and with the majority of sites approaching or within the lower limit of analogue values. The large increases in LO recorded within the A. ausfeldii translocation plots are reflective of the increases in ground cover and litter (from shrubs and annual plants) associated with maturing rehabilitation. As litter is the dominant patch type in Ironbark communities (analogues for post-mining open cut LFA sites), further increases in LO will likely require the continued development of a shrub and canopy layer to provide leaf litter cover. While analogue Grey Box/Ironbark sites typically have low ground cover (and lower on average than rehabilitation sites), establishing a stable ground cover is a priority in rehabilitation areas. Applying mulch, and relocating features such as logs and boulders, to rehabilitation areas, may help to increase landscape stability and organisation and, more importantly given the generally good stability of post-mining open cut rehabilitation areas, create microclimate/habitat for ground cover establishment and protection. Placement of LWD and boulders has also been observed to promote increased ground cover diversity, and should be considered for sites with lower (less than 0.8) LO such as OC1(R), OC3(R), GRRD1(R) and potentially the A. ausfeldii plots. The greater slope at site OC3 makes this site a priority. Site GRRD1(R) is located on a very steep bank; the outcomes of the diversion remediation work recently commenced further downstream should inform future remediation as well as ongoing monitoring of and potential management interventions in remediated areas.

2015 Annual Floristic Monitoring Report

4.2.1 Future Monitoring Recommendations for the 2016 LFA monitoring program follow from the recommendations presented in the 2014 monitoring report: a) A review of existing and potential LFA sites should be undertaken to identify the most appropriate areas for additional LFA sites to be established in spring 2015, specifically targeting the post-mining open cut rehabilitation areas. b) Reactively capture data after an event such as significant rainfall or bushfire, to sample any changes in landscape function or vegetation structure. Site RPA6(A), which was subject to a bushfire in 2014, should undergo LFA and vegetation dynamics monitoring in autumn 2016.

4.3 ACACIA AUSFELDII 4.3.1 Highett Road Monitoring results from 2015 show a continued decline in A. ausfeldii population size and health along Highett Road. With over half of the targeted individuals showing extensive dieback or dead stems, and an addition 39% showing some damage, it is expected that this defined population will continue to senesce and decline over the coming years.

As outlined in the previous two monitoring reports (ELA 2014, ELA 2015), this senescence is consistent with the apparent ecology of A. ausfeldii being a short-lived pioneer species. However, the trigger of a greater than 10% decrease in population size (outlined in the BMP) that was reached in 2013 has not been reversed. Targeted regeneration surveys showed limited evidence of recruitment; this is similarly consistent with what is know about the life cycle of A. ausfeldii, in particular its minimal or lack of recruitment without disturbances such as soil disturbance or fire (Brown et al. 2003, Orscheg and Enright 2011).

Given these results and the known ecology of this species, it is predicted that this population will continue to decline over the coming few years. Sustaining a population of A. ausfeldii will likely require ongoing, intermittent active disturbance, such as implementation of a mosaic of ecological burns within the Highett Road property, taking into account tolerable fire intervals of other key fire response species in this vegetation community and the germination requirement of A. ausfeldii seeds in the soil seed bank.

Floristic sites ACQ1 and ACQ2 were inadvertently missed during spring 2015 monitoring; these should undergo full floristics monitoring in autumn 2016.

4.3.2 Open Cut Translocation Area Monitoring of the A. ausfeldii translocation plots during 2015 demonstrate that this population has successfully established, with individuals showing growth and maturity into healthy saplings. The exceptions to this were the eight individuals showing some minor damage or dead branches, and one dead individual. However this death was tentatively attributed to waterlogging, which was observed in isolated patches in plot AA1. It is recommended that autumn 2016 monitoring of floristic sites AA1 and AA2 incorporate a brief visual inspection of these sites to note any instances of waterlogging or other visible disturbances. While no obvious cause of damage was observed on the above stated eight individuals, due to the high densities (particularly in AA2) it is expected that some natural attrition will occur as the population matures.

Results from the Point Centred Quarter show an ongoing difference in density of A. ausfeldii between the two plots, with AA2 having an estimated 15 times the density of recruits than AA1 (compared to a roughly 6.5 fold difference recorded in 2014). Analysis of plot establishment conditions, such as topsoil

2015 Annual Floristic Monitoring Report

application rate and source, is recommended in order to identify any on-site differences that may have contributed to this difference in establishment success.

A. ausfeldii density in plot AA1 is almost 1 plant per 25 m2, indicating a stable but not increasing population size compared to 2014, while the density in AA2 has increased to almost 3 plants per 5 m2 (exceeding the target density for A. ausfeldii plantings outlined in the BMP).

As highlighted in Section 4.3.1 above A. ausfeldii is a short-lived pioneer species. While the current population in the Open Cut has successfully established and is in good condition, it is expected that this population will follow the trend observed in Highett Road of senescence within five to ten years (approximately). Maintaining a population of A. ausfeldii within the Open Cut will therefore require future management intervention, such as additional translocation, or disturbance assisted establishment.

4.3.3 Open Cut Rehabilitation In addition to the translocation plots in the Open Cut, A. ausfeldii has been seen naturally regenerating within rehabilitation areas completed in 2013. Targeted monitoring, utilising a transect based method, of A. ausfeldii germination within the Open Cut is recommended for 2016.

4.4 SALINITY OFFSET AREA MONITORING While the majority of residual vegetation areas within the SOA appear stable and in good condition, the high cover and/or abundance of exotic species, particular Saffron Thistle, in a number of revegetation/regeneration sites and cleared areas poses a potential management issue. This is particularly relevant to the completion criteria stating that “there are no significant weed infestations and weeds do not comprise a significant proportion of species in any stratum”. Section 4.1.6 outlines management recommendations for these infestations.

Furthermore, five sites showed instability and loss in both total and native ground cover; these sites should be closely monitored, and management interventions as outlined throughout Section 4.1 above may be required.

It is recommended that future monitoring reports continue to analyse results from existing floristic, LFA and natural regeneration sites located within the SOA against SOA completion criteria. Furthermore, it is recommended that a review of monitoring methods within the SOA be conducted (incorporating agricultural, soils and native vegetation monitoring), along with a more detailed review of both soil and irrigation water tolerances of both native vegetation and pasture species, in order to ensure that the data being collected directly relates to and informs analysis of progression towards completion criteria.

4.4.1 Pivot Fence Tree-line Monitoring The initial 2013 autumn survey was significantly lower than the targets of the Salinity Offset Management Plan, and the tree count has declined in every survey since. As recommended in ELA (2014), UCML should further review options for replanting of these areas to meet the requirements of the Salinity Offset Area and to facilitate successful and sustainable reestablishment of these areas over time.

4.5 NATURAL REGENERATION MONITORING Natural regeneration is still relatively sparse in the Bobadeen and Bobadeen East Vegetation Offset Areas. Regeneration present was often at the boundaries of cleared areas and remnant woodland, or at the bases of remnant paddock trees (i.e. in immediate vicinity to seed source). This was particularly

2015 Annual Floristic Monitoring Report

apparent in Bobadeen Vegetation Offset Area, where the majority of regenerating stems were at the boundary of remnant stands of Rough-barked Apple and Blakely’s Red Gum, indicating that regeneration is likely to move outwards into cleared areas from these remnant woodlands. This is not unexpected, as remnant trees facilitate regeneration through suckering and/or acting as a seed source.

In contrast, areas further from remnant patches or trees, as well as areas with dense grass (Bobadeen East) or shrub (Bobadeen) cover, recorded much lower densities of regenerating canopy species. As already highlighted, the high grass cover throughout much of Bobadeen East Vegetation Offset Area is thought to be inhibiting canopy species recruitment. This is supported by observations of greater regeneration on rockier or shallower soils that supported lighter grass cover.

Consideration should be given to the role of fire in the ecology of these areas. Developing an ecological fire management plan that takes into account the fire requirements and tolerable fire intervals of vegetation communities is strongly recommended. Ecological fire management may be trialled over small areas, for example to open up inter-tussock spaces and promote ground cover diversity or eucalypt seedling establishment.

Bobadeen Corridor Vegetation Offset Area has a greater density of both regenerating and mature canopy species, and is already closely approaching recommended densities for grassy woodlands.

Continued monitoring of natural regeneration is recommended so as to track the progress and success of regeneration over time. In addition to this monitoring, assessment of historical aerial imagery would provide further information on the rate of natural regeneration over time (i.e. the development of secondary growth forests and woodlands, now counted as ‘residual’), and would allow for a more informed analysis and prediction of trends. An area north of floristic site RPA13 is a good example of natural regeneration of Blakely’s Red Gum.

2015 Annual Floristic Monitoring Report

5 References

Braun-Blanquet, J. (1927) Pflanzensoziologie. Springer, Vienna.

Brown, Enright & Miller 2003, Seed production and germination in two rare and three common co- occurring Acacia species from south-east Australia. Austral Ecology 28, 271-280.

Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) (2016) Daily Weather Observation, Gulgong: http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/dwo/IDCJDW2054.latest.shtml

Burrow, G.E. (1999) A survey of 25 remnant vegetation sites in the South Western Slopes, New South Wales. Cunninghamia 6(2):283-314.

Eco Logical Australia (2014) Ulan Coal Mines Limited 2013 Annual Monitoring Report. Unpublished report prepared for Ulan Coal Mines Limited.

Eco Logical Australia (2015) Ulan Coal Mines Limited 2014 Annual Monitoring Report. Unpublished report prepared for Ulan Coal Mines Limited.

Eco Logical Australia (2015b) Review of historical subsidence areas and impacts on vegetation. Unpublished report prepared for Ulan Coal Mines Limited.

Harden G (ed.) (1992) Flora of NSW Volume 2, UNSW Press, Sydney.

Harden G (ed.) (1993) Flora of NSW Volume 4, UNSW Press, Sydney.

Harden G. (ed.) (2002) Flora of New South Wales, Volume 2 revised edition, UNSW Press.

Orscheg, C.K. and Enright, N.J. (2011). ‘Patterns of seed longevity and dormancy in obligate seeding legumes of box-ironbark forests, south-eastern Australia’. Austral Ecology. 36: 185-194.

Poore, M. E. D. (1955) The use of phytosociological methods in ecological investigations. I. The Braun- Blanquet system. Journal of Ecology 42: 216-224.

The Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust (2012) PlantNET – the Plant Information Network System of The Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust, Sydney, Australia (version 2.0). http://plantnet.rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au

Tongway, D.J. and Hindley, N.L. (2005) Landscape Function Analysis: Procedures for monitoring and assessing landscapes with special reference to mine sites and rangelands. CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems, Canberra, ACT.

Warde, W. and Petranka, J. W. (1981) A Correction Factor Table for Missing Point-Centred Quarter Data. Ecology. 62(2): 491-494

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited (2009) Ulan Coal - Continued Operations Ecological Assessment. Appendix 8 of the Environmental Assessment. Report prepared for Ulan Coal.

2015 Annual Floristic Monitoring Report

Appendix A: Flora List

Family Scientific name Native/exotic Fabaceae - Mimosoidea Acacia baileyana Native Fabaceae - Mimosoidea Acacia caesiella Native Fabaceae - Mimosoidea Acacia deanei Native Fabaceae - Mimosoidea Acacia decora Native Fabaceae - Mimosoidea Acacia doratoxylon Native Fabaceae - Mimosoidea Acacia flexifolia Native Fabaceae - Mimosoidea Acacia gladiiformis Native Fabaceae - Mimosoidea Acacia implexa Native Fabaceae - Mimosoidea Acacia leucolobia Native Fabaceae - Mimosoidea Acacia linearifolia Native Fabaceae - Mimosoidea Acacia paradoxa Native Fabaceae - Mimosoidea Acacia penninervis Native Fabaceae - Mimosoidea Acacia verniciflua Native Rosaceae Acaena echinata Native Rosaceae Acaena sp. Native Rosaceae Aceana novae-zelandiae Native Polygonaceae Acetosella vulgaris Exotic Ericaceae - Acrotriche rigida Native Styphelioideae Poaceae Aira cupaniana Exotic Poaceae Aira sp. Exotic Lamiaceae Ajuga australis Native Casuarinaceae Allocasuarina diminuta Native Casuarinaceae Allocasuarina gymnanthera Native Casuarinaceae Allocasuarina luehmannii Native Amaranthaceae Alternanthera denticulata Native Amaranthaceae Amaranthaceae sp. Native/Exotic Loranthaceae Amyema miquelii Native Loranthaceae Amyema sp. Native Myrsinaceae Anagallis arvensis Exotic Myrtaceae Angophora floribunda Native Apiaceae Apiaceae sp. Native/Exotic Asteraceae Arctotheca calendula Exotic Poaceae Aristida ramosa Native Poaceae Aristida sp Native Poaceae Aristida vagans Native Anthericaceae Arthropodium minus Native Poaceae Arundinella nepalensis Native Rubiaceae Asperula conferta Native Rubiaceae Asperula sp. Native Asteraceae Asteraceae sp. Native/Exotic Ericaceae - Astroloma humifusium Native Styphelioideae

2015 Annual Floristic Monitoring Report

Ericaceae - Astroloma sp. Native Styphelioideae Araliaceae Astrotricha longifolia Native Poaceae Austrodanthonia sp. Native Poaceae Austrostipa aristiglumis Native Poaceae Austrostipa danthonia Native Poaceae Austrostipa scabra Native Austrostipa scabra subsp. Poaceae Native falcata Poaceae Austrostipa sp. Native Poaceae Austrostipa verticillata Native Asteraceae Bidens pilosa Exotic Asteraceae Bidens sp. Exotic Asteraceae Bidens subalternans Exotic Pittosporaceae Billardiera scandens Native Nyctaginaceae Boerhavia dominii Native Rutaceae Boronia ledifolia Native Fabaceae - Faboideae Bossiaea obcordata Native Fabaceae - Faboideae Bossiaea sp. Native Poaceae Bothriochloa decipiens Native Poaceae Bothriochloa macra Native Poaceae Bothriochloa sp. Native Sterculiaceae Brachychiton populneus Native Fabaceae - Faboideae Brachyloma daphnoides Native Brassicaceae Brassicaceae sp. Exotic Poaceae Briza minor Exotic Poaceae Bromus molliformis Exotic Pittosporaceae Bursaria spinosa Native Myrtaceae Callistemon pinifolius Native Cupressaceae Callitris endlicheri Native Asteraceae Calotis cuneifolia Native Asteraceae Calotis lappulacea Native Myrtaceae Calytrix tetragona Native Brassicaceae Capsella sp. Exotic Cyperaceae Carex appressa Native Cyperaceae Carex inversa Native Cyperaceae Carex sp. Native Asteraceae Carthamus lanatus Exotic Caryophyllaceae Caryophyllaceae sp. Exotic Asteraceae Cassinia arcuata Native Asteraceae Cassinia quinquefaria Native Asteraceae Cassinia sp. Native Lauraceae Cassytha glabella Native Casuarinaceae Casuarina cunninghamiana Native Asteraceae Centaurea melitensis Exotic Asteraceae Centaurea sp. Exotic Gentiaceae Centaurium tenuiflorum Exotic

2015 Annual Floristic Monitoring Report

Caryophyllaceae Cerastium sp. Exotic Orchidaceae Chalochilus sp. Native Euphorbiaceae Chamaesyce drummondii Native Adiantaceae Cheilanthes austrotenuifolia Native Adiantaceae Cheilanthes sieberi Native Chenopodiaceae Chenopodium album Exotic Chenopodiaceae Chenopodium sp Native Poaceae Chloris sp. Native/Exotic Poaceae Chloris truncata Native Poaceae Chloris ventricosa Native Asteraceae Chondrilla juncea Exotic Asteraceae Chondrilla sp. Exotic Asteraceae Chrysocephalum apiculatum Native Chrysocephalum Native Asteraceae semipapposum Asteraceae Cirsium vulgare Exotic Poaceae Cleistochloa rigida Native Convulvulaceae Convolvulus erubescens Native Asteraceae Conyza bonariensis Exotic Asteraceae Conyza sp Exotic Rutaceae Correa reflexa Native Myrtaceae Corymbia maculata Native Crassulaceae Crassula sp. Native Rhamnaceae Cryptandra sp. Native Apiaceae Cyclospermum leptophyllum Exotic Apiaceae Cyclospermum sp. Exotic Asteraceae Cymbonotus lawsonianus Native Poaceae Cymbopogon refractus Native Poaceae Cynodon dactylon Native Boraginaceae Cynoglossum australe Native Boraginaceae Cynoglossum sp. Native Cyperaceae Cyperaceae sp. 2 Native Cyperaceae Cyperaceae sp. Native/Exotic Cyperaceae Cyperus gracilis Native Cyperaceae Cyperus sp. Native/Exotic Apiaceae Daucus glochidiatus Native Fabaceae - Faboideae Desmodium brachypodium Native Fabaceae - Faboideae Desmodium sp. Native Fabaceae - Faboideae Desmodium varians Native Phormiaceae Dianella revoluta Native Phormiaceae Dianella sp. Native Poaceae Dichanthium sericeum Native Poaceae Dichelachne micrantha Native Convolvulaceae Dichondra repens Native Convolvulaceae Dichondra sp. Native Convolvulaceae Dichondra sp. A sensu Native Poaceae Digitaria breviglumis Native

2015 Annual Floristic Monitoring Report

Poaceae Digitaria brownii Native Poaceae Digitaria diffusa Native Poaceae Digitaria parviflora Native Poaceae Digitaria sp. Native Sapindaceae Dodonaea triangularis Native Sapindaceae Dodonaea viscosa Native Dodonaea viscosa subsp. Native Sapindaceae cuneata Poaceae Echinochloa sp. Native Poaceae Echinopogon caespitosus Native Poaceae Echinopogon ovatus Native Poaceae Echinopogon sp. Native Boraginaceae Echium plantagineum Exotic Boraginaceae Echium vulgare Exotic Chenopodiaceae Einadia hastata Native Chenopodiaceae Einadia nutans Native Chenopodiaceae Einadia polygonoides Native Poaceae Eleusine sp. Exotic Poaceae Elymus scaber Native Poaceae Enneapogon nigricans Native Poaceae Enteropogon acicularis Native Poaceae Entolasia sp. Native Poaceae Eragostis leptostachya Native Poaceae Eragrostis brownii Native Poaceae Eragrostis cilianensis Exotic Poaceae Eragrostis leptostachya Native Poaceae Eragrostis sp. Native Poaceae Eriochilus cucullatus Native Poaceae Eriochloa procera Native Geraniaceae Erodium cicutarium Exotic Geraniaceae Erodium sp. Native/Exotic Myrtaceae Eucalyptus agglomerata Native Myrtaceae Eucalyptus albens Native Myrtaceae Eucalyptus blakleyi Native Myrtaceae Eucalyptus bridgesiana Native Myrtaceae Eucalyptus crebra Native Myrtaceae Eucalyptus dwyeri Native Myrtaceae Eucalyptus fibrosa Native Myrtaceae Eucalyptus macroryncha Native Myrtaceae Eucalyptus melliodora Native Myrtaceae Eucalyptus microcarpa Native Myrtaceae Eucalyptus moluccana Native Myrtaceae Eucalyptus parramattensis Native Myrtaceae Eucalyptus punctata Native Myrtaceae Eucalyptus rossii Native Myrtaceae Eucalyptus sp. Native Myrtaceae Eucalyptus sparsifolia Native

2015 Annual Floristic Monitoring Report

Myrtaceae Eucalyptus viminalis Native Asteraceae Euchiton involucratus Native Asteraceae Euchiton sp. Native Asteraceae Euchiton sphaericus Native Santalaceae Exocarpos strictus Native Cyperaceae Fimbristylis dichotoma Native Cyperaceae Fimbristylis sp. Native Cyperaceae Gahnia aspera Native Rubiaceae Galium sp. Native Asteraceae Gamochaeta calviceps Exotic Asteraceae Gamochaeta sp. Exotic Geraniaceae Geranium solanderi Native Geraniaceae Geranium sp. Native Fabaceae - Faboideae Glycine clandestina Native Fabaceae - Faboideae Glycine sp. Native Fabaceae - Faboideae Glycine tabacina Native Asteraceae Gnaphalium sp. Exotic Asteraceae Gnaphalium sphaericus Exotic Fabaceae - Faboideae Gompholobium huegelii Native Haloragaceae Gonocarpus elatus Native Haloragaceae Gonocarpus sp. Native Haloragaceae Gonocarpus tetragynus Native Haloragaceae Gonocarpus teucroides Native Goodeniaceae Goodenia hederacea Native Goodeniaceae Goodenia pinnatifida Native Goodeniaceae Goodenia sp. Native Proteaceae Grevillea sericea Native Proteaceae Hakea sp. Native Haloragaceae Haloragis heterophylla Native Haloragaceae Haloragis sp. Native Fabaceae - Faboideae Hardenbergia violocea Native Dilleniaceae Hibbertia circumdans Native Dilleniaceae Hibbertia obtusifolia Native Dilleniaceae Hibbertia sp. Native Apiaceae Hydrocotyle laxiflora Native Violaceae Hymenanthera dentata Native Clusiaceae Hypericum gramineum Native Clusiaceae Hypericum perforatum Exotic Asteraceae Hypochaeris glabra Exotic Asteraceae Hypochaeris radicata Exotic Hypodidaceae Hypoxis sp. Native Juncaceae Juncus sp. Native Myrtaceae Kunzea parviflora Native Poaceae Lachnagrostis filiformis Native Asteraceae Lactuca serriola Exotic Asteraceae Lactuca sp. Exotic Anthericaceae Laxmannia gracilis Native

2015 Annual Floristic Monitoring Report

Brassicaceae Lepidium sp. Exotic Cyperaceae Lepidosperma gunnii Native Cyperaceae Lepidosperma laterale Native Myrtaceae Leptospermum polygalifolium Native Ericaceae - Native Leucopogon attenuatus Styphelioideae Ericaceae - Native Leucopogon muticus Styphelioideae Ericaceae - Native Lissanthe sp. Styphelioideae Ericaceae - Native Lissanthe strigosa Styphelioideae Poaceae Lolium perenne Exotic Poaceae Lolium rigidum Exotic Poaceae Lolium sp. Exotic Lomandraceae Lomandra confertifolia Native Lomandraceae Lomandra filiformis Native Lomandraceae Lomandra filiformis subsp. Native coriacea Lomandraceae Lomandra filiformis subsp. Native filiformis Lomandraceae Lomandra glauca Native Lomandraceae Lomandra leucocephala Native Lomandraceae Lomandra longifolia Native Lomandraceae Lomandra multiflora subsp. Native multiflora Lomandraceae Lomandra sp. Native Loranthaceae Loranthaceae sp. Native Zamiaceae Macrozamia secunda Native Zamiaceae Macrozamia secundus Native Zamiaceae Macrozamia sp. Native Chenopodiaceae Maireana decalvens Native Malvaceae Malva parviflora Exotic Malvaceae Malva sp. Exotic Lamiaceae Marrubium vulgare Exotic Fabaceae - Faboideae Medicago sp. Exotic Myrtaceae Melaleuca thymifolia Native Ericaceae - Native Melichrus erubescens Styphelioideae Ericaceae - Native Melichrus urceolatus Styphelioideae Lamiaceae Mentha satureioides Native Poaceae Microlaena stipoides Native Malvaceae Modiola caroliniana Exotic Ericaceae - Native Monotoca scoparia Styphelioideae

2015 Annual Floristic Monitoring Report

Ericaceae - Native Monotoca sp. Styphelioideae Asteraceae Olearia ellyptica Native Lamiaceae Oncinocalyx betchei Native Rubiaceae Opercularia diphylla Native Rubiaceae Opercularia hispida Native Rubiaceae Opercularia sp. Native Cactaceae Opuntia stricta Exotic Orchidaceae Orchidaceae sp. Native Oxalidaceae Oxalis perennans Native Oxalidaceae Oxalis sp. Native Poaceae Panicum decompositum Native Poaceae Panicum effusum Native Poaceae Panicum sp. Native Scrophulariaceae Parentucellia latifolia Exotic Caryophyllaceae Paronychia brasiliana Exotic Poaceae Paspalum dilatatum Exotic Poaceae Paspalum sp. Exotic Iridaceae Patersonia sericea Native Poaceae Pennisetum clandestinum Exotic Proteaceae Persoonia curvifolia Native Proteaceae Persoonia linearis Native Caryophyllaceae Petrorhagia nanteullii Native Poaceae Phragmites australis Native Phyllanthaceae Phyllanthus hirtellus Native Phyllanthaceae Phyllanthus occidentalis Native Phyllanthaceae Phyllanthus sp. Native Phyllanthaceae Phyllanthus virgatus Native Thymelaeaceae Pimelea linifolia Native Thymelaeaceae Pimelea sp. Native Plantaginaceae Plantago debilis Native Plantaginaceae Plantago gaudichaudii Native Plantaginaceae Plantago lanceolata Exotic Plantaginaceae Plantago sp. Native/Exotic Apiaceae Platysace ericoides Native Apiaceae Platysace linearifolia Native Poaceae Poa sp. Native Poaceae Poaceaea sp. Native/Exotic Asteraceae Podolepis neglecta Native Asteraceae Podolepis sp. Native Fabaceae - Faboideae Podolobium ilicifolium Native Rhamnaceae Pomaderris sp. Native Rubiaceae Pomax umbellata Native Phyllanthaceae Poranthera microphylla Native Portulacaceae Portulaca oleracea Native Orchidaceae Prasophyllum sp. Native Dennstaedtiaceae Pteridium esculentum Native

2015 Annual Floristic Monitoring Report

Orchidaceae Pterostylis revoluta Native Orchidaceae Pterostylis sp. Native Fabaceae - Faboideae Pultenaea cinerascens Native Fabaceae - Faboideae Pultenaea cunninghamii Native Fabaceae - Faboideae Pultenaea microphylla Native Fabaceae - Faboideae Pultenaea sp. Native Restionaceae Restionaceae sp. Native/Exotic Rubiaceae Richardia stellaris Native Rosaceae Rubus ulmifolius Exotic Polygonaceae Rumex brownii Native Polygonaceae Rumex sp. Native Lamiaceae Salvia reflexa Exotic Lamiaceae Salvia sp. Exotic Lamiaceae Salvia verbenaca Exotic Myrtaceae Sannantha cunninghamii Native Cyperaceae Schoenus apogon Native Asteraceae Senecio quadridentatus Native Asteraceae Senecio sp. Native/Exotic Fabaceae - Faboideae Senna sp. Native Poaceae Setaria pumila Exotic Poaceae Setaria sp. Exotic Malvaceae Sida corrugata Native Malvaceae Sida rhombifolia Native Asteraceae Silybum marianum Exotic Iridaceae Sisyrinchium sp. A. Exotic Solanaceae Solanum cinereum Native Solanaceae Solanum nigrum Exotic Solanaceae Solanum sp. Native Asteraceae Sonchus oleraceus Exotic Asteraceae Sonchus sp. Exotic Poaceae Sporobolus creber Native Poaceae Sporobolus elongatus Native Poaceae Sporobolus sp. Native Stackhousiaceae Stackhousia monogyna Native Stackhousiaceae Stackhousia muricata Native Stackhousiaceae Stackhousia sp. Native Stackhousiaceae Stackhousia viminea Native Caryophyllaceae Stellaria pungens Native Phormiaceae Stypandra glauca Native Ericaceae - Native Styphelia triflora Styphelioideae Fabaceae - Faboideae Swainsona galegifolia Native Asteraceae Tagetes minuta Exotic Asteraceae Taraxacum officinale Exotic Poaceae Themeda australis Native Anthericaceae Thysanotus sp. Native Asteraceae Tolpis barbata Exotic

2015 Annual Floristic Monitoring Report

Anthericaceae Tricoryne elatior Native Anthericaceae Tricoryne sp. Native Asteraceae Trifolium angustifolium Exotic Asteraceae Trifolium arvense Exotic Asteraceae Trifolium campestre Exotic Asteraceae Trifolium dubia Exotic Asteraceae Trifolium repens Exotic Asteraceae Trifolium scabrum Exotic Asteraceae Trifolium sp. Exotic Asteraceae Triptilodiscus pygmaeus Native Unknown Unknown sp. Native/Exotic Urticaceae Urtica incisa Native Scrophulariaceae Verbascum sp. Exotic Scrophulariaceae Verbascum virgatus Exotic Lamiaceae Verbena bonariensis Exotic Plantaginaceae Veronica plebeia Native Asteraceae Vittadinia cervicularis Native Asteraceae Vittadinia cuneata Native Asteraceae Vittadinia muelleri Native Asteraceae Vittadinia sp. Native Asteraceae Vittadinia triloba Native Poaceae Vulpia bromoides Exotic Poaceae Vulpia sp. Exotic Campanulaceae Wahlenbergia communis Native Campanulaceae Wahlenbergia gracilis Native Campanulaceae Wahlenbergia sp. Native Asteraceae Xanthium spinosum Exotic Xanthorrhoeaceae Xanthorrhoea johnsonii Native Rutaceae Zieria sp. Native

2015 Annual Floristic Monitoring Report

Appendix B: LFA Results

Landscape Organisation, spring 2015

Landscape Organisation (%)

Site No. Ground Tree/ Soil Litter Rock Log Cryptogam LO Cover Shrub

Analogue Sites

RPA3(A) 6.5 9.6 83.3 0.6 - - - 0.93

BOB4(A) 7.9 0.6 81.1 0.4 2.2 1.7 - 0.92

GRRD1(A) 1.1 98.9 - - - - - 0.99

GRRD2(A) 11 66.7 22.4 - - - - 0.89

Revegetation/Regeneration Sites

OC1(R) 30.2 49.5 4.8 - 4.3 - - 0.70

OC2(R) 7.9 20.9 69.1 - 0.9 0.9 0.2 0.92

OC3(R) 22 63.2 11.4 - - - - 0.78

OC4(R) 12.3 17.8 69.4 - 0.2 0.3 - 0.88

OC5(R) 4.9 1.7 92.2 0.5 0.7 - - 0.95

OC6(R) 5.3 21.1 72.4 0.6 0.6 - - 0.95

AA1(R) 32.5 41.7 13.9 11.9 - - - 0.68

AA2(R) 30.9 27.2 39.2 2.7 - - - 0.69

GRRD1(R) 22.6 63.5 12.7 0.1 1.1 - - 0.77

GRRD2(R) 17.8 40.6 39.9 - - - - 0.82

2015 Annual Floristic Monitoring Report

Soil Surface Assessment indices per site, spring 2015

SSA – whole landscape Site No. Stability Infiltration Nutrient Cycling

Analogue Sites

RPA3(A) 58 44.7 34.2

BOB4(A) 57.8 40 35

GRRD1(A) 62 32.8 23.7

GRRD2(A) 59.7 34.7 27

Revegetation/Regeneration Sites

OC1(R) 62.7 27.6 21.6

OC2(R) 54.9 42.3 33.3

OC3(R) 60.6 28.8 22

OC4(R) 56.1 42.2 33.8

OC5(R) 55.9 43.5 36.1

OC6(R) 55.6 40.2 31.7

AA1(R) 59.2 34.4 24.5

AA2(R) 56.9 34 23.8

GRRD1(R) 57.4 32.3 21.5

GRRD2(R) 58.1 35.6 25.5

2015 Annual Floristic Monitoring Report

HEAD OFFICE SYDNEY HUSKISSON Suite 2, Level 3 Suite 1, Level 1 Unit 1 51 Owen Street

668-672 Old Princes Highway 101 Sussex Street Huskisson NSW 2540 Sutherland NSW 2232 Sydney NSW 2000 T 02 4201 2264 T 02 8536 8600 T 02 8536 8650 F 02 4443 6655 F 02 9542 5622 F 02 6542 5622

CANBERRA NEWCASTLE NAROOMA Level 2 Suites 28 & 29, Level 7 5/20 Canty Street 11 London Circuit 19 Bolton Street Narooma NSW 2546 Canberra ACT 2601 Newcastle NSW 2300 T 02 4476 1151 T 02 6103 0145 T 02 4910 0125 F 02 4476 1161 F 02 6103 0148 F 02 6542 5622

COFFS HARBOUR ARMIDALE MUDGEE 35 Orlando Street 92 Taylor Street Unit 1, Level 1 Coffs Harbour Jetty NSW 2450 Armidale NSW 2350 79 Market Street T 02 6651 5484 T 02 8081 2681 Mudgee NSW 2850 F 02 6651 6890 F 02 6542 5622 T 02 4302 1230 F 02 6372 9230

PERTH WOLLONGONG GOSFORD Suite 1 & 2 Suite 204, Level 2 Suite 5, Baker One 49 Ord Street 62 Moore Street 1-5 Baker Street

West Perth WA 6005 Austinmer NSW 2515 Gosford NSW 2250 T 08 9227 1070 T 02 4201 2200 T 02 4302 1220 F 08 9322 1358 F 02 4268 4361 F 02 4322 2897

DARWIN BRISBANE 16/56 Marina Boulevard Suite 1 Level 3 1300 646 131 471 Adelaide Street Cullen Bay NT 0820 www.ecoaus.com.au T 08 8989 5601 Brisbane QLD 4000 T 07 3503 7191 © ECO LOGICAL AUSTRALIA P T Y L T D F 08 8941 1220 F 07 3854 0310 89