016 BIODIVERSITY OFFSET MONITORING REPORT
Liddell Coal Operations
FINAL
February 2017
016 BIODIVERSITY OFFSET MONITORING REPORT
Liddell Coal Operations
FINAL
Prepared by Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited on behalf of Liddell Coal Operations
Project Director: Rebecca Vere Project Manager: Chloe Parkins Report No. 3122O/R18/V3 Date: February 2017
Brisbane
Level 11 500 Queen Street Brisbane QLD 4000
Ph. 1300 793 267 www.umwelt.com.au
This report was prepared using Umwelt’s ISO 9001 certified Quality Management System.
Disclaimer This document has been prepared for the sole use of the authorised recipient and this document may not be used, copied or reproduced in whole or part for any purpose other than that for which it was supplied by Umwelt (Australia) Pty Ltd (Umwelt). No other party should rely on this document without the prior written consent of Umwelt.
Umwelt undertakes no duty, nor accepts any responsibility, to any third party who may rely upon or use this document. Umwelt assumes no liability to a third party for any inaccuracies in or omissions to that information. Where this document indicates that information has been provided by third parties, Umwelt has made no independent verification of this information except as expressly stated. ©Umwelt (Australia) Pty Ltd
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction 1 2.0 Background 4 3.0 Methods 7 3.1 Floristic Monitoring 9 3.1.1 Photo Monitoring 10 3.1.2 Habitat Assessment 10 3.2 Fauna Monitoring 11 3.2.1 Diurnal Woodland Bird Surveys 11 3.2.2 Micro-Bat Surveys 11 3.2.3 Diurnal Herpetofauna Surveys 12 3.2.4 Spotlighting Surveys 12 3.2.5 Call Playback Surveys 12 3.2.6 Baited Remote Camera Traps (Including Spotted-tailed Quoll) Monitoring 13 3.3 Nest Box Monitoring 13 3.4 Landscape Function Analysis Monitoring 13 3.5 Regeneration Assessment 14 4.0 Results 16 4.1 Local Weather Conditions 16 4.2 Floristic Monitoring 17 4.2.1 Floristic Diversity 17 4.2.2 Habitat and Structural Diversity 19 4.3 Fauna Monitoring 25 4.4 Site Specific Details 33 4.4.1 Mountain Block 33 4.4.2 Bowmans Creek Riparian Corridor 37 4.4.3 Mitchell Hills South 44 4.5 Offset Regeneration Outcomes 49 4.5.1 Mountain Block Regeneration 53 4.5.2 Bowmans Creek Riparian Corridor Regeneration 54 4.5.3 Mitchell Hills South Regeneration 56 5.0 Discussion 58 5.1 General Outcomes of 2016 Monitoring 58 5.2 Comparison of Results against Performance Indicators and TARP 59 6.0 Management Recommendations 88 6.1 Weed Management 88
016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3
6.2 Ripping and Seeding 91 6.3 Supplementary Plantings and Seeding 91 6.4 Habitat Augmentation 92 6.5 Feral Fauna Management 93 6.6 Redundant Feature Removal 94 7.0 Conclusion 95 8.0 References 96
Figures
Figure 1.1 Locality Map 2 Figure 1.2 Liddell Coal Operations 3 Figure 3.1 BMP Area Ecological Monitoring Sites 8 Figure 3.2 Regeneration Assessment Locations 15 Figure 4.1 2016 Threatened Species Locations 27 Figure 4.2 Occurrence of Regeneration in Mountain Block 50 Figure 4.3 Occurrence of Regeneration in Bowmans Creek Riparian Corridor 51 Figure 4.4 Occurrence of Regeneration in Mitchell Hills South 52
Plates
Plate 4.1 Informational Spotted-tailed Quoll Signage at Mitchell Hills South 49 Plate 4.2 Recruitment occurring in the North of Mountain Block 53 Plate 4.3 Recruitment occurring in the South of Mountain Block 54 Plate 4.4 Recruitment occurring in the approximate centre of Bowmans Creek Riparian Corridor 55 Plate 4.5 Regeneration Occurring in Mitchell Hills South 57
Graphs
Graph 4.1 2016 Floristic Monitoring Results 19 Graph 4.2 Comparison of Fauna Composition between Monitoring Sites 32 Graph 4.3 Comparison of Native and Introduced Fauna Composition between Monitoring Sites 33
016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3
Tables
Table 2.1 Monitoring Sites, Types Frequencies and Seasons Required 4 Table 3.1 Locations of 2015 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Sites 7 Table 3.2 Modified Braun-Blanquet Crown Cover-abundance Scale 10 Table 4.1 Temperature and Rainfall Data during lead up to 2016 Monitoring (BOM 2016) 16 Table 4.2 2016 Floristic Monitoring Results 18 Table 4.3 Comparison of Vegetation Structure of the Mountain Block Sites 19 Table 4.4 Comparison of Vegetation Structure of Bowmans Creek Riparian Corridor Sites 21 Table 4.5 Comparison of Vegetation Structure of Mitchell Hills South Sites 22 Table 4.6 Mountain Block 2016 Subplot Results 23 Table 4.7 Bowmans Creek Riparian Corridor 2016 Subplot Results 24 Table 4.8 Mitchell Hills South 2016 Subplot Results 25 Table 4.9 Mountain Block 2016 Fauna Species Diversity 28 Table 4.10 Bowmans Creek Riparian Corridor Fauna Species Diversity 29 Table 4.11 Mitchell Hills South Fauna Species Diversity 31 Table 4.12 Introduced Flora Species Requiring Management at Remnant Site W05 34 Table 4.13 Introduced Flora Species Requiring Management at Regenerating Site WR04 35 Table 4.14 Introduced Flora Species Identified in Remnant Site W06 Considered to Require Management 38 Table 4.15 Introduced Flora Species Requiring Management at Remnant Site W07 39 Table 4.16 Introduced Species Identified Requiring Management at Regeneration Site WR07 41 Table 4.17 Introduced Flora Species Requiring Management in Rehabilitation Site WR09 43 Table 4.18 Noxious Flora Species Identified in Remnant Site W09 45 Table 4.19 Introduced Flora Species Requiring Management in Regeneration Site WR11 47 Table 4.20 Results of Regeneration Site WR11 2016 LFA Monitoring 48 Table 5.1 Comparison of 2016 Monitoring Results against Performance Indicators from the BOMP* 60 Table 5.2 Comparison of Monitoring Results to BOMP Checklist and Implementation Schedule 77 Table 5.3 Comparison of 2016 Monitoring Results to Biodiversity Triggers Identified in the BOMP*8 Table 6.1 Introduced Flora Species Requiring Management and Recommended Actions¹ 89 Table 6.2 Recommended Supplementary Plantings 91 Table 6.3 Recommended Habitat Augmentation 92
Appendices
Appendix 1 Year 2016 Performance Indicators Appendix 2 Biodiversity Triggers Identified in the 2015 BOMP Appendix 3 Flora Species Lists Appendix 4 Flora Sub-Plot Monitoring Appendix 5 Fauna Species Lists Appendix 6 Photographic Monitoring
016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3
1.0 Introduction
Liddell Coal Operations (LCO) is an established coal mining operation in the Hunter Valley of New South Wales (refer to Figure 1.1). The LCO holdings are divided by the boundary between the Singleton and Muswellbrook local government areas (LGAs).
LCO received approval for the extension of Liddell Open Cut coal mining operations under the State Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) on 1 December 2014 (DA 3015-11-01 Modification 5) and under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) on 24 December 2014 (EPBC Approval 2013/6908). As part of this approved modification, LCO was required to prepare a Biodiversity Offset Management Plan (BOMP) (Glencore 2015) to guide ongoing management of the LCO biodiversity offset areas to maintain and enhance biodiversity values, particularly those relating to threatened species and threatened ecological communities (TECs). The LCO biodiversity offset areas comprise the Mountain Block, Bowmans Creek Riparian Corridor and Mitchell Hills South Offset Areas (Figure 1.2).
The objectives of the 2015 BOMP are to provide direction for the short to long term management and enhancement of the biodiversity values of the LCO biodiversity offset areas, as well as to provide a description of the measures to be implemented to achieve this over the next three years. Biodiversity monitoring surveys of the following is required under this 2015 BOMP:
• Terrestrial flora and vegetation communities
• Habitat
• Diurnal woodland birds
• Targeted winter birds (undertaken as part of a separate report)
• Micro-bats
• Diurnal herpetofauna
• Nocturnal fauna
• Spotted-tailed quoll (Dasyurus maculatus maculatus)
• Nest boxes and
• Landscape function (via Landscape Function Analysis (LFA)).
This monitoring is required to track progress of biodiversity and habitat values against performance indicators specified in the 2015 BOMP.
The 2015 BOMP prescribes that an annual Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report must be prepared to compile and analyse results of monitoring completed each year and compare results against the 2015 BOMP performance indicators. This Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report has been prepared to fulfil the requirements of the 2016 monitoring period.
This 2016 monitoring event provides the second event for this monitoring program which will compared to the 2015 baseline data.
016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Introduction 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 1
2.0 Background
The three LCO biodiversity offset areas are located in the vicinity of the Liddell mine (Figure 1.2). The Bowmans Creek Riparian Corridor runs in a north/south direction on the eastern boundary of the LCO and is 182 hectares (ha) in size. Mountain Block is 166 ha in size and is located to the immediate north of the LCO. Mitchell Hills South is located approximately three kilometres north west of Mountain Block and is 37 ha in size.
The three LCO biodiversity offset areas provide protection to a variety of key ecological values, including:
• threatened ecological community (TEC) and endangered flora population habitat
• potential habitat for threatened flora species
• habitat for threatened fauna species and
• strategic positioning within the Hunter landscape.
The 2015 BOMP requires that monitoring of 16 sites across the biodiversity offsets will be undertaken for the life of mine or until the sites are deemed redundant. Monitoring undertaken during 2015 comprised baseline monitoring of all 16 sites. However, from 2016 the monitoring program has been split across two years (Year A and Year B), with monitoring of half (eight) the sites occurring in alternate years (as provided in Table 2.1). The 2016 event comprises those monitoring sites scheduled for Year B.
Table 2.1 Monitoring Sites, Types Frequencies and Seasons Required
Biodiversity Site Descriptor Monitoring Typical Monitoring Offset Area Name Type Monitoring Season Frequency
Mountain Block W04 Remnant – Flora, General Biennial – Year A Spring/Summer Narrow-leaved Fauna Ironbark – Bulloak Open Forest
W05 Remnant – Flora, General Biennial – Year B Spring/Summer Narrow-leaved Fauna Ironbark – Spotted Gum Woodland
WR03 Rehabilitation – Flora, General Biennial – Year A Spring/Summer Narrow-leaved Fauna Ironbark – Bulloak Open Forest
WR04 Rehabilitation – Flora, General Biennial – Year B Spring/Summer Narrow-leaved Fauna Ironbark – Bulloak Open Forest
016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Background 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 4
Biodiversity Site Descriptor Monitoring Typical Monitoring Offset Area Name Type Monitoring Season Frequency
WR05 Rehabilitation – Flora, General Biennial – Year A Spring/Summer Narrow-leaved Fauna Ironbark – Spotted Gum Woodland
Bowmans Creek W06 Remnant - Narrow Flora, General Biennial – Year B Spring/Summer Riparian leaved Ironbark – Fauna Corridor Spotted Gum Woodland
R02* Remnant - Hunter Flora, General Biennial – Year A Spring/Summer Valley River oak Fauna Forest
W07 Remnant – Central Flora, General Biennial – Year B Spring/Summer Hunter Box – Fauna Ironbark Woodland
WR06 Rehabilitation – Flora, General Biennial – Year A Spring/Summer Central Hunter Fauna Box - Ironbark DNG
WR07 Rehabilitation – Flora, General Biennial – Year B Spring/Summer Narrow leaved Fauna Ironbark – Spotted Gum Woodland DNG
WR08 Rehabilitation – Flora, General Biennial – Year A Spring/Summer Introduced Fauna Grassland
WR09 Rehabilitation – Flora, General Biennial – Year B Spring/Summer Introduced Fauna Grassland
Mitchell Hills W08 Remnant – Flora, General Biennial – Year A Spring/Summer South Spotted Gum Fauna Forest
W09 Remnant – Flora, General Biennial – Year B Spring/Summer Spotted Gum Fauna Forest
WR10 Regeneration– Flora, General Biennial - Year A Spring/Summer Derived Grassland Fauna, LFA
016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Background 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 5
Biodiversity Site Descriptor Monitoring Typical Monitoring Offset Area Name Type Monitoring Season Frequency
WR11 Regeneration – Flora, General Biennial – Year B Spring/Summer Regrowth Fauna, LFA DNG derived native grassland LFA Landscape Function Analysis
As provided in Table 2.1, monitoring works include floristic monitoring, photo monitoring, fauna monitoring and LFA.
For the 2016 monitoring event, the performance indicators provided in Appendix 1 (extracted from the BOMP (Glencore 2015)) are relevant to the biodiversity offset monitoring program. It is these performance indicators that the 2016 biodiversity monitoring results are to be compared against.
The relevant biodiversity triggers in the 2015 BOMP from the Trigger, Action Response Plan are provided in Appendix 2. Biodiversity offset monitoring results were also compared against these triggers. Comparison against each of these triggers is discussed in Section 5.0.
016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Background 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 6
3.0 Methods
The methods used for the 2016 offset monitoring were consistent with those recommended in the 2015 BOMP and were undertaken at the locations provided in Table 3.1 and shown on Figure 3.1.
Table 3.1 Locations of 2015 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Sites
Biodiversity Site Name Monitoring Type Monitoring Season Easting Northing Offset (MGA 56) (MGA 56)
Mountain W05 Flora, General Spring/Summer 313730 6420033 Block Fauna
WR04 Flora, General Spring/Summer 313491 6418264 Fauna
Bowmans W06 Flora, General Spring/Summer 313686 6419417 Creek Riparian Fauna Corridor W07 Flora, General Spring/Summer 315558 6417605 Fauna
WR07 Flora, General Spring/Summer 313667 6419271 Fauna
WR09 Flora, General Spring/Summer 314542 6418919 Fauna
Mitchell Hills W09 Flora, General Spring/Summer 312741 6423938 South Fauna
WR11 Flora, General Spring/Summer 312721 6423683 Fauna, LFA
The following sections document the floristic, fauna, nest box and LFA and methodologies undertaken.
016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Methods 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 7
3.1 Floristic Monitoring
Floristic monitoring was completed at each of the eight permanent flora monitoring sites identified in Table 3.1. This monitoring was completed in a manner consistent with the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) BioBanking methodology (OEH 2014) and consisted of:
• 50 metre transect
• 50 metre by 20 metre plot with a 20 metre by 20 metre sub-plot, 10 metre by 10 metre sub-plot and a 2 metre by 2 metre subplot.
Floristic monitoring also included documentation of the following:
• In the whole vegetation zone (50 metre by 20 metre area):
o General health of vegetation
o Evidence of natural recruitment
o Signs of disturbance by stock or humans
o Evidence of feral animals
o Impacts from mining.
• In the 50 metre by 20 metre plot:
o Percentage of bare ground, logs and rocks present.
• In the 20 metre by 20 metre plot:
o Full floristic diversity and cover abundance (according to the modified Braun-Blanquet Scale) for all vascular flora. It should be noted that a modified Braun-Blanquet 6-point scale (Braun-Blanquet 1927, with selected modifications sourced from Poore 1955 and Austin et al. 2000) was used to estimate cover-abundances of the plant species identified within each plot for comparability to previously collected data). Table 3.2 shows the cover-abundance categories used.
o Occurrence and abundance of weeds.
• In the 10 metre by 10 metre subplot:
o Vascular flora species present
o Number and species of individual plants between 1 and 5 metres in height.
• In the 2 metre by 2 metre subplot:
o Vascular flora species present
o Number and species of individual plants less than 1 metre in height.
016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Methods 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 9
Table 3.2 Modified Braun-Blanquet Crown Cover-abundance Scale
Class Cover-abundance* Notes
1 Few individuals Herbs, sedges and grasses: (less than 5% cover) <5 individuals
Shrubs and small trees: <5 individuals
2 Many individuals Herbs, sedges and grasses: (less than 5% cover) ≥ 5 individuals
Shrubs and small trees: ≥ 5 individuals
Medium-large overhanging tree
3 5% to less than 20% cover -
4 20% to less than 50% cover -
5 50% to less than 75% cover -
6 75% to 100% cover -
Note: * Modified Braun-Blanquet scale (Poore 1955; Austin et al. 2000)
3.1.1 Photo Monitoring
Photo monitoring was undertaken at each of the monitoring sites and is used to identify any observable changes in the vegetation condition and development of vegetation structure over time. Photo monitoring was completed at each permanent flora monitoring location facing left, centre and right at the start of the 50 metre transect(with all photos provided as an Appendix to the report) .
3.1.2 Habitat Assessment
Habitat assessment was also undertaken in each 50 metre by 20 metre plot. Habitat features that were recorded at each plot included:
• General vegetation health
• Evidence of natural seedling recruitment
• Occurrence and abundance of weed species
• Structure and floristics of vegetation cover
• Signs of disturbance (by stock, people or feral animals)
• Nature and extent of erosion
016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Methods 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 10
• Evidence of fire
• Characteristic of ground cover (e.g. leaf litter, rocks, logs and soil)
• Nectar or fruit resources and perch sites
• Water resources
• Secondary evidence of fauna use such as scats, tree scratches or diggings.
3.2 Fauna Monitoring
Fauna monitoring was undertaken at each of the eight permanent monitoring locations identified in Table 3.1. Fauna monitoring methods consisted of the following:
• diurnal woodland bird surveys
• micro-bat surveys
• diurnal herpetofauna surveys
• spotlighting surveys
• call playback surveys
• baited remote camera surveys (including spotted-tailed quoll (Dasyurus maculatus maculatus) surveys)
• nest box monitoring.
Each of these methods is described in greater detail below.
3.2.1 Diurnal Woodland Bird Surveys
Diurnal woodland bird surveys consisted of slow walking transects over an approximate two hectare area surrounding the monitoring site. These surveys took place within the first four hours or last four hours of sunlight and were in accordance with the species-time curve approach (DEC 2004). Surveys were undertaken for a minimum of 20 minutes; after which every new species recorded triggered a further five minutes of survey.
All bird species identified during this time were recorded as well as details on whether the birds identified were within, outside or flying over the site.
3.2.2 Micro-Bat Surveys
Micro-bat surveys were undertaken with Anabat devices equipped with a ZCAIM recording device for each monitoring location and were placed along a flyway or over a water body, where available. Micro-bat surveys comprised four survey nights of Anabat recording for each site. Anabats were set to record all micro-bat calls prior to dusk until after dawn.
016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Methods 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 11
All Anabat detector recordings were analysed by Anna McConville (a micro-bat specialist) of ECHO Ecology. The echolocation calls were identified to one of four levels of confidence:
• definite
• probable
• possible and
• species group (where the call could not be identified to species level and could belong to one of two or more species that were not necessarily of the same genus).
The first three levels of confidence (definite, probable and possible) were treated as positive identifications for the purposes of the monitoring survey. The ‘species group’ identification level was only treated as a possible identification, and only where species had previously been recorded at the monitoring location; otherwise confidence levels were considered too low to be accepted as a positive identification.
3.2.3 Diurnal Herpetofauna Surveys
Targeted diurnal searches were conducted for reptile and amphibian species (herpetofauna) within an approximate two hectare area of each of the monitoring sites. One person hour of diurnal herpetofauna surveys was undertaken for each site. Searches comprised a slow walking meander searching areas of likely habitat such as under rocks and logs, in bark at the base of trees, around water resources and in man-made features.
All reptile and amphibian species identified during this time were recorded.
3.2.4 Spotlighting Surveys
Spotlighting surveys targeting nocturnal mammals, birds and herpetofauna were undertaken at all monitoring sites. Spotlighting surveys comprised one person hour of spotlighting using LED head-torches within an approximate two hectare area of each site. Spotlighting consisted of slow walking meanders undertaken after sunset.
All fauna groups (amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals) identified during spotlighting surveys were recorded.
3.2.5 Call Playback Surveys
Call playback surveys were undertaken at each monitoring site using a directional loud hailer. Calls were broadcast for the powerful owl (Ninox strenua), masked owl (Tyto novaehollandiae), grass owl (Tyto longimembris), koala (Phascolarctos cinereus) and squirrel glider (Petaurus norfolcensis).
Call playback sessions commenced with a quiet listening period of five minutes. Each call was then played for a minimum of two minutes followed by a listening period of two minutes.
016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Methods 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 12
3.2.6 Baited Remote Camera Traps (Including Spotted-tailed Quoll) Monitoring
Spotted-tailed quoll (Dasyurus maculatus maculatus) monitoring was undertaken at each monitoring site and consisted of baited motion sensing remote cameras (herein referred to as remote cameras). At each of the monitoring sites, single remote cameras were positioned in an area of high fauna activity. The remote camera was set to record five photographs each time it was triggered. All remote cameras were left in-situ for a two week period. Remote cameras were downloaded and resultant images analysed at the completion of the two weeks.
3.3 Nest Box Monitoring
Under the requirements of the BOMP, monitoring of condition and content is required for all nest boxes established in the biodiversity offset areas. However, as nest boxes have yet to be established in the biodiversity offsets, this monitoring was not required during the 2016 monitoring.
3.4 Landscape Function Analysis Monitoring
LFA monitoring was undertaken at biodiversity offset monitoring sites WR10 and WR11 in accordance with LFA methodology (Tongway and Hindley 2005). This monitoring was undertaken along the 50 metre BioBanking transect utilised for the floristic monitoring as indicated in Table 2.1 LFA was undertaken at these two particular sites due to the steepness of the terrain and the perception that these sites would be more susceptible to terrain instability.
LFA is a technique used to monitor the health of landscapes, particularly in areas of disturbance. LFA uses simple visual assessment of physical and biological landscape components (mostly in relation to surface hydrology) that can be readily replicated over time in order to determine changes to the quality of the landscape within a site.
Star-pickets were established at the start and end of each transect and marked with a metal tag for repeatability of the assessment. Three steps were used to assess landscape function, being:
• describing the geographic location
• characterisation of the landscape organisation and the distribution of patches/interpatches and
• soil surfaces assessment of the patches/interpatches.
Ground cover types were identified along the transect and for each ground cover type at least three replicates of the following eleven key soil condition features were assessed:
• rainsplash protection
• perennial vegetation cover
• litter cover, origin and degree of decomposition
• cryptogam cover
• crust brokenness
• erosion features
016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Methods 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 13
• deposited materials
• micro topography
• surface resistance to erosion;
• soil texture; and
• slaking characteristics.
The data collected was entered into a spreadsheet that calculates critical values for stability, infiltration and nutrient function. Values are presented as percentages of the maximum available score of each critical measure (stability, infiltration and nutrient cycling) with 100 per cent representing the highest possible score.
3.5 Regeneration Assessment
Rapid regeneration assessment was undertaken at 30 locations provided in Figure 3.2 distributed throughout each of the offsets. For steep areas or areas that were not readily accessible, assessment was made from a vantage point on the landscape using binoculars as well as in conjunction with recent satellite imagery. General observation was made throughout all aspects of survey.
Rapid assessments comprised quantitative assessment of the following features:
• Documentation of dominant and common plant taxa within a 20m by 20m area
• Observation of soil and landscape
• Observation of presence of any micro-niches (particularly large areas of erosion) that may prevent vegetation from recovering to recovering to targeted vegetation community
• Photographic documentation from a way-pointed position and with compass bearing recorded for repeatability (facing north)
• Canopy vegetation heights (if present)
• Documentation of recruitment (fruiting/flowering) of canopy and shrub species
• Estimation/counts of extent of regeneration occurring within a 20m by 20m plot (for the purposes of extrapolation).
Where possible, areas of natural regeneration were updated as conforming to various degrees of parent vegetation community depending on the height and observed recruitment of canopy vegetation.
Observations of general quality to natural regeneration will also be made, along with observations of any particular management actions required.
016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Methods 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 14
4.0 Results
The floristic and fauna data results from the 2016 monitoring program have been provided in the following sections.
4.1 Local Weather Conditions
Local weather conditions can be used to assist in explaining certain floristic and fauna results. Table 4.1 provides the range of weather conditions at the Singleton weather station during the year in the lead up to the spring 2016 monitoring event.
Table 4.1 Temperature and Rainfall Data during lead up to 2016 Monitoring (BOM 2016)
2016
Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov
Maximum Mean temperature (°C) 30.2 29.3 30.7 30.3 27.1 23.3 18.1 18.0 19.4 21.5 25.1 30.7 for year 2015/16
Long Term Mean Maximum 29.9 31.5 30.2 28.1 24.7 21.5 18.2 17.7 19.9 23.3 26.4 28.8 Temperature (°C) *
Minimum Mean Temperature 11.3 17.7 16.7 15.5 13.3 8.3 7.4 6.1 5.1 9.4 10.4 12.7 (°C) for year 2015/16
Long Term Mean Minimum 15.8 17.7 17.5 14.9 11.1 6.9 5.9 4.4 4.2 7.2 10.0 14.0 Temperature (°C) *
Total Monthly Rainfall (mm) for 117.5 208.2 10.0 7.9 55.4 15.4 98.1 40.4 35.8 79.2 52.2 208.2 year 2015/16
Long Term Mean 73.9 69.9 91.9 59.5 62.6 29.6 69.0 27.1 32.0 40.8 43.4 83.9 Rainfall (mm) *
In general, weather conditions in the lead-up to the monitoring were within typical recorded temperature ranges (within 1.5 degrees of monthly means). However it should be noted that during November 2016 (during the survey) maximum average temperatures were almost 2 degrees warmer than average and rainfall was more than 120mm higher than the monthly average.
Higher rainfalls may potentially have influenced floristic composition identified at the time of survey.
016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Results 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 16
Some minor rainfall occurred during the 2016 monitoring surveys and this may have influenced observable fauna during these times. However no fauna surveys (other than use of Anabat devices and remote sensing cameras) were undertaken during heavy rainfall or during storm activity. Rainfall and stormy weather may have reduced activity, particularly of smaller flying animals such as micro-bats and birds.
4.2 Floristic Monitoring
The primary purpose of the biodiversity offset monitoring program is to assess the progress of regenerating vegetation against reference vegetation. The key aspects of this progress are in respect to species diversity (both native and introduced) and abundance, as well as in the structure and habitat that they provide. Each of these is dealt with in greater detail below.
4.2.1 Floristic Diversity
The following section details the key differences between native and introduced species diversity between remnant and regenerating sites within their respective biodiversity offsets. A complete list of flora species recorded during the 2016 monitoring event is provided in Appendix 3.
Table 4.2 and Graph 4.1 present the summarised results of floristic monitoring at the three different biodiversity offset areas.
These results show that high overall floristic diversities were identified in areas of remnant vegetation compared to their counterpart revegetation/regeneration sites. The highest floristic diversity was recorded at Mitchell Hills South site W09 and the lowest floristic diversity was recorded at Bowmans Creek Riparian Corridor revegetation site WR09 with only 17 species documented.
In Mountain Block and Mitchell Hills South, the diversity of native species was much higher than the diversity of introduced species for remnant vegetation compared to revegetation/regeneration sites. However for Bowmans Creek Riparian Corridor, both remnant and revegetation/regeneration sites had poor native species diversity (most of which was represented in the canopy).
016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Results 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 17
Table 4.2 2016 Floristic Monitoring Results
Mountain Block Bowmans Creek Riparian Corridor Mitchell Hills South
Remnant Revegetation Remnant Revegetation Remnant Revegetation
W05 WR04 W06 W07 WR07 WR09 W09 WR11
’15 ’16 ’15 ’16 ’15 ’16 ’15 ’16 ’15 ’16 ’15 ’16 ’15 ’16 ’15 ’16
Native Flora Species 36 29 21 16 14 7 8 11 8 7 4 0 39 44 30 36
Introduced Flora Species 3 7 11 11 13 19 23 26 22 14 19 17 4 7 13 12
Total Flora Species 39 36 32 27 27 26 31 39 30 21 23 17 43 51 43 48
Average No. 32.5 18.5 10.5 10 7.5 2 41.5 33
Native Specie Standard Deviation 4.9 3.5 4.9 2.8 0.7 2.8 3.5 4.2
Average No. 5 11 16 25 18 18 5.5 12.5
Standard Deviation 2.8 0 4.2 3.5 5.7 1.4 2.1 0.7 Introduced Species
Note numbers have been rounded to one decimal point
016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Results 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 18
45
40
35 7 30
25 26 11 20 Exotic 18 Species Richness Species 15 29 14 4 7 Native 10 16 16 13 13 5 11 8 7 0 1 W05 WR04 W06 W07 WR07 WR09 W09 WR11 Remnant Reveg Remnant Reveg Remnant Reveg Mountain Block Bowmans Creek Mitchell Hills
Graph 4.1 2016 Floristic Monitoring Results © Umwelt, 2016
4.2.2 Habitat and Structural Diversity
The differences between the vegetation structures of the Mountain Block, Bowmans Creek Riparian Corridor and Mitchell Hills South offsets during 2016 are presented in Table 4.3, Table 4.4 and Table 4.5 respectively.
Table 4.3 Comparison of Vegetation Structure of the Mountain Block Sites
Category Remnant Regenerating
W05 WR04
2015 2016 2015 2016
Native Overstorey (%) 15 10 2 2
Native Mid Storey (>1m to Native Grass Cover (%) 16 30 90 96 Native Shrub Cover (%) 4 12 0 0 Native Other Cover (%) 12 19 4 20 Exotic Plant Cover (%) 4 0 0 10 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Results 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 19 Category Remnant Regenerating W05 WR04 2015 2016 2015 2016 Leaf Litter/Woody Debris (%) 40 28 5 5 Bare Ground/Rock (%) 24 22 6 2 Cryptogam (%) 0 0 1 0 Length of Fallen Logs (m) 31 26 0 0 Percentage of overstorey regenerating 100 100 100 100 Number of hollow-bearing trees 1 1 0 0 Note: Some percentages are in excess of 100 per cent as a full coverage of grass can be present, occurring in conjunction with an under layer of leaf litter The results of Table 4.3 illustrate that the Mountain Block regenerating sites WR04 require improvement in the following aspects to be brought in line with the vegetation structure of reference remnant vegetation W05: • Increase in coverage of native canopy species (it should be noted that some natural canopy recruitment is occurring however is too young at this point to be structurally distinguished from shrubby vegetation) • Increase in coverage of native mid-storey species • Increase in the range of native (non-grass) groundcover species coverage • Increase in log coverage • Decrease in exotic groundcover vegetation • Increase in number of hollow-like structures providing habitat for arboreal fauna. The vegetation of WR04 is tracking towards target vegetation in terms of diversity, coverage and structure of native vegetation; however would benefit from the installation of nest boxes in select trees and targeted weed management works. Other discrepancies in structure and composition will likely continue to improve without intervention. 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Results 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 20 Table 4.4 Comparison of Vegetation Structure of Bowmans Creek Riparian Corridor Sites Category Remnant Revegetation W06 W07 WR07 WR09 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 Native Overstorey (%) 13.2 21 8 8.5 0 0 0 0 Native Mid Storey (>1m to 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Native Grass Cover (%) 30 58 14 2 0 20 2 0 Native Shrub Cover (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Native Other Cover (%) 14 18 2 2 0 2 0 0 Exotic Plant Cover (%) 26 24 66 86 98 94 98 92 Leaf Litter/Woody Debris (%) 55 31 10 6 0 2 0 0 Bare Ground/Rock (%) 30 5 6 4 2 2 0 0 Cryptogam (%) 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Length of Fallen Logs (m) 12 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percentage of overstorey 100 100 100 100 0 0 0 0 regenerating Number of hollow-bearing trees 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 Note: Some percentages are in excess of 100 per cent as a full coverage of grass can be present, occurring in conjunction with an under layer of leaf litter The results of Table 4.4 show that WR07 has gone an increase in observable native groundcovers present and a slight decrease in exotic groundcover; however WR09 is fundamentally the same. Neither regeneration site has increased in observable canopy or shrub species present. This table also indicates that the Bowmans Creek Riparian Corridor regenerating sites (WR07 and WR09) require improvement of the following aspects to be brought in line with the vegetation structure of reference remnant vegetation (W06 and W07): • Increase in the coverage of native canopy species • Increase in the coverage of native groundcover vegetation • Decrease in introduced species coverage • Increase in ground coverage by logs and other habitat for terrestrial fauna such as boulder/rock piles • Increase in leaf litter and woody debris and 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Results 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 21 • Increase in number of hollow-like structures providing habitat for arboreal fauna (however vegetation in these sites is too young at this stage to support nest boxes). Native grass levels at W07 have decreased, most likely as a result of increased exotic grass covers. There have been some minor observed changes in coverage by canopy species at W06 and W07; however these are likely to be attributable to observer bias. Midstorey species diversity is lacking in both remnant and reference vegetation and could be improved by supplementary planting in both. Although comprising remnant vegetation, site W07 would also benefit from the installation of nest boxes and improvement of connectivity to adjacent areas of remnant vegetation as it is currently an isolated vegetation fragment. Table 4.5 Comparison of Vegetation Structure of Mitchell Hills South Sites Category Remnant Revegetation W09 WR11 2015 2016 2015 2016 Native Overstorey (%) 22 20 0 0 Native Mid Storey (>1m to Native Grass Cover (%) 60 50 54 56 Native Shrub Cover (%) 2 3 2 6 Native Other Cover (%) 10 10 2 16 Exotic Plant Cover (%) 0 0 42 20 Leaf Litter/Woody Debris (%) 5 5 0 4 Bare Ground/Rock (%) 20 24 0 2 Cryptogam (%) 1 3 0 0 Length of Fallen Logs (m) 13 12 3.5 1 Percentage of overstorey regenerating 100 100 0 0 Number of hollow-bearing trees 0 0 0 0 Note: Some percentages are in excess of 100 per cent as a full coverage of grass can be present, occurring in conjunction with an under layer of leaf litter The results of Table 4.5 show that the all habitat and structural diversity attributes have remained relatively consistent at remnant site W09. Revegetation site WR11 experienced a decline in exotic ground cover, but this may have been a result in a decline of identifiable plant features (seed heads) , overall structural this 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Results 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 22 vegetation is fundamentally the same to 2017. Other discrepancies in structure and composition will likely continue to improve without intervention. Mitchell Hills South regenerating site WR11 is tracking towards remnant vegetation; however requires improvement of the following aspects to be brought in line with the vegetation structure of reference remnant site W09: • Increase in coverage by native canopy species • Decrease in introduced species coverage and • Increase in the presence of log and boulder/rock piles. Remnant vegetation in Mitchell Hills South would benefit from installation of nest boxes to supplement a paucity of naturally occurring hollows. Vegetation in regenerating sites is not yet mature enough to support nest boxes; however this should be reconsidered as part of future monitoring events. Further comparison of the vegetation structure of monitoring sites is provided below, with the results of the sub-plot monitoring for the midstorey and groundcover vegetation during 2016 presented in Table 4.6, 4.7 and 4.8 respectively for Mountain Block, Bowmans Creek Riparian Corridor and Mitchell Hills South. A complete list of sub-plot monitoring results is provided in Appendix 4. Table 4.6 Mountain Block 2016 Subplot Results Remnant Regenerating W05 WR04 Mid-storey (1-5m) Subplot Results Number of Species Native Flora 4 3 Introduced Flora 0 1 Stem Counts Native Stems 22 24 Introduced Stems 0 3 Groundcover(<1m) Subplot Results Number of Species Native Flora 5 5 Introduced Flora 0 3 Stem Counts Native Stems 17 35 Introduced Stems 0 17 The results of Table 4.6 are reflective of the Table 4.3 results. In the mid-storey native species diversities and counts are similar between remnant (W05) and regenerating (WR04) sites; however introduced diversity and counts were higher in regenerating vegetation. This was a result of introduced balloon cotton bush (Gomphocarpus fruticosus). 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Results 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 23 The groundcover vegetation had the same native species diversity for W05 and WR04; however the native stem count was higher in the regenerating site than the remnant site (this is likely a result of higher light availability in the regenerating vegetation due to lack of canopy trees and shrubs or conversely suppression as a result of shading in remnant vegetation). Further to this, no introduced species were identified in the remnant vegetation subplot, whereas almost a third of the regenerating site diversity groundcover subplot was introduced. Table 4.7 Bowmans Creek Riparian Corridor 2016 Subplot Results Remnant Revegetation W06 W07 WR07 WR09 Mid-storey (1-5m) Subplot Results Number of Species Native Flora 0 1 0 0 Introduced Flora 0 1 0 0 Stem Counts Native Stems 0 2 0 0 Introduced Stems 0 15 0 0 Groundcover(<1m) Subplot Results Number of Species Native Flora 2 2 0 1 Introduced Flora 3 11 7 6 Stem Counts Native Stems 3 7 0 2 Introduced Stems 22 88 72 76 The results of Table 4.7 indicate that there is a scarcity of native mid-storey (diversity and abundance) vegetation in both remnant and regenerating vegetation in Bowmans Creek Riparian Corridor. These low mid-storey levels correlate with historical and ongoing grazing practices. Removal of cattle will likely reduce the growth suppression of mid-storey vegetation. Supplementary midstorey plantings would also assist this. Native groundcover species diversity and coverage in remnant sites (W06 and W07) is higher than that of revegetation sites (WR07 and WR09); however introduced groundcover species diversity and abundance was high across both remnant and revegetation sites. Given the high levels of disturbance at WR07 and WR09 it is unlikely that they will recover to a condition similar to their counterpart remnant sites without substantial intervention. Ripping, re-seeding or similar intervention should be completed at WR07 and WR09 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Results 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 24 Table 4.8 Mitchell Hills South 2016 Subplot Results Remnant Regenerating W09 WR11 Mid-storey (1-5m) Subplot Results Number of Species Native Flora 3 2 Introduced Flora 0 1 Stem Counts Native Stems 12 8 Introduced Stems 0 3 Groundcover(<1m) Subplot Results Number of Species Native Flora 10 6 Introduced Flora 0 4 Stem Counts Native Stems 50 41 Introduced Stems 0 64 The results of Table 4.8 demonstrate that core differences between remnant and regenerating sites in Mitchell Hills South are as follows: • Native mid-storey flora species diversity in the mid-storey is higher and more dense in remnant vegetation • Introduced species diversity and density in the mid-storey and groundcover is higher in regenerating areas compared to remnant vegetation; and • Native species diversity in the groundcover is higher and more abundant in remnant compared to regenerating vegetation. It is likely that undertaking supplementary planting of canopy vegetation in regenerating areas would gradually lead to the suppression of some of the lower vegetation strata, increasing the structural similarity of the remnant and regeneration areas in Mitchell Hills South. 4.3 Fauna Monitoring The results of the fauna monitoring for Mountain Block, Bowmans Creek Riparian Corridor and Mitchell Hills South are provided below in Tables 4.9, 4.10 and 4.11 respectively. Locations of threatened species identified during monitoring surveys are provided in Figure 4.1. A full list of fauna species recorded during the 2016 monitoring event is provided in Appendix 5. It should be noted that it is difficult to provide an accurate comparison of fauna diversity between sites given their highly mobile nature and that these results are more reflective off general assemblages rather than absolute diversity. 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Results 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 25 The Mountain Block fauna results provided in Table 4.9 demonstrate higher fauna species diversity in 2016 than during the 2015 baseline event at both remnant and regeneration sites. This change is most likely a reflection of the very hot dry and windy weather conditions experienced during the baseline 2015 surveys which would have been restrictive to fauna movement. Higher fauna diversity was also recorded in remnant vegetation (W05) compared to regenerating vegetation (WR04); these results are largely a result of the greater levels of habitat complexity present within the remnant woodland vegetation compared to regeneration areas, particularly in respect to habitat niches, shrubby diversity and woody debris. Bird species identified in WR04 tended to be generalist species such as the crested pigeon (Ocyphaps lophotes), grey butcherbird (Cracticus torquatus), pied butcherbird (Cracticus nigrogularis) and noisy miner (Manorina melanocephala). Remnant site W05 additionally recorded higher diversities of amphibians and reptiles due to greater levels of habitat complexity (particularly rock on rock habitat). No introduced fauna were documented at remnant site W05 and only one introduced fauna species was identified at regenerating site WR04, being wild dog (Canis lupus). This wild dog was identified by way of remote sensing camera and comprised a lone individual. Three threatened fauna species were identified at each W05 and WR04. At W05, this comprised all micro- bat species, being the eastern freetail bat (Mormopterus norfolkensis), little bentwing-bat (Miniopterus australis) and eastern bentwing-bat (Miniopterus schreibersii oceanensis). The eastern freetail-bat (Mormopterus norfolkensis) and eastern bentwing bat (Miniopterus schreibersii oceanensis) were both additionally recorded at WR04 as was the spotted-tailed quoll (Dasyurus maculatus maculatus). Each of these species is listed as vulnerable under the TSC Act with the spotted-tailed quoll (Dasyurus maculatus maculatus) additionally listed as endangered under the EPBC Act. None of these species had been previously identified during the 2015 baseline monitoring; however overall detection levels for fauna were much lower during the 2015 event due to hot, dry and very windy conditions. All of these species are known from the local area including other offsets. 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Results 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 26 Table 4.9 Mountain Block 2016 Fauna Species Diversity Remnant Regeneration W05 WR04 2015 2016 2015 2016 Amphibians 2 4 0 0 Reptiles 2 4 5 1 Birds (number that were flying over or 10 (2) 29 (0) 9 (7) 22 (9) outside of the site) Mammals 1 16 9 14 Total Fauna Species 17 53 30 37 Introduced Species 0 0 Fox (Vulpes vulpes) Dog (Canis lupus) Hare (Lepus capensis) Threatened Species 0 Eastern freetail bat Turquoise parrot Spotted-tailed quoll (Mormopterus (Neophema pulchella) (Dasyurus maculatus norfolkensis) maculatus) Little bentwing-bat Eastern freetail bat (Miniopterus australis) (Mormopterus norfolkensis) Eastern bentwing-bat (Miniopterus schreibersii Eastern bentwing-bat oceanensis) (Miniopterus schreibersii oceanensis) 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Results 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 28 Table 4.10 Bowmans Creek Riparian Corridor Fauna Species Diversity Remnant Revegetation W06 W07 WR07 WR09 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 Amphibians 5 5 2 1 2 1 0 0 Reptiles 4 3 1 2 3 1 2 0 Birds (number that were flying 6 (5) 16 (0) 11 (1) 10 (0) 5 (2) 20 (10) 7 (3) 23 (12) over or outside of the site) Mammals 4 11 9 4 3 10 6 13 Total Fauna Species 24 35 24 17 15 32 18 36 Introduced Species Pig (Sus Brown hare Fox (Vulpes Fox (Vulpes Pig Fox (Vulpes Rabbit Common scrofa) (Lepus vulpes) vulpes) (Sus scrofa) vulpes) (Oryctolagus myna capensis) cuniculus) (Acridotheres Pig (Sus Black rat Cattle Brown hare tristis) scrofa) (Rattus (Bos taurus) (Lepus Pig (Sus rattus) capensis) scrofa) Cattle (Bos taurus) Cattle (Bos taurus) Hare (Lepus capensis) 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Results 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 29 Remnant Revegetation W06 W07 WR07 WR09 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 Threatened Species 0 0 Little Spotted-tailed 0 Eastern 0 Eastern bentwing-bat quoll freetail-bat freetail-bat (Miniopterus (Dasyurus (Mormopterus (Mormopterus australis) maculatus norfolkensis) norfolkensis) maculatus) Spotted-tailed Eastern quoll bentwing-bat (Dasyurus (Miniopterus maculatus schreibersii maculatus) oceanensis) 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Results 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 30 The results of the Bowmans Creek Riparian Corridor monitoring show native amphibian and reptile diversity is higher in remnant monitoring sites W06 and W07 than in revegetation sites WR07 and WR09. This diversity primarily corresponded to higher levels of habitat complexity such as logs and woody debris, leaf litter, eroded creek banks and proximity to water resources (such as farm dams). Although bird species diversity was high at revegetation site WR09, this was due to proximity to a large dam as four of the total 23 species comprised water dependent birds (such as ducks), and of the remaining 19, nine were observed outside or flying over the site. Threatened fauna species diversity in this biodiversity offset was low (either in remnant or regenerating vegetation) (other than micro-bat species that were likely foraging rather than roosting) and this is a likely consequence of poor levels of connectivity and the narrow nature of the vegetation strip provided by the riparian corridor. It should be noted that fresh scats from the threatened spotted-tailed quoll (Dasyurus maculatus maculatus) were observed at remnant site W07 during the 2016 event, after presence or signs of presence not being identified for this species at all during the 2015 event. Connectivity in this particular area is also poor, but does not seem to be a barrier for movement of this particular species. Cattle access has been excluded from offset areas as part of the biodiversity offset strategy; however in some areas (WR09) they have broken through fencing. LCO undertake regular fenceline inspections and subsequent reparation works as are required when identified. However overall, reductions in the number of cattle (Bos taurus) observed in offsets have reduced. The quality of habitats provided by Bowmans Creek Riparian Corridor is anticipated to increase with time as management actions of the 2015 BOMP are initiated, particularly in respect to connectivity. Table 4.11 Mitchell Hills South Fauna Species Diversity Remnant Regeneration W09 WR11 2015 2016 2015 2016 Amphibians 0 1 0 0 Reptiles 3 3 4 1 Birds (number that were flying 6 (1) 14 (0) 5 (2) 15 (0) over or outside of the site) Mammals 7 6 4 5 Total Fauna Species 17 24 15 21 Introduced Species 0 0 0 0 Threatened Species 0 0 0 0 The Mitchell Hills South results show that the fauna diversity of remnant vegetation sites W09 continues to be slightly higher than regenerating site WR11. With particular respect to amphibians and reptiles, it is likely that the absence of a canopy layer and subsequent log coverage/woody debris is a likely contributor to lower levels of habitats niches for small terrestrial fauna. 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Results 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 31 No introduced or threatened fauna species were recorded at either of these sites during baseline monitoring or as part of the current monitoring program. There is no identifiable reason why threatened species would not be utilising this area and it is anticipated that future monitoring will identify the presence of a range of threatened fauna (particularly woodland birds, micro-bats and the spotted-tailed quoll (Dasyurus maculatus maculatus)). The fauna composition of each of the 2016 monitoring sites is further represented in Graph 4.2, with a breakdown of the native versus introduced composition represented in Graph 4.3. 60 50 4 40 16 1 0 3 Reptiles 1 30 14 13 Mammals 11 10 Birds Species Richness Species 3 20 1 Amphibians 29 6 5 2 16 4 23 10 22 20 14 15 10 4 5 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 W05 WR04 W06 W07 WR07 WR09 W09 WR11 Mountain Block Bowmans Creek Mitchell Hills Graph 4.2 Comparison of Fauna Composition between Monitoring Sites 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Results 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 32 60 50 40 30 Native 20 Species Richness Species Introduced 10 0 W05 WR04 W06 W07 WR07 WR09 W09 WR11 Mountain Bowmans Creek Mitchell Hills Block Graph 4.3 Comparison of Native and Introduced Fauna Composition between Monitoring Sites Graph 4.2 shows the generally higher levels of fauna diversity recorded from remnant vegetation sites compared to regenerating sites. Graph 4.3 reflects the higher diversity of introduced fauna species in regenerating sites (and the highly fragmented and disturbed Bowmans Creek Riparian Corridor) compared to remnant sites, as described in the above sections. 4.4 Site Specific Details Details on specific floristic and fauna data collected at each of the monitoring sites are detailed in the following sections. 4.4.1 Mountain Block Site specific descriptions for monitoring sites in the Mountain Block offset area are provided in the following sections. 4.4.1.1 W05 – Narrow-leaved Ironbark – Spotted Gum Woodland (Remnant) Vegetation The vegetation of W05 consists of narrow-leaved ironbark–spotted gum woodland. This vegetation is consistent with the Central Hunter Ironbark - Spotted Gum - Grey Box Forest in the New South Wales North Coast and Sydney Basin Bioregions EEC listed under the TSC Act. It is also consistent with Central Hunter Valley Eucalypt Forest and Woodland CEEC listed EPBC Act. The canopy vegetation is dominated by narrow-leaved ironbark (Eucalyptus crebra) and spotted gum (Corymbia maculata), with an open midstorey dominated by sickle wattle (Acacia falcata), blackthorn (Bursaria spinosa) and sweet pittosporum (Pittosporum undulatum). The groundcover vegetation is dominated by native grasses and graminoids including threeawn speargrass (Aristida vagans), hedgehog grass (Echinopogon ovatus) and tussock grass (Poa labillardierei). The general composition of this site has not changed since the baseline monitoring event. 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Results 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 33 Naturally occurring regeneration of both canopy species narrow-leaved ironbark (Eucalyptus crebra) and spotted gum (Corymbia maculata) was observed within this site. Natural regeneration is an indication of good vegetation resilience. Very few introduced species were identified in this site; this likely reflects this area being unsuitable for substantial grazing practices due to its steep slopes and rocky terrain. Representative photos of monitoring site W05 are provided in Appendix 6, these photos are substantially unchanged from the baseline monitoring event. Thirty-six flora species were identified at this site during 2016 compared to 39 during baseline monitoring in 2015. Minor fluctuations such as this are not likely to be a result of changes to major abiotic factors but natural fluctuations of a dynamic ecosystem. Of the 36 flora species identified within this plot during 2016, seven were introduced species. Each of these introduced flora species had a cover of less than two per cent, however two (fireweed (Senecio madagascariensis) and prickly pear (Opuntia stricta), are listed as noxious. These are the only introduced species requiring management at this site as the remaining species are not highly invasive or environmental weeds. This is presented in Table 4.12 below. Table 4.12 Introduced Flora Species Requiring Management at Remnant Site W05 Common Name Scientific Name Cover Abundance 2015 2016 fireweed# Senecio madagascariensis <1% <1% prickly pear# Opuntia stricta 0 <1% # Indicates a species listed as noxious within the Singleton LGA One other introduced species was identified that has potential to be problematic, being cobblers pegs (Bidens pilosa). At this stage it is recommended that this species be monitored over time for increases to density; however the density of this species has actually decreased from the baseline monitoring event. Fauna and Habitats Four amphibian species, four reptiles, 29 birds and 16 mammal species were recorded at W05 during the 2016 monitoring. A full list of the fauna species identified in this site during the 2016 monitoring is provided in Appendix 5. These results represent a substantial increase in diversity across all species groups since the baseline monitoring event. Lower levels of fauna species identified in 2015 baseline surveys likely related to daily movement patterns of fauna as there was no obvious reason why more species were not recorded in the variety of niches provided by this site. Similarly to the baseline event, no introduced species were identified using the habitats available in this site. This is a positive sign for the native fauna diversity of this site, given that a remote sensing camera was deployed at this site for two survey weeks and none were observed. Three threatened fauna species were identified at this site being the eastern freetail bat (Mormopterus norfolkensis), little bentwing-bat (Miniopterus australis) and eastern bentwing-bat (Miniopterus schreibersii oceanensis). Each of these species is listed as vulnerable under the TSC Act. The eastern freetail bat (Mormopterus norfolkensis) and little bentwing-bat (Miniopterus australis) both have potential to roost in hollows provided by the vegetation of this area. The eastern bentwing-bat (Miniopterus schreibersii oceanensis) is a cave roosting micro-bat and is likely to only be utilising the habitats available for foraging. 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Results 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 34 A wide range of fauna habitats are present in this area including hollow-bearing trees, small dams, ephemeral creeklines, a range of shrubby vegetation, and an abundance of logs and rocky/boulder habitat. Commonly encountered fauna at this site were the smooth toadlet (Uperoleia lavigata), eastern ranges rock skink (Liopholis modesta), Lewin’s honeyeater (Meliphaga lewinii), silvereye (Zosterops lateralis) and common brushtail-possum (Trichosurus vulpecula). These species are representative of the variety of habitats available in this vegetation. The value of this habitat could be further improved via increased connectivity with larger areas of remnant woodland habitat. 4.4.1.2 WR04 – Regenerating Narrow-leaved Ironbark – Bull Oak Open Forest (Regeneration) Vegetation The vegetation of WR04 comprises regenerating narrow-leaved ironbark–bull oak open forest. This vegetation is consistent with the Central Hunter Grey Box–Ironbark Woodland EEC, listed under the TSC Act as well as the Central Hunter Valley Eucalypt Forest and Woodland CEEC listed under the EPBC Act. This site has been subject to historical clearing for grazing purposes; however with grazing removed and fencing in place this vegetation is recovering. The upper stratum vegetation is dominated by regenerating bull oak (Allocasuarina luehmannii) and narrow-leaved ironbark (Eucalyptus crebra), both of which have saplings present. It appears that there have been plantings of both canopy species undertaken in this area many years ago (as evidenced by the presence of plant protection bags) and that these plantings were largely successful. The groundcover vegetation is dense and dominated by native grasses and graminoids including kangaroo grass (Themeda australis) and Carex inversa as well as introduced species Rhodes grass (Chloris gayana) and purpletop (Verbena bonariensis) was also frequently encountered. Representative photos of monitoring site WR04 are provided in Appendix 6, these photos show the general composition of this site is substantially unchanged from the baseline monitoring event. Twenty-seven flora species were identified at this site during 2016 compared to 32 during baseline monitoring in 2015. Small diversity changes such as this are typical of natural fluctuations associated with dynamic ecosystems .Of the 27 flora species recorded in this site during 2016, 11 (40.7 per cent) introduced species were recorded. Of these introduced species, two require management based on their highly invasive properties being (fireweed (Senecio madagascariensis) and Rhodes grass (Chloris gayana). Fireweed (Senecio madagascariensis) is listed as a noxious weed; while Rhodes grass (Chloris gayana) is not listed as noxious it comprised approximately 5 per cent of the groundcover vegetation and will have a smothering effect if allowed to spread. These species are presented in Table 4.13 below. Table 4.13 Introduced Flora Species Requiring Management at Regenerating Site WR04 Common Name Scientific Name Cover Abundance 2015 2016 purpletop Verbena bonariensis 3% 2% Rhodes grass Chloris gayana 0 5% fireweed# Senecio madagascariensis <2% <2% # Indicates a species listed as noxious within the Singleton LGA 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Results 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 35 None of the other introduced species identified are likely to be problematic to the recovery of this vegetation as they are not known to be highly invasive. Of the 16 native species identified within this site, six were identified in at least one of the Mountain Block reference sites (including W04 which was not subject to monitoring during 2016). The remaining 10 native flora species are commonly encountered in remnant areas of narrow-leaved Ironbark bulloak vegetation. This vegetation is considered largely comparable to reference vegetation. Fauna and Habitats No amphibian species, one reptile, 22 bird and 14 mammal species were recorded at WR04 during the 2016 monitoring. These diversities include: • four less reptile species than were recorded during the baseline mentoring event • 13 more bird species than were recorded during the baseline event and • five more mammals than were recorded during the baseline event A full list of the fauna species identified in this site during the 2016 monitoring is provided in Appendix 5. Reduced reptile diversities likely reflect overcast and damp conditions experienced during the 2016 surveys. Bird diversity can greatly fluctuate from one year to another due to the mobility of this fauna group and these increased bird diversities do not appear to correspond to any substantial changes in habitat. Three threatened fauna species were identified during surveys of this site, being the spotted-tailed quoll (Dasyurus maculatus maculatus), eastern freetail bat (Mormopterus norfolkensis) and eastern bentwing-bat (Miniopterus schreibersii oceanensis). Given the territory sizes of the spotted-tailed quoll (Dasyurus maculatus maculatus) and the lack of potential denning resources (hollows, logs, boulder piles etc) in this area it is likely that this species is utilising these habitats for foraging when moving between more appropriate den locations. The eastern freetail bat (Mormopterus norfolkensis) is a tree-hollow roosting species and the eastern bentwing-bat (Miniopterus schreibersii oceanensis) is a primarily cave roosting species, as such it is unlikely that either of this species would be utilising the habitats for anything other than foraging as neither of these habitat resources is present. One introduced species was identified using the habitats available of this site, being the dog (Canis lupus). As it has potential to predate on the threatened spotted-tailed quoll (Dasyurus maculatus maculatus), management of the dog (Canis lupus) is recommended. Commonly encountered fauna at WR04 were the noisy miner (Manorina melanocephala) (largely an opportunistic species) and noisy friarbird (Philemon corniculatus). Neither of these species requires a complex habitat structure, and they are likely to be utilising the habitats present as part of a larger foraging range. It should also be noted that both of these species are highly competitive and likely deterring use of the vegetation present by other birds. Grassy vegetation in this area was dense, and is providing foraging habitat for large terrestrial herbivorous fauna as well as potential refuge for small terrestrial species. 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Results 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 36 No hollow-bearing trees are present and log coverage in this area was not identified. However leaf litter and small woody debris were common, providing a good basis for insectivorous species (including small threatened woodland birds such as the speckled warbler (Chthonicola sagittata)) to forage within. 4.4.2 Bowmans Creek Riparian Corridor Site specific descriptions for monitoring sites in the Bowmans Creek Riparian Corridor are provided in the following sections. 4.4.2.1 W06 – Narrow-leaved Ironbark Spotted Gum Woodland (Remnant) Vegetation The vegetation of W06 is consistent with that of mapping from Umwelt (2015) and is classified as Narrow- leaved Ironbark Spotted Gum Woodland. This vegetation is consistent with the Central Hunter Ironbark – Spotted Gum – Grey Box Forest EEC (listed under the TSC Act), and with the Central Hunter Valley Eucalypt Forest and Woodland CEEC listed under the EPBC Act. The canopy vegetation of this site comprises a closed layer of spotted gum (Corymbia maculata) to heights of approximately 15 metres. No mid storey is present in this site, other than occasional regenerating spotted gum (Corymbia maculata). Groundcover vegetation is open and dominated by a combination of native species including Queensland bluegrass (Dichanthium sericeum) and introduced species African lovegrass (Eragrostis curvula) and perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne) as well as a dense layer of leaf litter. Representative photos of monitoring site W06 are provided in Appendix 6, these photos are substantially unchanged from the baseline monitoring event. The general composition of this site has not changed since the baseline monitoring event; however the coverage of introduced grasses has increased. Natural regeneration of canopy species spotted gum (Corymbia maculata) and a range of tree ages were observed. This range of ages and observed regeneration indicate good levels of natural succession. Twenty-six flora species were identified at this site during 2016 compared to 27 during baseline monitoring in 2015. Small diversity changes such as this are typical of natural fluctuations associated with dynamic ecosystems. Of the 26 flora species that were identified in W06, 19 were introduced. Most of these introduced species (with the exception of African lovegrass (Eragrostis curvula) and perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne)) were present with a cover abundance of less than 2 per cent. Native species diversity and overall abundance were lower than that of introduced species. Cattle have been excluded from this area of remnant vegetation; however previous grazing practices (previous proposed final land use for this area was grazing) have modified the floristic groundcover vegetation. Lands immediately adjacent to the east of this site have recently been seeded to establish woodland vegetation and with time native diversity is anticipated to improve. Given the abundance of introduced species identified, this vegetation is considered to be in a poor condition; however is anticipated to improve with time now cattle have been removed and revegetation works are occurring. The introduced species identified in Table 4.14 are considered to require management. 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Results 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 37 Table 4.14 Introduced Flora Species Identified in Remnant Site W06 Considered to Require Management Common Name Scientific Name Cover Abundance 2015 2016 African lovegrass Eragrostis curvula <5% 10% Perennial ryegrass Lolium perenne 0 10% Coolatai grass Hyparrhenia hirta 0 <2% Fireweed Senecio madagascariensis 0 <1% Prickly pear Opuntia stricta 0 <1^%% Although none of the grasses are listed as a noxious weed species, they are highly invasive with some listed as noxious in other areas. It is considered that these should be priority species for management. Fireweed (Senecio madagascariensis) and prickly pear (Opuntia stricta) are both listed as noxious in the Singleton and Muswellbrook local government areas. Of the remaining 14 introduced species identified, none are likely to interfere with the recovery of this vegetation of this site as they are not known to be highly invasive species. Fauna and Habitats Five amphibian species, three reptiles, 16 birds and 11 mammal species were recorded at W06 during the 2016 monitoring. Seven more mammals species were identified compared to the 2015 baseline monitoring, this included five new terrestrial mammals and one new arboreal mammal (the common brushtail-possum (Trichosurus vulpecula). Most of these species were documented using the remote sensing camera. A full list of the fauna species identified in this site during the 2016 monitoring is provided in Appendix 5. Minor changes in observable fauna composition are normal given the mobility of most species groups. One introduced species was identified using the habitats available in this site, being the brown hare (Lepus capensis). This species was not identified in large numbers and is unlikely to have a major detrimental impact on the recovery of this site The relatively high diversity of amphibian species present in this site (compared to other Bowmans Creek Riparian Corridor monitoring sites) is a consequence of the presence of a vegetated dam and an ephemeral creek line close to this vegetation. Reptiles are likely to be at least partially dependent on the crevices provided by the highly eroded creek line to the west. The most commonly observed bird species were the noisy miner (Manorina melanocephala) and noisy friarbird (Philemon corniculatus). There are no shrubby granivorous or nectarivorous resources available for niche specialists within this site as evidenced by a paucity of these species. Two very small (less than 2cm diameter) hollows were identified in this site in mature spotted gum (Corymbia maculata) trees; it is unlikely that these would be providing refuge habitat to species other than small arboreal reptiles or amphibians. 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Results 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 38 No threatened species were identified utilising the habitats available in this site. It is unlikely that there would be any threatened species exclusively reliant on the habitats present in this site, due to low levels of habitat complexity (particularly large hollows, logs or shrubs). This vegetation would benefit from supplementary native shrubby plantings to assist the establishment of a broader range of fauna species. 4.4.2.2 W07 – Central Hunter Box Ironbark Woodland (Remnant) Vegetation The vegetation of W07 is consistent with vegetation descriptions from Umwelt (2015) and comprises a Rough-barked Apple dominated variant of the Central Hunter Box - Ironbark Woodland. This vegetation is consistent with the Central Hunter Grey-Box Ironbark Woodland EEC listed under the TSC Act as well as the Central Hunter Valley Eucalypt Forest and Woodland CEEC listed under the EPBC Act. Although this site is classified as a Rough-barked Apple dominated variant of Central Hunter Box - Ironbark Woodland, the plot contained neither narrow-leaved ironbark (Eucalyptus crebra) or grey box (Eucalyptus moluccana) and is considered a rough-barked apple (Angophora floribunda) variant of the local community as this was the only canopy species present. Representative photos of monitoring site W07 are provided in Appendix 6, these photos are substantially unchanged from the baseline monitoring event. The general composition of this site has not changed since the baseline monitoring event. The mid-storey comprised younger regenerating rough-barked apples (Angophora floribunda). Groundcover vegetation was dominated by a dense layer of introduced species oats (Avena sativa), quaking grass (Briza maxima), shivery grass (Briza minor) and African lovegrass (Eragrostis curvula). Native grasses were present to a lesser extent and included couch (Cynodon dactylon) and Austrostipa sp. Thirty-nine flora species were identified at this site during 2016 compared to 31 during baseline monitoring in 2015. Small diversity changes such as this are typical of natural fluctuations associated with dynamic ecosystems. Of the 39 flora species that were identified in W07, 26 (66.7 per cent) were introduced species. Introduced species were dominant over native species in this vegetation community in the groundcover and midstorey, however the majority of introduced species occurred at a density of less than five percent. The mix of introduced grasses present is likely to correlate with the former agricultural practices of this area. No grazing was observed in this site during the time of survey. The vegetation present is generally in poor condition; with the introduced flora species identified in Table 4.15 requiring management. Table 4.15 Introduced Flora Species Requiring Management at Remnant Site W07 Common Name Scientific Name Cover Abundance 2015 2016 oats Avena sativa 10 % 10 % quaking grass Briza maxima 10 % 10 % Rhodes grass Chloris gayana 10% 2 % fireweed Senecio madagascariensis# <2% <1% 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Results 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 39 Common Name Scientific Name Cover Abundance 2015 2016 galenia Galenia pubescens 5% 5% tiger pear Opuntia aurantiaca# <1% <1% prickly pear Opuntia stricta# 0 <1% # Indicates a noxious weed species Galenia (Galenia pubescens) in particular has the potential to have a substantial suppressing impact on the vegetation present due to its dense prostrate form. The 19 additional introduced flora species identified were not considered highly invasive or likely to substantially interfere with the recovery of this site as they are not known to be highly invasive species. Fauna and Habitats One amphibian species, two reptiles, 10 birds and four mammal species were recorded at W07 during the 2016 monitoring. All fauna groups (with the exception of mammals which recorded five less species than the 2015 baseline monitoring event) had similar diversities in 2016 to 2015. A full list of the fauna species identified in this site during the 2016 monitoring is provided in Appendix 5. This site had the lowest overall fauna diversity of the sites monitored during 2016, and it is likely that this is primarily a result of a lack of connectivity to other areas of remnant vegetation. The habitat provided by this vegetation comprised a dense grassy layer that could be utilised for refuge or foraging and moderate levels of leaf litter. Several hollow-bearing were available in large paddock trees less than 30 metres from this vegetation fragment that could be being utilised by arboreal species. Connectivity of the current vegetation present with nearby isolated hollow-bearing trees would be greatly beneficial to the habitat values of this site. One threatened fauna species was identified at this site being the spotted-tailed quoll (Dasyurus maculatus maculatus). This record comprised fresh scats at a latrine site. This species could be utilising this area for hunting and potentially denning. Due to the presence of this species, it is advised that any revegetation works be undertaken in a manner that minimises disturbance to surrounding habitat, particularly any log and rock piles and be undertaken in a progressive manner. Typically encountered fauna species of this site were the eastern grey kangaroo (Macropus giganteus), golden-headed cisticola (Cisticola exilis) and galah (Cacatua roseicapillus). Each of these is a locally common species that is not dependent upon complex habitats. Two introduced species were identified using the habitats available in this site, being the fox (Vulpes vulpes) and black rat (Rattus rattus). Management actions are recommended for the fox (Vulpes vulpes) as it has potential to interfere with the recovery of the threatened spotted-tailed quoll (Dasyurus maculatus maculatus). 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Results 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 40 4.4.2.3 WR07 – Narrow-leaved Ironbark Spotted Gum Woodland Derived Native Grassland (Regeneration) Vegetation The vegetation of WR07 is consistent with vegetation descriptions from Umwelt (2015) and is mapped as Narrow-leaved Ironbark Spotted Gum Woodland Derived Native Grassland. This vegetation is not considered to be consistent with any vegetation listed under the TSC Act or the EPBC Act. There is no canopy or mid storey vegetation present in this site, nor was any regeneration of canopy species observed. The ground cover comprised a dense grass layer (typically less than 50cm in height) dominated by introduced species African lovegrass (Eragrostis curvula), Briza subaristata, Rhodes grass (Chloris gayana) and to a lesser extent native speargrass (Austrostipa sp.). Representative photos of monitoring site WR07 are provided in Appendix 6, these photos are substantially unchanged from the baseline monitoring event. The general composition of this site has not changed since the baseline monitoring event. Twenty-one flora species were identified at this site during 2016 compared to 30 during baseline monitoring in 2015. Of the 21 flora species that were identified in WR07, 14 (66.7 per cent) were introduced. The diversity and coverage of introduced species in this site are greater than those of native species. Substantial intervention is recommended for this site to become more consistent with locally occurring reference vegetation. However, it is acknowledged that this area was only proposed as an area of woodland rehabilitation since 2015 (prior to this it was intended for a final land use of grazing) and that in accordance with the LCO offset strategy works, revegetation works are not yet required in this area. The vegetation of this site is in a poor condition for a woodland site, with the following introduced species (Table 4.16) identified that require management. However floristic composition is consistent with the previously allocated final land use of grazing and is anticipated to improve with time when revegetation activities commence. Table 4.16 Introduced Species Identified Requiring Management at Regeneration Site WR07 Common Name Scientific Name Cover Abundance 2015 2016 African lovegrass Eragrostis curvula 10% 20% Rhodes grass Chloris gayana 15% 10% fireweed Senecio madagascariensis# <2% <2% # Indicates a noxious weed species Although African lovegrass (Eragrostis curvula) and Rhodes grass (Chloris gayana) are not listed as a noxious weed species, they are highly invasive and should subsequently be priority species for management. None of the other 11 introduced flora species recorded were considered to require management in order to support the recovery of this site. 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Results 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 41 Of the seven native species identified within this site, all occurred in low densities (<2 per cent) and only one was identified in one of the Bowmans Creek Riparian Corridor reference sites (either as part of this survey or previous monitoring), all other species are considered locally common. In its current condition this vegetation is incompatible to reference woodland vegetation; however it should be acknowledged that the proposed final land use for this vegetation only changed in 2015 and that this particular area is not currently a priority site for rehabilitation. The comparability of this vegetation to reference sites is anticipated to increase over time in response to management actions initiated as required in the 2015 BOMP. Fauna and Habitats One amphibian species, one reptile, 20 birds and 10 mammal species were recorded at WR07 during the 2016 monitoring. A full list of the fauna species identified in this site during the 2016 monitoring is provided in Appendix 5. Of the 20 bird species recorded, only 10 were identified utilising the habitats of the site with the remainder identified either fling over or observed in adjacent habitats. If canopy vegetation was added to this area, connectivity would increase and it is expected that the majority of the birds utilising adjacent habitats would start to colonise this area. The fauna diversity of this site is low compared to remnant sites; however considering the absence of habitat diversity is not unreasonable. Commonly encountered fauna species were the eastern bearded dragon (Pogona barbata), Australasian pipit (Anthus novaeseelandiae) and golden headed cisticola (Cisticola exilis), none of which rely upon structurally complex environments. Two threatened fauna species were identified at this site being the spotted-tailed quoll (Dasyurus maculatus maculatus) and eastern freetail-bat (Mormopterus norfolkensis). It is unlikely that these species would be utilising these habitats for anything other than foraging/hunting or in passing to other areas of higher quality habitat due to the absence of habitat features (particularly trees, hollows and logs/woody debris). Installation of these features would assist in more permanent utilisation of this area by these species. Two introduced fauna species were identified utilising the fauna habitats available in this site, being the fox (Vulpes vulpes) and brown hare (Lepus capensis). Management actions are recommended to be undertaken for the fox (Vulpes vulpes) as it has potential to interfere with the recovery of the threatened spotted-tailed quoll (Dasyurus maculatus maculatus). Management of the brown hare (Lepus capensis) is not considered necessary at this stage. Fauna habitat is limited to the tall and dense introduced grasses (in particular African lovegrass (Eragrostis curvula) and cracks in the soil and bank undercutting along edges of an ephemeral creek line running along the western boundary of this site. Few foraging resources are available and the vegetation would benefit by planting of supplementary feed resources, particularly native shrubs. A dam is present in this grassland site that is providing a good water resource of native fauna. However, this appears to be regularly utilised as a wallow for feral pigs (Sus scrofa) (although none were observed during the survey). This dam is also the explanation for the presence of the one amphibian species identified (smooth toadlet (Uperoleia laevigata)) which would normally not be found in grassland habitats such as this. As only one vegetation layer (being a groundcover), is present little habitat diversity is present in this site. An absence of trees corresponds with an absence of logs of leafy/ woody debris and further corresponds to an absence of arboreal fauna. An absence of shrubs corresponds to a paucity of granivorous and nectarivorous birds. 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Results 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 42 4.4.2.4 WR09 – Introduced Grassland (Rehabilitation) Vegetation The vegetation of WR09 is consistent with vegetation mapping from Umwelt (2015) and has been described as an Introduced Grassland. This vegetation is not considered to be consistent with any vegetation listed under the TSC Act or the EPBC Act. This vegetation occurs on an area that was previously rehabilitated for a final land use goal of pasture/cattle grazing purposes which differs from the current restoration goal of woodland rehabilitation. In its current condition, vegetation is consistent with the former proposed final land-use; however it is anticipated that with future restoration works that this will change There is no canopy or mid storey vegetation present in this site, nor was any regenerating of canopy species observed in this site. The ground cover comprised a dense grass layer dominated by introduced grasses Rhodes grass (Chloris gayana), coolatai grass (Hyparrhenia hirta), African lovegrass (Eragrostis curvula), and to a lesser extent perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne). Representative photos of monitoring site WR09 are provided in Appendix 6, these photos are substantially unchanged from the baseline monitoring event. The general composition of this site has not changed since the baseline monitoring event. Seventeen flora species were identified at this site during 2016 compared to 23 during baseline monitoring in 2015. Of the 17 flora species that were identified in WR09, all were introduced (some native grasses may have been present but were not identifiable due to an absence of seed heads). The introduced species diversity and cover requires substantial intervention so that vegetation becomes compatible with the current proposed final land use of native woodland vegetation. This vegetation is considered to be in very poor condition with the following introduced species presented in Table 4.17 requiring management to prevent further spread and colonisation. However in this particular instance rather than managing individual species, due to the coverage and predominantly grassy nature of weed present it may be an easier approach to spray the whole site then rip and seed given that no native species were identified. Table 4.17 Introduced Flora Species Requiring Management in Rehabilitation Site WR09 Common Name Scientific Name Cover Abundance 2015 2016 fireweed# Senecio madagascariensis <2% <2% African lovegrass Eragrostis curvula 10% 12% Rhodes grass Chloris gayana 15% 15% coolatai grass Hyparrhenia hirta 10% 5% # Indicates a noxious weed species in the Singleton LGA Although no native species were identified during the 2016 monitoring event, there is potential that they persist in the seed bank in low densities. It is unlikely that this vegetation would recover to a natural state without substantial intervention. 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Results 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 43 Fauna and Habitats No amphibian or reptile species, 23 birds and 13 mammal species were recorded at WR09 during the 2016 monitoring. A full list of the fauna species identified in this site during the 2016 monitoring is provided in Appendix 5. Although the overall number of bird species documented was high comparatively to other monitoring sites, twelve of these birds were not directly observed utilising the habitats present (i.e. were either flying overhead or observed utilising adjacent woodland habitats) and a further four were water birds utilising a large dam in the south. Similarly, the majority of mammals (seven of 13) identified were micro-bats that are likely to be utilising this dam as a water resource. Of the remaining six mammals identified utilising this site, two were introduced species, being the cow (Bos taurus) and brown hare (Lepus capensis). A further three were macropods that do not require any specific habitat niches and will graze in most grassed habitats. WR09 is a highly modified environment that is made up predominantly of introduced species in a rehabilitated grassland landscape. Two threatened fauna species were identified in this site, being the eastern freetail-bat (Mormopterus norfolkensis) and eastern bentwing-bat (Miniopterus schreibersii oceanensis). These are primarily hollow- dependent and cave-roost dependent micro-bats respectively, as such there is no habitat present in this area for these species to be roosting and it is likely that they are only utilising the habitats present for foraging and drinking over the large dam resent in the south. No other threatened fauna species were identified at this site; and it is unlikely that any are likely to be present other than in passing due to the absence of habitat features (particularly trees and shrubs). The majority of the birds directly identified within the site were either attracted to the remote sensing camera by the utilised sardine bait or were observed in a single paddock tree bounding the site to the south. Some rocky habitat is present in this site in the form of emplaced rocks; however this could be enhanced by creating rock piles rather than an even distribution across the landscape. In their current positon they provide minimal habitat value. Introduced dense, tall grasses (particularly Rhodes grass (Chloris gayana), African lovegrass (Eragrostis curvula)and coolatai grass (Hyparrhenia hirta)) provide some refuge habitat for terrestrial fauna, however these are highly limited and would be enhanced by the emplacement of other habitat features such as logs (which are absent from the site) and rock piles. With the exception of a couple of remnant habitat trees bounding the site to the south, there are no habitats available in this site for arboreal fauna. These trees are not hollow-bearing trees and it is unlikely that these would be utilised other than when moving between areas of higher quality habitat. 4.4.3 Mitchell Hills South The Mitchell Hills South monitoring sites were selectively located within remnant woodland vegetation consistent with that of Spotted Gum Woodland and in vegetation that was proposed to be rehabilitated/regenerated to be with consistent with Spotted Gum Woodland. Descriptions of each of the monitoring sites are provided in greater detail below. 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Results 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 44 4.4.3.1 W09 – Spotted Gum Forest (Remnant) Vegetation The vegetation of W09 is consistent with vegetation mapping from Umwelt (2014) and Peake (2006) and is classified as Spotted Gum Forest. This vegetation, although having some similarities to Central Hunter Ironbark – Spotted Gum – Grey Box Forest EEC (listed under the TSC Act), is not consistent with this listing. This vegetation is not considered to be consistent with any vegetation listed under the EPBC Act. The canopy vegetation of this site is dominated by a mostly closed layer of spotted gum (Corymbia maculata) and hybrid of Blakely’s red gum and forest red gum (Eucalyptus blakelyi x tereticornis). The mid storey was moderately dense and comprised a variety of different species including sticky hop bush (Dodonaea viscosa), coffee bush (Breynia oblongata), sweet pittosporum (Pittosporum undulatum) and narrow-leaved geebung (Persoonia linearis). Representative photos of monitoring site W09 are provided in Appendix 6, these photos are substantially unchanged from the baseline monitoring event. The general composition of this site has not changed since the baseline monitoring event. Natural regeneration of all canopy species and a range of tree ages were observed, these indicate good levels of natural succession. Groundcover vegetation was open to moderately dense and dominated by native grasses, graminoids and ferns including Lomandra longifolia, rough saw-sedge (Gahnia aspera), tussock grass (Poa labillardierei), blady grass (Imperata cylindrica), barbed wire grass (Cymbopogon refractus), kangaroo grass (Themeda australis) and poison rock fern (Cheilanthes sieberi). It should be noted that ground covering vegetation was present on most areas of soil, however as the substrate comprised large areas of rock for a lot of this site, further colonisation and substantial increases in groundcover density is unlikely to occur with time (i.e. grasses will not colonise rock surfaces). Fifty-one flora species were identified at this site during 2016 compared to 43 during baseline monitoring in 2015. Changes such as this are typical of natural fluctuations associated with dynamic ecosystems and are expected following the result of the heavy rainfall experienced in the lead-up to this monitoring event. Of the 51 flora species that were identified in W09, seven were introduced. All of these introduced species were present with a cover abundance of less than 2 per cent. This site has been historically subject to light grazing; however this practice is not currently interfering with the condition of this site. Although the vegetation present is considered to be in a generally good state of health, with very little dieback or insect attack observed, one noxious weed was identified that was considered to require management as identified below in Table 4.18. Table 4.18 Noxious Flora Species Identified in Remnant Site W09 Common Name Scientific Name Cover Abundance 2015 2016 fireweed Senecio madagascariensis <2% <1% 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Results 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 45 The density of fireweed (Senecio madagascariensis) at this site appears to have decreased slightly since the previous monitoring event. This decrease may be as a result of increased competition with the native grasses and graminoids present after recent heavy rainfalls. One other species was identified that has the potential to become problematic in future, being cobblers pegs (Bidens pilosa), this species has not increased in density since 2015 however its coverage should continue to be monitored. The other introduced species are not considered highly invasive. Fauna and Habitats One amphibian species, three reptiles, 14 birds and six mammal species were recorded at W09 during the 2016 monitoring. These results are generally consistent with those documented during the 2015 baseline monitoring event. A full list of the fauna species identified in this site during the 2016 monitoring is provided in Appendix 5. No threatened fauna species were identified at this site; however appropriate habitat was present for their occurrence. In particular, threatened woodland birds and the spotted tailed quoll (Dasyurus maculatus maculatus) habitat was available. It is likely that the absence of threatened species observed is at least partially attributable to the absence of any water bodies (such as dams or creeklines). Water resources are particularly important for micro-bats No introduced species were identified utilising the habitats provided by this site. The striated thornbill (Acanthiza lineata) and crimson rosella (Platycercus elegans) were two of the most commonly encountered bird species identified in this site. Both of these birds are locally common. Several honeyeater species were also identified at this site and are likely to be utilising nectar resources present, particularly in mature trees, this is a positive sign of appropriate habitat presence for threatened species such as the regent honeyeater (Anthochaera phrygia) and swift parrot (Lathamus discolor). An abundance of rock- on rock and rock pile habitats were identified in this site. These rocky habitats provide an abundance of refuges for small terrestrial fauna including the two-clawed worm-skink (Anomalopus leukartii) and yellow-faced whip snake (Demansia psammophis). Habitat for small terrestrial fauna was additionally present in the low levels of logs present. Fruit-bearing shrubby vegetation such as the narrow-leaved geebung (Persoonia linearis), mock orange (Pittosporum undulatum) and large mock olive (Notelaea longifolia), should provide a good foraging resource for a range of fructivorous bird species (such as the top knot pigeon (Lopholaimus antarcticus)). No hollow-bearing trees were identified within this site; however were present in adjacent areas of remnant trees, particularly in older spotted gums (Corymbia maculata). 4.4.3.2 WR11 – Regrowth Spotted Gum Forest (Regeneration) Vegetation The vegetation of WR11 is consistent with vegetation mapping from Umwelt (2014) and is described as Regrowth Spotted Gum Forest. This vegetation, although having some similarities to the Central Hunter Ironbark – Spotted Gum – Grey Box Forest EEC (listed under the TSC Act), is not considered to be consistent with this listing, primarily as a result of the understorey composition, its regenerating form, elevation and presence of canopy species including occasional occurrences of narrow-leaved stringybark (Eucalyptus sparsifolia) (although none were present within the plot). This vegetation is not considered to be consistent with any vegetation listed under the EPBC Act. 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Results 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 46 There is no canopy vegetation present in this site, the upper strata is dense and dominated by hop bush (Dodonaea viscosa subsp. spatulata) to heights of six metres. Some natural recruitment of canopy species is occurring outside of the site in this vegetation type, however not in this particular area. Groundcover vegetation was tall and dense and was dominated by native grasses, primarily Agrostis sp., purple wiregrass (Aristida ramosa), speargrass (Austrostipa scabra), hedgehog grass (Echinopogon caespitosus), blady grass (Imperata cylindrica). Introduced grass species African lovegrass (Eragrostis curvula) was also commonly encountered. The general composition of this site has not changed since the baseline monitoring event. Representative photos of monitoring site WR11 are provided in Appendix 6, these photos are substantially unchanged from the baseline monitoring event. Forty-eight flora species were identified at this site during 2016 compared to 43 during baseline monitoring in 2015. Changes such as this are typical of natural fluctuations associated with dynamic ecosystems and are expected following the result of the heavy rainfall experienced in the lead-up to this monitoring event. Of the 48 flora species that were identified in WR11, 12 were introduced. All of these (with the exception of African lovegrass (Eragrostis curvula) were present with a cover abundance of less than 5 per cent. This site has been historically subject to grazing; however this practice is not currently interfering with the condition of this site. It is likely that the removal of grazing practices has allowed for the regeneration of the shrub layer identified. Although the vegetation present is considered to be in a generally good state of health, with very little dieback or insect attack observed, two introduced flora species were identified as requiring management as identified below in Table 4.19. Table 4.19 Introduced Flora Species Requiring Management in Regeneration Site WR11 Common Name Scientific Name Cover Abundance 2015 2016 Fireweed# Senecio madagascariensis# <2% 2% African lovegrass Eragrostis curvula 5% 10% # Indicates a noxious weed species in the Singleton LGA Cobblers pegs (Bidens pilosa) is not dense enough to be problematic at this stage, however should continue to be monitored for substantial changes to density, particularly after potential future disturbance events such as plantings. The remaining nine introduced species were considered unlikely to substantially interfere with the recovery of the site. Of the 36 native species identified within this site, most were identified at reference sites at Mitchell Hills and the other are considered to be locally common and consistent with the final target vegetation community (Spotted Gum Forest). This vegetation is considered largely compatible with reference vegetation. LFA The LFA monitoring results for WR11 are provided in Table 4.20 below. This transect is established in a relatively homogeneous area of landscape with very little patch/inter-patch distinction. 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Results 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 47 Table 4.20 Results of Regeneration Site WR11 2016 LFA Monitoring Stability Infiltration Nutrients 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 58.3 68.7 37.5 58.8 25.6 48.7 This data should be utilised in the event that any ground disturbance works are utilised in this ensure to ensure no degradation, particularly to site stability. Stability, infiltration and nutrient scores were all higher during 2016 than what were recorded during the baseline 2015 monitoring event. However all scores are still considered to be within the moderate range. This increase in score in each category appears to be largely attributable to increased density in hop bush (Dodonaea viscosa) leaf and seed pod litter following a large fruiting event. The 2016 stability score at WR11 was 68.7, which reflects moderate levels of soil stability. This is a result of high levels of groundcover vegetation combined with a steep slope and moderate soil stability when subject to the slake test. This score reflects the capacity of the soil to retail a topsoil layers. It is considered that this could be assisted by supplementary canopy plantings, which would add to the below-ground contribution of soil binding factors such as root systems. Soils present are not dispersive in nature. The infiltration score of 58.8 is moderate; this is likely a result of high levels of leaf litter to retain moisture, combined with a moderately hard surface (when subject to physical penetration). It is likely that rainfall in this area largely runs off rather than being retained in the soils present. Despite the steepness of the slope, overall surface roughness was quite low. The nutrient score is a reflection of the ability of the soil to store and circulate nutrient, and at this site is moderate (48.7). This was reflective of high levels of leaf litter that had little observable decomposition, accompanied by low levels of cryptogam cover. Fauna and Habitats No amphibian species, one reptiles, 15 birds and five mammal species were recorded at WR11 during the 2016 monitoring. A full list of the fauna species identified in this site during the 2016 monitoring is provided in Appendix 5. These results are comparable to the results of the 2015 baseline monitoring event; however compared to other monitoring sites represent low levels of biodiversity. No threatened fauna species were identified at this site; and marginal habitat is available in which any are likely to occur. There is potential that threatened woodland birds such as the speckled warbler (Chthonicola sagittata) or grey-crowned babbler (Pomatostomus temporalis temporalis) may utilise the habitats as part of a wider foraging range. The dense shrubs present provide a good faun a refuge for small to medium sized woodland birds. No introduced fauna species were identified utilising the fauna habitats available in this site. Commonly encountered fauna at WR11 were the grey fantail (Rhipidura albiscapa), golden whistler (Pachycephala rufiventris) and eastern spinebill (Acanthorhynchus tenuirostris). These species each thrive in dense shrubby vegetation habitats such as those present here. 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Results 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 48 A tall, dense grass cover is also present which is likely to provide habitat to small cryptic species such as quails, as well as large herbivorous grazing species such as macropods (although none were observed during the 2016 monitoring event). No hollow-bearing trees are present and log coverage is very sparse, limited to fringing areas of woodland habitats. Informational signage for the spotted-tailed quoll (Dasyurus maculatus maculatus) is present and being maintained, as shown in Plate 4.1. Plate 4.1 Informational Spotted-tailed Quoll Signage at Mitchell Hills South © Umwelt, 2016 4.5 Offset Regeneration Outcomes A total of 30 rapid assessments were made across the three offsets (as identified in Figure 3.2), as well as general observations made throughout all aspects of survey. Some areas were steep and difficult to access, and where possible these points were assessed using binoculars from a vantage point in the landscape. Based on the offset regeneration assessments undertaken, areas of Mountain Block, Bowmans Creek Riparian Corridor and Mitchell Hills South were identified a having naturally occurring regeneration, as mapped in Figure 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4 respectively. These are described in greater detail in Sections 4.5.1 to 4.5.3 respectively. 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Results 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 49 4.5.1 Mountain Block Regeneration Based on the rapid assessments undertaken a total of 7.3 ha of vegetation was identified as in a state of regeneration at Mountain Block. Regeneration occurring in the northern areas of Mountain Block typically comprised young forest red gum (Eucalyptus tereticornis), spotted gum (Corymbia maculata) and to a lesser extent grey box (Eucalyptus moluccana). Recruitment was only observed in fringing areas of grassland habitat adjacent to existing woodland areas. A representative photo of this northern recruitment is provided in Plate 4.2. These trees were typically less than 1m in height. Based upon extrapolation, density of recruitment in these areas was estimated at 187.5 saplings per hectare. Weed species with potential to suppress this regeneration were identified at locations indicated in Figure 4.2 and comprised: • Coolatai grass (Hyparrhenia hirta) and • Galenia (Galenia pubescens) Northern areas were very rocky and steep and it is unlikely that machinery planting or ripping/seeding would be appropriate here. Instead manual infill planting and herbicide application is recommended. Plate 4.2 Recruitment occurring in the North of Mountain Block © Umwelt, 2016 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Results 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 53 A representative photo of this southern recruitment is provided in Plate 4.3. This revegetation almost entirely comprised bulloak (Allocasuarina luehmannii) with occasional occurrences of narrow-leaved ironbark (Eucalyptus crebra). These trees were typically between 0.5m and 3m in height. Based upon extrapolation, density of recruitment in these areas was estimated at 300 saplings per hectare. Areas of southern vegetation would benefit from in-fill planting with more narrow-leaved ironbark (Eucalyptus crebra). Plate 4.3 Recruitment occurring in the South of Mountain Block © Umwelt, 2016 Targeted plantings around small farm dams in the north and south with sedges and trees would also be beneficial. Further surveys will be required once vegetation is more established to determine which vegetation community these revegetation areas will be consistent with. At this point in time, this level of detail is indeterminable (although likely to be consistent with target communities). 4.5.2 Bowmans Creek Riparian Corridor Regeneration Very little regeneration was occurring in the Bowmans Creek Riparian Corridor with the exception of one small area in the centre of approximately 1.6 ha in size. The remaining areas are largely too modified and 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Results 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 54 have a groundcover vegetation layer that is too suppressive to permit regeneration to occur. Recruitment was only observed in fringing areas of grassland habitat adjacent to existing woodland areas (i.e. no lone individual recruits were identified in large expanses of grassland vegetation). However it should be noted that LCO is in the process of undertaking ripping and seeding to address low levels of native diversity and high introduced species coverage. These areas were ripped and seeded in 2016 and are presented on Figure 4.3, they represent a total of 8.4 ha. Ripping and seeding activities have also been undertaken as part of a contiguous area immediately to the north of these identified areas. Although these additional areas of ripping and seeding are not within the current offset boundary, there is potential that the offset boundaries will be modified slightly in future to incorporate these areas in order to accommodate site revegetation constraints that were not considered when the offset was first proposed. Areas of ripping and seeding will be inspected in future works programs to identify success of works undertaken. The one area of regeneration identified comprised young rough-barked apples (Angophora floribunda) between 0.5m and 1.5m in height, with eight individuals observed. A representative photo of this area is shown in Plate 4.4, however tall exotic grasses and purpletop (Verbena bonariensis) are too dense for these individuals to be readily observed. Based on assessments of soil and landscape position at each of these rapid assessment points, the proposed final vegetation communities for this area identified in the 2015 BOMP are deemed appropriate and primarily comprising: • Hunter Valley River Oak Forest along the flats/ directly bordering creek beds • Central Hunter Box – Ironbark Woodland higher up the slopes in the west (noting that the angophora dominant form should be prevalent on the areas closest to the creekline) Plate 4.4 Recruitment occurring in the approximate centre of Bowmans Creek Riparian Corridor © Umwelt, 2016 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Results 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 55 Further surveys will be required once vegetation is more established to determine which vegetation community this revegetation will be consistent with. At this point in time, this level of detail is indeterminable. Introduced woodland areas are recommended to be subject to selective felling/poisoning supplemented by in-fill planting. It is recommended that felled trees be left in situ or stacked into woodpiles to increase habitat value in these areas. LCO are currently in the process of undertaking control works for willow (Salix sp.) along the Bowmans Creek Riparian Corridor by way of a combination of ring-barking and herbicide stem injection, follow up observation of these works should be undertaken to monitor success of actions undertaken. Invasive weed control for the following species was also identified as required in Figure 4.3: • Mother-of-millions (Bryophyllum delagoense) • Sharp rush (Juncus acutus). Most of this corridor is dominated by introduced groundcover vegetation that is very dense, including kikuyu (Pennisetum clandestinum), Rhodes grass (Chloris gayana), purpletop (Verbena bonariensis), white clover (Trifolium repens) and various thistles. Substantial control work/surface preparation including ripping and seeding may need to be undertaken in these areas prior to supplementary planting activities occurring. 4.5.3 Mitchell Hills South Regeneration Based on the rapid assessments undertaken a total of 2.2 ha of vegetation was identified as in a state of regeneration at Mitchell Hills South. These were dominated by forest red gum (Eucalyptus tereticornis) and spotted gum (Corymbia maculata) at an extrapolated abundance of 500 stems per hectare. Natural succession is considered to be high and is a good sign of the resilience of this vegetation. An abundance of regenerating hop bush (Dodonaea viscosa) was also present throughout. Regeneration levels occurring in Mitchell Hills South and ranged from newly emerged saplings (less than 20cm in height) through to 2.5 metres in height and were commonly encountered in most areas with the exception of the strip of exotic grassland in the centre. A representative photo of this regeneration is shown on Plate 4.5. The exotic grassland should be maintained for the moment to allow access; however in future when no longer required should be ripped and seeded. Soil identified and landscapes are consistent with the proposed final vegetation communities for this area identified in the 2015 BOMP. 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Results 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 56 Plate 4.5 Regeneration Occurring in Mitchell Hills South © Umwelt, 2016 Further surveys will be required prior to sign-off once vegetation is more established to determine which vegetation community this revegetation will be consistent with. At this stage it is likely that it will conform with the Spotted Gum Forest, however groundcover may be the final determinant of this. 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Results 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 57 5.0 Discussion This section provides a discussion of the results from the 2016 biodiversity offset monitoring program when compared against the requirements of the 2015 BOMP. 5.1 General Outcomes of 2016 Monitoring In general, the remnant vegetation of Mitchell Hills South is considered to have the highest habitat values of the biodiversity offset sites (with high hollow densities, rock on rock habitats, moderate log presence, abundant shrubs, low introduced species, although poor water resource availability), and Bowmans Creek Riparian Corridor is considered to require the greatest amount of intervention (particularly for introduced groundcover species). Although remnant vegetation at all biodiversity offset sites was generally in good condition and general coverage of weed species was low, all had noxious or invasive species present that were considered to require management to prevent interference with ecological value and subsequent potential for recovery. Although not specifically identified within monitoring plots, LCO has been undertaking extensive management actions within the Mountain Block and Bowmans Creek Riparian Corridor since the baseline 2015 monitoring. Works have been targeted at areas deemed to be in greatest need of management action (not necessarily within monitoring plots) and therefore will not be reflected within quantitative data. Management actions undertaken since 2015 have included: • Herbicide application and ring-barking throughout Mountain Block and northern Bowmans Creek Riparian Corridor targeting coolatai grass (Hyparrhenia hirta), willows (Salix spp.), mother-of-millions (Bryophyllum delagoense), golden wreath wattle (Acacia saligna), African olive (Olea europaea subsp. cuspidata) and green cestrum (Cestrum parqui) • Herbicide application focusing on coolatai grass (Hyparrhenia hirta), blackberry (Rubus fruticosus sp. aggregate) and tree-of-heaven (Ailanthus altissima) and others encountered. • Supplementary planting and seeding in northern Bowmans Creek Riparian Corridor • Targeted control of African lovegrass (Eragrostis curvula) in the northern areas of Bowmans Creek Riparian Corridor • Targeted placement of log piles within central areas of the Bowmans Creek Riparian Corridor • Feral fauna control (all of which (with the exception of those for the feral cat (Felis catus) have been undertaken with some success): o Baited trapping for pig (Sus scrofa) in Bowmans Creek Riparian Corridor around both Dam 1 and ALV2 o Baiting and camera trapping in the northern extents of Mitchell Hills South for the pig (Sus scrofa) o A site wide 1080 baiting program for wild dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) and foxes (Vulpes vulpes) at 47 bait stations o An aerial 1080 baiting program in Mitchell Hills South and the northern extents of Mountain Block o Feral cat (Felis catus) trapping around the MIA and Rehabilitation Area-Entrance Pit 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Discussion 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 58 o Rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus) and hare (Lepus capensis) open range shooting program in the rehabilitation areas, which may have had flow on impacts for surrounding area of offset vegetation Mountain Block continues to have moderate habitat value that could be greatly assisted by undertaking weed control works (particularly of introduced grasses) and increasing the connectivity of the disconnected areas of habitat. Remnant sites typically provide a greater native species diversity than their regenerating/rehabilitating counterparts. The exception to this is the Bowmans Creek Riparian Corridor remnant site (W07) which has a long history of grazing (due to its prior final land use of grazing which has since been revised to woodland vegetation) which is likely to have depleted the seed-bank over time and possibly compacted soil in some areas. Regenerating sites typically had high introduced species diversity and high introduced species coverage (when compared to their reference sites). The 2016 monitoring, particularly remote cameras, identified much less utilisation of sites by pigs (Sus scrofa) and this is likely to be attributable to management actions of this species. There may be a correlation with this reduction and the increased detection of spotted-tailed quolls (Dasyurus maculata maculatus) during the 2016 monitoring event compared to 2015. However presence of foxes (Vulpes vulpes) has increased and should be considered for management as this species has the potential to predate on the spotted-tailed quoll (Dasyurus maculatus maculatus) or to compete for prey resources and denning habitat. Floristic results were generally reflective of fauna results. Areas with higher floristic diversity and more complex vegetation structure generally provided habitat to a greater diversity of fauna species. Although this was often driven, particularly at the highly disturbed WR09, by the presence of dam habitats. Dam habitats should be utilised to Liddell’s advantage with corridors leading directly to these areas from nearby remnant fragments. Furthermore, less complex vegetation structures were generally associated with higher levels of introduced species. It is anticipated that floristic and fauna value provided by the biodiversity offset areas will increase with time as more management actions required by the 2015 BOMP are initiated. 5.2 Comparison of Results against Performance Indicators and TARP In order to track the changes to biodiversity values at the 2015 BOMP monitoring sites, the 2016 monitoring results have been compared to their relevant performance indicators and biodiversity triggers. This will assist in identifying where management actions have been successful and where they may require review. Tables 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 summarise if/how the monitoring sites are performing against the relevant actions and targets and biodiversity triggers of the 2015 BOMP. 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Discussion 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 59 Table 5.1 Comparison of 2016 Monitoring Results against Performance Indicators from the BOMP* Relevant Offset Action 2016 Performance Indicator Compliance Recommended Actions Area Fencing and Signage All biodiversity Removal of redundant fences. Inspection undertaken to identify Not undertaken as part of To be completed by LCO in offset areas redundant fences. this program. However accordance with Commence removal of redundant acknowledged as occurring requirements of the 2015 fences. through a separate BOMP. program of work. Redundant fences were identified dividing Mitchell Hills South and separating Mountain Block from the northern end of Bowmans Creek Riparian Corridor. Compliance = Compliant All biodiversity Inspections of fences every Inspections every two months. Not assessed as part of this Fence line inspections are offset areas two months to identify Damaged critical fences to be repaired program. undertaken every two condition. within 1 week (temporary if needed), However acknowledged as months in accordance with final repairs and non-critical repairs to occurring through a commitments of the 2015 be completed in 1 month. separate program of work. BOMP. Compliance = Compliant All biodiversity Information signage for the Informational signage (for the spotted- All identified signage is in a Undertake as required offset areas spotted-tailed quoll. tailed quoll) is maintained. good condition. under recommendation of Compliance = Compliant the 2015 BOMP if signage degradation identified. 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Discussion 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 60 Relevant Offset Action 2016 Performance Indicator Compliance Recommended Actions Area Grazing Management All biodiversity All stock to be removed from No stock grazing Compliance = Compliant Stock have been excluded offsets biodiversity offset areas from fences; however are occasionally breaking through fencelines. This is being addressed through progressive fenceline reparation works as it occurs. All biodiversity Minimum bi-monthly To be completed bi-monthly. Not assessed as part of this Rogue cattle inspections offsets inspections to determine program. However are undertaken bi-monthly presence of rogue stock and acknowledged as occurring in accordance with assess condition of fences. through a separate commitments of the 2015 program of work. BOMP. Compliance = Compliant No cattle were identified in Mitchell Hills South or Mountain Block. Rogue cattle were present in Bowmans Creek however and are being managed. All biodiversity Remove reported rogue stock Action and remove reported rogue Not undertaken as part of Fence line reparation offsets and repair damaged fences. stock and repair damaged fences. this program. However works are undertaken in acknowledged as occurring accordance with through a separate commitments of the 2015 program of work. BOMP. Compliance = Compliant 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Discussion 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 61 Relevant Offset Action 2016 Performance Indicator Compliance Recommended Actions Area Track Maintenance All biodiversity New access tracks (only Complete due diligence assessments None identified offset areas where necessary) are subject for new access tracks to minimise Compliance = Compliant to due diligence assessments. impact on biodiversity, where possible. All biodiversity Minimum twice yearly Inspections undertaken nominally in Tracks utilised for offset Access track inspections offset areas (nominally in March and March and September. area access were all in are undertaken bi-annually September) inspections to Action and repair track damage. good condition. in accordance with identify track conditions. Compliance = Compliant commitments of the 2015 BOMP. All biodiversity Rehabilitation of unnecessary Tracks no longer required will be Not undertaken a part of All tracks present are still offset areas access tracks. rehabilitated. this program. considered necessary at Compliance = Assessed in this point in time. This will separate monitoring be reconsidered as program regeneration/rehabilitation works become more established. 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Discussion 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 62 Relevant Offset Action 2016 Performance Indicator Compliance Recommended Actions Area Pest Management Bowmans Creek Complete feral animal Inspections completed every two Not undertaken as part of Feral animal inspections Riparian Corridor inspections of biodiversity months, followed by implementation this program. are undertaken every two offset areas every two months of required control methods, as However feral fauna were months in accordance with to document sighting and required. identified in all offsets. commitments of the 2015 abundance records. This will BOMP. Compliance = Assessed in then inform ongoing control Foxes (Vulpes vulpes) were actions (as needed), including separate monitoring program identified as a key species timing, frequency, target for management, whereas species and methods to be pig (Sus scrofa) numbers used. appeared less than during baseline monitoring. Mountain Block and Complete feral animal Inspections completed every four Not undertaken as part of Feral animal inspections Mitchell Hills South inspections every four months months, followed by implementation this program. are undertaken every four to document sighting and of required control methods, as However feral fauna were months in accordance with abundance records. This will required. identified in all offsets. commitments of the 2015 then inform ongoing control BOMP. actions (as needed), including Compliance = Assessed in timing, frequency, target separate monitoring species and methods to be program used. 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Discussion 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 63 Relevant Offset Action 2016 Performance Indicator Compliance Recommended Actions Area All biodiversity Develop and implement an Develop and implement pest animal Feral fauna were identified Develop and implement a offset areas annual pest animal action action plan. Stable or downward trend in all offsets (as specified in 2017 pest animal action plan. in population size recorded. Table 4.9, 4.10 and 4.11). plan based on feral fauna Pest numbers appeared to identified during 2016 be stable or decreasing (in monitoring, with emphasis the case of pigs (Sus on the fox (Vulpes vulpes). scrofa)). Compliance = Compliant All biodiversity Particular action is paid to Implementation of favoured fox, feral These feral fauna (with the Implement control offset areas managing foxes, feral cats and cat and feral dog control measures. exception of the cat) were measures for these species feral dogs in order to protect identified in Mountain during 2017. Monitoring of impacts of fox, feral cat the spotted-tailed quoll Block and Bowmans Creek and feral dog control on spotted- population in this area. Riparian Corridor (as tailed quoll population. specified in Table 4.9 and 4.10). Compliance = Assessed in separate program All biodiversity Develop a vertebrate pest Update and maintain vertebrate pest Feral fauna were identified Feed results of feral fauna offset areas control register to document control register. in Mountain Block and identified during 2016 when and where each control Bowmans Creek Riparian monitoring into vertebrate method is implemented. Corridor (as specified in pest control register. Table 4.9 and 4.10). Compliance = Assessed in separate program 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Discussion 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 64 Relevant Offset Action 2016 Performance Indicator Compliance Recommended Actions Area Weed Management Bowmans Creek Complete weed inspections of Inspections completed every two Assessed as part of Undertake weed Riparian Corridor every two months to months, followed by implementation separate inspection management in document diversity and of required control methods, as program; however weeds accordance with abundance of noxious weed required. requiring management Section 6.1 of this report records. were identified for and the 2015 BOMP. Bowmans Creek Riparian Corridor in Section 4.4.2. Evidence of galenia (Galenia pubescens) spraying was evident here and appeared successful. Compliance = Assessed in separate monitoring program Mountain Block and Complete weed inspections Inspections completed every four Assessed as part of Undertake weed Mitchell Hills South every four months to months, followed by implementation separate inspection management in document diversity and of required control methods, as program; however weeds accordance with abundance of noxious weed required. requiring management Section 6.1 of this report records. were identified for and the 2015 BOMP. Mountain Block in Section 4.4.1 and in Mitchell Hills South in Section 4.4.3. Compliance = Assessed in separate monitoring program 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Discussion 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 65 Relevant Offset Action 2016 Performance Indicator Compliance Recommended Actions Area Natural Regeneration Mountain Block and Control of weeds and feral Weed and feral animal control works Targeted weed control Undertake further weed Mitchell Hills South animals in regeneration areas. are completed, as required. works are being and feral animal control in undertaken in Mountain response to priorities Block for coolatai grass identified in this report. (Hyparrhenia hirta), willows (Salix sp.), mother- of millions (Bryophyllum delagoense), golden wreath wattle (Acacia saligna), African olive (Olea europaea subsp. cuspidata) and green cestrum (Cestrum parqui), Feral fauna works are also being undertaken in this area for wild dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) and foxes (Vulpes vulpes). Targeted weed control works are being undertaken in Mitchell Hills South for coolatai (Hyparrhenia hirta), blackberry (Rubus fruticosus) and tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima). Feral fauna works targeting the pig (Sus scrofa), wild dogs 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Discussion 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 66 Relevant Offset Action 2016 Performance Indicator Compliance Recommended Actions Area (Canis lupus familiaris) and foxes (Vulpes vulpes) are also being undertaken in this area. Compliance = Compliant Mountain Block and Confirmation of mapping of Revised in ongoing monitoring works, Assessed as part of this None required Mitchell Hills South areas for regeneration, as needed. program in Section 4.5. including appropriateness of Target revegetation target community communities are appropriate. Natural recruitment is occurring in both offsets Compliance = Compliant Mountain Block and Management of regeneration Monitoring of regeneration areas. Regeneration was Undertake assisted Mitchell Hills South progress is responsive to monitored as part of this plantings as identified in monitoring outcomes. program as indicated in Section 6.3. Section 4.5. Regeneration is occurring in thee offsets to varying degrees. Compliance = Compliant 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Discussion 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 67 Relevant Offset Action 2016 Performance Indicator Compliance Recommended Actions Area Assisted Regeneration Mountain Block and Review need for assisted Natural regeneration. Natural regeneration was Undertake assisted Mitchell Hills South regeneration where outcomes identified in Mountain plantings for areas were no of natural regeneration is Block and in Mitchell Hills regeneration identified in deemed lacking. South. Section 6.3. Compliance = Compliant Rehabilitation Bowmans Creek Detailed mapping and Detailed planning of all works required. Assessed as part of Outcomes of this Riparian Corridor planning of rehabilitation separate inspection monitoring program Mountain Block works required, including program. should feed into Offset Area earthworks, reshaping, slope Compliance = Assessed in rehabilitation planning for stabilisation works, scalping of separate program Bowmans Creek Corridor heavily weeded areas, and Mountain Block fencing, erosion control and revegetation. Bowmans Creek Develop detailed performance To be updated in response To be updated in response Riparian Corridor criteria for all management to these works. to these works. Mountain Block zone types. Compliance = Assessed in Offset Area separate program 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Discussion 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 68 Relevant Offset Action 2016 Performance Indicator Compliance Recommended Actions Area Bowmans Creek Implement rehabilitation/ Implementation of plan. Undertaken as part of Requirements identified in Riparian Corridor revegetation program. separate program. Section 6.0 of this report Mountain Block However log stockpiles to should feed into future Offset Area increase habitat value rehabilitation and were identified in central revegetation works of areas of Bowmans Creek these offsets. Riparian Corridor (although not present within actual monitoring sites). Revegetation works have commenced in northern areas of Bowmans Creek Riparian Corridor Compliance = Compliant Bowmans Creek Positive feedback loop from Feedback from monitoring is To be updated in response To be updated in response Riparian Corridor monitoring results. incorporated into ongoing review and to these works. to these works. improvement of plan. Compliance = Assessed in separate program 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Discussion 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 69 Relevant Offset Action 2016 Performance Indicator Compliance Recommended Actions Area Habitat Augmentation Bowmans Creek Salvage of habitat features Suitable habitat features identified Undertaken as part of Continue to install Riparian Corridor (particularly for the spotted- during the pre-clearing process are separate program. salvaged features in tailed quoll) such as hollow- salvaged. Large log piles have bee Bowmans Creek Riparian bearing trees, logs, stumps, Salvaged features are either re- installed in the central area Corridor as identified in large rocks and boulders. instated into areas with low levels of of Bowmans Creek Section 6.4. habitat features or stockpiled Riparian Corridor. It is appropriately for later use. anticipates that this is part Timber or boulder piles will be of progressive works that constructed in riparian areas and areas will be undertaken. of regeneration, revegetation and/or Compliance = Compliant rehabilitation (as appropriate) to provide potential quoll denning habitat. Bowmans Creek Nest boxes are providing Continue staged installation of nest No nest boxes identified in Undertake nest box Riparian Corridor habitat value for native fauna. boxes. Bowmans Creek Riparian installation works in Corridor. Bowmans Creek Riparian However nest boxes had Corridor. arrived on site at the time of survey and were ready for installation Compliance = Not Compliant 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Discussion 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 70 Relevant Offset Action 2016 Performance Indicator Compliance Recommended Actions Area Bowmans Creek Salvaged–reinstated hollows Established nest boxes are subject to Undertaken as part of Continue to install Riparian Corridor annual inspection and maintenance. separate program. salvaged features in Salvaged and reinstated Bowmans Creek Riparian log piles were identified in Corridor as identified in central areas of Bowmans Section 6.4. Creek Riparian Corridor; however this is not directly occurring in monitoring sites. LCO are currently in the process of undertaking control of established willow (Salix sp) trees in the Bowmans Creek Riparian Corridor. Where appropriate, hollows will be salvaged and utilised within this offset. As will dead woody debris. When identified during pre-clearing surveys and intact after felling, LCO is endeavouring to relocate nests. Compliance = Compliance 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Discussion 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 71 Relevant Offset Action 2016 Performance Indicator Compliance Recommended Actions Area Bowmans Creek Timing of nest box installation Salvaged and re-instated hollows are No nest boxes identified in Undertake nest box Riparian Corridor subject to annual monitoring in Bowmans Creek Riparian installation works in conjunction with nest boxes. Corridor. Bowmans Creek Riparian Compliance = Not yet Corridor. required Bowmans Creek Salvaging, stockpiling and Removed hollows will be replaced Undertaken as part of Continue to install Riparian Corridor deployment of habitat (with nest boxes) within six months of separate program. salvaged features in features each discrete clearing event. Salvaged and reinstated Bowmans Creek Riparian log piles were identified in Corridor as identified in central areas of Bowmans Section 6.4. Creek Riparian Corridor; however this is not directly occurring in monitoring sites. LCO are currently in the process of undertaking control of established willow (Salix sp) trees in the Bowmans Creek Riparian Corridor. Where appropriate, hollows will be salvaged and utilised within this offset. As will dead woody debris. Nest boxes are ready to be installed. Compliance = Partially compliant 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Discussion 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 72 Relevant Offset Action 2016 Performance Indicator Compliance Recommended Actions Area All biodiversity Habitat augmentation will Suitable habitat features are Nest boxes have been Habitat augmentation offset areas occur in Mountain Block and identified and salvaged as part of the purchased for the purpose should be undertaken of Mitchell Hills South offset pre-clearing process. These can then of installation in Mountain these areas in accordance areas if monitoring identifies a be stockpiled until deployment in Block regeneration areas. with Section 6.4 and the dearth of key habitat features target areas once Augmentation with log 2015 BOMP. such as hollows, log piles or rehabilitation/regeneration works are piles and rock piles would boulder piles. complete. also be beneficial. Compliance = Moving towards compliant Nest boxes have been purchased for the purpose of installation in Mitchell Hills South Offsets. Due to access constraints and steep slopes, installation of log and rock piles are not recommended in this area. Compliance = Moving towards compliant 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Discussion 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 73 Relevant Offset Action 2016 Performance Indicator Compliance Recommended Actions Area Translocation All biodiversity Translocation of tiger orchids Tiger orchids are salvaged and None undertaken during To be undertaken on an ‘as offset areas or other threatened flora translocated according to the process 2016. required’ basis species (if encountered during in the BMP as needed. pre-clearing process) to biodiversity offset areas. Methods to be adopted are detailed within the Biodiversity Management Plan. Creek and Drainage Line Protection Bowmans Creek Fencing/protection of LCO Riparian corridor will be fenced from Fencing reparation works None required Riparian Corridor controlled side of riparian human and livestock access. were not identified. corridor. Compliance = Compliant Bowmans Creek Rehabilitation works to Implementation, as needed. Undertaken as part of Riparian Corridor address stabilisation and separate program; erosion issues, as necessary. however if issues were identified during surveys they were noted. Compliance = Assessed in separate program 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Discussion 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 74 Relevant Offset Action 2016 Performance Indicator Compliance Recommended Actions Area Seed Collection All biodiversity Where suitable remnant Pre-clearing surveys identify potential Undertaken as part of To be undertaken as offset areas vegetation is available, seed sources. separate program. required in accordance implementation of seed Seeds are collected, stored and No substantial seeding with the 2015 BOMP. collection and handling handled according to appropriate resources identified during program for use in program. 2016 monitoring. revegetation/rehabilitation works. Collected seed resources are used in Compliance = Assessed in revegetation/rehabilitation works. separate program Erosion Sedimentation and Salinity All biodiversity Undertake erosion and Complete inspection and mapping Undertaken as part of To be undertaken as offset areas sediment inspection and map (year 1). separate program required in accordance areas requiring remediation. Compliance = Assessed in with the 2015 BOMP. separate program All biodiversity Develop remediation plan and Remediation plan developed and Undertaken as part of To be undertaken as offset areas implement. commenced where practical. separate program. required in accordance However acknowledged as with the 2015 BOMP. occurring through a separate program of work. Compliance = Compliant All biodiversity Monitor completed erosion No reparation works To be undertaken as offset areas works and action repairs if identified. required in accordance required. Compliance = Assessed in with the 2015 BOMP. separate program 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Discussion 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 75 Relevant Offset Action 2016 Performance Indicator Compliance Recommended Actions Area Bushfire Management All biodiversity The current Bushfire Implementation of requirements of Undertaken as part of To be undertaken as offset areas Management Plan will be updated Bushfire Management Plan. separate program. required in accordance updated according to the However acknowledged as with the 2015 BOMP. approved modification. occurring through a Bushfire Management Plan separate program of work. will be implemented. No bushfire activity was evident in any of the offset areas. Compliance = Assessed in separate program Monitoring All biodiversity Undertake floristic, fauna, LFA Monitoring program completed and Completed None required offset areas and nest box monitoring reported Compliance = Compliant program All biodiversity Undertake annual inspections Annual inspections completed Completed None required offset areas of LCO rehabilitation and Compliance = Compliant active regeneration areas All biodiversity Native fauna presence in Fauna monitoring completed Completed None required offset areas rehabilitation/regeneration Compliance = Compliant areas 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Discussion 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 76 Table 5.2 Comparison of Monitoring Results to BOMP Checklist and Implementation Schedule Actions/Targets Timeframe Comparison to Mountain Comparison to Bowmans Comparison to Mitchell Block Results Creek Progress Hills South Progress Management and Improvement Actions Install boundary fencing and 100 per cent of necessary Assessed as part of a Assessed as part of a Assessed as part of a signage for the each of the boundary fencing to be separate scope of works; separate scope of works; separate scope of works; LCO biodiversity offset areas, completed in Year 3. however the following however the following however the following as necessary. observations were made: observations were made: observations were made: • Boundary fencing and • Boundary fencing and • Boundary fencing and signage for this site is signage for this site is signage for this site is considered adequate. considered adequate. considered adequate • Internal fences separating • Any replacement of • Internal fences should Mountain Block and fence lines should take be removed. Bowmans Creek Riparian into consideration • Any replacement of Corridor should be allowing passage of fences should be removed native fauna. undertaken in a manner that allows ready passage of native fauna. 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Discussion 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 77 Actions/Targets Timeframe Comparison to Mountain Comparison to Bowmans Comparison to Mitchell Block Results Creek Progress Hills South Progress Routine inspection and Biannual (twice yearly) Assessed as part of a Assessed as part of a Assessed as part of a maintenance of tracks and inspections. Maintenance is separate scope of works; separate scope of works; separate scope of works; fences. required throughout the life however the following however the following however the following of the BOMP. observations were made: observations were made: observations were made: • All track utilised to access • All track utilised to • All track utilised to sites within Mountain access sites within access sites within Block were considered Bowmans Creek were Mitchell Hills were adequate for light vehicle considered adequate for considered adequate for passage. light vehicle passage. light vehicle passage during periods in which • Boundary fences • All fences identified there had been no observed were were adequate; rainfall. considered adequate. however removal of internal fences within • Boundary fences of this • Removal of remaining the offsets should be site were considered to internal boundary fences undertaken to prevent be adequate; however (particularly of barbed impediment to fauna removal of internal wire fences) is movement between property fences recommended to remove offsets. Where possible (particularly barbed wire impediments to fauna it is further fences) should be movement. Where recommended that new undertaken. possible it is further fence lines are of design recommended that new • Where possible it is specification in the fence lines are of design further recommended BOMP. specification in the that new fence lines are BOMP. of design specification in the 2015 BOMP. 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Discussion 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 78 Actions/Targets Timeframe Comparison to Mountain Comparison to Bowmans Comparison to Mitchell Block Results Creek Progress Hills South Progress Establish an effective annual To be commenced in Year 1. Weed control in Mountain Weed control in Bowmans Weed control in Mitchell weed control program across Annually review and revise. Block should contain actions Creek should contain Hills should contain actions all LCO biodiversity offset for target weed species actions for target weed for target weed species areas, as necessary. identified within this report. species identified within identified within this this report. report. Establish an effective annual To be commenced in Year 1. Pest control in Mountain Pest control in Bowmans Pest control in Mitchell Hills pest control program across Annually review and revise. Block should contain actions Creek should contain is not currently considered all LCO biodiversity offset for target feral fauna actions for target feral necessary however should areas, as necessary. identified within this report. fauna identified within this continue to be monitored. report. Undertake weed and pest Commencing Year 1. Weed and pest control in Weed and pest control in Weed control in Mitchell control activities across all Concentrate efforts in DNG Mountain Block should occur Bowmans Creek should Hills South should occur in LCO biodiversity offset areas, areas in Years 1-3 to assist in response to target species occur in response to target response to target species as necessary. natural regeneration. identified within this species identified within identified within this monitoring report. this monitoring report. monitoring report. Feral fauna were not identified however should continue to be monitored. Remove non-strategic stock All non-strategic stock No observed grazing was Grazing observed in No observed grazing was grazing activities from across grazing in the LCO occurring at any of these northern areas of corridor. occurring at any of these all LCO biodiversity offset biodiversity offset areas to monitoring sites. Fence lines are repaired monitoring sites. areas. be ceased in Year 1. where issues identified as Unauthorised stock access apart of routine fenceline to be continually managed. inspections. 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Discussion 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 79 Actions/Targets Timeframe Comparison to Mountain Comparison to Bowmans Comparison to Mitchell Block Results Creek Progress Hills South Progress Establish woodland vegetation Implement assisted natural Assisted planting of WR04 No obvious signs of weed Assisted regeneration of in areas of derived native regeneration activities has previously been control works (with the areas of derived native grassland (DNG) through (weed and pest control, undertaken, however no exception of some strategic grassland in Mitchell Hills assisted natural regeneration. stock removal etc.) in recent plantings have been galenia (Galenia pubescens) South was not observed. Years 1-3. observed in any Mountain were identified in However should be Assess progress towards Block sites. Grazing practices Bowman’s Creek. Targeted undertaken in response to performance indicators and have been removed from management of weed monitoring results. completion criteria during this offset and it is species should be the Year 3 review of the understood that this offset is undertaken as proposed BOMP (incorporating results subject to pest management. within Section 6 of this of inspections and Further assisted natural report. monitoring). regeneration will be It is understood that feral Review the need for active undertaken in response to animal control is revegetation methods after monitoring results. undertaken for predator Year 3 if natural species within this area, regeneration is not and should continue to be progressing appropriately. undertaken to keep feral populations under control. 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Discussion 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 80 Actions/Targets Timeframe Comparison to Mountain Comparison to Bowmans Comparison to Mitchell Block Results Creek Progress Hills South Progress Enhance habitat features in To commence after first Habitat features (such as logs Habitat features (such as Habitat features regeneration and remnant monitoring report is and rock-piles) are lacking in logs and rock-piles) are (particularly logs) are vegetation areas received which will identify the central and southern lacking in the far north and lacking in regenerating scope of works required. areas of this offset. The south of this offset. The areas of this offset; strategic placement of these strategic placement of however are considered features is recommended. these features in these adequate in remnant areas. Hollow-bearing trees were areas is recommended The strategic placement of generally lacking throughout prior to the establishment these features in this offset, with the of vegetation. This will regenerating vegetation exception of the northern prevent damage to recommended. most vegetation. All areas of vegetation if heavy Although hollow-bearing remnant vegetation machinery is required to trees were present in (particularly in the south) as install habitat features. remnant vegetation, it is well as larger trees in Hollow-bearing trees were considered that the value regenerating site WR04 generally lacking of habitat for arboreal would benefit from nest box throughout this offset (with fauna could be improved by installation. the exception of riparian the installation of nest The presence of water vegetation directly within boxes in areas of regrowth resources is considered the riparian zone and vegetation in the centre of adequate in this offset. occasional old paddock the offset. trees). Where appropriate Areas of regenerating hollows salvaged from vegetation are not control works of introduced considered capable of trees (such as willows (Salix supporting nest boxes at sp.) will be reinstated in this point in time. this offset.)It is not considered that any of the regenerating sites have vegetation of an appropriate size for installation of nest boxes to occur. However spotted 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report gum vegetation in the Discussion 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 81 north would benefit from nest box installation. Actions/Targets Timeframe Comparison to Mountain Comparison to Bowmans Comparison to Mitchell Block Results Creek Progress Hills South Progress The presence of water Although there are no resources is considered water reserves within this adequate in this offset. offset, given the steepness of this landscape, installation of dams by way of excavation is not recommended. Offset rehabilitation areas Develop detailed plan in These results and These results and Not relevant to this offset. Year 1 for Bowmans Creek management actions will be management actions will Corridor and specific portion used to inform the ongoing be used to inform the of Mountain Block. rehabilitation plan for ongoing rehabilitation plan Implement in Years 2 and 3. Mountain Block. for Bowmans Creek Corridor. Monitoring Actions Establish a suitable To be completed in Year 1. Monitoring for this offset Monitoring for this offset Monitoring for this offset monitoring program to assess was undertaken during 2016 was undertaken during was undertaken during the success of ongoing and was compared against 2016 and was compared 2016 and was compared management and baseline monitoring results against baseline monitoring against baseline monitoring improvement strategies for progress and results for progress and results for progress and improvement. improvement. improvement. Ecological Monitoring Commence surveys in spring General BOMP monitoring General BOMP monitoring General BOMP monitoring in Year 1, and undertaken as surveys occurred during surveys occurred during surveys occurred during per Table 4.1 for first 5 spring of 2016. Winter bird spring of 2016. Winter bird spring of 2016. Winter bird years. Winter migratory bird monitoring was completed monitoring was completed monitoring was completed monitoring to commence in as a separate series of as a separate series of as a separate series of winter of Year 1. monitoring works and took monitoring works and took monitoring works and took place during winter of 2016. place during winter of place during winter of 2016. 2016. 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Discussion 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 82 Actions/Targets Timeframe Comparison to Mountain Comparison to Bowmans Comparison to Mitchell Block Results Creek Progress Hills South Progress Reporting and Documentation Actions Accurate records are being Ongoing from Year 1. This report forms part of this This report forms part of This report forms part of maintained substantiating all documentation and will be this documentation and will this documentation and will activities and monitoring kept within a managed be kept within a managed be kept within a managed relating to implementation of system where it can be system where it can be system where it can be the BOMP. readily accessed. readily accessed. readily accessed. Collate data on actions Annually from Year 1. The findings of this report The findings of this report The findings of this report implemented and results of will be incorporated into the will be incorporated into will be incorporated into inspections and monitoring Annual Review. the Annual Review. the Annual Review. into the Annual Review. Ecological Monitoring Report Following completion of This monitoring report was This monitoring report was This monitoring report was each monitoring period, completed within three completed within three completed within three within 3 months of each months of completion of months of completion of months of completion of monitoring survey event, monitoring surveys. monitoring surveys. monitoring surveys. commencing Year 1. Update BOMP, including a Every 3 years from Not relevant to this report Not relevant to this report Not relevant to this report revision of management commencement (earlier if actions, performance deemed necessary). indicators and completion criteria. 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Discussion 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 83 Table 5.3 Comparison of 2016 Monitoring Results to Biodiversity Triggers Identified in the BOMP* Key Element Trigger Comparison to Mountain Block Comparison to Bowmans Creek Comparison to Mitchell Hills Results Riparian Corridor Results South Results General Management Protection of Unauthorised stock No observed grazing was occurring Light grazing observed in the north No observed grazing was Remnant access. at any of these monitoring sites. of the corridor. occurring at any of these Vegetation Trigger = Not activated Trigger = Activated monitoring sites. Trigger = Not activated Weed Infestations of noxious No noxious or environmental No noxious or environmental No noxious or environmental Management and environmental weeds (or substantial changes in weeds (or substantial changes in weeds (or substantial changes in weeds are increasing or density) were identified that had density) were identified that had density) were identified that had new species detected. not been identified during baseline not been identified during baseline not been identified during surveys undertaken for this offset. surveys undertaken for this offset. baseline surveys undertaken for Trigger = Not activated Trigger = Not activated this offset. Trigger = Not activated Feral Fauna Infestations of pest No pest animals (or substantial No pest animals (or substantial No pest animals (or substantial Management animals are increasing or changes in occurrence) were changes in occurrence) were changes in occurrence) were new species detected. identified that had not been identified that had not been identified that had not been identified during baseline surveys identified during baseline surveys identified during baseline surveys undertaken for this offset. undertaken for this offset. undertaken for this offset. Trigger = Not activated Trigger = Not activated Trigger = Not activated 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Discussion 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 84 Key Element Trigger Comparison to Mountain Block Comparison to Bowmans Creek Comparison to Mitchell Hills Results Riparian Corridor Results South Results Revegetation Success Species No regeneration of Key indicator species and No regeneration of canopy species No regeneration of canopy composition plants, or indicator recruitment is present at WR04. or key canopy indicator species species were present in WR11; species missing. Trigger = Not activated was present in WR07 or WR09. however a large proportion of However revegetation works are other key midstorey and yet to occur in these areas. groundcover species were present. Trigger = Activated (however expected to improve following Trigger = Partially activated commencement of revegetation activities) Native flora Low flora species Native flora species diversity was Native flora species diversity was Native flora species diversity was diversity diversity or species generally consistent with target either low or not consistent with high or consistent with target diversity not consistent vegetation at WR04. target vegetation at WR07 and vegetation at WR11. with target community. Trigger = Not activated WR09. Trigger = Not activated However revegetation works are yet to occur in these areas. Trigger = Activated (however expected to improve following commencement of revegetation activities) Native fauna Fauna species diversity of Fauna species diversity was Fauna species diversity was Fauna species diversity was diversity rehabilitated areas is broadly consistent with reference broadly consistent with reference broadly consistent with reference inconsistent with sites (however much lower actual sites at WR07 and WR09. sites at WR11. reference communities. usage was observed). Trigger = Not activated Trigger = Not activated Trigger = Not activated 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Discussion 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 85 Key Element Trigger Comparison to Mountain Block Comparison to Bowmans Creek Comparison to Mitchell Hills Results Riparian Corridor Results South Results Tree cover Low or no tree cover. Moderate tree cover was identified No tree cover was identified at No tree cover was identified at at WR04 WR07 or WR09. WR11. Trigger = Not activated However revegetation works are Trigger = Activated yet to occur in these areas. Trigger = Activated (however expected to improve following commencement of revegetation activities) Survivorship Tree dieback (from insect No tree dieback was identified at No tree dieback was identified at No tree dieback was identified at pressure, herbicide drift, site W05 or WR04. site W06, W07, WR07 or WR09. site W09 or WR11 water stress). Trigger = Not activated Trigger = Not activated Trigger = Not activated Weed Patches of exotic annual Patches of exotic and perennial Patches of exotic grasses were Patches of exotic and perennial management and perennial grasses grasses were not present at sites present at sites W06, W07, WR07 grasses were not present at site occur. W05. and WR09. W09 Trigger = Not activated Trigger = Activated Trigger = Not activated Patches of exotic grasses were Patches of exotic grasses were present at WR04. present at sites WR11. Trigger = Activated Trigger = Activated Weed Exotic broadleaf weeds Exotic broadleaf weeds were not Exotic broadleaf weeds were not Exotic broadleaf weeds were not management abundant or dominant. abundant or dominant in, W05, or abundant or dominant in W06 or abundant or dominant in W09 or WR04. W07. WR11. Trigger = Not activated Trigger = Not activated Trigger = Not activated Exotic broadleaf weeds were abundant in WR07 and WR09. Trigger = Activated 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Discussion 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 86 Key Element Trigger Comparison to Mountain Block Comparison to Bowmans Creek Comparison to Mitchell Hills Results Riparian Corridor Results South Results Weed Tree and shrubs present Trees and shrubs were present; Dense exotic groundcover was Dense exotic groundcovers were management but dense exotic ground however with dense exotic identified at site W06, W07, WR07 not identified at sites W09 or cover. groundcover at WR04. and WR09. WR11. Trigger = Activated Trigger = Activated Trigger = Not activated No dense exotic groundcover was identified at sites W05. Trigger = Not activated Native flora Dense stands of Dense stands of colonising trees No colonising of trees or shrubs Dense shrubs are present in diversity colonising tree or shrub are present in WR04. were identified in WR07 or WR09. WR11 species dominate Trigger = Not activated Trigger = Activated Trigger = Not activated regeneration or revegetation areas. This trigger is not relevant to This trigger is not relevant to This trigger is not relevant to reference site W05. reference sites W06 or W07. reference site W09. Trigger = Not activated Trigger = Not activated Trigger = Not activated Habitat Enhancement Habitat Scarcity of key habitat In comparison to references site In comparison to references sites In comparison to references site Enhancement features present in W05, regenerating site WR04 had W06 and W07, regenerating sites W09, regenerating site WR11 had relation to reference a scarcity of habitat features. WR07 or WR09 had a scarcity of a scarcity of habitat features. sites. Trigger = Activated habitat features. Trigger = Activated Trigger = Activated Habitat Habitat features salvaged No salvaged habitat features were Salvaged log piles were identified No salvaged habitat features salvage are damaged during identified. Subsequently no in the centre of Bowmans Creek were identified. Subsequently no salvage or during damage to features was detected. Riparian Corridor, however their damage to features was stockpiling. Trigger = Not activated installation did not cause any detected. damage to established vegetation. Trigger = Not activated Trigger = Not activated 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Discussion 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 87 6.0 Management Recommendations Based on progress against the 2015 BOMP actions, targets, and biodiversity triggers the following recommendations for management of the offset areas have been made. The majority of these recommendations are covered within greater detail within the 2015 BOMP. 6.1 Weed Management Specific weed management is required in response to progress against performance indicators in Table 5.1 and activated triggers identified in Table 5.2. Active weed control works are considered necessary for the following species in the offset areas identified in Table 6.1. 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Management Recommendations 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 88 Table 6.1 Introduced Flora Species Requiring Management and Recommended Actions¹ Weed Species Biodiversity Offsets and Sites Weed Control Recommended Time of Year Action Notes Identified In Recommended prickly pear (Opuntia stricta)# Mountain Block – W05 Garlon and diesel spray Year round Bowmans Creek – W06, W07 tiger pear (Opuntia Bowmans Creek – W07 Garlon and diesel spray Year round aurantiaca)# fireweed (Senecio Mountain Block – W05 and Foliar spray Year round madagascariensis)# WR04 Bowmans Creek- W06, W07, WR07 and WR09 Mitchell Hills – W09 and WR11 galenia (Galenia pubescens) Bowmans Creek – W07 Foliar spray Mid spring to mid autumn African lovegrass (Eragrostis Bowman Creek - W06, WR07 This species is highly invasive Summer This species can be distributed curvula) and WR09 and should be controlled by slashing and thus this before spreading into on- practice is not recommended Mitchell Hills – WR11 infested areas. Foliar spray Rhodes grass (Chloris gayana) Mountain Block – W05 Foliar spray or slashing Spring and summer Bowmans Creek – W07, WR07 and WR09 purpletop (Verbena Mountain Block – W05 Foliar spray Spring and summer bonariensis) Coolatai grass (Hyparrhenia Bowmans Creek – W06, WR09 Foliar spray in areas with low Year round hirta) levels of native species quaking grass (Briza maxima)* Bowmans Creek – W07 Foliar spray Spring and summer 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Management Recommendations 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 89 Weed Species Biodiversity Offsets and Sites Weed Control Recommended Time of Year Action Notes Identified In Recommended Perennial ryegrass (Lolium Bowmans Creek – W06 Foliar spray Spring and summer perenne) oats (Avena sativa)* Bowmans Creek – W07 Slashing Summer ¹ Actions taken from Department of Primary Industries – NSW WeedWise website (2016) # Noxious weeds * Note that management of these species is only required due to their dominance in these particular sites, and were likely planted originally as feed species for cattle. In regular circumstances, it is unlikely that these would usually be highly problematic. Unless otherwise specified, recommended foliar spray is glyphosate 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Management Recommendations 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 90 6.2 Ripping and Seeding The vegetation established at Bowmans Creek Riparian Corridor sites WR07 and WR09 (and indeed the majority of the length of this corridor) is unlikely to recover without substantial intervention. While the current vegetation covers present are providing protection against erosion, supplementary plantings and weed control works alone are unlikely to be enough to recover these sites to native woodland. Supplementary planting activities have commenced in the north of this corridor, and should be continued progressively across other areas of poor native species coverage. In these instances it is recommended that vegetation be subject to ripping, contouring, and re-seeding works. Seed stock utilised should include those listed in Appendix 1 of the 2015 BOMP. Small trial patches of externally sourced mulch could also be placed in these areas to protect against moisture loss. Ripping and seeding activities should be prioritised in large expanses between remnant paddock trees and dams to enhance connectivity. For the vegetation surrounding WR09 species utilised should be specific to those for Central Hunter Box – Ironbark – Ironbark dominated vegetation, and for the vegetation surrounding WR07, species used should be consistent with Narrow-leaved Ironbark Spotted Gum vegetation. 6.3 Supplementary Plantings and Seeding Supplementary plantings will assist in in-filling vegetation where gaps in certain strata have been identified and areas where no natural recruitment has been identified as shown on Figure 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4. Planting recommendations are not limited to the areas bounded by the monitoring plots, and have been inferred to all surrounding vegetation of the same community. Supplementary plantings for remnant and regenerating sites are recommended as provided below in Table 6.2. Table 6.2 Recommended Supplementary Plantings Biodiversity Offset Site Recommended Species List* Mountain Block W05 Midstorey species associated with Narrow-leaved Ironbark Spotted Gum Woodland WR04 Canopy species associated with Central Hunter Box – Ironbark Woodland South east and south Canopy and shrub species associated with Central west (particularly along Hunter Box – Ironbark Woodland eroded tributaries to decrease erosion) North-east Canopy and shrub species associated with Narrow- leaved Ironbark Spotted Gum Woodland Bowmans Creek W06 Midstorey species associated with Narrow-leaved Riparian Corridor Ironbark Spotted Gum Woodland W07 Midstorey and groundcover species associated with Central Hunter Box – Ironbark Woodland 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Management Recommendations 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 91 Biodiversity Offset Site Recommended Species List* WR07 All strata of Narrow-leaved Ironbark Spotted Gum Woodland WR09 All strata associated with Central Hunter Box – Ironbark Woodland North-east All strata associated with Central Hunter – Box – Ironbark Woodland South All strata associated with Central Hunter – Box – Ironbark Angophora Dominated Woodland Mitchell Hills South WR11 Minor infill hand planting of canopy species associated with Spotted Gum Forest South west areas of Minor infill planting of canopy and shrub vegetation of offset species associated with Spotted Gum Forest via hand planting along the hill crest and access track * In accordance with Appendix 1 of the 2015 BOMP For canopy and shrubby vegetation, plantings of seedlings are recommended in selective locations. If possible, these should aim to create initial “corridors” between areas of more appropriate habitat (in particular with a focus on dams and remnant paddock trees). For groundcover species, surface scarification followed by seeding should occur. 6.4 Habitat Augmentation Regenerating and rehabilitation areas were generally seen as being devoid of habitat features. As such, strategic habitat augmentation within offset areas is recommended as per Table 6.3. Table 6.3 Recommended Habitat Augmentation Biodiversity Offset Site Recommended Habitat Augmentation Mountain Block W05 Small number of nest boxes WR04 Strategic log and rock pile emplacement Small number of nest boxes in suitably established trees Southern areas Strategic log and rock pile emplacement Bowmans Creek W06 Nest box emplacement Riparian Corridor WR07 Strategic log and rock pile emplacement WR09 Strategic log and rock pile emplacement 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Management Recommendations 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 92 Biodiversity Offset Site Recommended Habitat Augmentation Southern and Strategic log and rock pile emplacement central end of Hollows and woody debris salvaged from mature willow corridor (Salix sp.) tree control works to be re-instated in depauperate areas once timber confirmed as comprising inert material. Mitchell Hills South Central Areas Nest box emplacement It is recommended that these be placed in strategic locations in this area, as this will assist in providing additional niches for small terrestrial fauna. Nest boxes should be placed in areas with good connectivity with low levels of naturally occurring hollows. These features would be best salvaged from onsite areas that are being cleared to prevent the potential for contamination that could be associated with sourcing non-local features. This rehabilitated vegetation would also benefit from a mulch application; particularly if trying to establish groundcover vegetation to prevent excessive moisture loss. When moving habitat features into rehabilitated vegetation, care should be taken to cause minimal disturbance to tree and shrub species which are establishing in this vegetation. Although regeneration areas of Mitchell Hills South have a paucity of habitat features such as logs and rock piles, due to access constraints and steep slopes, installation of habitat features in these areas is not recommended. 6.5 Feral Fauna Management Feral fauna of greatest potential impact at LCO are those with potential to impact (either via habitat loss or predation) the spotted tailed quoll (Dasyurus maculatus maculatus). Feral fauna management is required in response to progress against performance indicators in Table 5.1 and activated triggers identified in Table 5.2. These species are primarily the pig (Sus scrofa), dog (Canis lupus familiaris), fox (Vulpes vulpes) and the cat (Felis catus). Although cats (Felis catus) were not identified at any of the monitoring sites, this species is highly elusive and is highly likely to be present. Management actions for controlling these species are recommended at the following sites: • Fox (Vulpes vulpes): o Mountain Block o Bowmans Creek • Dog (Canis lupus familiaris): o Mountain Block • Pig (Sus scrofa) 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Management Recommendations 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 93 o Bowmans Creek Riparian Corridor Management actions could include: • Trapping; • Shooting (if LCO can get suitably qualified personnel to complete this work); • Baiting (as appropriate). Observation of the pig (Sus scrofa) and signs of presence were reduced in 2016 from baseline records so control being currently undertaken for this species appears to be effective and should be continued. Greater details of actions required are provided within the 2015 BOMP. 6.6 Redundant Feature Removal Although the existing infrastructure in offset areas is minimal, a number of features are likely to now be redundant and in some cases now inhibiting recovery. This is particularly true in respect of internal fence lines, particularly exposed barbed wire lying on the ground. These are a hazard to fauna species, particularly macropods and should be removed. Fence lines within offset areas (particularly between Mountain Block and Bowmans Creek in the north and within Mitchell Hills South) are no longer considered necessary as they may impede faunal passage between areas. These should no longer be necessary as cattle will no longer be grazing in these areas. All internal fence lines should be gradually removed. Where offset boundary fences have a bottom wire that is barbed, these should be gradually replaced with non-barbed wire as described in greater detail of the 2015 BOMP. Sapling guard bags persist around the bases of several regenerating trees in Mountain Block site WR04. Due to the persistent nature of these and the size of the regenerating trees (some now with a DBH greater than 10cm) these guard bags are currently inhibiting growth. It is recommended that these guard bags be removed. 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Management Recommendations 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 94 7.0 Conclusion Key findings of the 2016 biodiversity offset monitoring program were as follows: • Remnant vegetation is generally in good condition; however some potentially problematic weed species are encroaching in these areas (particularly Site W06 and W07 which have high levels of introduced flora diversity and abundance in the groundcover vegetation). These problematic introduced flora are primarily grasses. • Levels of pig (Sus scrofa) appear to have reduced since the baseline monitoring event, likely as a result of management actions as part of the 2015 BOMP. These actions are likely to be assisting in the local recovery of the spotted-tailed quoll (Dasyurus maculatus maculatus) in these areas, as observed by more records in 2016 than 2015 (during which time none were observed). • Feral fauna species were observed across all offset areas; however no areas were considered to be “infested” by feral fauna. Current management practices seem to be keeping these levels relatively low, however increased attention is warranted for the fox (Vulpes vulpes) which was directed in higher numbers during 2016 compared to 2015. • Vegetation of Bowmans Creek Riparian Corridor is highly disturbed and requires substantial intervention, particularly around WR06, WR07, WR08 and WR09. • Regeneration of canopy species at Mountain Block sites WR04 and Mitchell Hills South site WR11 is progressing well and should not require substantial intervention for recovery. However revegetation sites in Bowmans Creek Riparian Corridor were devoid of recruiting canopy species and requires substantial intervention. • Observed levels of threatened species during the 2016 monitoring event were low across all sites (remnant and regenerating), with the exception of micro-bats which did not discriminate between low and high quality vegetated areas, instead preferring areas in proximity to water resources. Persistence of the presence of micro-bats in these areas could be assisted by the installation of specific nest-boxes in proximate area of habitat • Observed levels of threatened woodland birds also continue to be low. No threatened woodland birds were observed at any of the monitoring sites during the 2016 monitoring event (this does not represent a substantial change from the 2015 baseline results). However the dusky woodswallow (Artamus cyanopterus) and grey-crowned babbler (Pomatostomus temporalis temporalis) (both listed as vulnerable under the TSC Act) were both identified in adjacent areas within LCO landholdings. These species are likely to be influenced by the high levels of fragmentation present and will likely gradually colonise areas as revegetation and regeneration occurs increasing connectivity for these species. Recommendations for the enhancement of existing ecological values and improved rehabilitation/ regeneration are provided in Section 6.0. Umwelt considers that all rehabilitation across Liddell could be improved by enhancement of native biodiversity in all strata by way of direct seeding and planting (particularly of supplementary feed resources). Habitat augmentation works were observed in the form of log piles in Bowmans Creek Riparian Corridor, however all offsets would benefit from further habitat augmentation (particularly nest box installation) and would additionally assist in the colonisation of these areas by a diverse range of fauna species as would the creation of movement corridors between areas of remnant vegetation. 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Conclusion 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 95 8.0 References Austin, M, P, Cawsey, E, M, Baker, B, L, Yialeloglou, M, M, Grice, D, J, and Briggs, S, V 2000. Predicted Vegetation Cover in the Central Lachlan Region. Final report of the Natural Heritage Trust Project AA 1368.97. CSIRO Wildlife and Ecology, Canberra. Birdlife Australia 2016. Birds in Backyards – Bird Finder. Accessed from Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) 2016. Weather Data. Australian Government Bureau of Meteorology. http://www.bom.gov.au/ accessed December 2016. Botanic Gardens Trust 2016. PlantNET – The Plant Information Network System of Botanic Gardens Trust, Sydney, Australia (version 2.0). Braun-Blanquet, J 1927. Pflanzensoziologie. Springer, Vienna. Cogger, H, G. (2014). Reptiles & Amphibians of Australia, Seventh Edition. CSIRO Publishing. Churchill, S 2008. Australian Bats. Reed New Holland, Sydney. Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) 2004. Threatened Species Survey and Assessment: Guidelines for developments and activities (working draft), New South Wales Department of Environment and Conservation, Hurstville, NSW. Department of Primary Industries (2016). NSW WeedWise website. NSW Government. Accessed from http://weeds.dpi.nsw.gov.au/ December 2016 Glencore 2015. Plan for Biodiversity Management – Liddell Glencore. Document number LCO SD PLN 0040 Harden, G, J editor 1992. Flora of New South Wales. Volume 3. Royal Botanic Gardens Sydney & New South Wales University Press, Sydney. Harden, G, J editor 1993. Flora of New South Wales. Volume 4. Royal Botanic Gardens Sydney & New South Wales University Press, Sydney. Harden, G, J editor 2000. Flora of New South Wales. Volume 1. 2nd edition. New South Wales University Press and Royal Botanic Gardens, Sydney. Harden, G, J editor 2002. Flora of New South Wales. Volume 2. Revised edition. Royal Botanic Gardens Sydney & New South Wales University Press, Sydney. Menkhorst, P and Knight, F 2011. A field guide to the Mammals of Australia. Oxford University Press, South Melbourne. Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) (2014) BioBanking Assessment Methodology, September 2014. Peake, T. C. 2006. The Vegetation of the Central Hunter Valley, New South Wales. A Report on the Findings of the Hunter Remnant Vegetation Project. Final Draft Hunter – Central Rivers Catchment Management Authority, Paterson. 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report References 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 96 Poore, M, E, D 1955. The use of phytosociological methods in ecological investigations. I. The Braun- Blanquet system. Journal of Ecology 42: 216-224. Robinson, M 2002. A Field Guide to Frogs of Australia. Australian Museum/Reed New Holland, Sydney. Slater, P, Slater, P, and Slater, R. (2009). The Slater Field Guide to Australian Birds. Reed Natural History. Swan, G, Shea, G, & Sadlier, R 2004. A Field Guide to Reptiles of New South Wales. Reed New Holland, Sydney. Van Dyke, S, and Strahan, R 2008. The Mammals of Australia: Third Edition. Reed New Holland, Sydney. Tongway, D. and Hindley, L, 2005. Landscape function analysis: procedures for monitoring and assessing landscapes with special reference to minesites and rangelands. CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems, Canberra. Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited. 2014. Baseline Biodiversity Assessment of Mitchell Hills Property. Prepared on behalf of Glencore Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited. 2015. Plan of Biodiversity Offset Management. Prepared on behalf of Glencore Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited. In Preparation. Liddell Coal Operations 2015 Biodiversity Monitoring Report. Prepared on behalf of Liddell Coal Operations Wheeler, D, J, B, Jacobs, S, W, L, and Whalley, R, D, B 2002. Grasses of New South Wales, 3rd Edition. The University of New England, Armidale. Wilson, S, and Swan, G 2010. A Complete Guide to Reptiles of Australia. Reed New Holland, Sydney. 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report References 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 97 APPENDIX 1 Year 2016 Performance Indicators Table A1.1 Year 2016 Performance Indicators Relevant Offset Area Action 2015 Performance Indicator Notes Fencing and Signage All biodiversity offset areas Complete inspection of all fencing of Complete inspection of all fencing of Assessed as part of separate biodiversity offset areas to map biodiversity offset areas to map inspection program; however if locations, condition and identify locations, condition and identify issues were identified during need for new fencing or redundant need for new fencing or redundant surveys they were noted. fencing. fencing. All biodiversity offset areas Install or repair boundary fences Assessed as part of separate restricting unauthorised access to inspection program; however if property and controlling livestock issues were identified during movements surveys they were noted. All biodiversity offset areas Any new fencing does not have Assessed as part of separate barbed wire on upper strands and as inspection program; however if little barbed wire generally as issues were identified during possible. The bottom strand will be surveys they were noted. plain wire and elevated to allow faunal passage (while maintaining cattle exclusion). All biodiversity offset areas Removal of redundant fences. Inspection undertaken to identify Undertaken as part of separate redundant fences. inspection program; however if issues were identified during Commence removal of redundant surveys they were noted. fences. 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Appendix 1 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 1 Relevant Offset Area Action 2015 Performance Indicator Notes All biodiversity offset areas Inspections of fences every two Inspections every two months. Assessed as part of separate months to identify condition. inspection program; however if Damaged critical fences to be issues were identified during repaired within 1 week (temporary if surveys they were noted. needed), final repairs and non- critical repairs to be completed in 1 month. All biodiversity offset areas Information signage for the spotted- Signs will be installed along access Undertaken as part of separate tailed quoll. tracks in areas of spotted-tailed quoll inspection program; however if habitat (such as Bowmans Creek issues were identified during Corridor) to alert drivers to potential surveys they were noted. activity. Grazing Management All biodiversity offsets All stock to be removed from No stock grazing Assessed as part of these works. biodiversity offset areas All biodiversity offsets Minimum bi-monthly inspections to To be completed bi-monthly. Undertaken as part of separate determine presence of rogue stock inspection program; however if and assess condition of fences. issues were identified during surveys they were noted. All biodiversity offsets Remove reported rogue stock and Action and remove reported rogue Undertaken as part of separate repair damaged fences. stock and repair damaged fences. inspection program; however if issues were identified during surveys they were noted. 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Appendix 1 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 2 Relevant Offset Area Action 2015 Performance Indicator Notes Track Maintenance All biodiversity offset areas New access tracks (only where Complete due diligence assessments Assessed as part of separate necessary) are subject to due for new access tracks to minimise inspection program; however if diligence assessments. impact on biodiversity, where issues were identified during possible. surveys they were noted. All biodiversity offset areas Minimum twice yearly (nominally in Inspections undertaken nominally in Assessed as part of separate March and September) inspections March and September. inspection program; however if to identify track conditions. issues were identified during Action and repair track damage. surveys they were noted. All biodiversity offset areas Rehabilitation of unnecessary access Tracks no longer required will be Assessed as part of separate tracks. rehabilitated. inspection program; however if issues were identified during surveys they were noted. Pest Management Bowmans Creek Riparian Corridor Complete feral animal inspections of Inspections completed every two Assessed as part of separate biodiversity offset areas every two months, followed by implementation inspection program; however if months to document sighting and of required control methods, as issues were identified during abundance records. This will then required. surveys they were noted. inform ongoing control actions (as needed), including timing, frequency, target species and methods to be used. 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Appendix 1 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 3 Relevant Offset Area Action 2015 Performance Indicator Notes Mountain Block and Mitchell Hills Complete feral animal inspections Inspections completed every four Assessed as part of separate South every four months to document months, followed by implementation inspection program; however if sighting and abundance records. This of required control methods, as issues were identified during will then inform ongoing control required. surveys they were noted. actions (as needed), including timing, frequency, target species and methods to be used. All biodiversity offset areas Develop and implement an annual Develop and implement pest animal Assessed as part of these works. pest animal action plan. action plan. Stable or downward trend in population size recorded. All biodiversity offset areas Particular action is paid to managing Investigation and trials (if Assessed as part of these works. foxes, feral cats and feral dogs in appropriate) into fox, feral cat and order to protect the spotted-tailed feral dog control methods posing quoll population in this area. minimal impact to spotted-tailed quoll population in this area. All biodiversity offset areas Develop a vertebrate pest control Update and maintain vertebrate pest Assessed as part of these works. register to document when and control register. where each control method is implemented. Weed Management Bowmans Creek Riparian Corridor Complete weed inspections of every Inspections completed every two Assessed as part of separate two months to document diversity months, followed by implementation inspection program; however if and abundance of noxious weed of required control methods, as issues were identified during records. required. surveys they were noted. 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Appendix 1 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 4 Relevant Offset Area Action 2015 Performance Indicator Notes Mountain Block and Mitchell Hills Complete weed inspections every Inspections completed every four Assessed as part of separate South four months to document diversity months, followed by implementation inspection program; however if and abundance of noxious weed of required control methods, as issues were identified during records. required. surveys they were noted. Natural Regeneration Mountain Block and Mitchell Hills Control of weeds and feral animals in Weed and feral animal control works Assessed as part of these works. South regeneration areas. are completed, as required. Mountain Block and Mitchell Hills Confirmation of mapping of areas for Completed in first year of monitoring Assessed as part of separate South regeneration, including works. inspection program; however if appropriateness of target issues were identified during community surveys they were noted. Mountain Block and Mitchell Hills Management of regeneration Monitoring of regeneration areas. Assessed as part of these works. South progress is responsive to monitoring outcomes. Assisted Regeneration Mountain Block and Mitchell Hills Review need for assisted Natural regeneration. Assessed as part of these works. South regeneration where outcomes of natural regeneration is deemed lacking. 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Appendix 1 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 5 Relevant Offset Area Action 2015 Performance Indicator Notes Rehabilitation Bowmans Creek Riparian Corridor Detailed mapping and planning of Detailed planning of all works Assessed as part of separate rehabilitation works required, required. inspection program; however if Mountain Block Offset Area including earthworks, reshaping, issues were identified during slope stabilisation works, scalping of surveys they were noted. heavily weeded areas, fencing, erosion control and revegetation. Bowmans Creek Riparian Corridor Develop detailed performance To be updated in response to these criteria for all management zone works. Mountain Block Offset Area types. Bowmans Creek Riparian Corridor Implement rehabilitation/ Undertaken as part of separate revegetation program. program; however if issues were Mountain Block Offset Area identified during surveys they were noted. Bowmans Creek Riparian Corridor Positive feedback loop from Feedback from monitoring is To be updated in response to these monitoring results. incorporated into ongoing review works. and improvement of plan. 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Appendix 1 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 6 Relevant Offset Area Action 2015 Performance Indicator Notes Habitat Augmentation Bowmans Creek Riparian Corridor Salvage of habitat features Suitable habitat features identified Undertaken as part of separate (particularly for the spotted-tailed during the pre-clearing process are program; however if issues were quoll) such as hollow-bearing trees, salvaged. identified during surveys they were logs, stumps, large rocks and noted. Salvaged features are either re- boulders. instated into areas with low levels of habitat features or stockpiled appropriately for later use. Timber or boulder piles will be constructed in riparian areas and areas of regeneration, revegetation and/or rehabilitation (as appropriate) to provide potential quoll denning habitat. Bowmans Creek Riparian Corridor Nest boxes are providing habitat Biodiversity offset areas, areas of Not undertaken during 2015 as nest value for native fauna. remnant vegetation and suitably boxes not currently present. Will be established rehabilitated vegetation undertaken in future monitoring (not in disturbance areas) will be events following installation. supplemented with nest boxes as required. Bowmans Creek Riparian Corridor Salvaged–reinstated hollows Salvaged and re-instated hollows are Not undertaken during 2015 as nest subject to annual monitoring in boxes not currently present. Will be conjunction with nest boxes. undertaken in future monitoring events following installation. 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Appendix 1 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 7 Relevant Offset Area Action 2015 Performance Indicator Notes Bowmans Creek Riparian Corridor Timing of nest box installation Removed hollows will be replaced Undertaken as part of separate (with nest boxes) within six months program; however if issues were of each discrete clearing event. identified during surveys they were noted. Bowmans Creek Riparian Corridor Salvaging, stockpiling and Suitable habitat features are Undertaken as part of separate deployment of habitat features identified and salvaged as part of the program; however if issues were pre-clearing process. These can then identified during surveys they were be stockpiled until deployment in noted. target areas once rehabilitation/regeneration works are complete. All biodiversity offset areas Habitat augmentation will occur in Habitat augmentation, if required. Assessed as part of these works Mountain Block and Mitchell Hills South offset areas if monitoring identifies a dearth of key habitat features such as hollows, log piles or boulder piles. Translocation All biodiversity offset areas Translocation of tiger orchids or Tiger orchids are salvaged and Undertaken as part of separate other threatened flora species (if translocated according to the program; however if issues were encountered during pre-clearing process in the BMP as needed. identified during surveys they were process) to biodiversity offset areas. noted. Methods to be adopted are detailed within the Biodiversity Management Plan. 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Appendix 1 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 8 Relevant Offset Area Action 2015 Performance Indicator Notes Creek and Drainage Line Protection Bowmans Creek Riparian Corridor Fencing/protection of LCO controlled Riparian corridor will be fenced from Undertaken as part of separate side of riparian corridor. human and livestock access. program; however if issues were identified during surveys they were noted. Bowmans Creek Riparian Corridor Rehabilitation works to address Need for stabilisation and erosion Undertaken as part of separate stabilisation and erosion issues, as control works is assessed as part of program; however if issues were necessary. detailed rehabilitation planning. identified during surveys they were Implementation, as needed. noted. Seed Collection All biodiversity offset areas Where suitable remnant vegetation Pre-clearing surveys identify Undertaken as part of separate is available, implementation of seed potential seed sources. program; however if issues were collection and handling program for identified during surveys they were Seeds are collected, stored and use in revegetation/rehabilitation noted. handled according to appropriate works. program. Collected seed resources are used in revegetation/rehabilitation works. Erosion Sedimentation and Salinity All biodiversity offset areas Undertake erosion and sediment Complete inspection and mapping. Undertaken as part of separate inspection and map areas requiring program; however if issues were remediation. identified during surveys they were noted. 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Appendix 1 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 9 Relevant Offset Area Action 2015 Performance Indicator Notes All biodiversity offset areas Develop remediation plan and Undertaken as part of separate implement. program; however if issues were identified during surveys they were noted. All biodiversity offset areas Monitor completed erosion works Undertaken as part of separate and action repairs if required. program; however if issues were identified during surveys they were noted. Bushfire Management All biodiversity offset areas The current Bushfire Management The current Bushfire Management Undertaken as part of separate Plan will be updated according to the Plan will be updated to address the program; however if issues were approved modification. approved modification. identified during surveys they were noted. Bushfire Management Plan will be Implementation of requirements of implemented. updated Bushfire Management Plan. Monitoring All biodiversity offset areas Undertake floristic, fauna, LFA and Monitoring program completed and Assessed as part of these works nest box monitoring program reported All biodiversity offset areas Undertake annual inspections of LCO Annual inspections completed Assessed as part of these works rehabilitation and active regeneration areas All biodiversity offset areas Native fauna presence in Fauna monitoring completed Assessed as part of these works rehabilitation/regeneration areas 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Appendix 1 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 10 APPENDIX 2 Biodiversity Triggers Identified in the 2015 BOMP Table A2.1 Biodiversity Triggers Identified in the 2015 BOMP Key Element Trigger General Management Protection of Remnant Unauthorised stock access. Vegetation Weed Management Infestations of noxious and environmental weeds are increasing or new species detected. Feral Fauna Management Infestations of pest animals are increasing or new species detected. Revegetation Success Species composition No regeneration of plants, or indicator species missing. Native flora diversity Low flora species diversity or species diversity not consistent with target community. Native fauna diversity Fauna species diversity of rehabilitated areas is inconsistent with reference communities. Tree cover Low or no tree cover. Survivorship Tree dieback (from insect pressure, herbicide drift, water stress). Weed management Patches of exotic annual and perennial grasses occur. Weed management Exotic broadleaf weeds abundant or dominant. Weed management Tree and shrubs present but dense exotic ground cover. Native flora diversity Dense stands of colonising tree or shrub species dominate regeneration or revegetation areas. Habitat Enhancement Habitat Enhancement Scarcity of key habitat features present in relation to reference sites. Habitat salvage Habitat features salvaged are damaged during salvage or during stockpiling. Bushfire Management Bushfire Management Unplanned bushfire event occurs. 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Appendix 2 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 1 APPENDIX 3 Flora Species Lists Appendix 3 – Flora Species The following abbreviations or symbols are used in the list: sp. specimens that are identified to genus level only; asterisk (*) denotes species not indigenous to the study area; subsp. subspecies; and var. variety. All vascular plants recorded or collected were identified using keys and nomenclature in Harden (1992, 1993, 2000 & 2002) and Wheeler et al. (2002). Where known, changes to nomenclature and classification have been incorporated into the results, as derived from PlantNET (Botanic Gardens Trust 2016), the on- line plant name database maintained by the National Herbarium of New South Wales. Common names used follow Harden (1992, 1993, 2000 & 2002) where available, and draw on other sources such as local names where these references do not provide a common name. 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Appendix 3 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 1 Table A3.1 – Flora Species Recorded in Mountain Block during the 2015 and 2016 Monitoring Events Family Introduced Scientific Name Common Name Cover Abundance W05 WR04 2015 2016 2015 2016 Filicopsida Pteridaceae Cheilanthes sieberi rock fern 2 1 1 Pteridaceae Cheilanthes distans bristly cloak fern 2 Magnoliopsida (Liliidae) Anthericaceae Dichopogon sp. chocolate lily 2 Cyperaceae Carex inversa 2 Lomandraceae Lomandra multiflora many-flowered mat-rush 1 2 subsp. multiflora Lomandraceae Lomandra filiformis 2 1 2 Phormiaceae Dianella caerulea var blue flax-lily 2 2 caerulea Phormiaceae Dianella sp. 2 1 1 Poaceae Aristida sp. a wiregrass 2 1 2 Poaceae Aristida vagans 2 Poaceae Austrostipa scabra speargrass 1 Poaceae Austrostipa scabra subsp. rough speargrass 2 falcata Poaceae Austrostipa sp. a speargrass 1 Poaceae Austrodanthonia sp. a wallaby grass 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Appendix 3 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 2 Family Introduced Scientific Name Common Name Cover Abundance W05 WR04 2015 2016 2015 2016 Poaceae * Briza subaristata 2 Poaceae * Chloris gayana Rhodes grass 4 Poaceae Cymbopogon refractus barbed wire grass 2 3 Echinopogon ovatus hedgehog grass 2 Poaceae * Eragrostis curvula African lovegrass 2 Eragrostis sp. 2 Poaceae * Melinis repens red natal grass 1 Poaceae Oplismenus aemulus Australian basket grass 1 Poaceae Panicum effusum hairy panic 2 Poaceae * Paspalum dilatatum paspalum 2 Poaceae Poa labillardierei var. tussock 2 labillardierei Poaceae Rytidosperma sp. 1 2 Rytidosperma racemosum 1 Poaceae Rytidosperma setaceum small-flowered wallaby-grass 3 Poaceae Themeda australis kangaroo grass 2 2 Poaceae Unidentifiable grass unidentifiable grass 1 2 Magnoliopsida (Magnoliidae) Acanthaceae Brunoniella australis blue trumpet 2 Anthericaceae Tricoryne elatior yellow Autumn-lily 1 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Appendix 3 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 3 Family Introduced Scientific Name Common Name Cover Abundance W05 WR04 2015 2016 2015 2016 Apocynaceae * Gomphocarpus fruticosus narrow-leaved cotton bush 2 2 Asteraceae Cassinia sp. sifton bush 1 Asteraceae * Gamochaeta sp. 2 Asteraceae * Bidens pilosa cobbler's pegs 2 1 Asteraceae Calotis lappulacea yellow burr-daisy 1 Asteraceae * Conyza bonariensis flaxleaf fleabane 1 1 Asteraceae * Hypochaeris radicata catsear 2 Asteraceae * Senecio madagascariensis fireweed 2 2 2 2 Asteraceae Vernonia cinerea 1 Boraginaceae * Heliotropium amplexicaule blue heliotrope 1 Cactaceae * Opuntia stricta common prickly pear, smooth 1 pest pear Campanulaceae Wahlenbergia sp. bluebell 2 2 1 Casuarinaceae Allocasuarina luehmannii bulloak 4 3 Chenopodiaceae Einadia polygonoides knotweed goosefoot 2 1 1 Chenopodiaceae Einadia nutans subsp. climbing saltbush 1 linifolia Convolvulaceae Dichondra sp. A 1 Dilleniaceae Hibbertia obtusifolia hoary guinea flower 1 1 Fabaceae Daviesia genistifolia broom bitter pea 2 (Faboideae) 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Appendix 3 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 4 Family Introduced Scientific Name Common Name Cover Abundance W05 WR04 2015 2016 2015 2016 Fabaceae Daviesia ulicifolia gorse bitter pea 1 1 1 (Faboideae) Fabaceae Desmodium sp. tick-trefoil 2 (Faboideae) Fabaceae Glycine clandestina twining glycine 2 (Faboideae) Fabaceae Glycine latifolia 2 (Faboideae) Fabaceae Glycine tabacina variable glycine 2 (Faboideae) Fabaceae Glycine tomentella woolly glycine 1 (Faboideae) Fabaceae Jacksonia scoparia dogwood 1 (Faboideae) Fabaceae * Medicago lupulina black medic 2 (Faboideae) Fabaceae Acacia paradoxa kangaroo thorn 2 1 (Mimosoideae) Fabaceae Acacia falcata 2 2 (Mimosoideae) Fabaceae Acacia implexa hickory wattle 2 2 (Mimosoideae) Fabaceae Acacia sp. 1 (Mimosoideae) 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Appendix 3 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 5 Family Introduced Scientific Name Common Name Cover Abundance W05 WR04 2015 2016 2015 2016 Gentianaceae * Centaurium tenuiflorum branched centaury, slender 2 centaury Goodeniaceae Goodenia hederaceae forest goodenia 1 Goodeniaceae Goodenia heterophylla 2 Goodeniaceae Goodenia ovata hop goodenia 1 Goodeniaceae Goodenia sp. 2 Lamiaceae Clerodendrum tomentosum hairy clerodendrum 2 Linaceae Linum marginale native flax 2 1 Lobeliaceae Pratia purpurascens whiteroot 2 1 Malvaceae * Sida rhombifolia paddy's lucerne 1 Moraceae Ficus rubiginosa Port Jackson fig 2 Myoporaceae Eremophila debilis amulla 2 Myrsinaceae * Anagallis arvensis scarlet pimpernel 1 1 Myrtaceae Eucalyptus crebra narrow-leaved ironbark 3 3 3 1 Oleaceae Olea europaea subsp. African olive 2 cuspidata Phyllanthaceae Breynia oblongifolia coffee bush 2 2 Pittosporaceae Bursaria spinosa native blackthorn 2 2 Pittosporaceae Pittosporum undulatum sweet pittosporum 2 2 1 Plantaginaceae * Plantago lanceolata lamb's tongues 1 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Appendix 3 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 6 Family Introduced Scientific Name Common Name Cover Abundance W05 WR04 2015 2016 2015 2016 Plantaginaceae Plantago sp. 1 Rubiaceae Asperula conferta common woodruff 1 Rubiaceae Galium propinquum Maori bedstraw 2 Rubiaceae * Richardia stellaris 2 Solanaceae Solanum brownii violet nightshade 2 Stackhousiaceae Stackhousia sp. 1 Sterculiaceae Brachychiton populneus kurrajong 1 Verbenaceae * Verbena bonariensis purpletop 3 2 Verbenaceae * Verbena rigida var. rigida veined verbena 2 2 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Appendix 3 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 7 Table A3.2 – Flora Species Recorded in Bowmans Creek Riparian Corridor during the 2015 and 2016 Monitoring Events Family Introduced Scientific Name Common Name Cover Abundance W06 W07 WR07 WR09 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 Filicopsida Pteridaceae Cheilanthes bristly cloak fern distans Pteridaceae Cheilanthes sieberi rock fern 2 1 Asparagales Orchidaceae Microtis parviflora slender onion orchid 1 Magnoliopsida (Liliidae) Cyperaceae Carex inversa 1 Cyperaceae Cyperus sp. 2 2 Iridaceae * Romulea rosea 2 2 var. australis Juncaceae Juncus usitatus 2 Poaceae Aristida sp. a wiregrass 1 Poaceae Austrostipa scabra speargrass 2 Poaceae Austrostipa sp. a speargrass 2 2 2 2 Poaceae Austrodanthonia a wallaby grass 2 sp. Poaceae * Avena sativa oats 3 3 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Appendix 3 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 8 Family Introduced Scientific Name Common Name Cover Abundance W06 W07 WR07 WR09 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 Poaceae * Briza maxima quaking grass 3 3 Poaceae * Briza minor shivery grass 2 2 2 Poaceae * Briza sp. 2 2 Poaceae * Briza subaristata 2 3 Poaceae * Bromus 2 catharticus Poaceae * Bromus 2 molliformis Poaceae * Chloris gayana Rhodes grass 3 1 4 3 4 4 Poaceae Cymbopogon barbed wire grass 1 2 3 refractus Poaceae Cynodon dactylon common couch 1 2 Poaceae Dichanthium Queensland bluegrass 3 2 2 sericeum Poaceae Echinopogon forest hedgehog grass 2 ovatus Poaceae * Ehrharta erecta panic veldtgrass 1 Poaceae * Eragrostis curvula African lovegrass 2 3 2 4 4 3 3 Poaceae * Eragrostis sp. a lovegrass 3 Poaceae * Hyparrhenia hirta coolatai grass 2 3 2 Poaceae * Melinis repens red natal grass 2 2 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Appendix 3 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 9 Family Introduced Scientific Name Common Name Cover Abundance W06 W07 WR07 WR09 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 Poaceae * Lolium perenne perennial ryegrass 1 4 2 2 2 Poaceae * Lolium sp. a ryegrass 2 Poaceae * Paspalum paspalum 1 2 dilatatum Poaceae * Phalaris minor 2 2 2 Magnoliopsida (Magnoliidae) Acanthaceae Brunoniella blue trumpet 2 australis Aizoaceae * Galenia pubescens galenia 3 2 2 Apiaceae * Cyclospermum slender celery 2 leptophyllum Apiaceae Daucus native carrot 1 glochidiatus Apocynaceae * Gomphocarpus narrow-leaved cotton 1 2 1 fruticosus bush Asteraceae * Gamochaeta sp. 2 Asteraceae * Bidens pilosa cobbler's pegs 2 1 Asteraceae * Carthamus lanatus saffron thistle 2 Asteraceae Chrysocephalum common everlasting 1 apiculatum Asteraceae * Cirsium vulgare spear thistle 1 1 2 2 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Appendix 3 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 10 Family Introduced Scientific Name Common Name Cover Abundance W06 W07 WR07 WR09 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 Asteraceae * Conyza bonariensis 1 Asteraceae * Conyza sp. a fleabane 2 2 Asteraceae * Hypochaeris catsear 1 2 2 3 2 2 radicata Asteraceae * Senecio fireweed 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 madagascariensis Asteraceae * Sonchus oleraceus common sowthistle 2 1 2 Boraginaceae * Heliotropium blue heliotrope 1 amplexicaule Brassicaceae * Brassica sp. brassica 2 Brassicaceae * Lepidium 1 1 africanum Cactaceae * Opuntia tiger pear 2 1 aurantiaca Cactaceae * Opuntia stricta common prickly pear 1 1 Campanulaceae Wahlenbergia sp. bluebell 1 Campanulaceae Wahlenbergia tufted bluebell 1 communis Caryophyllaceae * Cerastium mouse-ear chickweed 1 1 glomeratum Caryophyllaceae * Silene galica French catchfly 1 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Appendix 3 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 11 Family Introduced Scientific Name Common Name Cover Abundance W06 W07 WR07 WR09 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 Caryophyllaceae * Petrorhagia proliferous pink 1 1 2 1 nanteuilii Caryophyllaceae * Petrorhagia sp. 1 Convolvulaceae Dichondra repens kidney weed 3 2 Convolvulaceae Dichondra sp. A 2 2 Fabaceae Desmodium sp. tick-trefoil 1 (Faboideae) Fabaceae Glycine latifolia 1 (Faboideae) Fabaceae * Medicago arabica 2 (Faboideae) Fabaceae * Medicago lupulina black medic 2 2 (Faboideae) Fabaceae * Medicago burr medic 1 1 (Faboideae) polymorpha Fabaceae * Trifolium arvense haresfoot clover 1 (Faboideae) Fabaceae * Trifolium hop clover 2 2 2 4 (Faboideae) campestre Fabaceae * Trifolium repens white clover 1 2 1 2 5 (Faboideae) 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Appendix 3 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 12 Family Introduced Scientific Name Common Name Cover Abundance W06 W07 WR07 WR09 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 Gentianaceae * Centaurium branched centaury, 2 2 tenuiflorum slender centaury Fabaceae Acacia sp. 1 (Mimosoideae) Geraniaceae Geranium native geranium 1 2 soldanderii Geraniaceae * Geranium sp. 2 Goodeniaceae Goodenia 2 belidiflora Goodeniaceae Goodenia sp. 3 1 Lamiaceae Ajuga australis austral bugle 2 Lobeliaceae Pratia whiteroot 1 purpurascens Linaceae Linum marginale native flax 1 2 Linaceae * Linum trigynum French flax 2 2 Malvaceae * Modiola red-flowered mallow 1 caroliniana Malvaceae * Sida rhombifolia paddy's lucerne 1 1 2 1 2 Moraceae Ficus coronata creek sandpaper fig Myrsinaceae * Anagallis arvensis scarlet pimpernel 1 3 2 2 2 2 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Appendix 3 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 13 Family Introduced Scientific Name Common Name Cover Abundance W06 W07 WR07 WR09 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 Myrtaceae Angophora rough-barked apple 3 3 floribunda Myrtaceae Corymbia spotted gum 5 4 maculata Oleaceae Olea europaea African olive 1 subsp. cuspidata Oxalidaceae Oxalis sp. 2 Phytolaccaceae * Phytolacca inkweed 2 octandra Plantaginaceae * Plantago lamb's tongues 1 2 2 2 2 4 2 3 lanceolata Polygonaceae Rumex brownii swamp dock 1 Polygonaceae Rumex stenoglottis dock 1 Rubiaceae * Galium aparine goosegrass 1 Verbenaceae * Verbena purpletop 2 3 3 3 3 2 bonariensis Verbenaceae * Verbena rigida var. veined verbena 1 2 3 2 rigida 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Appendix 3 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 14 Table A3.3 – Flora Species Recorded in Mitchell Hills South during the 2015 and 2016 Monitoring Events Family Introduced Scientific Name Common Name Cover Abundance W09 WR11 2015 2016 2015 2016 Filicopsida Pteridaceae Cheilanthes distans Bristly cloak fern 1 Pteridaceae Cheilanthes sieberi rock fern 2 1 2 1 Magnoliopsida (Liliidae) Anthericaceae Laxmannia gracilis slender wire lily 1 Cyperaceae Carex inversa 1 1 Cyperaceae Gahnia aspera rough saw-sedge 2 3 Cyperaceae Cyperus sp. 2 Cyperaceae Lepidosperma laterale 2 Cyperaceae Schoenus apogon Bog-rush 2 Lomandraceae Lomandra longifolia 3 Luzuriagaceae Eustrephus latifolius wombat berry 2 Phormiaceae Dianella longifolia 1 1 Phormiaceae Dianella caerulea 2 Poaceae Agrostis sp. 5 Poaceae Aristida ramosa purple wiregrass 3 3 3 Poaceae Aristida sp. a wiregrass 2 Poaceae Aristida vagans 2 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Appendix 3 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 15 Family Introduced Scientific Name Common Name Cover Abundance W09 WR11 2015 2016 2015 2016 Poaceae Austrostipa scabra speargrass 3 Poaceae Austrostipa sp. a speargrass 2 2 3 Poaceae Bothriochloa sp. redgrass, bluegrass 2 Poaceae * Briza minor shivery grass 1 2 Poaceae * Briza subaristata 2 Poaceae * Bromus sp. a brome 2 Poaceae Chloris truncata windmill grass 2 Poaceae Cymbopogon refractus barbed wire grass 2 2 3 Poaceae Echinopogon ovatus forest hedgehog grass 2 Poaceae Echinopogon caespitosus Hedgehog grass 3 Poaceae * Eragrostis curvula African lovegrass 3 4 Poaceae Imperata cylindrica blady grass 2 2 2 3 Poaceae Microlaena stipoides weeping grass 2 2 Poaceae Panicum sp. panicum 4 Poaceae Poa labillardierei var. tussock grass 3 labillardierei Poaceae Sorghum leiocladum wild sorghum 2 3 Poaceae Sporobolus creber slender rat's tail grass 3 Poaceae Themeda triandra kangaroo grass 2 2 3 2 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Appendix 3 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 16 Family Introduced Scientific Name Common Name Cover Abundance W09 WR11 2015 2016 2015 2016 Magnoliopsida (Magnoliidae) Apiaceae Daucus glochidiatus native carrot 2 1 2 1 Apocynaceae * Gomphocarpus fruticosus narrow-leaved cotton bush 1 2 Asteraceae * Bidens pilosa cobbler's pegs 2 2 2 2 Asteraceae Calotis lappulacea yellow burr-daisy 2 1 Asteraceae * Cirsium vulgare spear thistle 1 1 Asteraceae * Conyza sp. a fleabane 1 Asteracea * Conyza bonariensis flaxleaf fleabane 1 2 Asteraceae Chrysocephalum apiculatum) 1 1 * Gamochaeta sp. cudweed 1 Asteraceae * Hypochaeris radicata catsear 2 1 2 Asteraceae * Senecio madagascariensis fireweed 2 1 2 3 Asteraceae Sigesbeckia orientalis subsp. 1 orientalis Asteraceae * Sonchus oleraceus common sowthistle 2 Asteraceae Vernonia cinerea 2 Asteraceae Vittadinia cuneata a fuzzweed 2 1 Asteraceae Vittadinia cervicularis 1 Bignoniaceae Pandorea pandorana wonga wonga vine 1 Campanulaceae Wahlenbergia sp. bluebell 1 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Appendix 3 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 17 Family Introduced Scientific Name Common Name Cover Abundance W09 WR11 2015 2016 2015 2016 Campanulaceae Wahlenbergia communis tufted bluebell 1 2 Caryophyllaceae * Petrorhagia nanteuilii proliferous pink 2 Caryophyllaceae * Petrorhagia sp. 1 Chenopodiaceae Einadia polygonoides knotweed goosefoot 2 Clusiaceae Hypericum gramineum small St. Johns Wort 1 Convolvulaceae Convolvulus erubescens blushing bindweed 1 Convolvulaceae Dichondra repens kidney weed 2 2 2 Convolvulaceae Dichondra sp. A 2 Crassulaceae * Sedum sp. stonecrop 1 Dilleniaceae Hibbertia obtusafolia hoary guinea flower 1 Fabaceae Desmodium brachypodum large tick-trefoil 2 1 1 1 (Faboideae) Fabaceae Desmodium rhytidophyllum 2 (Faboideae) Fabaceae Glycine clandestina twining glycine 2 1 2 2 (Faboideae) Fabaceae Glycine latifolia 1 (Faboideae) Fabaceae Glycine tabacina variable glycine 2 2 (Faboideae) Fabaceae * Medicago lupulina black medic 1 (Faboideae) 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Appendix 3 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 18 Family Introduced Scientific Name Common Name Cover Abundance W09 WR11 2015 2016 2015 2016 Fabaceae Podolobium ilicifolium prickly shaggy pea 2 (Faboideae) Fabaceae * Trifolium campestre hop clover 2 (Faboideae) Fabaceae Vicia sativa vetch 1 (Faboideae) Fabaceae Acacia irrorata green wattle 1 1 (Mimosoideae) Fabaceae Acacia sp. 1 (Mimosoideae) Gentianaceae * Centaurium tenuiflorum branched centaury, slender 1 centaury Gentianaceae * Centaurium sp. 2 Geraniaceae Geranium solanderii 2 Geraniaceae Geranium sp. 1 Goodeniaceae Goodenia bellidiflora 2 Lamiaceae Marrubium vulgare white horehound 1 Linaceae * Linum trigynum French flax 1 Lobeliaceae Pratia purpurascens whiteroot 2 1 2 Luzuriagaceae Eustrephus latifolius wombat berry 1 Malvaceae Brachychiton populneus 1 Malvaceae Sida corrugata corrugated sida 1 1 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Appendix 3 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 19 Family Introduced Scientific Name Common Name Cover Abundance W09 WR11 2015 2016 2015 2016 Myrsinaceae * Anagallis arvensis scarlet pimpernel 1 2 1 Myrtaceae Eucalyptus blakelyi <--> 2 tereticornis Myrtaceae Eucalyptus punctata 2 Myrtaceae Corymbia maculata spotted gum 2 4 Nyctaginaceae Boerhavia dominii tar vine 1 Oleaceae Notelaea longifolia large mock-olive 1 1 Oxalidaceae Oxalis perennans 2 2 Oxalidaceae Oxalis sp. 1 2 Phyllanthaceae Breynia oblongifolia coffee bush 2 Phyllanthaceae Phyllanthus sp. 1 Phyllanthaceae Poranthera microphylla 1 Pittosporaceae Pittosporum undulatum sweet pittosporum 2 2 1 Polygonaceae Rumex brownii swamp dock 1 1 Proteaceae Persoonia linearis narrow-leaved geebung 2 2 Ranunculaceae Clematis glycinoides headache vine 1 2 1 Ranunculaceae Clematis sp.(Colotis?) 1 Rosaceae Acaena novae-zelandiae bidgee-widgee 1 Rubiaceae Asperula conferta common woodruff 1 2 2 Rubiaceae Galium propinquum maori bedstraw 2 1 1 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Appendix 3 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 20 Family Introduced Scientific Name Common Name Cover Abundance W09 WR11 2015 2016 2015 2016 Sapindaceae Dodonaea viscosa subsp. sticky hop-bush 3 3 3 3 spatulata Solanaceae Solanum brownii violet nightshade 2 2 2 Solanaceae * Solanum sp. 1 Verbenaceae * Verbena bonariensis purpletop 2 Verbenaceae * Verbena rigida var. rigida veined verbena 1 2 Vitaceae Tetrastigma nitens 1 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Appendix 3 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 21 APPENDIX 4 Flora Sub-Plot Monitoring Appendix 4 - Flora Sub-Plot Monitoring The following species were recorded during the 2016 monitoring surveys in the sub-plots as described in Section 3.1 of the main text. The following symbol is used in the tables below: * introduced flora species sp. specimen could not be identified to species level; and subsp. subspecies. Table A4.1 and A4.2 presents the documented results of the sub-plot monitoring for vegetation within the mid-storey between 1 metre and 5 metres in height and less than 1 metre in height respectively at the Mountain Block monitoring sites. Table A4.1 –Mountain Block Offset Mid Storey (1-5m) Sub-Plot Data Introduced Common Name Scientific Name W05 WR04 hickory wattle Acacia implexa 3 bulloak Allocasuarina luehmannii 21 native blackthorn Bursaria spinosa 6 Daviesia ulicifolia 2 narrow-leaved ironbark Eucalyptus crebra 2 1 * Balloon cotton bush Gomphocarpus fruticosus 3 Lomandra longifolia 11 Table A4.2 – Mountain Block Offset Groundcover (<1m) Sub-Plot Data Introduced Common Name Scientific Name W05 WR04 Common woodruff Asperula conferta 13 Aristida vagans 5 (10%) * Briza subaristata 12 (10%) native blackthorn Bursaria spinosa 1 poison rock fern Cheilanthes sieberi 2 * Rhodes grass Chloris gayana 1 (5%) barbed wire grass Cymbopogon refractus 10 (85%) Daviesia ulicifolia 3 Dianella sp. 5 wattle mat-rush Lomandra filiformis 3 Plantago sp. 5 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Appendix 4 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 1 Introduced Common Name Scientific Name W05 WR04 Small flower wallaby grass Rytidosperma setaceum 5 (15%) * fireweed Senecio madagascariensis 4 Table A4.3 and A4.4 presents the results of the sub-plot monitoring for vegetation within the mid-storey between 1 metre and 5 metres in height, and less than 1 metre in height respectively at the Bowmans Creek Riparian Corridor monitoring sites. Table A4.3 –Bowmans Creek Riparian Corridor Offset Mid Storey (1-5m) Sub-Plot Data Introduced Common Name Scientific Name W06 W07 WR07 WR09 rough-barked apple Angophora floribunda 2 * purpletop Verbena bonariensis 15 Table A4.4 – Bowmans Creek Riparian Corridor Groundcover (<1m) Sub-Plot Data Introduced Common Name Scientific Name W06 W07 WR07 WR09 * scarlet pimpernel Anagallis arvensis 1 5 (1%) rough-barked apple Angophora floribunda 2 * oats Avena sativa 10 (7%) * shivery grass Briza minor 16 (5%) * Briza subaristaglumis 10 15 (7%) (5%) * Bromus sp. 6 (3%) * Rhodes grass Chloris gayana 4 (20%) * spear thistle Cirsium vulgare 2 Desmodium sp. A 2 (1%) * Eragrostis curvula 5 (5%) * goosegrass Galium aparine 3 1 (2%) * balloon cotton bush Gomphocarpus 1 fruticosus Goodenia belidiflora 2 * catsear Hypochaeris radicata 6 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Appendix 4 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 2 Introduced Common Name Scientific Name W06 W07 WR07 WR09 * perennial ryegass Lolium perenne 15 (25%) * Medicago polymorpha 2 * Petrorhagia nanteuli 1 * lambs tongues Plantago lanceolata 8 40 (10%) Plantago sp. 1 Rytidosperma sp. 5 (4%) * fireweed Senecio 1 madagascariensis * hop clover Trifolium campestre 12 18 12 (5%) (40%) (5%) * white clover Trifolium repens 1 20 (2%) (80%) * purpletop Verbena bonariensis 12 1 Table A4.5 and A4.6 presents the results of the sub-plot monitoring for vegetation within the mid-storey between 1 metre and 5 metres in height and less than 1 metre in height respectively at the Mitchell Hills South monitoring sites. Table A4.5 –Mitchell Hills South Offset Mid Storey (1-5m) Sub-Plot Data Introduced Common Name Scientific Name W09 WR11 Spotted gum Corymbia maculata 3 sticky hop-bush Dodonaea viscosa 7 7 * Balloon cotton bush Gomphocarpus fruticosus 3 Pittosporum undulatum 2 Solanum sp. 1 Table A4.6 – Mitchell Hills Offsetting Groundcover (<1m) Sub-Plot Data Introduced Common Name Scientific Name W09 WR11 Common woodruff Asperula conferta 5 tarvine Boerhavia dominii 1 Carex inversa 10 (4%) poison rock fern Cheilanthes sieberi 8 (2%) barbed wire grass Cymbopogon refractus 10 (20%) 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Appendix 4 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 3 Introduced Common Name Scientific Name W09 WR11 native carrot Daucus glochidiatus 1 3 kidney weed Dichondra repens 1 (4%) Dichondra sp. A 1 (4%) hedgehog grass Echinopogon caespitosus 5 (10%) * African lovegrass Eragrostis curvula 5 (5%) * catsear Hypochaeris radicata 9 (4%) blady grass Imperata cylindrica 10 (5%) Lomandra longifolia 1 Oxalis sp. 1 (3%) whiteroot Pratia purpurascens 15 12 (3%) * fireweed Senecio madagascariensis 20 Bog rush Schoenus apogon 5 * hop clover Trifolium campestre 30 fuzzweed Vittadinia cuneata 1 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Appendix 4 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 4 APPENDIX 5 Fauna Species Lists Appendix 5 - Fauna Species List The following list was developed from surveys undertaken at Liddell Coal Operations, located 15 kilometres north-west of Singleton in the Hunter Valley, NSW. This Appendix lists all fauna species recorded in the following sites: • Mountain Block o W05 o WR04 • Bowmans Creek Riparian Corridor o W06 o W07 o WR07 o WR09 • Mitchell Hills o W09 o WR11 Details of the fauna survey methodologies undertaken are provided in Section 3.0 of the main report. The following abbreviations or symbols are used in the list: V Vulnerable under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act) or EPBC Act. asterisk (*) denotes species not indigenous to the study area. W Species was recorded within the site O Species was identified outside of the site F Species flew over the site D ‘Definite’ identification by ECHO Ecology Pr ‘Probable’ identification by ECHO Ecology Po ‘Possible’ identification by ECHO Ecology SP ‘Species Group’ identified by ECHO Ecology Birds recorded were identified using descriptions in Slater et al. (2009) and the scientific and common name nomenclature of BirdLife Australia. Reptiles recorded were identified using keys and descriptions in Cogger (2014), Swan et al. (2004) and Wilson and Swan (2010) and the scientific and common name nomenclature of Cogger (2014). 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Appendix 5 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 1 Amphibians recorded were identified using keys and descriptions in Cogger (2014) and Robinson (2002) and the scientific and common name nomenclature of Cogger (2014). Mammals recorded were identified using keys and descriptions in Van Dyke and Strahan (2008), Churchill (2008) and Menkhorst and Knight (2011) and the scientific and common name nomenclature of Van Dyke and Strahan (2008). 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Appendix 5 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 2 Table A5.1 - Fauna Species Recorded at Mountain Block Offset Monitoring Sites W05 and WR04 Introduced Scientific Name Common name Conservation W05 WR04 Species Significance 2015 2016 2015 2016 TSC Act EPBC Act Reptiles Gekkonidae Underwoodisaurus milii thick-tailed gecko W Pygopodidae Pygopus lepidopodus common scaly-foot W Varanidae Varanus varius lace monitor W W W Agamidae Amphibolurus muricatus jacky lizard W Scincidae Carlia tetradactyla southern rainbow skink W Ctenotus robustus striped skink W Egernia striolata tree skink W W Liopholis modesta eastern ranges rock skink W unidentified skink W Amphibians Myobatrachidae Platyplectrum ornatum ornate burrowing frog 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Appendix 5 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 3 Introduced Scientific Name Common name Conservation W05 WR04 Species Significance 2015 2016 2015 2016 TSC Act EPBC Act Limnodynastes tasmaniensis spotted marsh frog W Uperolia lavigata smooth toadlet W Hylidae Litoria fallax green reed frog, dwarf tree W W frog Litoria latopalmata broad-palmed frog W Litoria peronii Peron's tree frog W Birds Columbidae Phaps chalcoptera common bronzewing W W W Ocyphaps lophotes crested pigeon W W W Accipitridae Aquila audax wedge-tailed eagle W Charadriidae Vanellus miles masked lapwing W Cacatuidae Cacatua roseicapillus galah O W Cacatua sanguinea little corella F W Cacatua galerita sulphur-crested cockatoo W Psittacidae 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Appendix 5 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 4 Introduced Scientific Name Common name Conservation W05 WR04 Species Significance 2015 2016 2015 2016 TSC Act EPBC Act Trichoglossus haematodus rainbow lorikeet W Glossopsitta concinna musk lorikeet W Platycercus elegans crimson rosella W Platycercus eximius eastern rosella W W W Neophema pulchella turquoise parrot V O Cuculidae Eudynamis orientalis eastern koel W Strigidae Ninox novaeseelandiae southern boobook W Tytonidae Tyto javanica eastern barn owl W Cuculidae Cacomantis flabelliformis fan-tailed cuckoo W W Halcyonidae Dacelo novaeguineae laughing kookaburra O Coraciidae Eurystomus orientalis dollarbird W W Maluridae Malurus cyaneus superb fairy-wren W W 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Appendix 5 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 5 Introduced Scientific Name Common name Conservation W05 WR04 Species Significance 2015 2016 2015 2016 TSC Act EPBC Act Acanthizidae Smicrornis brevirostris weebill W W W Gerygone mouki brown gerygone W Acanthiza lineata striated thornbill W W Acanthiza nana yellow thornbill W Pardalotidae Pardalotus punctatus spotted pardalote W W W Meliphagidae Lichenostomus chrysops yellow-faced honeyeater W Lichenostomus leucotis white-eared honeyeater W W Meliphaga lewinii Lewin's honeyeater W Manorina melanocephala noisy miner W W W W Acanthagenys rufogularis spiny-cheeked honeyeater W Philemon corniculatus noisy friarbird W W Campephagidae Coracina novaehollandiae black-faced cuckoo-shrike W W W Pachycephalidae Pachycephala pectoralis golden whistler W 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Appendix 5 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 6 Introduced Scientific Name Common name Conservation W05 WR04 Species Significance 2015 2016 2015 2016 TSC Act EPBC Act Pachycephala rufiventris rufous whistler W Artamidae Cracticus torquatus grey butcherbird W O W Cracticus nigrogularis pied butcherbird W W W Gymnorhina tibicen Australian magpie O W W W Strepera graculina pied currawong O W Rhipiduridae Rhipidura albiscapa grey fantail W W Corvidae Corvus coronoides Australian raven W O W Corcoracidae Corcorax melanorhamphos white-winged chough W Monarchidae Grallina cyanoleuca magpie-lark W O W Acrocephalidae Acrocephalus australis Australian reed-warbler W Timaliidae 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Appendix 5 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 7 Introduced Scientific Name Common name Conservation W05 WR04 Species Significance 2015 2016 2015 2016 TSC Act EPBC Act Zosterops lateralis silvereye W Mammals Dasyuridae Antechinus flavipes yellow-footed Antechinus W W Dasyurus maculatus V E W maculatus spotted-tailed quoll Sminthopsis murina common dunnart W Dasyurid sp. a marsupial mouse W W Phalangeridae Trichosurus vulpecula common brushtail-possum W W W W Macropodidae Macropus giganteus eastern grey kangaroo W W W Macropus robustus common wallaroo Macropus rufogriseus red-necked wallaby W Tachyglossidae Tachyglossus aculeatus short-beaked echidna W Molossidae Mormopterus norfolkensis eastern freetail-bat V D Pr Mormopterus planiceps D D 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Appendix 5 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 8 Introduced Scientific Name Common name Conservation W05 WR04 Species Significance 2015 2016 2015 2016 TSC Act EPBC Act Mormopterus ridei D Pr Austronomus australis white-striped freetail bat D F D Vespertilionidae Chalinolobus gouldii D Pr D Chalinolobus morio D D Miniopterus australis V D Miniopterus schreibersii V PR Pr oceanensis Scotorepens balstoni PR Pr Vespadelus vulturnus Pr Muridae Rattus sp. A rodent W W Canidae * Canis lupus domestic dog W * Vulpes Vulpes fox W Leporidae * Lepus capensis brown hare W 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Appendix 5 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 9 Table A5.2 - Fauna Species Recorded at Bowmans Creek Riparian Corridor Monitoring Sites W06, W07, WR07 and WR09 Introduced Scientific Name Common name Conservation W06 W07 WR07 WR09 Species Significance 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 TSC EPBC Act Act Reptiles Gekkonidae Underwoodisaurus milii thick-tailed gecko W Varanidae Varanus varius lace monitor W W Agamidae Pogona barbata eastern W W bearded dragon Scincidae Anomalopus leuckartii W Carlia tetradactyla southern W W W rainbow skink Ctenotus robustus striped skink W W W W Egernia striolata tree skink W W Elapidae Pseudechis sp. W 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Appendix 5 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 10 Introduced Scientific Name Common name Conservation W06 W07 WR07 WR09 Species Significance 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 TSC EPBC Act Act Amphibians Myobatrachidae Limnodynastes tasmaniensis spotted marsh W W W frog Uperoleia laevigata smooth toadlet W W W W Hylidae Litoria fallax green reed frog, W W W W dwarf tree frog Litoria latopalmata broad-palmed W W frog Litoria peronii Peron's tree frog W W Litoria tylerii Tyler’s tree frog W Birds Phasianidae Coturnix ypsilophora brown quail W W Anatidae Biziura lobata musk duck W Chenonetta jubata Australian wood W duck 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Appendix 5 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 11 Introduced Scientific Name Common name Conservation W06 W07 WR07 WR09 Species Significance 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 TSC EPBC Act Act Anas superciliosa Pacific black W duck Podicipedidae Tachybaptus Australasian W novaehollandiae grebe Columbidae Ocyphaps lophotes crested pigeon W W Ardeidae Egretta novaehollandiae white-faced W heron Accipitridae Elanus scriptus letter-winged W F F kite Elanus axillaris black-shouldered W F kite Aquila audax wedge-tailed F W F F F eagle Falconidae Falco cenchroides nankeen kestrel W 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Appendix 5 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 12 Introduced Scientific Name Common name Conservation W06 W07 WR07 WR09 Species Significance 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 TSC EPBC Act Act Charadriidae Vanellus miles masked lapwing F W F W Cacatuidae Cacatua roseicapillus galah W W O W Cacatua sanguinea little corella O Cacatua galerita sulphur-crested W - O O cockatoo dead Psittacidae Trichoglossus haematodus rainbow W W O lorikeet Glossopsitta concinna musk lorikeet F Alisterus scapularis Australian king- F F parrot Psephotus haematonotus red-rumped W parrot Platycercus elegans crimson rosella W W Platycercus eximius eastern rosella W F W Strigidae 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Appendix 5 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 13 Introduced Scientific Name Common name Conservation W06 W07 WR07 WR09 Species Significance 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 TSC EPBC Act Act Ninox novaeseelandiae southern O boobook Tytonidae Tyto sp. W Cuculidae Eudynamis orientalis eastern koel W Halcyonidae Dacelo novaeguineae laughing W O kookaburra Maluridae Malurus cyaneus superb fairy- W W W W W wren Pardalotidae Pardalotus punctatus spotted W pardalote Meliphagidae Anthochaera carunculata red wattlebird O Manorina melanocephala noisy miner W W W W Philemon corniculatus noisy friarbird W W O Artamidae 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Appendix 5 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 14 Introduced Scientific Name Common name Conservation W06 W07 WR07 WR09 Species Significance 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 TSC EPBC Act Act Cracticus torquatus grey butcherbird W Cracticus nigrogularis pied butcherbird W W W W O Gymnorhina tibicen Australian W W O W W W W W magpie Strepera graculina pied currawong O W W O O Rhipiduridae Rhipidura leucophrys willie wagtail W W W Corvidae Corvus coronoides Australian raven W W O W W Monarchidae Grallina cyanoleuca magpie-lark O W W W Petrocidae Microeca leucophaea jacky winter W Campephagidae Coracina novaehollandiae black-faced F cuckoo-shrike Hirunidae Hirundo neoxena welcome F swallow Cisticolidae 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Appendix 5 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 15 Introduced Scientific Name Common name Conservation W06 W07 WR07 WR09 Species Significance 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 TSC EPBC Act Act Cisticola exilis golden-headed W W W W cisticola Sturnidae * Sturnus tristis common myna W Estrildidae Taeniopygia bichenovii double-barred W finch Neochmia temporalis red-browed finch W Motacilidae Anthus novaeseelandiae Australasian pipit W W W W W W Mammals Dasyuridae Dasyurus maculatus spotted-tailed V E Fresh W maculatus quoll Scat Dasyurus sp. a marsupial W mouse Phalangeridae Trichosurus vulpecula common W W W brushtail-possum Macropodidae 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Appendix 5 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 16 Introduced Scientific Name Common name Conservation W06 W07 WR07 WR09 Species Significance 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 TSC EPBC Act Act Macropus giganteus eastern grey W W W W W W W kangaroo Macropus robustus wallaroo W W Macropus rufogriseus red-necked W W W W wallaby Tachyglossidae Tachyglossus aculeatus short-beaked W echidna Phalangeridae Isoodon macrourus northern brown W bandicoot Muridae Rattus lutreolus swamp rat W * Rattus rattus black rat W - dead Rattus sp. W W Rhinolophidae Rhinolophus megaphyllus eastern D D horseshoe bat 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Appendix 5 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 17 Introduced Scientific Name Common name Conservation W06 W07 WR07 WR09 Species Significance 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 TSC EPBC Act Act Molossidae Tadarida australis white-striped D D D D freetail-bat Mormopterus norfolkensis eastern freetail- V D D bat Mormopterus planiceps D Mormopterus ridei Pr D Vespertilionidae Miniopterus australis little bentwing- V D bat Miniopterus schreibersii eastern V Pr australis bentwing-bat Chalinolobus gouldii Pr D D D Chalinolobus morio Pr D D Vespadelus darlingtoni Pr Canidae * Canis lupus domestic dog * Vulpes vulpes fox W W W Leporidae * Oryctolagus cuniculus rabbit W 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Appendix 5 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 18 Introduced Scientific Name Common name Conservation W06 W07 WR07 WR09 Species Significance 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 TSC EPBC Act Act * Lepus capensis brown hare W W W Suidae * Sus scrofa pig W W W W Bovidae * Bos taurus cow W W W 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Appendix 5 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 19 Table A5.3 - Fauna Species Recorded at Mitchell Hills South Monitoring Sites W09 and WR11 Introduced Scientific Name Common name Conservation W09 WR11 Species Significance 2015 2016 2015 2016 TSC Act EPBC Act Reptiles Gekkonidae Underwoodisaurus milii thick-tailed gecko W W Agamidae Amphibolurus nobbi ssp. nobbi nobby Amphibolurus sp. W Scincidae Anomalopus leuckartii two-clawed worm-skink W Carlia tetradactyla southern rainbow skink W Ctenotus robustus striped skink W Egernia striolata tree skink W Lampropholis delicata grass skink W Tiliqua scincoides eastern blue-tongued W lizard Elapidae yellow-faced whip W Demansia psammophis snake Pygopodidae 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Appendix 5 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 20 Introduced Scientific Name Common name Conservation W09 WR11 Species Significance 2015 2016 2015 2016 TSC Act EPBC Act Lialis burtonis Burtons legless lizard W Amphibians Hylidae Litoria peronii Peron's tree frog W Birds Phasianidae Coturnix ypsilophora brown quail O Columbidae Lopholaimus antarcticus topknot pigeon W Accipitridae Aquila audax wedge-tailed eagle Psittacidae Platycercus elagans crimson rosella W Platycercus eximius eastern rosella Cuculidae Cacomantis flabelliformis fan-tailed cuckoo W W Halcyonidae Dacelo novaeguineae laughing kookaburra W 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Appendix 5 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 21 Introduced Scientific Name Common name Conservation W09 WR11 Species Significance 2015 2016 2015 2016 TSC Act EPBC Act Climacteridae Corombates leucophaea white-throated W treecreeper Maluridae Malurus cyaneus superb fairy-wren W W Acanthizidae Sericornis frontalis white-browed W scrubwren Smicrornis brevirostris weebill W W W Acanthiza lineata striated thornbill W Acanthiza pusilla brown thornbill W W Gerygone albogularis white-throated gerygone Pardalotidae Pardalotus punctatus spotted pardalote W W Pardalotus striatus striated pardalote Meliphagidae Acanthorhynchus tenuirostris eastern spinebill W Certhionyx variegatus pied honeyeater W Philemon corniculatus noisy friarbird W W 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Appendix 5 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 22 Introduced Scientific Name Common name Conservation W09 WR11 Species Significance 2015 2016 2015 2016 TSC Act EPBC Act Lichenostomus chrysops yellow-faced W Honeyeater Meliphaga lewinii Lewin's Honeyeater W Campephagidae Coracina novaehollandiae black-faced cuckoo- W shrike Pachycephalidae Pachycephala pectoralis golden whistler W Artamidae Gymnorhina tibicen Australian magpie W W W Strepera graculina pied currawong W W W W Rhipiduridae Rhipidura albiscapa grey fantail W W W Corvidae Corvus coronoides Australian raven O W O Corcoracidae Corcorax melanorhamphos white-winged chough W Petrocidae Eopsaltria australis eastern yellow robin W 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Appendix 5 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 23 Introduced Scientific Name Common name Conservation W09 WR11 Species Significance 2015 2016 2015 2016 TSC Act EPBC Act Estrildidae Taeniopygia bichenovii double-barred finch W Mammals Dasyuridae Sminthopsis murina common dunnart W Vombatidae Vombatus ursinus common wombat W W Macropodidae Macropus giganteus eastern grey kangaroo W W Macropus robustus common wallaroo W Macropus rufogriseus red-necked wallaby W Macropus sp. a macropod W Peramelidae northern brown W Isoodon macrourus bandicoot Molossidae Austronomus australis white-striped freetail bat F D F Mormopterus planiceps Pr D Mormopterus ridei Pr D Vespertilionidae 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Appendix 5 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 24 Introduced Scientific Name Common name Conservation W09 WR11 Species Significance 2015 2016 2015 2016 TSC Act EPBC Act Chalinolobus gouldii D Pr D Chalinolobus morio Pr D Muridae Rattus sp. W 016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Appendix 5 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 25 APPENDIX 6 Photographic Monitoring Appendix 6 – Photographic Monitoring The following Appendix contains the results of the baseline photo monitoring undertaken for the biodiversity offset monitoring sites. These photographs were undertaken as per the methods described in Section 3.1.1 of the main report. Terrestrial ecological photo monitoring was undertaken at each of the monitoring sites from the starting point of the 50 m transect facing to the left, centre and to the right. Photographic monitoring undertaken provided is as indicated below: • Mountain Block o W05 facing left, centre and right in Plate A6.1, A6.2 and A6.3 respectively o WR04 facing left, centre and right in Plate A6.4, A6.5 and A6.6 respectively • Bowmans Creek Riparian Corridor o W06 facing left, centre and right in Plate A6.7, A6.8 and A6.9 respectively o W07 facing left, centre and right in Plate A6.10, A6.11 and A6.12 respectively o WR07 facing left, centre and right in Plate A6.13, A6.14 and A6.15 respectively o WR09 facing left, centre and right in Plate A4.16, A4.17 and A4.18 respectively • Mitchell Hills South o W09 facing left, centre and right in Plate A6.19, A6.20 and A6.21 respectively o WR11 facing left, centre and right in Plate A6.22, A6.23 and A6.24 respectively. 2016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Appendix 6 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 1 Plate A6.1 W05 facing left © Umwelt, 2016 Plate A6.2 W05 facing the centre © Umwelt, 2016 2016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Appendix 6 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 2 Plate A6.3 W05 facing right © Umwelt, 2016 Plate A6.4 WR04 facing left © Umwelt, 2016 2016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Appendix 6 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 3 Plate A6.5 WR04 facing the Centre © Umwelt, 2016 Plate A6.6 WR04 facing right © Umwelt, 2016 2016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Appendix 6 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 4 Plate A6.7 W06 facing left © Umwelt, 2016 Plate A6.8 W06 facing the Centre © Umwelt, 2016 2016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Appendix 6 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 5 Plate A6.9 W06 facing right © Umwelt, 2016 Plate A6.10 W07 facing left © Umwelt, 2016 2016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Appendix 6 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 6 Plate A6.11 W07 facing the Centre © Umwelt, 2016 Plate A6. 12 W07 facing right © Umwelt, 2016 2016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Appendix 6 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 7 Plate A6.13 WR07 facing left © Umwelt, 2016 Plate A6.14 WR07 facing the Centre © Umwelt, 2016 2016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Appendix 6 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 8 Plate A6.15 WR07 facing right © Umwelt, 2016 Plate A6.16 WR09 facing left © Umwelt, 2016 2016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Appendix 6 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 9 Plate A6.17 WR09 facing the Centre © Umwelt, 2016 Plate A6.18 WR09 facing right © Umwelt, 2016 2016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Appendix 6 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 10 Plate A6.19 W09 facing left © Umwelt, 2016 Plate A6.20 W09 facing the Centre © Umwelt, 2016 2016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Appendix 6 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 11 Plate A6.21 W09 facing right © Umwelt, 2016 Plate A6.22 WR11 facing left © Umwelt, 2016 2016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Appendix 6 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 12 Plate A6.23 WR11 facing the Centre © Umwelt, 2016 Plate A6.24 WR11 facing right © Umwelt, 2016 2016 Biodiversity Offset Monitoring Report Appendix 6 3122_R18_2016 BOMP Monitoring_V3 13 Newcastle Perth Canberra Sydney Brisbane 75 York Street PO Box 783 PO Box 6135 50 York Street Level 11 Teralba NSW 2284 West Perth WA 6872 56 Bluebell Street Sydney NSW 2000 500 Queen Street First Floor O’Connor ACT 2602 Brisbane QLD 4000 9 Havelock Street West Perth WA 6005 Ph. 02 4950 5322 Ph. 08 6260 0700 Ph. 02 6262 9484 Ph. 1300 793 267 Ph. 1300 793 267 www.umwelt.com.au