Ecological Monitoring Results 1 January 2012 – 31 December 2012

Attachment E:

• Annual Ecological Monitoring Report 2012

• Annual Salinity Offset Scheme Annual Monitoring Report 2012

Ulan Coal Mines Limited ABN 80 000 189 248 Annual Environment Review 1 January 2012 – 31 December 2012 Manager of the Ulan Joint Venture

Ulan Coal Mines Limited 2012 Annual Monitoring Report

Prepared for Ulan Coal Mines Limited

15 March 2013

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

2012 Annual Monitoring Report

PREPARED FOR Ulan Coal Mines Limited

PROJECT NO 11MUDECO -0012

DATE March 13

DOCUMENT TRACKING

ITEM DETAIL Project Name Ulan Coal Ecological Monitoring Program for 2011_2012 Project Number 11MUDECO-0012 W:\Projects\Mudgee\11MUDECO\11MUDECO-0012 Ulan Coal Ecological Monitoring File location Program for 2011_2012\Report\Draft Reports Prepared by Daniel Magdi David Allworth Approved by Bruce Mullins Dr Paul Frazier Status Draft Version Number 9 Last saved on 15 March 2013

Flora monitoring sites BOB14, BOBE1 and RPA9 (Tammy Paartalu, ELA) and Harp trap Cover photo along cliff line at BOB1 (Glenn Hoye, Fly By Night Bat Surveys)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This document has been prepared by Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd with input from Glenn Hoye (Fly By Night Bat Surveys Pty Ltd) and Dr Martin Denny (Biodiversity Monitoring Services) and support from Ulan Coal Mines Limited.

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

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

Executive Summary

Eco Logical Australia (ELA) was engaged by Ulan Coal Mines Limited (UCML) to prepare the 2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report for the mining lease (Project Area) in accordance with the Biodiversity Management Plan (BMP). Condition 44, Schedule 3 of the Project Approval (PA 08_0184) and DSEWPaC approval (EPBC Ref: 2009/5252) required UCML to prepare a BMP.

The BMP was prepared and subsequently revised during 2012 as a result of the Land and Environment Court final orders, issued on 5 April 2012 and a second modification to the Project Approval (MOD2) relating to changes to the Ulan West Mine Plan and Construction Blasting (Umwelt 2012) approved on 29 May 2012.

The ecological monitoring undertaken in 2012 collected baseline and monitoring data required in order to assess the performance of biodiversity management measures and to determine whether both biodiversity offset and cliff line management areas are progressing towards meeting the specific condition improvement targets. The ecological monitoring was undertaken within the following parts of the UCML Project Area:

• Open Cut Extension; • Previous Open Cut Mining Areas; • Surface Infrastructure Areas; • Residual Project Area; • Biodiversity Offset and Cliff line Management Areas, including: o Bobadeen Vegetation Offset Area; o Bobadeen Vegetation Offset Corridor o Bobadeen East Vegetation Offset Area; o Brokenback Conservation Area; o Spring Gully Cliff line Management Area.

Flora data were collected by ELA, terrestrial and aquatic fauna data were collected by Biodiversity Monitoring Services and microchiropteran bat data were collected by Fly By Night Bat Surveys Pty Ltd for the report. Monitoring during 2012 was undertaken at the following sites:

• Flora – continuation of monitoring for all 2011 floristic survey sites, Landscape Function Analysis (LFA) sites and targeted Acacia ausfeldii surveys and the establishment of new sites including an additional six LFA monitoring sites and four new floristic sites within the Bobadeen Vegetation Offset Corridor; • Fauna (excluding microbats) – continuation of monitoring at all 2011 sites and the establishment of two new sites within the Bobadeen Vegetation Offset Corridor; • Microbats – continuation of monitoring at all 2011 sites and the establishment of one new site within the Bobadeen Vegetation Offset Corridor; • Aquatic fauna and riparian habitat – continuation of monitoring at all 2011 sites and the establishment of one new site along the Goulburn River.

Floristic surveys identified a total of 365 species, with 282 native species, 67 introduced species and 16 species that could only be identified to genus level and not confidently classified as either native or

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

introduced. Floristic species diversity varied between sites, with total species identified ranging from 18 species to 62 species per site. Native and introduced species presence also varied within each site, with native species diversity ranging from nine species to 55 species per site and introduced species diversity ranging from 0 species at multiple sites to 33 species per site.

Landscape Function Analysis (LFA) results showed that Landscape Organisation differed between the analogue sites and the rehabilitation sites. Litter was dominant at the majority of the analogue sites (average of 60% cover) followed by grass/sedges and bare soil. Landscape Organisation varied at rehabilitation sites, with one site being dominated by litter and the remaining sites being dominated by a mixture of grass/sedges and bare soil.

Soil Surface Assessment (in LFA) indicated that stability, infiltration and nutrient percentages were generally higher at analogue sites than rehabilitation sites.

Vegetation Dynamics (in LFA) indicated that the structural diversity of the rehabilitation sites is mostly dominated by groundcover (grasses and forbs) and that the analogue site results indicate a structural diversity that should be aimed for in rehabilitation works.

Targeted Acacia ausfeldii surveys collected data for nine seedlings, 34 saplings and 57 mature Acacia ausfeldii. The 2012 survey results for the 100 individual Acacia ausfeldii specimens surveyed, indicate similar results between survey seasons. The condition rating assigned to each specimen during the spring 2011 survey was rated again during the spring 2012 survey. The condition rating increased for 15 %, decreased for 44%, remained the same for 34% and 7% were dead/removed. The average height of the individuals increased from the 2011 survey period to the 2012 survey period, with the average being 1.62m and 1.68m respectively. This indicates that the individual specimen are showing signs of growth, however, notes taken during the 2012 survey on each individual indicates that there are many individuals with dead branches.

The Acacia ausfeldii surveys undertaken during spring 2012 indicated similar results to the previous monitoring period and no triggers outlined within Table 4.8 of the BMP have been reached. Further survey of new growth is recommended to be incorporated into the future monitoring program and ongoing mitigation works for weeds and introduced animals is recommended to continue.

Fauna monitoring identified a total of 24 native and introduced mammals, 144 native and introduced birds, 20 reptiles and six amphibian species. There were 13 native and 11 introduced mammal species. The most common introduced mammal species recorded were the Vulpes vulpes (European Red Fox) and Sus scrofa (Feral Pig).

Bird surveys identified 142 native and two introduced bird species. Eight threatened species listed under the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act) were recorded. No threatened or migratory species listed under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) were recorded. The targeted species Lathamus discolor (Swift Parrot) and Anthochaera phrygia (Regent Honeyeater) were not recorded during the winter bird survey.

Measurements of fauna habitat characteristics indicate that the habitat is of moderate to high quality in terms of value to woodland birds and ground fauna (mammals and reptiles).

Microbat monitoring at the general fauna sites (i.e. analogue and rehabilitation sites, not cliff line sites) during autumn 2012 recorded a total of 13 bat species. Four bat species were recorded from at least half of the sites. Three microbat species listed as vulnerable under the TSC Act and two listed as vulnerable under the EPBC Act were recorded during the autumn 2012 survey period. During the

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

spring 2012 survey, a total of 12 bat species were recorded. Seven bat species were recorded from at least half of the sites. Two microbat species listed as vulnerable under the TSC Act and one listed as vulnerable under the EPBC Act were recorded during the spring 2012 survey period.

Microbat monitoring along cliff line sites recorded a total of 12 bat species during the autumn 2012 surveys. Six of these bat species were recorded from at least half of the sites. Three microbat species listed as vulnerable under the TSC Act and two listed as vulnerable under the EPBC Act were recorded. During the spring 2012 survey, a total of 12 bat species were recorded. Seven of these bat species were recorded from at least half of the sites. Two microbat species listed as vulnerable under the TSC Act and one listed as vulnerable under the EPBC Act were recorded.

One of the subsidence performance measures required is to determine the level of impact on threatened species, populations, habitat or ecological communities. There currently is no evidence that any microbat species have been impacted to any extent by subsidence within the Ulan lease. Monitoring of the current selection of sites has only been undertaken since 2011 and it is too early to assess any changes in either species composition or abundance due to subsidence or other impacts. It is proposed to begin assessing any such trends following proposed microbat monitoring undertaken during 2013.

Aquatic surveys found 2,216 individuals from 52 macroinvertebrate taxa across the 19 sites. The number of taxa recorded in 2012 was higher than that found in 2007 (47) and 2010 (47), but less than the number recorded in 2009 (60) and 2011 (61). Riparian habitat evaluation used the modified RCE system and Rapid Appraisal of Riparian Condition (RARC). Overall RARC scores have been slightly higher in the past at UCML, but the differences are likely within normal variability associated with survey from different people. Bird diversity indices were calculated, including evenness, Simpson’s Index of Diversity, numbers counted and species richness for the birds at each aquatic survey site. These show a wide range of values as is expected when surveying 10 sites within a large area.

Comparisons between the data obtained during the 2011 and the 2012 surveys indicate that there are no significant differences between the years for nearly all indices, with the exception of taxa richness. A greater number of taxa were collected from the aquatic environment in 2011 (15) than in 2012 (12). However, Evenness, Simpson’s Index of Diversity, SIGNAL, Salinity, RCE and RARC showed no significant differences between the years. The difference in the number of taxa collected is possibly due to different sampling conditions in 2011 and 2012. In 2012 half the samples were collected in cold times (autumn) and half when warm (spring), whereas in 2011 all were collected in spring-summer. It may be worth-while considering undertaking all aquatic fauna sampling at the same time, preferably during spring.

Recommendations to improve and enhance the monitoring program are:

• Flora o Based on the generally higher numbers of introduced species within the rehabilitation areas, it is recommended that any works to rehabilitate the offset sites aim to increase native species diversity and cover towards the analogue site levels, with similar species diversity and composition with associated vegetation types. o Mitigation works to control and suppress noxious and environmental weeds, such as Bathurst Burr, Prickly Pear and St. John’s Wort. • LFA o Incorporate revegetation sites scheduled for rehabilitation works in 2014 within the Biodiversity Offset and Cliff line Management Areas into the spring 2013 LFA

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

monitoring program (as outlined within the revised BMP), along with appropriate analogue sites. o Given Vegetation Dynamics data (i.e. densities, height and cover) are not expected to change drastically on an annual basis, particularly for analogue and sites with woody strata, sampling should be undertaken every 3 years. Where active regeneration of a site is undertaken, vegetation dynamics data should be collected annually. • Acacia ausfeldii o An additional method is incorporated into the overall Acacia ausfeldii monitoring program during 2013, targeting the proportion of new growth. This method will include randomly placing 20 quadrats (1m x 1m) within the Acacia ausfeldii population and counting new growth within each quadrat. • Fauna (Microbats) o Eleven sites (MB2D1, MB2D2, BD6D1, BD7D1, BD8D1, BD9D2, SGD2, SGD3, SGD5 and Enth) to be retained for future autumn monitoring. Some additional survey of unsampled clifflines in the Broken Back Domain and Spring Gully should be undertaken to assess if they provide superior sites for long term monitoring. Sites were not sampled in clifflines along Ulan Creek downstream of Old Ulan. These should also be sampled in future surveys to assess their suitability for long term monitoring. o Eight sites (BD5D1, BD6D1, BD7D1, BD8D1, SGD2, UGD1, UGD2 and UGD3), together with SG7 which was not sampled during the current survey are to be retained for spring monitoring. • Aquatic Fauna & Riparian Habitats o Aquatic fauna sampling at the same time, preferably during spring.

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

Contents

Executive Summary ...... iii

Contents ...... vii

List of Figures ...... x

List of Tables ...... xi

Abbreviations ...... xii

1 Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Project area ...... 2 1.2 Biodiveristy management plan ...... 4 1.2.1 Ecological management domains ...... 5 1.2.2 Ecological management domain objectives ...... 5 1.2.3 Ecological monitoring ...... 8

2 Methods ...... 11 2.1 Floristic monitoring...... 11 2.1.2 Residual vegetation monitoring (analogue sites) ...... 11 2.1.3 Revegetation/regeneration area vegetation monitoring ...... 14 2.1.4 Floristic-based subsidence monitoring ...... 14 2.1.5 Comparing floristic monitoring data ...... 14 2.2 Landscape function analysis ...... 17 2.3 Targeted Acacia ausfeldii surveys ...... 19 2.4 Fauna (excluding Microbats) ...... 21 2.5 Fauna (Microbats)...... 26 2.5.1 General fauna monitoring sites ...... 26 2.5.2 Targeted cliff line microbat monitoring ...... 27 2.6 Aquatic fauna & riparian habitats ...... 31 2.6.1 Aquatic macroinvertebrates ...... 32 2.6.2 Birds & other vertebrates ...... 33 2.6.3 Riparian vegetation condition ...... 33 2.7 Weather conditions ...... 35

3 Results ...... 37 3.1 Floristic surveys ...... 37 3.2 Landscape function analysis ...... 45 3.3 Acacia ausfeldii Surveys ...... 49

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

3.4 Fauna (excluding microbats) ...... 51 3.4.1 Mammals (excluding microbats) ...... 51 3.4.2 Birds...... 52 3.4.3 Reptiles ...... 52 3.4.4 Amphibians ...... 53 3.4.5 Fauna habitat ...... 53 3.5 Fauna (microbats)...... 55 3.5.1 General fauna sites ...... 55 3.5.2 Targeted microbat cliff line monitoring ...... 55 3.6 Aquatic fauna & riparian habitats ...... 56 3.6.1 Aquatic macroinvertebrates ...... 56 3.6.2 Riparian Habitat ...... 61 3.6.3 Bird and other vertebrate diversity ...... 61

4 Discussion & recommendations ...... 62 4.1 Floristic monitoring...... 62 4.1.1 Spring data ...... 62 4.1.2 Autumn data ...... 65 4.1.3 Relocated or new sites (Bobadeen Vegetation Offset Corridor) ...... 66 4.1.4 Weeds...... 66 4.1.5 Future Monitoring ...... 66 4.2 LFA ...... 67 4.3 Acacia ausfeldii ...... 67 4.4 Fauna (excluding microbats) ...... 68 4.5 Fauna microbats ...... 69 4.6 Aquatic fauna & riparian habitats ...... 70

5 References ...... 73

Appendix A: Floristic site descriptions ...... 75 Site BOB4 – White Box Woodland ...... 75 Site BOB10 – Derived Native Grassland ...... 76 Site BOB11 – Blakely’s Red Gum Open Forest...... 77 Site BOB13 – Unimproved Pasture ...... 78 Site BOB14 – Derived Native Grassland ...... 80 Site BOB15 – Unimproved Pasture ...... 80 Site BOBE7 – Modified White Box Woodland...... 81 Site RPA3 - Rough-barked Apple Open Forest on Alluvium/Colluvium ...... 81 Site RPA8 – Derived Native Grassland ...... 83 Site RPA15 – Tumbledown Red Gum – Callitris Open Forest on Granite ...... 84 Site BOBC2 – Box-Gum Woodland ...... 87

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

Site BOBC4 –Rough-barked Apple Woodland ...... 88 Site BOBC5 – Ironbark-Cypress Woodland ...... 89 Site BOBC6 – Derived Native Grassland ...... 90

Appendix B: Flora species list ...... 91

Appendix C: LFA & Vegetation Dynamics detailed results ...... 110

Appendix D: Acacia ausfeldii data ...... 153

Appendix E: Fauna monitoring report ...... 159

Appendix F: Microbat monitoring report ...... 160

Appendix G: Aquatic fauna & riparian habitat report ...... 161

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

List of Figures

Figure 1.1: UCML regional location ...... 3

Figure 1.2: UCML Ecological Management Domains ...... 10

Figure 2.1: Residual vegetation monitoring sites ...... 13

Figure 2.2: Revegetation/Regeneration Area vegetation monitoring sites ...... 15

Figure 2.3: Floristic-based subsidence monitoring sites ...... 16

Figure 2.4: LFA monitoring sites ...... 18

Figure 2.5: Acacia ausfeldii population location and quadrats ...... 20

Figure 2.6: Fauna monitoring sites ...... 23

Figure 2.7: Microbat monitoring sites (General fauna sites & targeted cliff line sites) ...... 30

Figure 2.8: Aquatic fauna monitoring sites ...... 34

Figure 3.1: Individual Acacia ausfeldii locations ...... 50

Figure 4.1: Native and exotic species richness recorded at analogue sites in spring 2011 and 2012. ... 62

Figure 4.2: Native and exotic species richness recorded at Revegetation/Regeneration Area Vegetation monitoring sites in spring 2011 and 2012 ...... 63

Figure 4.3: Native and exotic species percentage cover recorded within the ground layer at analogue sites in spring 2011 and 2012 ...... 64

Figure 4.4: Native and exotic species percentage cover recorded within the ground layer at Revegetation/Regeneration Area Vegetation monitoring in spring 2011 and 2012 ...... 65

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

List of Tables

Table 1.1: Management Domain Objectives and actions within the monitoring program ...... 5

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

Table 2.2: Revegetation/regeneration vegetation monitoring sites ...... 14

Table 2.3: LFA analogue and rehabilitation sites ...... 17

Table 2.4: Fauna monitoring sites ...... 21

Table 2.5: Fauna monitoring technique and effort per site ...... 24

Table 2.6: Targeted cliff line microbat monitoring sites ...... 29

Table 2.7: Aquatic fauna and riparian habitat monitoring sites ...... 32

Table 2.8: Weather conditions during the 2012 monitoring period ...... 35

Table 3.1: Floristic survey summary ...... 38

Table 3.2: Landscape Organisation summary ...... 46

Table 3.3: Soil Surface Assessment summary (bare soil, litter & grass) ...... 47

Table 3.4: Vegetation Dynamics summary ...... 48

Table 3.5: Acacia ausfeldii condition and reproductive ratings summary ...... 49

Table 3.6: 2012 Native mammal species captures and observations summary ...... 51

Table 3.7: Threatened bird species recorded during the 2012 autumn and spring monitoring ...... 52

Table 3.8: Habitat characteristics identified during the fauna survey per site (Biodiversity Monitoring Services 2012)...... 54

Table 3.9: Aquatic Macroinvertebrates located at each site AQ1 – AQ8 (Biodiversity Monitoring Services 2012)...... 57

Table 3.10: Aquatic Macroinvertebrates located at each site AQ9 – AQ19 (Biodiversity Monitoring Services 2012)...... 58

Table 3.11: Riparian Habitat Value Scores in 2012 ...... 61

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

Abbreviations

ABBREVIATION DESCRIPTION

BMP Biodiversity Management Plan

BROMP Biodiversity, Rehabilitation and Offset Management Plan

CEEC Critically Endangered Ecological Community

DBH Diameter at breast height

DECCW NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (now OEH)

DP&I Department of Planning and Infrastructure

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

EEC Endangered Ecological Community

ELA Eco Logical Australia

EP&A Act NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

EPBC Act Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

LFA Landscape Function Analysis

LGA Local government area

MNES Matters of national environmental significance

MOP Mining Operations Plan

Mtpa Million tones per annum

MWRC Mid-Western Regional Council

OEH Office of Environment and Heritage

OMP Offset Management Plan

PCQ Point Centered Quarter

RARC Rapid appraisal of riparian condition

RCE Riparian, channel and environmental

RPA Residual project area

SMP Subsidence Management Plan

SSA Soil Surface Assessment

TSC Act Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995

UCML Ulan Coal Mines Limited

XCN Xstrata Coal NSW

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

1 Introduction

UCML is a joint venture between Xstrata Coal Pty Limited (90%) and Mitsubishi Development (10%), Xstrata Coal NSW (XCN) maintains management responsibility for UCML. The mining operations at UCML are one of a number of mining assets owned and/or managed by XCN. In 2010 the Ulan Coal Continued Operations Project was given Project Approval (PA 08_0184) by the NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure (DP&I, formerly NSW Department of Planning) and by the Commonwealth Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (DSEWPaC) (formerly Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and Arts) in November 2010 (EPBC Act ref 2009/5252).

Ulan Coal Mines Limited (UCML) developed a Biodiversity, Rehabilitation and Offset Management Plan (BROMP) (ULN SD EXT 0093) to satisfy the DSEWPaC Approval and the requirements of Condition 44, Schedule 3 of the DP&I approval. This BROMP was approved by DSEWPaC on 18 January 2011.

The BROMP was subsequently revised during 2011 to become the Biodiversity Management Plan (BMP) (ULN SD PLN 0026), which includes the Offset Management Program (OMP), and was approved by DP&I on 20 February 2012 and DSEWPaC on 22 March 2012.

Project Approval (PA 08_0184) was modified (MOD1) on the 7 December 2011 to incorporate the operations as described in the Environmental Assessment titled Ulan Coal Continued Operations North 1 Underground Mining Area, Minor Modification to Ulan No.3 & Ulan West Mine Plans & Proposed Concrete Batching Plant (Umwelt 2011). This Project Approval was subsequently replaced by the Land and Environment Court final orders (for MOD1), issued on 5 April 2012. A second modification to the Project Approval (MOD2) relating to changes to the Ulan West Mine Plan and Construction Blasting (Umwelt 2012) was approved on 29 May 2012. A number of updated and additional conditions were included within the Project Approval to reflect the activities as described within MOD2.

The BMP was subsequently revised during 2012 as a result of the Land and Environment Court final orders and the second modification to the Project Approval (MOD2). The revised BMP was submitted to DP&I and DSEWPaC on 30 November 2012 and is awaiting approval. The BMP includes a framework for ecological monitoring and associated reporting (refer to Section 1.2.2 ).

The BMP requires that an Annual Ecological Monitoring Report be prepared and included within the UCML Annual Review Report in accordance with Condition 3, Schedule 5 of PA 08_0184.

Eco Logical Australia (ELA) was engaged by UCML to prepare the 2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report for the Project Area, in line with the requirements of the BMP. Flora data were collected by ELA, terrestrial and aquatic fauna data were collected by Biodiversity Monitoring Services and microchiropteran bat data were collected by Fly By Night Bat Surveys Pty Ltd for the report.

This 2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report provides details of the methods used, the results obtained, comparisons of 2012 data to previous monitoring periods, potential management actions that can be implemented during 2013 and potential future changes to the monitoring program.

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

1.1 PROJECT AREA UCML is situated in the central west of New South Wales. It is located in the Mid-Western Regional Council (MWRC) Local Government Area (LGA) near the village of Ulan, approximately 38 km north- northeast of Mudgee and 19 km northeast of Gulgong (refer to Figure 1.1).

The Project Area comprises a total of 13,435 ha and is made up of:

• Open Cut Extension – approximately 239 ha and is the extent of the approved open cut operations; • Previous Open Cut Mining Areas – approximately 475 ha of previous open cut mining areas. Some of this area has been rehabilitated while other parts remain as final voids to support future mining activities (water storage, tailings disposal, underground access etc.); • Ulan West Underground Area – the Ulan West area covers 3,093 ha, located to the west of the Ulan No. 3 Underground Area. • Ulan No. 3 Underground Area – an area of 1,704 ha to the north of the current No. 3 underground operations. This area defines the approved underground operations which are expected to be completed in 10 to 18 years • Surface Infrastructure Areas – the 169 ha disturbance area required for construction of underground service infrastructure; • Residual Project Area – the remainder of the Project Area (approximately 11,000 ha) that is not subject to the current project. This includes large areas that have been previously undermined, agricultural grazing land, irrigation pivots and large areas of remnant native vegetation; • Salinity Offset Area – 4460 ha to offset the salt load associated with the operation of the Bobadeen irrigation scheme. • Biodiversity Offset and Cliff line Management Areas, including: o Bobadeen Vegetation Offset Area – 991 ha; o Bobadeen Vegetation Offset Corridor – 124 ha; o Bobadeen East Vegetation Offset Area – 232 ha; o Brokenback Conservation Area – 58 ha; o Spring Gully Cliff line Management Area – 211 ha.

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

Figure 1.1: UCML regional location

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

1.2 BIODIVERISTY MANAGEMENT PLAN UCML developed a BROMP (ULN SD EXT 0093) to satisfy the DSEWPaC Approval (EPBC Ref: 2009/5252) and to satisfy the requirements of Condition 44, Schedule 3 of the DP&I Project Approval (PA 08_0184) where UCML are required to prepare a BMP.

Since this BROMP was approved, UCML have made a number of changes to the document to satisfy the conditions of 08_0184 and Land and Environment Court final orders. These changes include:

• Changing the document name BROMP (ULN SD EXT 0093) to BMP (ULN SD PLN 0026); • Removing the rehabilitation section and adding it to the Integrated Mining Operation Plan (MOP) (ULN SD PLN 0079), which is effectively UCML’s Rehabilitation Management Plan; • Incorporating the relevant requirements of the Salinity Offset Area; • Incorporating the new Project Approval conditions (PA 08_0184) based on the Land and Environment court final orders; • Incorporating Subsidence Management Plan (SMP) approval requirements for North 1 panels; • Adding a new biodiversity offset area, hereafter referred to as the ‘Bobadeen Vegetation Offset Corridor’. This new area will link the Bobadeen Offset Area and Bobadeen East Offset Area; • Identifying management actions and monitoring requirements for the new Bobadeen Vegetation Offset Corridor; • Updating the vegetation mapping across the site as a consequence of further ground- verification in some areas. • Restructuring the document so that the BMP includes the Offset Management Plan (OMP) (ULN SD ANN 0048) – Appendix 1 & Bushfire Management Plan (ULN SD ANN 0053) – Appendix 2.

The revised BMP was submitted to DP&I and DSEWPaC for approval on 30 November 2012. The revised BMP provides the framework for the overall UCML Biodiversity Management Structure. As part of this structure, the UCML Integrated Mining Operations Plan (ULN SD PLN 0079), Offset Management Program (ULN SD ANN 0048) and Bushfire Management Plan (ULN SD ANN 0053) were developed to support the implementation of the BMP. The BMP and associated plans and programs outline the measures required to implement the biodiversity management commitments in the rehabilitation of mined areas and biodiversity offset areas.

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

The previous BMP identified 9 ecological management domains in order to assist in refining targeted ecological management requirements. The revised BMP has added a tenth ecological management domain; Bobadeen Vegetation Offset Corridor. These ecological management domains include:

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

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

1.2.1 Ecological management domains The original nine ecological management domains are described in ELA (2012). The Bobadeen Vegetation Offset Corridor was added to the revised BMP as part of the UCML Biodiversity Offset and Cliff line Management Areas and is described below.

• Bobadeen Vegetation Offset Corridor (124 ha) – This offset has been established to provide a vegetated corridor linking the Bobadeen Vegetation Offset Domain and the Bobadeen East Vegetation Offset Domain. This was required to meet additional project approval requirements as a consequence of a Land and Environment Court judgment and associated Orders. All ecological management domains are presented in Figure 1.2 .

1.2.2 Ecological management domain objectives The objectives for the post-mining rehabilitation areas (Open Cut Domain), the Goulburn River Rehabilitation Domain and each offset domain within the Project Area remain unchanged in the revised BMP, except for the addition of objectives for the Bobadeen Vegetation Offset Corridor. Objectives for these domains are outlined in ELA (2012). Objectives for the Bobadeen Vegetation Offset Corridor are provided below:

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

The overall objectives of the each management domain and the required actions within the monitoring program are listed in Table 1.1 .

Table 1.1: Management Domain Objectives and actions within the monitoring program

OBJECTIVE ACTIONS IN THE MONITORING PROGRAM

Open Cut Domain

To create a stable final landform with acceptable post- mining land use capability, being self-sustaining native Floristic monitoring and comparisons of plot data. vegetation communities characteristic of the pre-mining composition.

To rehabilitate and revegetate the post-mining areas progressively over the life of the mine, as soon as NA practicable after mining disturbance and reforming of the landscape.

To minimise the disturbed area at any point in time. NA

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

OBJECTIVE ACTIONS IN THE MONITORING PROGRAM

To use the indicative revegetation strategy developed within the Ulan Coal EA (Umwelt 2009) to return self- NA sustaining native vegetation communities to the post- mining open cut area.

To rehabilitate the post-mining Open Cut Disturbance Area Floristic survey with comparisons to analogue sites. with the aim of emulating the pre-mining environment, and enhancing local and regional ecological linkages across the Fauna survey identifying nomadic or transient Project Area and adjoining areas. species, and woodland and forest species.

To use local provenance species for revegetation works, unless conditions such as seed availability or climate NA demand require the use of species from a wider region.

To re-establish a variety of vegetation types to increase the value of this revegetation for fauna species, particularly NA threatened species.

Floristic survey - improved condition, richness and To undertake revegetation works that aim at reducing the structural diversity of unimproved pasture representation of Unimproved Pasture within the post- resembling pre mining vegetation communities. mining landscape, replacing this with woodland and forest communities, to provide increased fauna habitat within the Observations of fauna habitat – structural post-mining Open Cut Disturbance Area. complexity, litter, woody debris and logs.

To undertake post-mining landscaping with species Floristic survey to see if species assemblage characteristic of Grey Box Woodland and Ironbark Open matches Grey Box Woodland and Ironbark Open Forest Complex on Sandstone communities. Forest Complex on Sandstone.

To include Acacia ausfeldii in revegetation works for the rehabilitation of the post-mining Open Cut Disturbance Noting presence of Acacia ausfeldii. Area.

Salinity Offset Area

Reduce the percentage of bare ground. Noted in floristic survey.

Regeneration of woody vegetation (Department of Land Noted in floristic survey. and Water Conservation, 2003).

Goulburn River Rehabilitation Domain

To improve the overall aesthetic appearance of the diversion, particularly for sections of the diversion that are NA highly visible from Ulan Road.

To improve the surface drainage controls and vegetation Floristic surveys and comparisons of data over establishment. time.

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

OBJECTIVE ACTIONS IN THE MONITORING PROGRAM

To increase the geomorphic features and ecological NA integrity of the diversion where feasible.

To implement erosion control measures. NA

To strive for a positive improvement on water quality exiting NA the diversion.

To gain community and government acceptance of the NA proposed stability works.

Bobadeen Vegetation Offset Area

To provide an immediate, long-term and direct offset for NA vegetation impacted as a result of the Project.

To protect and improve areas of White Box Woodland Floristic survey and comparisons of data over time. EEC/CEEC vegetation.

Floristic survey with comparisons of data over time. To protect and improve vegetation and habitat connectivity throughout the Project Area. Fauna survey identifying nomadic or transient species, and woodland and forest species.

To protect and enhance fauna habitat, particularly for Fauna survey identifying threatened species. threatened fauna species.

To ensure all management actions within this area are supplementary to, and do not duplicate, the existing NA commitments to the Salinity Offset Area.

To provide monitoring to ensure mitigation strategies are Requires knowledge of mitigation strategies. effective.

Bobadeen East Vegetation Offset Area

To provide an immediate, long-term and direct offset for vegetation lost as a result of the clearing activities of the NA Project.

To protect and improve areas of White Box Woodland Floristic survey and comparisons of data over time. EEC/CEEC within the Project Area.

To protect and enhance fauna habitat, particularly for Fauna survey identifying threatened species. threatened fauna species.

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

OBJECTIVE ACTIONS IN THE MONITORING PROGRAM

To provide monitoring to ensure mitigation strategies are Requires knowledge of mitigation strategies. effective.

Bobadeen Vegetation Offset Corridor

To provide a vegetated corridor linking the Bobadeen NA Offset Domain and Bobadeen East Offset Domain.

Floristic survey with comparisons to analogue sites. To protect and improve vegetation and habitat connectivity throughout the Project Area. Fauna survey identifying nomadic or transient species, and woodland and forest species.

To provide an immediate, long-term and direct offset for vegetation lost as a result of the clearing activities of the NA Project.

To protect and improve areas of Box Gum Woodland Floristic survey and comparisons of data over time. EEC/CEEC within the Project Area.

To protect and enhance fauna habitat, particularly for Fauna survey identifying threatened species. threatened fauna species.

To provide monitoring to ensure mitigation strategies are Requires knowledge of mitigation strategies. effective.

Brokenback Conservation Area and Spring Gully Cliff line Management Area

To provide for the protection and management of cliff line areas (including associated cave habitat) to compensate for that which will be removed as part of the Open Cut NA Disturbance Area, as well as that which may be subject to subsidence-related impacts, such as rock fall.

To protect and enhance fauna habitat, particularly cliff line Microbat survey. areas for habitat specific threatened fauna species.

To provide monitoring to ensure mitigation strategies are Microbat survey and knowledge of mitigation effective. strategies.

1.2.3 Ecological monitoring An integral part of the BMP is the measurement and evaluation of its methodologies and processes. A comprehensive monitoring program was developed to assess the performance of biodiversity management measures and to determine whether both biodiversity offset and cliff line management areas are progressing towards meeting the specific condition improvement targets.

The BMP outlines a monitoring program that is aimed at:

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

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

Ecological monitoring undertaken during 2012 is outlined in Section 2, and includes:

• Flora – continuation of monitoring for all 2011 floristic survey sites, Landscape Function Analysis (LFA) sites and targeted Acacia ausfeldii surveys and the establishment of new sites; six additional LFA monitoring sites and four new floristic plots within the Bobadeen Vegetation Offset Corridor; • Fauna (excluding microbats) – continuation of monitoring at all 2011 sites and the establishment of two new sites within the Bobadeen Vegetation Offset Corridor; • Microbats – continuation of monitoring at all 2011 sites and the establishment of one new site within the Bobadeen Vegetation Offset Corridor; • Aquatic fauna and riparian habitat – continuation of existing monitoring and the establishment of one new site.

The monitoring process and results are documented in this Annual Ecological Monitoring Report.

Monitoring undertaken during 2012 presented within this report fulfils the second monitoring period under the BMP and establishes both baseline data collection (additional floristic and LFA monitoring sites and new fauna sites within the Bobadeen Vegetation Offset Corridor) and continued monitoring for sites in the Project Area.

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

Figure 1.2: UCML Ecological Management Domains

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

2 Methods

Monitoring during 2012 was undertaken in accordance with the methods and survey techniques prescribed in Section 7 of the BMP.

2.1 FLORISTIC MONITORING Floristic monitoring was undertaken at 58 sites across the project area (Figures 2.1-2.3) during autumn and spring 2012 and monitoring included:

• 26 floristic sites in autumn 2012; • 32 floristic sites in spring 2012 (including four within the Bobadeen Vegetation Offset Corridor).

Floristic monitoring was undertaken by Tammy Paartalu, Will Introna, Danielle Bennett and Niels Rueegger of ELA from 16 April to 18 April 2012, 30 April to 2 May 2012, 15 October to 19 October 2012, 22 October to 26 October 2012 and 29 to 31 October 2012. The monitoring consisted of collecting specific biotic and abiotic data at all 58 sites. Floristic monitoring has been split into three targeted categories:

• Residual vegetation monitoring (analogue sites); • Revegetation/regeneration area vegetation monitoring; • Floristic-based subsidence area monitoring.

At each new floristic monitoring site established in 2012, a 20 m x 20 m plot (quadrat) was established. Individual quadrat descriptions have been compiled within Appendix A . Within each floristic quadrat, data were collected in a manner consistent with ELA (2012).

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

2.1.2 Residual vegetation monitoring (analogue sites) Residual vegetation monitoring plots were undertaken within the Residual Project Area, Infrastructure Area, Brokenback Conservation Area, Spring Gully Cliff line Management Area, Bobadeen Vegetation Offset Area, Bobadeen Vegetation Offset Corridor and Bobadeen East Vegetation Offset Area (Figure 2.1 ).

Vegetation monitoring continued at 37 permanent vegetation plots, with 15 within the Residual Project Area, four within the Surface Infrastructure Area, one within the Brokenback Conservation Area, one within the Spring Gully Cliff Line Management Area, eight within the Bobadeen Vegetation Offset Area and four within the Bobadeen East Vegetation Offset Area ( Table 2.1 ). An additional four monitoring plots were established within the Bobadeen Offset Corridor Area and baseline data was collected during spring 2012 (BOBC2, BOBC4, BOBC5 and BOBC6).

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

Table 2.1: Residual vegetation monitoring sites

SITE NUMBERS BY LOCATION BOBADEEN SURFACE BOBADEEN BOBADEEN EAST BROKENBACK SPRING VEGETATION TYPE CORRIDOR RESIDUAL (RPA) INFRASTRUCTURE (BOB) (BOBE) (BB) GULLY (SG) (BOBC) (SI) AUT SPR AUT SPR SPR SPR AUT SPR SPR AUT SPR Ironbark Open Forest Complex on Sandstone BOB3 RPA1 RPA2, BOB7 BOBE4 BOBC5 SI1 BOB8 RPA4 RPA5 Rough-barked Apple Open Forest on BOB5 BOBE3 BOBC4 RPA3 Alluvium/Colluvium Scribbly Gum Woodland - Heathland on Sand RPA6 RPA9 SG1 Plateaux Grey Box Woodland RPA7 Derived Native Grassland BOBC6 RPA 8, RPA11 RPA10 Modified White Box Woodland RPA12 SI3 Blakely’s Red Gum Open Forest BOB6 BOBE2 BOBC2 RPA13 SI2 Unimproved Pasture RPA14 Tumbledown Red Gum - Callitris Open Forest on RPA15 Granite Ironbark Open Forest Complex on Sandstone SI4 Stringybark-Ironbark Open Forest on Sandstone BB1 Slopes White Box Woodland BOB4 BOB1 BOBE1 Narrow-leaved Ironbark Open Forest on BOB2 Alluvium/Colluvium

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

Figure 2.1: Residual vegetation monitoring sites

2012 Annual Ecological M onitoring Report

2.1.3 Revegetation/regeneration area vegetation monitoring 17 vegetation monitoring plots were surveyed as per ELA (2012) (Figure 2.2 and Table 2.2 ).

Table 2.2: Revegetation/regeneration vegetation monitoring sites

LOCATION & SITE NUMBERS BOBADEEN EAST OPEN CUT VEGETATION TYPE BOBADEEN (BOB) (BOBE) (OC) AUT SPR AUT SPR AUT SPR Ironbark Open Forest Complex on Sandstone BOB16 Rough-barked Apple Open Forest on BOBE5 Alluvium/Colluvium Grey Box Woodland OC2 Derived Native Grassland BOB10 BOB14 BOBE6 Modified White Box Woodland BOB12 BOB9 BOBE7, BOBE8 Blakely’s Red Gum Open Forest BOB11 Unimproved Pasture BOB15, OC5 BOB13 Narrow-leaved Ironbark Open Forest on OC1 Alluvium/Colluvium Rehabilitation Post 1997 OC3 Rehabilitation Pre 1997 OC4

2.1.4 Floristic-based subsidence monitoring Vegetation monitoring plots (FBS1 and FBS 2) were surveyed above underground mining areas to monitor the impact of subsidence on vegetation through changes in floristic composition as per ELA (2012) ( Figure 2.3 ).

Two new vegetation monitoring plots (FBS3 and FBS4) were established above each longwall panel not already being monitored as part of the residual vegetation monitoring (Figure 2.3 ).

2.1.5 Comparing floristic monitoring data Floristic data collected in spring 2011 were compared with spring 2012 data. Simple data comparisons are performed between the abundance of natives and exotic species.

Data collected in autumn 2012 provide the basis for comparison in future autumn monitoring periods.

2012 Annual Ecological M onitoring Report

Figure 2.2: Revegetation/Regeneration Area vegetation monitoring sites

2012 Annual Ecological M onitoring Report

Figure 2.3: Floristic-based subsidence monitoring sites

2012 Annual Ecological M onitoring Report

2.2 LANDSCAPE FUNCTION ANALYSIS The LFA monitoring commenced during 2011 sampling within areas that are currently undergoing or having undergone rehabilitation and corresponding analogue sites representative of the vegetation communities. During the 2012 monitoring, LFA monitoring was continued at the eight analogue sites and three active rehabilitation sites across the Project Area ( Table 2.3, Figure 2.4 ). Additional baseline data were collected for an additional two analogue sites and four sites that will be undergoing revegetation and rehabilitation works during 2013 (Table 2.3, Figure 2.4 ). LFA monitoring was consistent with Tongway and Hindley (2005) and described in ELA (2012).

Monitoring was undertaken by Will Introna and Niels Rueegger of ELA from 22 October to 26 October 2012.

Table 2.3: LFA analogue and rehabilitation sites

RESIDUAL OPEN BOBADEEN BOBADEEN VEGETATION COMMUNITIES BOBADEEN PROJECT CUT CORRIDOR EAST AREA AREA Analogue Site Number Narrow-leaved Ironbark Woodland 2 Narrow-leaved Ironbark Open Forest on 4 Alluvium/Colluvium Rough-barked Apple Open Forest 3 She-oak Low Forest on Sandstone Crests 1 Stringybark-Ironbark Open Forest on 8 Sandstone Slopes Grey Box Woodland 7 Blakely’s Red Gum Open Forest 5 White Box Woodland 6 Yellow Box – Red Gum Woodland 13 Ironbark Open Forest Complex on 14 Sandstone Revegetation/Rehabilitation Sites Pre 2001 Rehabilitation Areas (eastern 11 portion) Pre 2001 Rehabilitation Areas (western 10 portion) 2009 Rehabilitation Areas 9

White Box Woodland 15 16 12

Blakely’s Red Gum Open Forest 17

2012 Annual Ecological M onitoring Report

Figure 2.4: LFA monitoring sites

2012 Annual Ecological M onitoring Report

2.3 TARGETED ACACIA AUSFELDII SURVEYS Targeted Acacia ausfeldii monitoring was undertaken within a population of Acacia ausfeldii located along Highett Road (within UCML ownership, approximately 1.5 km south-west of the southern extent of Open Cut Disturbance Area) ( Figure 2.5 ). The monitoring was undertaken by Will Introna and Niels Rueegger of ELA and consisted of collecting specific data for the population of Acacia ausfeldii .

Acacia ausfeldii monitoring was consistent with ELA (2012) and consisted of two techniques:

• Individual surveys; • Quadrat surveys.

Data from the previous survey were compared to identify changes to the health of individuals, threats to their persistence (such as weeds, grazing), changes in surrounding floristic species assemblage and structure and any impacts from mining.

2012 Annual Ecological M onitoring Report

Figure 2.5: Acacia ausfeldii population location and quadrats

2012 Annual Ecological M onitoring Report

2.4 FAUNA (EXCLUDING MICROBATS) Fauna monitoring (excluding microbats) during 2012 was undertaken by Dr Martin Denny of Biodiversity Monitoring Services. Fauna monitoring was undertaken from 15 April to 27 April 2012 and 8 October to 25 October 2012.

Fauna monitoring was undertaken in accordance with the BMP and involved collecting data to continue monitoring pre-mining diversity and abundance of species at sites within representative areas of the Project Area and establish two additional sites within the Bobadeen Vegetation Offset Corridor. All fauna monitoring sites, apart from the two new sites established this year have been subject to previous monitoring.

Fauna monitoring was undertaken within the Biodiversity Offset and Cliff line Management Areas, areas adjoining the Open Cut Area, Residual Project Area and sufficiently established post-mining rehabilitated areas. The location of these monitoring sites allows a comparison between the fauna utilisation of un-impacted vegetation (Residual Project Area), vegetation near to impact areas (adjacent to Approved Project Disturbance Areas), rehabilitated vegetation (post-mining Open Cut), revegetation areas (Bobadeen Vegetation Offset Area, Bobadeen Vegetation Offset Corridor and Bobadeen East Vegetation Offset Area), and areas managed for conservation (Brokenback Conservation Area and Spring Gully Cliff Line Management Area) (Appendix E).

The BMP required 22 monitoring sites across the Project Area. However, two of the suggested sites were located in the Open Cut Extension Area. These sites are to be surveyed post-mining. Therefore, 20 of the 22 sites were surveyed during the autumn and spring 2012 survey period (Table 2.4, Figure 2.6).

Table 2.4: Fauna monitoring sites

LOCATION SITE VEGETATION TYPE FaBOB1 Rough-barked Apple Open Forest on Alluvium/Colluvium FaBOB2 Narrow-leaved Ironbark Open Forest on Alluvium/Colluvium Bobadeen Vegetation Rough-barked Apple Open Forest on Alluvium/Colluvium and Offset Area FaBOB3 Ironbark Open Forest Complex on Sandstone FaBOB4 Ironbark Open Forest Complex on Sandstone Blakely’s Red Gum Open Forest and Ironbark Open Forest FaBOBC1 Bobadeen Vegetation Complex Offset Corridor Stringybark-Ironbark Open Forest on Sandstone Slopes and FaBOBC2 Derived Native Grassland Blakely’s Red Gum Open Forest and Ironbark Open Forest Bobadeen East FaBOBE1 Complex on Sandstone Vegetation Offset Rough-barked Apple Open Forest on Alluvium/Colluvium Area FaBOBE2 (regenerating) and Unimproved Pasture FaSI1 Ironbark Open Forest Complex on Sandstone Ironbark Open Forest Complex on Sandstone and Rough- Surface Infrastructure FaSI2 barked Apple Open Forest on Alluvium/Colluvium Area FaSI3 Rough-barked Apple Open Forest on Alluvium/Colluvium Rough-barked Apple Open Forest on Alluvium/Colluvium and FaSI4 Blakely’s Red Gum Open Forest

2012 Annual Ecological M onitoring Report

LOCATION SITE VEGETATION TYPE Open Cut Area Rehabilitation 2003 Mixed community post 1987 Rehabilitation 1985 Mixed community pre 1987 Spring Gully Cliff Line Ironbark Open Forest Complex on Sandstone Management Area FaSG1 Residual Project Area FaRPA1 Scribbly Gum Woodland/Heathland on Sand Plateaux FaRPA2 Scribbly Gum Woodland/Heathland on Sand Plateaux Narrow-leaved Ironbark Open Forest, Scribbly Gum Woodland/Heathland on Sand Plateaux and Rough-barked FaRPA3 Apple Open Forest on Alluvium/Colluvium FaRPA4 Ironbark Open Forest Complex on Sandstone FaRPA5 Rough-barked Apple Open Forest on Alluvium/Colluvium

The fauna monitoring techniques undertaken during the 2012 autumn and spring survey are similar to those previously conducted within the UCML site since 1994 and followed the standard set of techniques and survey effort established during the 2011 spring monitoring (Appendix E).

The monitoring techniques and effort undertaken during the 2012 autumn and spring period are identified below in Table 2.5 . Detailed methods are included within the Terrestrial Fauna and Habitats report (Biodiversity Monitoring Services 2013) in Appendix E.

2012 Annual Ecological M onitoring Report

Figure 2.6: Fauna monitoring sites

2012 Annual Ecological M onitoring Report

Table 2.5: Fauna monitoring technique and effort per site

SURVEY MONITORING DETAILS PER SITE TECHNIQUE EFFORT PER SITE Elliott Trapping • 25 small (8x10x33 cm) Elliott traps for 4 consecutive nights. • 100 trap nights • Baited with a mixture of rolled oats, peanut butter and bacon fat. Small piece of dacron was placed within each trap (as protection against the cold). • 5 small Elliott traps were mounted on trees at equal distances along • 20 trap nights each transect. • The tree trunk and trap were sprayed with a honey-water mixture to assist in attracting any nectar or sap feeding arboreal mammals. • 2 large Elliott traps. • 8 trap nights • Baited with apple, muesli bar and chicken. Cage Trapping • 3 cage traps were laid on the ground and 3 traps were mounted on • 28 trap nights trees. Spotlighting • Along tracks from a moving vehicle. • Spotlighting on foot was undertaken at each fauna survey site. Hair Funnels • 5 hair funnels (from Faunatech) were set out for 4 nights • 20 trap nights • Baited with a mixture of rolled oats, peanut butter and bacon fat. • Where possible, some of the hair funnels were set onto habitat trees. Glider Traps • 2 vertical plastic tube traps were used as a tree-mounted pit-fall • 24 trap nights trap. Remote • Tree-mounted remote cameras were used to capture images of any Cameras animal using the area, particularly near the traps. • At some sites a small container of bait was placed in front of a camera to attract animals. Bird Surveys • Area-search method was used, involving a 30 minute search • 2 person hours through walking around the site and from a single-point. • Up to four periods of observation were undertaken (two in the morning and two in the late afternoon). Targeted Winter • Vegetation communities that were likely to contain the Swift Parrot • 2 person hours Bird Survey and Regent Honeyeater were surveyed visually. • 37 sites were selected within the potential habitats and two people walked for one hour throughout the site searching for the presence of the Swift Parrot and Regent Honeyeater. Call • Calls were broadcast through a megaphone for approximately 5 Broadcasting minutes, with a 10 minute listening time. • Calls broadcast included Powerful Owl ( Ninox strenua ), Masked Owl ( Tyto novaehollandiae ), Tawny Frogmouth ( Podargus strigoides ), Barking Owl ( Ninox connivens ), Barn Owl ( Tyto alba ), Southern Boobook ( Ninox boobook ) and the White-throated Nightjar (Eurostopodus mystacalis ) as well as the Squirrel Glider ( Petaurus norfolcensis ), Sugar Glider ( Petaurus breviceps), Yellow-bellied Glider ( Petaurus australis ) and Koala ( Phascolarctos cinereus ).

2012 Annual Ecological M onitoring Report

SURVEY MONITORING DETAILS PER SITE TECHNIQUE EFFORT PER SITE Amphibian • Water bodies were searched for frogs. Searches and • At night, each body of water was searched, using spotlights and Call Recording any frog calls recorded. • Stones beside water were turned over during the day and night. Pit fall traps • Pit fall traps were established at a number of the monitoring sites. • A series of 20 litre buckets was used, together with drift fencing made from wire gauze. • At all sites buckets were dug into the ground at 10 metres intervals and a 20cm high wire mesh fence run between each bucket. Herpetological • Systematic searches for reptiles and amphibians were undertaken • 1 person hr Searches within each habitat type. • Litter was raked and rocks and logs turned over. • Loose bark was prised from the trunks of dead trees. • Each search took approximately 30 minutes and was repeated at each site. • Searches for amphibians took place at night using spotlights (particularly after rain) and recognition of characteristic calls. • Spotlighting searches were also attempted for reptiles. Animal Track • Areas of sand on tracks were inspected for evidence of animal Recognition movement. • Paw prints and other animal signs were identified and recorded. Opportunistic • Any sightings of fauna were recorded whilst moving throughout the Observations Project Area and located using a GPS. • Any scats were collected and their contents analysed. Brush-tailed • Inspection of the cliff lines was undertaken during the surveys. Rock-wallaby • Cliff line ledges were searched for any sign of this species, including smallish foot prints and characteristically shaped scats. • Observations using binoculars were undertaken of inaccessible cliff line ledges, particularly during late afternoon when these animals may be active. Habitat • Trap site description –a description of the upper, middle and lower Assessment storey vegetation, as well as the ground cover, within an area of 1 m radius surrounding each trap was undertaken. Where the traps sampled cliff lines, the unique habitat characteristics of this environment are noted. • Walking transects - A 50 m walking transect at each survey site. Within each transect, the following habitat characteristics were measured: a) Upper and middle strata vegetation density – number of trees and saplings and shrubs. b) Tree and shrub height – height of any trees/saplings or shrubs. c) Lower strata vegetation density – visual estimates of the relative proportions of ground cover contributed by grass, forbs, moss, vines, rocks, ferns, litter and logs. d) Diameter at breast height (DBH) – the diameter of each tree at about breast height.

2012 Annual Ecological M onitoring Report

SURVEY MONITORING DETAILS PER SITE TECHNIQUE EFFORT PER SITE e) Grass and forb height – the average height of the grasses and forbs. f) Litter mass g) Presence of hollows and mistletoe – the presence of tree hollows and mistletoe was documented • Cliff line Habitat - The cliff line environment was divided into five features which were considered common to all areas at the UCML site. The features used were: a) Cliff base – the boundary between the steep cliff line and the relatively level ground beyond the cliff. b) Overhang – an overhang comprises a large cave-like depression in the cliff-face which may or may not form a narrow dark-zone at the back of the depression. c) Ledge – ledges are found throughout the cliff line and range in size from large (more than 10 metres long) to small (less than 30cm). d) Cliff crack – this feature is found throughout the cliff line where cracks have formed. e) Rock fall – this common feature at the base of cliff lines, comprises pieces of rock broken away from the cliff line.

2.5 FAUNA (MICROBATS) Microchiropteran bat (microbat) monitoring during 2012 was undertaken by Glenn Hoye of Fly By Night Bat Surveys Pty Ltd. Monitoring was undertaken in accordance with the BMP and consisted of two components:

• General fauna monitoring sites; • Targeted cliff line monitoring sites.

2.5.1 General fauna monitoring sites Microbat monitoring was undertaken at the 18 general fauna sites ( Table 2.5 ) during the autumn survey and 19 general fauna sites ( Table 2.5 ) during the spring/summer survey. Survey for microbats at the general fauna sites was undertaken from 19 April to 29 April 2012 (autumn) and 21 November to 19 December 2012 (spring/summer). Microbats were sampled through captures using collapsible harp traps (Tidemann & Woodside, 1978) and recording and analysis of echolocation calls though the use of Anabat detection devices. Each site was sampled for three consecutive nights with harp traps and echolocation call recording undertaken for a minimum of two complete nights.

Microbats captured in harp traps were identified, measured and fitted with an identification band. The locations of the general fauna monitoring sites are indicated in Table 2.5 and in Figure 2.7. Detailed methods are included within the Monitoring of the Bat Fauna of the Ulan Coal Mine Lease during autumn/winter 2012 report and the Monitoring of the Bat Fauna of the Ulan Coal Mine Lease during spring/summer 2012 report within Appendix F.

2012 Annual Ecological M onitoring Report

Table 2.5: General fauna monitoring sites

GPS COORDINATES LOCATION SITE EASTING NORTHING

FaBOB1 757171 6435205

FaBOB2 760452 6435200 Bobadeen Vegetation Offset FaBOB3 757453 6436742

FaBOB4 759186 6436912

Bobadeen Corridor Vegetation Offset FaBOBC1 761520 6436115

FaBOBE1 762922 6436183 Bobadeen East Vegetation Offset FaBOBE2 763374 6438349

Spring Gully FaSG1 760096 6433625

FaINF1 754636 6431861

FaINF2 755148 6437151 Surface Infrastructure FaINF3 755352 6438919

FaINF4 758717 6439744

FaRES1 758719 6432538

FaRES2 756620 6433058

Residual Project Area FaRES3 752509 6434120

FaRES4 759263 6439041

FaRES5 755562 6442346

OC1 759955 6426893 Open Cut Area OC3 758345 6428917

2.5.2 Targeted cliff line microbat monitoring Microbat monitoring within the targeted cliff line monitoring sites consisted of 14 sites ( Table 2.6 ) during the autumn survey and 15 sites ( Table 2.6 ) during the spring/summer survey. During the autumn 2012 survey, 10 sites continued monitoring from 2011 and a further four new sites were established (BD5D1, BD7D3, Enth and PRD1). During the spring/summer 2012 survey, nine sites continued monitoring from 2011 and a further six new sites were established (SG2, SG3, SG5, SG7, BD6, BD7, BD8, BD9, MB2D1 and MB2D2).

Microbats were sampled through captures using collapsible harp traps (Tidemann & Woodside, 1978), and recording and analysis of echolocation calls through Anabat detection devices. Each site had echolocation call recording undertaken for a minimum of one complete night. Detectors were moved each night to provide information on as many sites along the cliff lines as possible.

At selected sites, microbats were captured in harp traps that were left in place for one to three nights. Microbats captured in harp traps were identified, measured and fitted with an identification band.

2012 Annual Ecological M onitoring Report

Survey for microbats at the targeted cliff line sites was undertaken from 9 May to 15 May 2012 (autumn/winter) and 10 December to 18 December 2012 (spring/summer) when females of the three target species would be at maternity roosts raising young.

The locations of the targeted cliff line monitoring sites are indicated in Table 2.6 and in Figure 2.7. Detailed methods are included within the Monitoring of the Bat Fauna of the Ulan Coal Mine Lease during autumn/winter 2012 report and the Monitoring of the Bat Fauna of the Ulan Coal Mine Lease during spring/summer 2012 report within Appendix F .

2012 Annual Ecological M onitoring Report

Table 2.6: Targeted cliff line microbat monitoring sites

GPS COORDINATES LOCATION SITE AUTUMN 2012 SPRING 2012 EASTING NORTHING BD5D1H1 753854 6436487 BD6D1 753428 6426859 BD6D1H1 753428 6436595 BD7D1 753099 6436650 Bobadeen BD7D1H1 753052 6436594 Vegetation BD7D3 753058 6436588 Offset Area BD8D1 752588 6436583 BD8D1H2 752671 6436618 BD9D2 751715 6436822 BD9D2H1 751864 6436925 MB2D1 758615 6429990 Residual Project MB2D2 759161 6429879 Area MB2H1 759003 6429836 SGD2 761309 6432961 Spring Gully Cliff SGD3 761227 6433213 line SGD5 761591 6432653 Management SGD7 761240 6433069 Area SGH1 761382 6432589 ED1H1 754050 6435900 Enth 753428 6436262 PRD1 760972 6430638 Other UGD1 756847 6431191 UGD2 757077 6430819 UGD3 756996 6431011

2012 Annual Ecological M onitoring Report

Figure 2.7: Microbat monitoring sites (General fauna sites & targeted cliff line sites)

2012 Annual Ecological M onitoring Report

2.6 AQUATIC FAUNA & RIPARIAN HABITATS Aquatic fauna and riparian habitat monitoring during autumn and spring 2012 was undertaken by Dr Martin Denny of Biodiversity Monitoring Services. The aquatic fauna and riparian habitat monitoring was undertaken concurrently with the fauna monitoring from the 19 April to 25 April 2012, 9 October to 12 October 2012 and 22 October to 24 October 2012.

Aquatic fauna and riparian habitat monitoring was undertaken in accordance with the BMP and sites were selected to adequately sample the aquatic environment at Ulan Coal Mines and surrounds. As there is potential for water released from UCML to enter water courses outside the UCML boundary, some sites sample the two rivers that may be affected. The remainder of the sites sample water courses within the UCML boundary that may be affected by mine water releases or are set aside as control (analogue) sites.

The BMP required 19 monitoring sites at several water courses within the Project Area and the activities of UCML. During the 2012 monitoring period, continued monitoring occurred at 18 sites and one additional site was established (AQ19). There are five creeks situated within the Project Area (Spring Gully, Mona, Cockabutta, Bobadeen and Ulan Creeks) and two rivers located nearby (Talbragar and Goulburn Rivers) that underwent ecological monitoring.

The 19 sites selected for ongoing aquatic monitoring were chosen to provide a broad geographic coverage of the Project Area and to ensure adequate representation of upstream and downstream environs (Table 2.7, Figure 2.8 ). Many of the sites have been subject to previous monitoring. They include the following tributaries and creeks:

• Mona Creek – an ephemeral waterway that contains some semi-permanent pools of water, where no fish species have been previously observed or recorded; • Cockabutta Creek – mostly outside the Project Area but one site (an apparently permanent billabong) is near to the edge of the Project Area; • Bobadeen Creek – lies within the north east corner of the Project Area and feeds into Spring Gully, which then joins the Goulburn River. The majority of Bobadeen Creek and its floodplains have been cleared and used for cattle grazing and the main channel of Bobadeen Creek has been incised through erosion. • Ulan Creek – runs south through the centre of the Project Area, before bending towards the east and joining with the Goulburn River at the far east boundary. Ulan Creek is ephemeral. UCML discharge points LDP6 and LDP19 discharge into Ulan Creek. • Goulburn River – the headwaters are situated to the south and south-east of the Project Area, where it flows east away from the site through Goulburn River National Park. The reaches are highly modified, having been diverted in 1982 in accordance with a previous approval. • Talbragar River – situated approximately 3 km north of the Project Area, and is the discharge point for future mine water release via a pipeline.

The monitoring techniques and effort undertaken during the 2012 period are identified below in Table 2.7.

2012 Annual Ecological M onitoring Report

Table 2.7: Aquatic fauna and riparian habitat monitoring sites

SITE WATER EASTING NORTHING GENERAL DESCRIPTION NO. COURSE Top of River at Ulan township AQ1 758343 6424939 Goulburn River Beside Ulan Coal Mine in a channelised section of River AQ2 760893 6429172 Goulburn River Ulan Creek near mine workings AQ3 758364 6430126 Ulan Creek Ulan Creek near mine workings AQ4 759021 6429779 Ulan Creek Ulan Creek behind Rowan’s Dam AQ5 760167 6429775 Ulan Creek Relatively undisturbed stretch of River AQ6 761130 6430399 Goulburn River Relatively undisturbed stretch of River AQ7 761951 6431228 Goulburn River Ulan Creek at Old Ulan Hotel site AQ8 756693 6431676 Ulan Creek Ulan Creek at junction with small tributary AQ9 757472 6433978 Ulan Creek Ulan Creek at discharge point for treated mine water AQ10 757800 6434740 Ulan Creek Ulan Creek at series of rock pools in paddock AQ11 758297 6435962 Ulan Creek Series of pools in disturbed land on Wonga Roo Road AQ12 751607 6436594 Cockabutta Ck Pools in Creek in grazed paddocks AQ13 761776 6436917 Bobadeen Ck Headwaters of Ulan Creek at small dam AQ14 758041 6437971 Ulan Creek Large pool in Creek in cleared paddock AQ15 754678 6439620 Mona Creek Site at River in cleared and grazed paddock AQ16 752878 6443955 Talbragar River Site at River in cleared and grazed paddock AQ17 753241 6444382 Talbragar River River near The Drip parking area AQ18 762995 6432624 Goulburn River River at The Drip AQ19 763814 6432556 Goulburn River

The parameters outlined below were monitored during surveys of Ulan Creek, Mona Creek, Bobadeen Creek, Cockabutta Creek, Talbragar River and Goulburn River. Detailed descriptions of these parameters are included within the Aquatic Fauna and Riparian Habitats report (Biodiversity Monitoring Services 2013) in Appendix G . The parameters were used to produce a set of indices that could monitor changes in the aquatic environment over time.

2.6.1 Aquatic macroinvertebrates Aquatic fauna sampling was undertaken using the guidelines described in the Australian River Assessment System (AusRivAS) and the NSW AusRivAS Sampling and Processing Manual (EPA, July 2001).

The weather was variable during the survey periods that occurred in April and October 2012 (refer to Terrestrial Fauna Report). There was a flow along nearly all water courses at the time of sampling and

2012 Annual Ecological M onitoring Report

all sites sampled held water. Ulan Creek was flowing, mainly due to water from the local catchment. There was a small release of mine water along this water course.

In the AusRivAS methodology, sampling of 10 m of stream length is recommended. Also, a system of analysis of biological data (Stream Invertebrate Grade Number – Average Level or SIGNAL) eliminated variation in survey effort. The SIGNAL system used to calculate a biotic index has varied slightly over the years. Each invertebrate family has been provided with a pollution sensitivity rating between 10 (most sensitive) and 1 (least sensitive).

Individual animals were identified down to family level, where possible, and down to species level for some. Numbers of individuals of each species were counted and the results from the survey were used to determine a series of scores to be used for monitoring. The indices used for monitoring are diversity indices (species richness, numbers of individuals, evenness, Simpson’s Index of Diversity), SIGNAL Index (see above) and a salinity index for each site.

The salinity index is derived from salinity sensitivity scores assigned to each taxon (usually families). These scores measure the tolerance of each taxon to increasing salinity and are expressed as three values, namely 1, very tolerant, 5, tolerant and 10, sensitive. Using a similar analysis to that undertaken in deriving the site SIGNAL Index, it is possible to provide a salinity sensitivity index for each site as well i.e. the higher the calculated index the more taxa sensitive to increased salinity occur at the site.

2.6.2 Birds & other vertebrates Standardised bird counts (30 minutes observation at each site) were undertaken and diversity indices calculated.

2.6.3 Riparian vegetation condition Riparian condition was assessed using:

1) Rapid Appraisal of Riparian Condition (RARC) technical guidelines; 2) Riparian, channel and environmental (RCE) inventory.

The Rapid Appraisal of Riparian Condition index has been developed by Charles Sturt University for Land & Water Australia and is made up of five sub-indices, each with a number of indicator variables. These are:

• Habitat – riparian habitat continuity and extent; • Cover – vegetation cover and structural complexity; • Debris – standing dead trees and fallen logs and leaf litter; • Natives – dominance of native species versus exotic species; • Features – extent of vegetation regeneration and damage.

Riparian condition refers to the degree to which man-altered ecosystems diverge from local semi- natural ecosystems in their ability to support a community of organisms and perform ecological functions.

The RCE inventory applied is adapted by Chesman et al. (1997). This method places a ranked value on 13 descriptors to provide a single summed value for each site sampled.

The RARC system is scored out of 50, whilst the RCE system is scored out of 52. Each site score was converted into a percentage of the maximum score possible so comparisons could be made.

2012 Annual Ecological M onitoring Report

Figure 2.8: Aquatic fauna monitoring sites

2012 Annual Ecological M onitoring Report

2.7 WEATHER CONDITIONS Weather conditions during the monitoring were considered adequate for the surveys. Temperatures were cool to mild (minimum temperatures relatively low during September and October), with minimal rainfall recorded during the fauna monitoring, as shown in Table 2.8 (temperature records from the nearest weather station, Gulgong Post Office Weather Station).

Table 2.8: Weather conditions during the 2012 monitoring period MONITORING MIN MAX 9AM 3PM RAINFALL DATE TEMP TEMP TEMP TEMP FLORA MICROBATS FAUNA AQUATIC (mm) (°C) (°C) (°C) (°C) 15 Apr 11.7 24.9 0 14.7 23.6 16 Apr 12.5 26 0 19.5 24.4 17 Apr 9.5 22 0 17.8 20.5 18 Apr 12.5 21.5 0 17.1 20.2 19 Apr 15 25.3 0 18.5 24 20 Apr 12.7 25.2 0 16 24.5 21 Apr 9.5 27.4 0 16.4 26.7 22 Apr 13.3 22.8 0 15.9 20.4 23 Apr 14.8 18.9 5 15.8 18.4 24 Apr 13.4 20 1.4 17 17.7 25 Apr 4.3 15.4 0.2 9.3 14.7 26 Apr 7.4 22.3 0 13.5 22 27 Apr 5.5 22.2 0 9 21.8 28 Apr 7.2 22.8 0 13.8 21.9 29 Apr 4.1 21.5 0 12 20.7 30 Apr 7.5 19.8 0 12.5 19.1 1 May 6.4 22.8 0 11.4 22.1 2 May 6.5 21.5 0 13 15.3 9 May 2.3 25.3 0 8.8 25 10 May 3.9 25.5 0 10.5 25.2 11 May 4.5 25.4 0 11 24.6 12 May 5.3 18.7 0 11 17.2 13 May 1.4 13.6 0 8.1 12.6 14 May 0.8 16.6 0 6.7 16.2 15 May -1 18.9 0 4.8 18.2 16 Aug 2.2 16.6 0 7.6 15.6 17 Aug 1 16 0 11.5 13.1 18 Aug 4.3 9.5 0 6.4 8.5 19 Aug 3.8 15.5 0 9.5 15.1 20 Aug -1.2 16.4 0 5.5 16.1 21 Aug 1 20.8 0 7.9 20.2 8 Oct 5.9 22 0 13 N/A

2012 Annual Ecological M onitoring Report

MONITORING MIN MAX 9AM 3PM RAINFALL DATE TEMP TEMP TEMP TEMP FLORA MICROBATS FAUNA AQUATIC (mm) (°C) (°C) (°C) (°C) 9 Oct 3.2 21.8 0 10.1 N/A 10 Oct 4 23.5 0 11 N/A 11 Oct 8.3 16.1 5.8 9.8 N/A 12 Oct 2 16.8 0.8 5.2 N/A 13 Oct 3.3 19.3 0.7 10.8 N/A 14 Oct 3.9 21.4 0 10.1 N/A 15 Oct 4.2 26.5 0 11.1 N/A 16 Oct 6.6 29.9 0 14 N/A 17 Oct 13.4 28.1 0 20.6 N/A 18 Oct 10.6 27.9 0 16.7 N/A 19 Oct 9.9 31.9 0 15 N/A 20 Oct 14.4 30.6 0 22.5 N/A 21 Oct 11 23.2 0 16.3 N/A 22 Oct 8 21.5 0 16.4 N/A 23 Oct 6.4 22.3 0 13.5 N/A 24 Oct 5.8 27 0 14.5 N/A 25 Oct 4.9 30.5 0 14 N/A 29 Oct 7.8 22.5 0 15.5 N/A 30 Oct 11.6 26.1 0 15.5 N/A 31 Oct 8.6 31.1 0 18.5 N/A 20 Nov 10.9 26.1 0 17.2 N/A 21 Nov 8 30.2 0 16.1 N/A 22 Nov 11 28.9 0 21 N/A 23 Nov 11.1 27.9 0 18.2 N/A 24 Nov 14.3 31.6 0 19.7 N/A 25 Nov 15.9 35.2 0 24.3 N/A 26 Nov 17.2 35.2 0 26 N/A 27 Nov 17.4 29.5 0.3 24.1 N/A 12 Dec 14.6 29 0 21 N/A 13 Dec 11.9 32.1 0 20.1 N/A 14 Dec 13.4 35.3 0 23 N/A 15 Dec 20.2 32.3 0 26.8 N/A 16 Dec 12.7 35.1 0 23.4 N/A 17 Dec 14.6 33.3 0 22.5 N/A 18 Dec 9.5 33.2 0 20.1 N/A 19 Dec 15.3 37.2 0 23.9 N/A

Weather observations were taken from Gulgong Post Office Weather Station.

2012 Annual Ecological M onitoring Report

3 Results

3.1 FLORISTIC SURVEYS This section summarises the floristic survey undertaken for the purposes of Residual Vegetation Monitoring, Revegetation/Regeneration Vegetation Monitoring and Floristic-based Subsidence Monitoring to allow ease of reference when comparing to any future monitoring events. A description of each flora survey site is provided in Appendix A . Floristic data collected during monitoring are summarised below in Table 3.1 , with a full species list provided in Appendix B .

Floristic surveys identified a total of 365 species, with 282 native species, 67 introduced species and 16 species that could only be identified to genus level and could not be confidently classified as either native or introduced.

Total species richness varied within each floristic site from 18 species (BOB7 – Ironbark Open Forest Complex on Sandstone) to 62 species (BOB1 - White Box Woodland). Native species richness varied within each floristic site ranging from nine species (OC4 – Rehabilitation Pre 1997) to 55 species (BOB1 – White Box Woodland) while introduced species richness ranged from 0 species at multiple sites to 33 species (RPA13 – Blakely’s Red Gum Open Forest).

No new threatened flora species listed under the EPBC Act or TSC Act were recorded during the 2012 survey.

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

Table 3.1: Floristic survey summary

TOTAL PERCENT COVER SITE NATIVE EXOTIC STRUCTURAL VEGETATION COMMUNITY SITE TYPE SPECIES NO.# SPECIES SPECIES LAYER NATIVE EXOTIC NUMBER

Residual Vegetation Monitoring Canopy 20 0 Bobadeen Offset BOB6 35 33 2 Shrub 30 0 Ground 20 <5 Canopy 30 0 Bobadeen Corridor Shrub 1 35 0 BOBC2 39 34 5 Offset Shrub 2 0 0 Ground 85 0 Canopy 20 0 Blakely’s Red Gum Open Forest Bobadeen East Offset BOBE2 59 52 7 Shrub 10 5 Ground 65 15 Canopy 20 0 Residual Project Area RPA13 49 16 33 Shrub <5 0 Ground 40 <5 Canopy 15 0 Surface Infrastructure SI2 41 38 3 Shrub 5 0 Ground 10 0 Bobadeen Corridor BOBC6 38 26 12 Ground 85 10 Offset Shrub 5 0 Residual Project Area RPA10 27 22 5 Ground 85 5 Derived Native Grassland Canopy 5 0 Residual Project Area RPA11 39 27 12 Shrub 0 0 Ground 80 5 Shrub <5 0 Residual Project Area RPA8 22 13 9 Ground 95 <5

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

TOTAL PERCENT COVER SITE NATIVE EXOTIC STRUCTURAL VEGETATION COMMUNITY SITE TYPE SPECIES NO.# SPECIES SPECIES LAYER NATIVE EXOTIC NUMBER Canopy 25 0 Grey Box Woodland Residual Project Area RPA7 45 44 1 Shrub 25 0 Ground 35 <1 Canopy 35 0 Bobadeen Offset BOB3 22 22 0 Shrub 5 0 Ground 10 0 Canopy 20 0 Bobadeen Offset BOB7 19 19 0 Shrub 30 0 Ground 5 0 Canopy 15 0 Bobadeen Corridor Shrub 1 8 0 BOBC5 28 28 0 Offset Shrub 2 15 0 Ground 5 0 Canopy 25 0 Ironbark Open Forest Complex on Sandstone Bobadeen East Offset BOBE4 32 32 0 Shrub 5 0 Ground <5 <5 Canopy 30 0 Residual Project Area RPA1 25 25 0 Shrub 25 0 Ground 10 0 Canopy 30 0 Shrub 1 5 0 Residual Project Area RPA2 24 24 0 Shrub 2 40 0 Ground <5 0 Canopy 20 0 Residual Project Area RPA4 26 26 0 Shrub 15 0 Ground 5 0

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

TOTAL PERCENT COVER SITE NATIVE EXOTIC STRUCTURAL VEGETATION COMMUNITY SITE TYPE SPECIES NO.# SPECIES SPECIES LAYER NATIVE EXOTIC NUMBER Canopy 15 0 Shrub 1 5 0 Residual Project Area RPA5 20 20 0 Shrub 2 25 0 Ground 15 0 Canopy 40 0 Surface Infrastructure SI1 38 37 1 Shrub <5 0 Ground 15 <5 Canopy 35 0 Ironbark Open Forest Complex on Sandstone Bobadeen Offset BOB8 22 22 0 Shrub 10 0 (regenerating) Ground 35 0 Canopy 40 0 Ironbark Open Forest Complex on Sandstone + Shrub 1 35 0 Scribbly Gum Woodland - Heathland on Sand Surface Infrastructure SI4 47 46 1 Shrub 2 10 <5 Plateaux Ground <5 0 Canopy 15 0 Narrow-leaved Ironbark Open Forest on Bobadeen Offset BOB2 42 40 2 Shrub 10 0 Alluvium/Colluvium Ground 60 <5 Canopy 20 0 Bobadeen Offset BOB5 39 39 0 Shrub 30 0 Ground 50 0 Canopy 20 0 Rough-barked Apple Open Forest on Bobadeen Corridor Shrub 1 35 0 Alluvium/Colluvium BOBC4 41 35 6 Offset Shrub 2 10 0 Ground 75 <5 Canopy 30 0 Bobadeen East Offset BOBE3 25 24 1 Shrub 40 0

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

TOTAL PERCENT COVER SITE NATIVE EXOTIC STRUCTURAL VEGETATION COMMUNITY SITE TYPE SPECIES NO.# SPECIES SPECIES LAYER NATIVE EXOTIC NUMBER Ground <5 <5 Canopy 15 0 Residual Project Area RPA3 37 26 11 Shrub 5 0 Ground 80 <5 Canopy 20 0 Residual Project Area RPA6 44 44 0 Shrub 45 0 Ground 15 0 Canopy 20 0 Scribbly Gum Woodland - Heathland on Sand Residual Project Area RPA9 49 48 1 Shrub 10 0 Plateaux Ground 20 <5 Canopy 5 0 Shrub 1 10 0 Spring Gully SG1 37 37 0 Shrub 2 25 0 Ground 30 0 Canopy 20 0 Stringybark-Ironbark Open Forest on Sandstone Brokenback Offset BB1 30 30 0 Shrub 60 0 Slopes Ground 5 0 Canopy 40 0 Tumbledown Red Gum - Callitris Open Forest on Residual Project Area RPA15 40 37 3 Shrub 5 0 Granite Ground 20 <5 Shrub 50 0 Unimproved Pasture Residual Project Area RPA14 24 21 3 Ground 80 <1 Canopy 10 0 Bobadeen Offset BOB1 61 55 6 Shrub <5 0 White Box Woodland Ground 85 5 Bobadeen Offset BOB4 44 28 7 Canopy 40 0

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

TOTAL PERCENT COVER SITE NATIVE EXOTIC STRUCTURAL VEGETATION COMMUNITY SITE TYPE SPECIES NO.# SPECIES SPECIES LAYER NATIVE EXOTIC NUMBER Shrub 10 0 Ground 30 <5 Bobadeen East Offset BOBE1 36 22 14 Ground 55 25 Canopy <5 0 Residual Project Area RPA12 47 37 10 Shrub 5 0 White Box Woodland (Modified) Ground 80 <5 Canopy 20 0 Surface Infrastructure SI3 31 19 12 Ground 50 35 Revegetation/Regenerating Vegetation Monitoring Canopy 15 0 Blakely’s Red Gum Open Forest (regenerating) Bobadeen Offset BOB11 34 28 6 Shrub <5 0 Ground 70 10 Shrub <5 0 Bobadeen Offset BOB10 21 13 8 Ground <5 90 Canopy 20 0 Derived Native Grassland Bobadeen Offset BOB14 37 20 17 Shrub <5 0 Ground 85 10 Bobadeen East Offset BOBE6 39 20 19 Ground <5 65 Canopy 30 0 Grey Box Woodland Open Cut OC2 33 30 3 Shrub 30 0 Ground 30 <5 Canopy 20 0 Ironbark Open Forest Complex on Sandstone Shrub 1 <5 0 Bobadeen Offset BOB16 34 34 0 (regenerating) Shrub 2 5 0 Ground >5 <5 Narrow-leaved Ironbark Open Forest on Open Cut OC1 56 48 8 Canopy 25 0

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

TOTAL PERCENT COVER SITE NATIVE EXOTIC STRUCTURAL VEGETATION COMMUNITY SITE TYPE SPECIES NO.# SPECIES SPECIES LAYER NATIVE EXOTIC NUMBER Alluvium/Colluvium Shrub 1 <5 0 Shrub 2 10 0 Ground 60 <5 Canopy 10 0 Shrub 1 30 0 Rehabilitation Post 1997 Open Cut OC3 41 34 7 Shrub 2 20 0 Ground 10 <5 Shrub <5 0 Rehabilitation Pre 1997 Open Cut OC4 21 9 12 Ground <20 75 Canopy 20 0 Rough-barked Apple Open Forest on Shrub 1 <5 0 Bobadeen East Offset BOBE5 26 22 4 Alluvium/Colluvium (regenerating) Shrub 2 5 0 Ground 10 <5 Canopy 10 0 Bobadeen Offset BOB13 46 39 7 Shrub 60 0 Ground 55 10 Shrub 25 <5 Unimproved Pasture Bobadeen Offset BOB15 36 26 10 Ground 75 10 Canopy 30 0 Open Cut OC5 57 51 6 Shrub 15 0 Ground 70 <5 Bobadeen Offset BOB12 21 11 10 Ground 70 25 Canopy 15 0 White Box Woodland (Modified) Bobadeen Offset BOB9 42 31 11 Shrub 0 <5 Ground 60 35 Bobadeen East Offset BOBE7 27 16 11 Canopy <5 0

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

TOTAL PERCENT COVER SITE NATIVE EXOTIC STRUCTURAL VEGETATION COMMUNITY SITE TYPE SPECIES NO.# SPECIES SPECIES LAYER NATIVE EXOTIC NUMBER Ground 35 60 Bobadeen East Offset BOBE8 31 17 14 Ground 25 70 Floristic-based Subsidence Monitoring Canopy 30 0 Florisitc Based FBS1 32 32 0 Shrub 10 0 Subsidence Plot Ground <5 0 Ironbark Open Forest Complex on Sandstone Canopy 25 0 Florisitc Based FBS2 46 45 1 Shrub 20 0 Subsidence Plot Ground 10 <5 Canopy 10 0 Scribbly Gum – Narow-leaved Ironbark Florisitc Based Shrub 1 5 0 FBS3 37 37 0 woodland Subsidence Plot Shrub 2 60 0 Ground 10 0 Canopy 30 0 Rough-barked Apple – Blakely’s Red Gum Florisitc Based Shrub 1 5 0 FBS4 38 32 6 woodland Subsidence Plot Shrub 2 30 0 Ground 75 <5

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

3.2 LANDSCAPE FUNCTION ANALYSIS The following section provides a summary of the LFA and vegetation dynamics for analogue sites and revegetation/regeneration sites in each vegetation community to allow ease of reference when comparing to any future monitoring events. LFA and vegetation dynamics data collected during the 2012 monitoring are summarised below in Tables 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4 . The results for LFA are presented according to individual sites in Appendix C .

The Landscape Organisation percentage at the LFA monitoring sites was split between the analogue sites and the rehabilitation sites. Litter dominated the majority of the analogue sites, with an average of 60%, followed by grass/sedges and bare soil (Table 3.2 ), except for Site 13 (Yellow Box – Red Gum Woodland), which was dominated by grass/sedge. The rehabilitation sites varied, with Site 10 (Pre 2001 Rehabilitation Areas (western portion)) being dominated by litter and remaining sites being dominated by a mixture of grass/sedges and bare soil.

The Soil Surface Assessment results from the LFA monitoring sites indicate that generally, apart from Site 10 (Pre 2001 Rehabilitation Areas (western portion)) and some features of Site 9 (2009 Rehabilitation Area), the stability, infiltration and nutrient percentages were higher at the analogue sites than rehabilitation sites (Table 3.3 ).

This result is related to the Landscape Organisation results, with analogue sites recording higher cover (e.g. litter, grass, herbs) than the rehabilitation sites, which provides greater protection from rainsplash and potential for decomposition of litter.

The Vegetation Dynamics results from LFA monitoring sites indicate that generally, apart from Site 10 (Pre 2001 Rehabilitation Areas (western portion)), the structural diversity of the rehabilitation sites is dominated by groundcover (grasses and other) as shown in Table 3.4 . The analogue site results indicate a structural diveristy that should be aimed for during rehabilitation works.

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

Table 3.2: Landscape Organisation summary

LANDSCAPE ORGANISATION (%) VEGETATION COMMUNITY NO. SOIL LITTER GRASS HERB LOG CRYPTOGAM ROCK OTHER Analogue Sites She-oak Low Forest on Sandstone Crests 1 1.69 85.20 0 0.17 6.81 5.42 0 0.72 Narrow-leaved Ironbark Woodland 2 9.36 61.34 3.85 071 0 0 0 24.75 Rough-barked Apple Open Forest 3 4.98 87.67 0 0 5.95 1.29 0 0.10 Narrow-leaved Ironbark Open Forest on Alluvium/Colluvium 4 8.39 61.49 0 0.14 2.57 27.21 0 0.20 Blakely’s Red Gum Open Forest 5 0.36 53.77 41.54 0.99 0.14 0 0 3.2 White Box Woodland 6 0 73.95 18.38 0 4.32 0 2.64 0.71 Grey Box Woodland 7 3.69 66.48 24.04 1.18 0 1.32 0 3.3 Stringybark-Ironbark Open Forest on Sandstone Slopes 8 20.02 61.95 0 8.71 0 0 3.01 6.32 Yellow Box – Red Gum Woodland 13 2.92 9.91 78.57 2.53 6.02 0 0 0.05 Ironbark Open Forest Complex on Sandstone 14 2.56 74.46 0.82 0 0.79 7.92 1.74 11.7 Rehabilitation Sites 2009 Rehabilitation Areas 9 9.19 0 0 0 0 0 0 90.81 Pre 2001 Rehabilitation Areas (western portion) 10 8.4 84.7 5.47 0.87 0 0.56 0 0 Pre 2001 Rehabilitation Areas (eastern portion) 11 23.47 25.67 36.04 10.79 0 3.19 0.84 0 White Box Woodland (BOBE) 12 0 0 96.98 2.20 0 0 0 0.82 White Box Woodland (BOB) 15 0 0 99.72 0.28 0 0 0 0 Blakely’s Red Gum Open Forest 16 1.14 23.18 74.48 0.28 0 0 0 0.92 White Box Woodland (BOBC) 17 3.13 5.67 62.22 0.86 28.12 0 0 0

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

Table 3.3: Soil Surface Assessment summary (bare soil, litter & grass)

SOIL SURFACE ASSESSMENT (INFILTRATION INDEX %) VEGETATION COMMUNITY NO. STABILITY INFILTRATION NUTRIENTS SOIL LITTER GRASS SOIL LITTER GRASS SOIL LITTER GRASS Analogue Sites She-oak Low Forest on Sandstone Crests 1 53.1 66.9 0 25.7 38.6 0 8.5 27.4 0 Narrow-leaved Ironbark Woodland 2 52.1 63.1 65.65 27.7 31.6 33.85 7.7 18.4 20.5 Rough-barked Apple Open Forest 3 43.5 56.5 0 10 27.6 0 27.6 10 0 Narrow-leaved Ironbark Open Forest on Alluvium/Colluvium 4 53.1 61.9 0 27.9 40.1 0 14.4 33.0 0 Blakely’s Red Gum Open Forest 5 53.1 63.8 61.1 30.4 36.6 29.65 15.4 24.6 33.5 White Box Woodland 6 0 72.7 60.6 0 45.6 44.8 0 33.3 31.1 Grey Box Woodland 7 55.0 65.0 56.3 23.0 36.6 28.5 7.7 24.6 12.8 Stringybark-Ironbark Open Forest on Sandstone Slopes 8 51.3 59.4 0 36.9 48.8 0 11.3 28.7 0 Yellow Box – Red Gum Woodland 13 49.0 61.9 55.6 30.3 41.4 37.7 9.4 25.6 20.3 Ironbark Open Forest Complex on Sandstone 14 53.1 63.8 59.4 26.1 36.5 30.4 9.2 24.4 15.4 Rehabilitation Sites 2009 Rehabilitation Areas 9 5.5 0 0 2.4 0 0 1.6 0 0 Pre 2001 Rehabilitation Areas (western portion) 10 53.1 62.5 62.5 26.5 39.1 32.1 9.7 28.2 17.9 Pre 2001 Rehabilitation Areas (eastern portion) 11 13.2 15.6 21.2 4.9 7.0 8.5 1.8 4.3 4.1 White Box Woodland (BOBE) 12 0 0 60.7 0 0 27.5 0 0 14.7 White Box Woodland (BOB) 15 0 0 70.5 0 0 26.8 0 0 15.4 Blakely’s Red Gum Open Forest 16 0.6 15.1 47.15 0.3 8.9 22.15 0.1 6.4 10.75 White Box Woodland (BOBC) 17 56.9 66.3 65.0 23.3 32.1 29.6 12.8 20.5 16.9

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

Table 3.4: Vegetation Dynamics summary

NO. OF PLANTS (PER HA) SITE VEGETATION COMMUNITY GROUND (OTHER) SHRUBS TREES NO. GRASSES TOTAL No. % No. % No. % No. % Analogue Sites She-oak Low Forest on Sandstone Crests 1 9,712 23.6 16,228 39.5 14,240 34.6 948 2.3 41,128 Narrow-leaved Ironbark Woodland 2 123,983 44.3 145,679 52.0 9,980 3.6 323 0.1 279,965 Rough-barked Apple Open Forest 3 13,091 67.7 3,773 19.5 1,858 9.6 607 3.1 19,329 Narrow-leaved Ironbark Open Forest on Alluvium/Colluvium 4 792 1.4 35,200 61.4 19,726 34.4 1,595 2.8 57,313 Blakely’s Red Gum Open Forest 5 3,559,986 85.7 591,716 14.2 3,489 <0.01 209 <0.01 4,155,399 White Box Woodland 6 210,420 63.4 118,906 35.8 1,623 <0.01 669 <0.01 331,647 Grey Box Woodland 7 188,217 76.6 45,657 18.6 10,942 4.5 808 <0.01 245,623 Stringybark-Ironbark Open Forest on Sandstone Slopes 8 6,604 7.6 63,930 73.5 15,763 18.1 660 0.007 86,957 Yellow Box – Red Gum Woodland 13 1,143,870 75.3 374,080 24.6 1,862 <0.01 195 <0.01 1,520,008 Ironbark Open Forest Complex on Sandstone 14 5,297 7.2 21,437 29.2 45,173 61.5 1,505 0.02 73,411 Rehabilitation Sites 2009 Rehabilitation Areas 9 1,956,086 64.3 1,085,069 35.6 1,544 <0.01 0 0 3,042,699 Pre 2001 Rehabilitation Areas (western portion) 10 92,106 95 3,054 3.1 1,304 0.01 412 0.004 96,876 Pre 2001 Rehabilitation Areas (eastern portion) 11 804,360 20.4 3,132,587 79.6 229 <0.01 22 <0.01 3,937,197 White Box Woodland (BOBE) 12 456,538 85.8 75,474 14.2 16 <0.01 1 <0.01 532,028 White Box Woodland (BOB) 15 3,370,384 88.9 20,206 0.5 0 0 0 0 3,790,589 Blakely’s Red Gum Open Forest 16 510,204 94.3 30,725 5.6 64 <0.01 298 <0.01 541,291 White Box Woodland (BOBC) 17 2,040,816 97.7 47,804 2.3 112 <0.01 4 <0.01 2,088,737

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

3.3 ACACIA AUSFELDII SURVEYS The survey collected data for 9 seedlings, 34 saplings and 57 mature Acacia ausfeldii (Figure 3.1). Data collected during monitoring are provided in Appendix D .

The height of each mature specimen ranged from 0.7 m to 4 m, whilst the diameter of the main stem ranged from 0.03 m to 0.22 m. The height of each sapling ranged from 0.5 m to 1.5 m, whilst the diameter of the main stem ranged from 0.05 m to 0.07 m. The height of each seedling specimen ranged from 0.06 m to 0.7 m, whilst the diameter of the main stem ranged from 0.006 m to 0.07 m.

Table 3.5 summarises the condition ratings and the reproductive ratings (flower and fruit) given to each mature, sapling and seedling tagged during the survey. The majority of specimens tagged reflected either some minor damage or were healthy, were either flowering or not flowering and contained limited fruits.

Table 3.5: Acacia ausfeldii condition and reproductive ratings summary

REPRODUCTIVE RATINGS REPRODUCTIVE RATINGS CONDITION RATINGS # (FLOWER)* (FRUIT)* MATURITY

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

Seedling 3 6 8 1 9

Sapling 2 15 17 18 8 6 2 34

Mature 1 14 24 18 2 3 9 32 11 42 1 1 11 2

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

Floristic surveys within the Acacia ausfeldii site identified a total of 73 species, with 61 native species, 10 introduced species and 2 species that could only be identified to species level and could not be confidently classified as either native or introduced.

The two floristic quadrats established within the Acacia ausfeldii site gave similar results, with both having structural diversity that contained a native groundcover, midstorey and canopy, a relatively low abundance of weeds, the presence of Acacia ausfeldii and good habitat elements including woody debris and leaf litter. However, there were a number of exotic species recorded, although in low abundance, including a noxious weed, Opuntia sp. (Prickly Pear), evidence of feral animals (Oryctolagus cuniculus (Rabbit)) and evidence of previous disturbance from logging activities.

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

Figure 3.1: Individual Acacia ausfeldii locations

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

3.4 FAUNA (EXCLUDING MICROBATS)

The following results for the fauna monitoring, excluding microbats, have been presented according to faunal groups. A total of 13 native and 11 introduced mammal species, 142 native and two introduced bird species, 20 reptile species and 6 amphibian species were recorded during the 2012 monitoring surveys. A full inventory of fauna species recorded during the 2012 survey period is provided in Appendix E.

3.4.1 Mammals (excluding microbats) Mammal surveys during the 2012 autumn and spring monitoring identified 13 native mammal and 11 introduced mammal species. Table 3.6 summarises the native mammal captures and observations recorded during the 2012 autumn and spring monitoring surveys.

Table 3.6: 2012 Native mammal species captures and observations summary

SPECIES NO. OF GENERAL & SITE SPECIFIC NOTES SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME RECORDS Sminthopsis murina Common Dunnart 2 2 captures at OC during the Spring Survey Rattus fuscipes Southern Bush Rat 14 Several captures at SG and other sites Antechinus flavipes Yellow-footed Captured at a number of sites 11 Antechinus Trichosurus Common Brushtail Observed during spotlighting vulpecula Possum 83 Remote cameras Captured in traps Pseudocheirus Common Ringtail Observed during spotlighting 9 peregrinus Possum Scat evidence Petaurus breviceps Sugar Glider Observed during spotlighting 1 Scratches on trees Macropus giganteus Eastern Grey Kangaroo 1068 Macropus robustus Common Wallaroo 31 Macropus Recorded within the Project Area 891 rufogriseus Red-necked Wallaby Wallabia bicolor Swamp Wallaby 57 Vombatus ursinus Bare-nosed Wombat 185 Frequently recorded within the Project Area Tachyglossus Scat and scratches were found at a number of - aculeatus Short-beaked Echidna sites.

Introduced mammal species were recorded across the Project Area, with 41 records of Vulpes vulpes (European Red Fox) and 158 records of Sus scrofa (Feral Pig) which is an increase on the number recorded in 2011. In addition, there were several sightings of Oryctolagus cuniculus (Rabbit) and Lepus capensis (Brown Hare), evidence of Felis catus (Cat) (tracks and sightings) and Canis lupus (Dingo/Wild Dog). Small groups of Dama dama (Fallow Deer) were observed near Rowan’s Dam. There was no evidence for the presence of feral goats during the monitoring period.

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

3.4.2 Birds Bird survey during the 2012 autumn and spring monitoring identified 142 native bird and 2 introduced bird species. A complete list of bird species recorded is located in Appendix E. The native birds came from a wide range of groups, including:

• 12 species of honeyeaters including Entomyzon cyanotis (Blue-faced Honeyeater), Grantiella picta (Painted Honeyeater), Lichenostomus virescens (Singing Honeyeater), Melithreptus brevirostris (Brown-headed Honeyeater) and Plectorhyncha lanceolata (Striped Honeyeater); • 11 parrots including Alisterus scapularis (Australian King-Parrot), Glossopsitta concinna (Musk Lorikeet) and Psephotus haematonotus (Red-rumped Parrot); • 10 raptors including Accipiter cirrocephalus (Collared Sparrowhawk), Aquila audax (Wedge- tailed Eagle), Elanus axillaris (Black-shouldered Kite), Haliastur sphenurus (Whistling Kite), Falco berigora (Brown Falcon) and Falco peregrinus (Peregrine Falcon); • 25 birds associated with water including Egretta novaehollandiae (White-faced Heron), Platalea flavipes (Yellow-billed Spoonbill), Tachybaptus novaehollandiae (Australasian Grebe) and Threskiornis spinicollis (Straw-necked Ibis).

During the 2012 autumn and spring monitoring, a total of 151 sightings of eight threatened species listed under the TSC Act were recorded. In addition, 4 migratory species listed under the EPBC Act were recorded. The threatened and migratory species recorded are listed below Table 3.7. Threatened species numbers and locations within the Project Area are provided in Appendix D . The targeted species, Lathamus discolor (Swift Parrot) and Anthochaera phrygia (Regent Honeyeater), were not recorded during the survey.

Table 3.7: Threatened bird species recorded during the 2012 autumn and spring monitoring

TSC ACT EPBC ACT SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATUS STATUS Ardea alba Great Egret - M Haliaeetus leucogaster White-bellied Sea-eagle - M Calyptorhynchus lathami Glossy Black-Cockatoo V - Glossopsitta pusilla Little Lorikeet V - Merops ornatus Rainbow Bee-eater - M Climacteris picumnus Brown Treecreeper V - Pyrrholaemus sagittatus Speckled Warbler V - Grantiella picta Painted Honeyeater V - Grey-crowned Babbler (south-eastern sub- Pomatostomus temporalis temporalis V - species) Daphoenositta chrysoptera Varied Sittella V - Rhipidura rufifrons Rufous Fantail - M Petroica phoenicea Flame Robin V -

3.4.3 Reptiles Reptile survey during the 2012 autumn and spring monitoring identified 20 species. The survey periods were not ideal for reptile survey, as most species were inactive due to low overnight and daytime temperatures during the early part of the survey period. As such, most records obtained were from active searches under rocks and bark. Only larger reptiles ( Varanus varius (Lace Monitor) and the Pogona barbata (Eastern Bearded Dragon)) were seen moving.

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

Reptile species captured or observed in the study area included Egernia whitii (White's Rock-skink), Lerista bougainvillii (South-eastern Slider), Oedura lesueurii (Lesueur's Velvet Gecko), Eastern Bearded Dragon, Pseudechis porphyriacus (Red-bellied Black Snake), Pseudonaja textilis (Eastern Brown Snake), Underwoodisaurus milii (Thick-tailed Gecko), Varanus gouldii (Gould's Goanna) and Lace Monitor. A complete list of reptile species recorded is located in Appendix E.

3.4.4 Amphibians Amphibian survey during the 2012 autumn and spring monitoring identified seven species. Amphibian species observed included Limnodynastes dumerilii (Eastern Banjo Frog), Litoria latopalmata (Broad- palmed Frog), Litoria peronii (Peron's Tree Frog) and Uperoleia laevigata (Smooth Toadlet). A complete list of amphibian species recorded is located in Appendix E.

3.4.5 Fauna habitat Fauna habitat measurements undertaken during the autumn and spring 2012 monitoring have been used to describe the landscape and its use by fauna within the Project Area. Table 3.8 provides a summary of the habitat characteristics for all sites surveyed.

Furthermore, calculations of the Habitat Complexity Scores for the survey sites sampled were undertaken (Appendix E). The Habitat Complexity Scores were between 13 and 18 for all sites, these scores indicate that the habitat of the surveyed sites is of moderate to high quality in terms of value to woodland birds and ground fauna. Despite the similarity in habitat characteristics, some sites differed from others, for example, Bobadeen Vegetation Offset East Site 1 had a low % tall shrub layer, seven of the sites had no low sapling layer, only seven sites had cycad cover and two had tall fern ( Pteridium esculentum (Bracken)) cover.

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

Table 3.8: Habitat characteristics identified during the fauna survey per site (Biodiversity Monitoring Services 2012)

HABITAT OPEN CUT SURFACE BOBADEEN (FABOB) SPRING BOBADEEN AREA (FAOC) INFRASTRUCTURE (%) GULLY RESIDUAL PROJECT AREA EAST (%) (FASI) (%) (FASG) (FARPA) (%) (FABOBE) (%) (%) 1985 2003 1 2 3 4 1 2 1 2 3 4 1 1 2 3 4 5 Tree 36 8 36 32 24 32 36 52 44 68 28 16 52 16 20 68 48 36 Tall shrub 11 40 88 36 16 12 4 28 20 52 56 20 60 24 28 56 28 4 Tall sapling 8 28 4 20 24 24 40 8 20 16 8 4 8 8 8 28 56 4 Low shrub 48 28 88 54 36 48 72 60 36 88 52 76 54 40 44 92 32 60 Low sapling 4 8 0 8 16 8 20 4 0 4 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 Cutting grass 20 16 44 12 12 40 24 4 8 0 36 36 0 20 40 0 28 68 Cycad 0 0 0 4 0 4 4 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 12 12 0 0 Tall fern 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 Grass 92 68 40 60 88 88 100 100 72 60 64 44 52 72 40 100 68 60 Forb 32 28 54 84 88 56 76 96 54 84 36 4 76 24 40 100 52 52 Fern 4 4 0 4 4 0 4 4 12 0 0 0 0 16 8 0 0 4 Vine 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 Litter 100 100 92 88 100 100 100 92 84 100 100 100 88 96 100 100 100 100 Log 12 12 8 28 20 36 48 44 35 52 36 36 36 28 56 64 40 8 Rock 0 20 44 36 44 28 16 0 65 12 36 4 56 72 24 0 0 48 Habitat complexity scores 15 13 16 16 15 14 15 16 17 17 17 14 18 14 14 17 16 13

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

3.5 FAUNA (MICROBATS)

3.5.1 General fauna sites Microbat monitoring at the general fauna sites recorded at total of 13 bat species during the autumn survey and 12 species during the spring/summer 2012 survey. The number of species recorded at each site varied from two to 10, as shown in Appendix F. During the autumn survey, four bat species were recorded from at least half of the sites; Tadarida australis (White–striped Mastiff Bat), Chalinolobus gouldii (Gould’s Wattled Bat), Chalinolobus morio (Chocolate Wattled Bat), and Vespadelus vulturnus (Little Forest Bat).

During the spring/summer survey period, seven bat species were recorded at half the sites, the White- striped Mastiff Bat, Mormopterus sp.4 (Southern Freetail Bat), Gould’s Wattled Bat, Chocolate Wattled Bat, Miniopterus schreibersii oceanensis (Eastern Bent-wing Bat), Nyctophilus sp . and Little Forest Bat.

During the 2012 monitoring period, four microbat species listed as vulnerable under the TSC Act and two listed under the EPBC Act were recorded. The threatened species recorded were:

• Saccolaimus flaviventris (Yellow-bellied Sheathtail Bat) – this is a TSC Act listed species recorded through echolocation call detection at two sites (RES4 and RES5); • Chalinolobus dwyeri (Large-eared Pied Bat) – this is a TSC Act and EPBC Act listed species captured at one site (BOB1) and recorded through echolocation call detection at seven sites (BOB1, BOB2, BOBE1, BOBE2, INF1, INF3 and RES1); • Eastern Bent-wing Bat - this is a TSC Act listed species recorded from echolocation call at fourteen sites (BOB1, BOB2, BOB3 BOB4, BOBE2, INF1, INF2 INF3, INF4, RES2, RES3, RES4, OC1 and OC3); • Nyctophilus corbeni (South-eastern Long-eared Bat, syn N. timoriensis ) - this is a TSC Act and EPBC Act listed species captured at two sites (BOBE2 and INF4).

3.5.2 Targeted microbat cliff line monitoring Microbat monitoring along cliff line sites recorded a total of twelve bat species during the 2012 monitoring period. The number of species recorded at each site varied from one to 10, as shown in Appendix F. Six of these bat species were recorded from half of the sites during the autumn survey and seven of these bat species were recorded from half of the sites during the spring/summer survey; White-striped Mastiff Bat, Large-eared Pied Bat, Gould’s Wattled Bat, Chocolate Wattled Bat, Eastern Bent-wing Bat, Nyctophilus sp . and Little Forest Bat.

Three microbat species listed as vulnerable under the TSC Act and two listed under the EPBC Act were recorded. The threatened species recorded were:

• Scoteanax rueppellii (Greater Broad-nosed Bat) – this is a TSC Act listed species recorded through echolocation call detection at one site (MB2D2). This represents the first record of this species from the Ulan lease; • Large-eared Pied Bat – was captured at one site (BD7H1 BD8 and E) and recorded through echolocation call detection at ten sites (MB2D1, MB2D2, BD5D1, BD6D1, BD7D1, BD8D1, BD8D2, BD9D2, UGD1, UGD2, UGD3, SGD2, SGD3, SGD5 and SGD7); • Eastern Bent-wing Bat – was captured at one site (BD9) and recorded from echolocation call at eighteen sites (MB2D1, MB2D2, BD5D1, BD6D1, BD7D1, BD8D1, BD8D2, BD9D1, BD9D2, E, SG2D1, SG3D1, UGD1, UGD2, UGD3, SGD3, SGD5 and SGD7).

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

3.6 AQUATIC FAUNA & RIPARIAN HABITATS

The following results for the aquatic fauna and riparian habitats monitoring has been presented according to survey parameters. Detailed results of these parameters are included in Appendix G .

3.6.1 Aquatic macroinvertebrates A total of 2216 individuals from 52 macroinvertebrate taxa were recorded across the 19 sites sampled during autumn/spring 2012. The number of taxa recorded in 2012 was higher than that found in 2007 (47) and 2010 (47), but less than the number recorded in 2009 (60) and 2011 (61). Table 3.9 and Table 3.10 below identify the macroinvertebrates recorded during the 2012 survey at each site.

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

Table 3.9: Aquatic Macroinvertebrates located at each site AQ1 – AQ8 (Biodiversity Monitoring Services 2012)

AQ2 AQ2 AQ6 AQ6 AQ7 AQ7 TAXA COMMON NAME AQ1 AQ3 AQ4 AQ5 AQ8 24/4 22/10 12/10 22/10 24/4 22/10 F. Atyidae Freshwater Shrimps 38 2 12 2 5 32 21 50

O. Conchostraca Clam Shrimps 1

O. Ostracoda Seed Shrimps 4 2 5 2 6

F. Lymnaeidae Freshwater Snails 4

F. Physidae Freshwater snails 5 1 2 14 1 1 2

F. Cystopeltidae Freshwater Slugs 1 1 2 1

F. Corixidae Waterboatmen 43 29 11 1 25 29 16 14 5

F. Corixidae (Micronecta) Waterboatmen 20 2

F. Veliidae Small Water Striders 1 3 2

F. Notonectidae Backswimmers 1 3 1 1

F. Hebridae Velvet Water Bugs 1

F. Coenagrionidae Damselflies 1

F. Corduliidae Dragonflies 1

F. Aeshnidae Dragonflies 1

F. Gomphidae Dragonflies 1

F. Baetidae Mayflies 7 4 1 15 16

F. Leptophlebiidae Mayflies 13 1 3 15 33 10 50 16 3

F. Caenidae Mayflies 4 1

F. Chironomidae Non-biting Midges 40 2 10 9 16 21 4 2

F. Ceratopogonidae Biting Midges 1 1 1

F. Ephydridae Ephydrids 2 1

F. Simuliidae Black Flies 10 2 1

O. Lepidoptera Aquatic Caterpillars 1

F. Dytiscidae Diving Beetles 4 4 24 1 2 2

F. Gyrinidae Whirligig Beetles 5 1 1

F. Hydrophilidae Scavenger Beetles 1 3

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

AQ2 AQ2 AQ6 AQ6 AQ7 AQ7 TAXA COMMON NAME AQ1 AQ3 AQ4 AQ5 AQ8 24/4 22/10 12/10 22/10 24/4 22/10 F. Elmidae Riffle Beetles 1 13 9 6 3 14 2 7 2

F. Leptoceridae Stick Caddis 2 1

F. Calamoceratidae Sleeping Bag Caddis 3 15 1 1

F. Hydroptilidae Microcaddis 1 25 4 4

F. Hydrobiosidae Caseless Caddis 1 1

F. Ecnomidae Caseless Caddis 2

F. Lycosidae Wolf Spiders 2 1 1

F. Tetragnathidae Long-jawed Spiders 1 2 1 1

Gambusia holbrooki Mosquitofish 7 4 2 1

C: Amphibia Tadpoles 1 1 3 1

Anguilla australis Short-fined Eel 1

Note: O = order, F = family, C = class

Table 3.10: Aquatic Macroinvertebrates located at each site AQ9 – AQ19 (Biodiversity Monitoring Services 2012)

AQ18 AQ18 TAXA COMMON NAME AQ9 AQ10 AQ11 AQ12 AQ13 AQ14 AQ15 AQ16 AQ17 AQ19 9/10 2/10 C. Collembola Springtails 13 F. Atyidae Freshwater Shrimps 1 50 50 19 1 10 26 29 SC. Copepoda Copepods 11 1 50 50 1 O. Ostracoda Seed Shrimps 50 3 50 26 4 1 F. Lymnaeidae Freshwater Snails 2 1 F. Thiaridae Freshwater Snails 12 F. Ancylidae Freshwater Snails 2 F. Physidae Freshwater snails 1 F. Cystopeltidae Freshwater Slugs 1 1 C. Oligochaeta Segmented Worms 9 1

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

AQ18 AQ18 TAXA COMMON NAME AQ9 AQ10 AQ11 AQ12 AQ13 AQ14 AQ15 AQ16 AQ17 AQ19 9/10 2/10 F. Corixidae Waterboatmen 5 3 1 5 1 27 18 F. Corixidae (Micronecta) Waterboatmen 3 10 1 50 15 3 8 9 F. Veliidae Small Water Striders 3 F. Notonectidae Backswimmers 2 2 18 17 41 2 F. Gelastocoridae Toad Bugs 2 F. Hydrometridae Water Measurers 1 F. Gerridae Water Striders 1 1 1 F. Coenagrionidae Damselflies 9 F. Corduliidae Dragonflies 2 F. Aeshnidae Dragonflies 1 1 F. Gomphidae Dragonflies 1 F. Baetidae Mayflies 5 42 1 1 50 12 16 17 F. Leptophlebiidae Mayflies 3 2 2 5 3 1 27 21 F. Oniscigastridae Mayflies 1 F. Caenidae Mayflies 1 1 14 6 F. Chironomidae Non-biting Midges 9 3 9 3 33 6 1 8 12 4 1 F. Culicidae Mosquitoes 1 F. Ceratopogonidae Biting Midges 1 1 F. Ephydridae Ephydrids 2 F. Blephariceridae Blephs 1 F. Simuliidae Black Flies 48 F. Dytiscidae Diving Beetles 2 1 12 3 4 1 2 6 26 F. Gyrinidae Whirligig Beetles 3 F. Hydrophilidae Scavenger Beetles 1 F. Curculionidae Aquatic Weevils 1 F. Elmidae Riffle Beetles 5 2 2 2 4 2 23 13

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

AQ18 AQ18 TAXA COMMON NAME AQ9 AQ10 AQ11 AQ12 AQ13 AQ14 AQ15 AQ16 AQ17 AQ19 9/10 2/10 F. Leptoceridae Stick Caddis 1 7 3 1 F. Calamoceratidae Sleeping Bag Caddis 2 2 F. Hydroptilidae Microcaddis 4 2 F. Calocidae Caddisfly larvae 2 1 F. Philorheithridae Caddisfly larvae 1 O. Acarina Freshwater Mites 1 1 1 F. Lycosidae Wolf Spiders 2 2 1 F. Tetragnathidae Long-jawed Spiders 2 Gambusia holbrooki Mosquitofish 6 2 1 C. Amphibia Tadpoles 1 Note: C = class, SC = subclass, O = order, F = family

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

3.6.2 Riparian Habitat Two systems of riparian habitat evaluation were used (modified RCE system and Rapid Appraisal of Riparian Condition (RARC)) and both provide indices that can be used for monitoring of the riparian condition within the Project Area. Table 3.11 below provides the results from the riparian habitat evaluation.

Overall RARC scores have been slightly higher in the past at UCML, but the differences are likely within normal variability associated with survey from different people.

The modified RCE scoring system has also been used at UCML since 2006. The RCE output is a set of scores representing the value of a creek section as aquatic habitat; ranging from 0 for totally degraded habitat to 52 for pristine and suitable aquatic habitat. The overall mean score for 2012 (35) indicates a moderate habitat value for the study area.

Table 3.11: Riparian Habitat Value Scores in 2012 SITES RCE RCE % RARC RARC % SITES RCE RCE % RARC RARC % AQ1 26 50 15.1 30.2 AQ11 41 79 43.4 86.8 AQ2 21 42 16.1 32.2 AQ12 42 81 38.7 77.4 AQ3 39 75 42 84 AQ13 27 52 12.1 24.2 AQ4 35 67 15.1 30.2 AQ14 25 48 11.2 22.4 AQ5 23 44 18.4 36.8 AQ15 25 48 11.4 22.8 AQ6 44 85 45.7 91.4 AQ16 29 56 8.6 17.2 AQ7 46 88 38.8 77.6 AQ17 25 48 9.3 18.6 AQ8 41 79 37 74 AQ18 40 77 46 92 AQ9 47 90 42.3 84.6 AQ19 48 92 43.2 86.4 AQ10 43 83 44.3 88.6

3.6.3 Bird and other vertebrate diversity Bird diversities were calculated from the results of the 30 minute observation period at each aquatic survey site. Four biodiversity indices were calculated, including evenness, Simpson’s Index of Diversity, numbers counted and species richness. The values of the four indices for each site are given in Appendix G.

The biodiversity indices for birds at each aquatic survey site show a wide range of values, which is expected when surveying 19 sites within a large area. The values of some sites are related to the extent of riparian vegetation available to birds e.g. AQ5, in cleared land near Rowan’s Dam, AQ16 and AQ17 in farmland at Talbragar River and AQ12 at Cockabutta Creek have low species richness. However, the relationship does not apply to all sites, as sites at the cleared land e.g. AQ1 at Ulan township and AQ2 in the channelized Goulburn River have a relatively high species richness. There are no correlations between the bird biodiversity indices, water conductivities or the habitat value indices.

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

4 Discussion & recommendations

Ecological monitoring undertaken during 2012 and previous years (fauna and aquatic fauna) provides data to determine if the objectives of the monitoring program and management actions within the outlined within the BMP are being met. The discussion and recommendations section analyses the results obtained during the 2012 monitoring, discusses any changes over time from previous monitoring (fauna and aquatic fauna) and provides recommendations to improve and enhance future monitoring and management actions.

4.1 Floristic monitoring 4.1.1 Spring data The 2012 floristic monitoring sites highlight the difference between analogue site and revegetation/regeneration sites. Spring 2012 surveys identified a higher number of exotic species within the revegetation/regeneration sites and greater structural diversity within analogue sites.

Figure 4.1 compares spring 2011 and 2012 data for native and exotic species richness at analogue (Residual Vegetation Monitoring) sites within the Residual Project Area, Biodiversity Offset and Cliff line Management Areas. An increase in native species from spring 2011 to 2012 was observed at seven sites and a reduction of native species observed at nine sites. A substantial increase (37 species) in native species was observed at BOBE2 (Blakely’s Red Gum Open Forest) and a substantial decrease (23 species) was observed at RPA13 (Blakely’s Red Gum Open Forest). Exotic species observed within the monitoring sites were generally similar with no change observed at 11 sites, however, there was an increase observed at two sites and a decrease observed at three sites. A considerable increase (20 species) in exotic species was observed at one site, RPA13 (Blakely’s Red Gum Open Forest).

70 60 50 40 30 20 Exotic 10 Native 0 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 ------SI2 SI2 SI2 SG1 SG1 SG1 BB1 BB1 BOB1 BOB1 BOB1 RPA2 RPA2 RPA5 RPA5 RPA9 RPA9 BOB2 BOB2 BOB2 BOB5 BOB5 BOB7 BOB7 RPA11 RPA11 RPA11 RPA13 RPA13 BOBE1 BOBE1 BOBE2 BOBE2 BOBE4 BOBE4

Figure 4.1: Native and exotic species richness recorded at analogue sites in spring 2011 and 2012.

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

Figure 4.3 compares spring 2011 and 2012 data for native and exotic species richness at the Revegetation/Regeneration Area Vegetation Monitoring sites within the Residual Project Area, Biodiversity Offset and Cliff line Management Areas. An increase in native species from spring 2011 to 2012 was observed at one site and a reduction of native species observed at three sites. A substantial increase (15 species) in native species was observed at OC3 (Rehabilitation Post 1997) and a substantial decrease (17 species) was observed at OC2 (Grey Box Woodland). Exotic species observed within the monitoring sites were similar between years, however, a considerable decrease (nine species) in exotic species was observed at one site; OC3 (Rehabilitation Post 1997).

30 Exotic 20 Native 10

0 BOB9 - BOB9 - BOB16 - BOB16 - BOBE6 - BOBE6 - OC2 - OC2 - OC3 - OC3 - 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012

Figure 4.2: Native and exotic species richness recorded at Revegetation/Regeneration Area Vegetation monitoring sites in spring 2011 and 2012 Given that the changes in native and exotic species richness from spring 2011 to spring 2012 were relatively small in size (apart from BOBE2, RPA13, OC2 and OC3) and that changes occurred in both directions (i.e. both increases and decreases were observed and are of a similar quantum), species richness is considered to have remained relatively consistent across the majority of floristic monitoring sites. The changes in species richness observed at individual sites are thought to be related to site specific factors with no clear trends in change across sites or vegetation communities.

Figure 4.3 illustrates the cover of native and exotic species within the ground layer at the analogue (Residual Vegetation Monitoring) sites within the Residual Project Area, Biodiversity Offset and Cliff line Management Areas. Generally, the same or a lower cover of introduced species was observed during the spring 2012 survey than the previous year. One site, RPA13, observed a lower native species cover abundance in the groundcover during the spring 2012 survey. Within RPA 13, there was an increase in exotic species richness observed, however the exotic groundcover abundance remained similar to that observed during the 2011 survey. Seasonal variability is more likely the contributing factor to the increase in exotic species richness within this site.

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

90 80 70 60 50 Ground - Native 40 Ground - Extoic 30 20 10 0

Figure 4.3: Native and exotic species percentage cover recorded within the ground layer at analogue sites in spring 2011 and 2012

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

Figure 4.4 illustrates the cover of native and exotic species within the ground layer at the Revegetation/Regeneration Area Vegetation Monitoring sites within the Residual Project Area, Biodiversity Offset and Cliff line Management Areas. Generally, the same or a lower cover of introduced species was observed during the spring 2012 survey than the previous year. Two sites, OC2 and OC3, observed a higher native species cover abundance in the groundcover during the spring 2012 survey.

100 90 80 70 60 50 Ground - Native 40 30 Ground - Extoic 20 10 0 BOB9 - BOB9 - BOB16 BOB16 BOBE6 BOBE6 OC2 - OC2 - OC3 - OC3 - 2011 2012 - 2011 - 2012 - 2011 - 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012

Figure 4.4: Native and exotic species percentage cover recorded within the ground layer at Revegetation/Regeneration Area Vegetation monitoring in spring 2011 and 2012

Floristic-based Subsidence Monitoring was continued at one site during the spring 2012 monitoring, FBS1. This site observed a slight decrease in native species and remained free of any exotic species.

4.1.2 Autumn data Floristic surveys undertaken during autumn 2012 form the baseline data for these sites, with continued monitoring to occur in autumn 2013. The 2012 autumn survey at analogue (Residual Vegetation Monitoring) sites within the Residual Project Area, Biodiversity Offset and Cliff line Management Areas identified varying results, with native species ranging from 22 species at three sites (BOB3 - Ironbark Open Forest Complex on Sandstone, BOB8 - Ironbark Open Forest Complex on Sandstone (regenerating), and RPA10 – Derived Native Grassland) to 44 species at one site (SI4 - Ironbark Open Forest Complex on Sandstone + Scribbly Gum Woodland - Heathland on Sand Plateaux). Generally low numbers of exotic species were observed at all sites, ranging from no species at five sites (BOB3 - Ironbark Open Forest Complex on Sandstone, BOB8 - Ironbark Open Forest Complex on Sandstone (regenerating), RPA1 - Ironbark Open Forest Complex on Sandstone, RPA4 - Ironbark Open Forest Complex on Sandstone, RPA6 - Scribbly Gum Woodland - Heathland on Sand Plateaux) to five species at one site (RPA10 – Derived Native Grassland).

The 2012 autumn survey at Revegetation/Regeneration Area Vegetation Monitoring sites within the Residual Project Area, Biodiversity Offset and Cliffline Management Areas, identified varying results, with native species ranging from nine species at one site (OC4 - Rehabilitation Pre 1997) to 51 species at one site (OC5 - Unimproved Pasture). Varying numbers of exotic species were observed at all sites,

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

ranging from four species at two sites (BOB12 - Modified White Box Woodland) to 14 species at one site (BOBE8 – Modified White Box Woodland).

4.1.3 Relocated or new sites (Bobadeen Vegetation Offset Corridor) New or relocated floristic surveys were undertaken during the autumn and spring 2012 survey seasons and form the baseline surveys for these sites, with continuing monitoring to occur during both autumn and spring 2013. The 2012 autumn and spring surveys identified varying results with native and exotic species richness at the Residual Vegetation Monitoring sites (BOB4, BOBC2, BOBC4, BOBC5, BOBC6, RPA3, RPA8, RPA14 and SI3), Revegetation/Regeneration Area Vegetation Monitoring sites (BOB10, BOB11, BOB13, BOB14, BOB15 and BOBE7) and Floristic-based Subsidence Monitoring sites (FBS3 and FBS4) within the Residual Project Area, Biodiversity Offset and Cliffline Management Areas. The 2012 surveys identified varying results, with native species ranging from 13 species at two sites (RPA8 - Derived Native Grassland and BOB10 - Derived Native Grassland) to 39 species at one site (BOB13 - Unimproved Pasture). Exotic species were observed at all sites, apart from BOBC5 and FBS3, ranging from three species at one site (RPA14 - Unimproved Pasture) to 17 species at one site (BOB14 – Derived Native Grassland).

4.1.4 Weeds Based on the generally higher numbers of exotic species within the rehabilitation areas, it is recommended that any works to rehabilitate the offset sites aim to increase native species diversity and cover towards the analogue site levels, with similar species diversity and composition with associated vegetation types. The 2012 surveys identified weeds within the revegetation/regeneration areas to be targeted as part of noxious and environmental weed control. These are Xanthium spinosum (Bathurst Burr) (BOBE7 and BOBE8), Opuntia sp. (Prickly Pear) (OC2) and Hypericum perforatum (St. John’s Wort) (BOB9, BOB14, BOBC2, BOBE1, BOBE6, BOBE7, BOBE8, FBS4, OC3, OC4 and RPA8). Dominant weeds within the following analogue sites; BOBC6, BOBE1, RPA3, RPA8, RPA11 and RPA13, require control. These dominant weeds include Bromus diandrus (Great Brome), Bromus molliformis (Soft Brome), Conyza sp, Hordeum sp and Lolium perenne (Perennial Ryegrass).

4.1.5 Future Monitoring Seasonal variation can be expected in vegetation type on the slopes and ranges. It is important to continue monitoring vegetation in spring and autumn to ensure that seasonal species are noted, along with growth rates and impacts from adverse weather conditions. Burrows (1999) noted in the south west slopes that while most floristic diversity was accounted for in spring surveys, there were several species that were only recorded during autumn. Furthermore, the former NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (DECCW), now OEH, guidelines for assessing Box Gum Woodlands recommends autumn survey, as one of the key criteria for assessing the presence of the community is the dominance of native perennials in the ground layer.

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

4.2 LF A The LFA monitoring undertaken during the 2012 monitoring period collected data that showed little variation from data collected during the 2011 baseline survey within the analogue sites.

Baseline data were collected for two additional analogue sites and four sites that will undergo revegetation/regeneration works during 2013. These data will form the basis for future monitoring and act as a reference point against which change can be measured. The data will also guide recommendations to improve soil disbursement and vegetation structural dynamics targets within the Biodiversity Offset and Cliff line Management Areas.

As such, it is recommended that the LFA should be modified to:

a) Incorporate revegetation/revegetation sites that will undergo works in 2014 within the Biodiversity Offset and Cliff line Management Areas into the spring 2013 monitoring program (as outlined within the revised BMP), establishing sites that will be comparable to analogue sites and to provide actions based on results for improvement in soil disbursement and vegetation structural dynamics;

b) Given vegetation dynamics (i.e. densities, height and cover) are not expected to change drastically on an annual basis, particularly for woody strata, sampling should be undertaken every 2 years for existing sites;

c) The exception to b) would be where active regeneration of a site is undertaken. At these sites it would be valuable to record vegetation dynamics data following revegetation or during the next scheduled LFA/Floristic sampling event.

4.3 ACACIA AUSFELDII Floristic plots and individual Acacia ausfeldii surveys undertaken during the spring 2012 monitoring period collected continued data from the spring 2011 survey. The 2012 survey results for the 100 individual Acacia ausfeldii specimens surveyed indicate similar results between survey seasons. The condition rating assigned to each specimen during the spring 2011 survey was rated again during the spring 2012 survey. The condition rating increased for 15%, decreased for 44%, remained the same for 34% and 7% were dead/removed ( Appendix D ). The seven individuals that were identified to be dead or removed during the 2012 survey represents 7% of the individuals surveyed. The trigger identified in Table 4.8 of the BMP states that the trigger for management actions is required if there is a decrease in density or cover abundance of 10% or more. Given that the loss in abundance during 2012 is below this trigger, no action is required during 2013, apart from ongoing mitigation of weeds and introduced animals. However, if further decreases are observed during the 2013 survey, the trigger may be activated and management actions, including replanting may be required.

In addition, it is recommended that during the 2013 monitoring period, an additional method be incorporated into the overall Acacia ausfeldii monitoring program, targeting the proportion of new growth. This method will include randomly placing 20 quadrats (1m x 1m) within the Acacia ausfeldii population and counting new growth within each quadrat.

The average height of individuals increased from the 2011 survey period to the 2012 survey period, with the average being 1.62 m and 1.68 m respectively. This indicates that the individual specimens are showing signs of growth, however, notes taken during the 2012 survey on each individual indicate that there are many specimens with dead branches.

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

Mitigation works are to target noxious and environmental weeds, which include Prickly Pear and Rabbit control.

4.4 FAUNA (EXCLUDING MICROBATS) The fauna monitoring undertaken in 2012 involved surveying sites previously established during monitoring undertaken since 1994 and new sites established in 2011.

Table 4.2 below compares the total numbers of species per fauna group observed by Biodiversity Monitoring Services (report attached as Appendix F) per year, indicating that the species richness for native mammals and reptiles has stayed relatively constant over time, although the numbers of reptiles has increased since 2009. Bird species richness was the highest ever recorded steadily increasing from 83 species in 2009 (shown in Figure 3 of Appendix E). The data often shows a relationship between each faunal group, where increases and decreases in species richness from year to year is exhibited across all groups, as was the case in 2012 (with 11% to 18% increases in species richness).

Despite a large number of bird species being observed during the survey period, the target species Swift Parrot and Regent Honeyeater were not observed. The movement of these species is erratic, and their absence from this or previous year’s survey does not suggest habitat on site is unsuitable.

Table 4.2: Fauna species richness over time within the Project Area

YEAR NATIVE (NON-BAT) MAMMAL AVIFAUNA REPTILE

1997 10 107 15 1998 12 77 14 1999 6 92 15 2001 9 73 11 2003 11 109 16 2004 9 101 16 2005 11 123 23 2006 11 84 11 2007 11 105 14 2009 12 83 10 2010 12 104 15 2011 11 127 17 2012 13 142 20

Data collected during the fauna surveys completed during 2012 and from previous monitoring periods were compared and analysed. The main aim of the analysis was to determine if there are any indications of mine-induced changes in fauna distribution and population numbers.

Detailed analysis of the results has been undertaken using a set of criteria to compare fauna populations within an area over time and between areas i.e. temporally and spatially. To ensure such

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

criteria are used in the long-term monitoring of fauna within the mine areas, a set of quantifiable indices were developed and adopted for the UCML fauna monitoring. The indices are a set of single values, changes in which indicate changes in the fauna populations and their habitats. These changes can then be related to changes in environmental factors, such as climate, as well as to changes in land use and landform. Indices that have been calculated from the results from the monitoring surveys are:

• Species richness of faunal groups • Simpson’s Index of Dominance • Evenness of occurrence of species within an area • Population status of individual species • Capture rates of individual species • Population status of faunal groups • Contribution to the faunal assemblages by threatened species, species dependent upon woodland and by species declining in the Central West • Habitat complexity scores (Further details of indices, methods of analysis and results are included in Appendix E )

Based upon the results of the survey and data analysis using the indices listed above, there are no significant differences between the fauna assemblages found in 2012 and that found in previous years. Also there are no significant differences between the fauna assemblages found at each site. Similarly, the habitat characteristics are comparable with those measured during previous surveys and show no significant differences between the different sites.

During future monitoring, the relationship of the survey sites to the domains will change as the emphasis will be on comparing the data from sites on land that is undermined or disturbed by infrastructure (treatment sites) with those relatively undisturbed (control or analogue sites).

4.5 FAUNA MICROBATS

During the autumn/winter 2012 survey period, 13 microbat species were recorded and during the spring/summer 2012 survey period, 12 microbat species were recorded. As such, the 2012 microbat surveys during autumn/spring recorded one species less than the 2011 survey. The cooler temperatures experienced during the 2012 autumn survey did not significantly alter the number of species observed. Similarly, the spring/summer microbat survey within the 2012 monitoring period showed a species richness of 12 which is less than the recorded autumn/winter species richness.

The Large-eared Pied Bat was recorded at four of the 15 echolocation call detection sites along cliff lines at the targeted microbat sites during the autumn 2012 survey. The number of echolocation call passes of this species varied from one pass per night at site SGD5 to 43 passes per night at site BD8D1. Two males were also captured in a harp trap at site BD7H1. Activity levels of this species at the sites sampled within the Spring Gully Cliff line Management Area were generally low and not indicative of the activity expected in the vicinity of a maternity roost. Sampling of additional cliff lines in this offset area during future surveys is recommended.

The Large-eared Pied Bat during the spring 2012 survey was recorded at 10 of the 15 echolocation call detection sites along cliff lines at the targeted microbat sites. The number of echolocation call passes of this species varied from zero passes per night at site SGD5 to 611 passes per night at site BD8D1. The

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

high activity level of this species at site BD8D1 suggests that it could be locally important for this species.

During the autumn 2012 survey, a second threatened cave-roosting species, the Eastern Bent-wing Bat, was recorded from echolocation call at four of the 15 sites. Activity levels varied from one to 39 echolocation passes per night. The Eastern Bent-wing Bat was recorded from echolocation call at 13 of the 15 sites during the spring 2012 survey. Activity levels varied from zero to 43 echolocation passes per night. This species is likely to roost within deeper caves in sandstone escarpments or disused underground coal mine workings. Females migrate to select maternity roosts in spring to give birth (Dwyer 1995). These are normally located within limestone caves, but in recent years smaller groups of breeding females have been recorded using disused underground coal mines (Dwyer 1995; Hoye 2000).

It is recommended that eleven sites (MB2D1, MB2D2, BD6D1, BD7D1, BD8D1, BD9D2, SGD2, SGD3, SGD5 and Enth) are retained for future autumn monitoring. These sites generally had the highest activity of the target species, Large-eared Pied Bat. Some additional survey of unsampled clifflines in the Broken Back Domain and Spring Gully should be undertaken to assess if they provide superior sites for long term monitoring. Sites were not sampled in clifflines along Ulan Creek downstream of Old Ulan. These should also be sampled in future surveys to assess their suitability for long term monitoring.

It is recommended that eight sites (BD5D1, BD6D1, BD7D1, BD8D1, SGD2, UGD1, UGD2 and UGD3), together with SG7 which was not sampled during the current survey are retained for future spring monitoring. These sites generally had the highest activity of the three target species. The three sites along Ulan Creek downstream of Old Ulan had good activity of at least of two of the target species and would be useful for monitoring these species.

4.6 AQUATIC FAUNA & RIPARIAN HABITATS The aquatic fauna and riparian habitat survey was undertaken at 19 sites within (and close to) the Project Area. The sites cover a range of aquatic environments as well as different land types and land uses. All sites were placed at their proposed locations to adequately sample aquatic fauna and riparian habitats typical of the region.

Total dissolved solids have varied between sites considerably during both the 2011 and 2012 monitoring periods ( Figure 4.3). A trend is apparent, with most sites showing a similar TDS reading in both survey periods. There are a few exceptions, with sites AQ9 and AQ10 showing a drop of 60% and 39% respectively and site AQ16 showing an increase of 36% between 2011 and 2012.

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

Total Dissolved Solids

700 600 500

400 TDS 300 200 2011 100 2012 0

AQ1 AQ2 AQ3 AQ4 AQ5 AQ6 AQ7 AQ8 AQ9

AQ10 AQ11 AQ12 AQ13 AQ14 AQ15 AQ16 AQ17 AQ18 AQ19

Site

Figure 4.3: Comparing the Total Dissolved Solids between the 2011 and 2012 aquatic habitat survey. Salinity is a primary constituent of the total dissolved solids found in aquatic habitats. As such, a pattern can be seen between salinity and TDS. Salinity is an important environmental factor as high levels limit the growth and survival of biotic organisms. Salinity fluctuations can occur naturally or may result from runoff, water balance changes and a number of other contributing factors.

Salinity

600 500

400

ppm 300

200 2011 2012 100

AQ1 AQ2 AQ3 AQ4 AQ5 AQ6 AQ7 AQ8 AQ9 AQ10 AQ11 AQ12 AQ13 AQ14 AQ15 AQ16 AQ17 AQ18 AQ19

Site

Figure 4.4 Comparing salinity levels between the 2011 and 2012 aquatic habitat survey. The data obtained are of a considerable size and complexity and, to allow for long-term monitoring, these data need to be converted to a readily accessible and understandable format. In both cases a series of indices has been developed from the raw data. The indices used to monitor the aquatic fauna and riparian habitats are:

• Macroinvertebrates – Evenness Score, Simpsons Index of Diversity, Number of individuals captured, Richness in Taxa, SIGNAL Index and Salinity Index;

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

• Riparian Habitat – RARC Score, RCE Score, Bird Evenness, Bird Simpson’s Index of Diversity, Bird Numbers counted and Bird species richness

The indices cover a wide range of values that are, in some cases, related to the site characteristics but more often show no relationship to the present patterns of land use or to the aquatic or riparian environment. However, the dataset adequately covers all the characteristics found in the area and can be used confidently for long-term monitoring. As the data increases over time, it will be possible to undertake more sophisticated assessments of relationships between the aquatic ecosystems, land uses and water characteristics.

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

5 References

Biodiversity Monitoring Services (2013) Ecological Monitoring Program for Ulan Mine 2012 – Terrestrial Fauna and Habitats. Report to Ulan Underground Coal Mine. January 2013.

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

Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) (2012) Daily Weather Observation, Mudgee: http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/dwo/IDCJDW2088.latest.shtml

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

Chessman, B.C., Growns, J.E., Kotlash, A.R. (1997) Objective derivation of macroinvertebrate family sensitivity grade numbers for the SIGNAL biotic index: application to the Hunter River System, New South Wales, Marine and Freshwater Research, No. 48, pp. 159 – 172.

Department of Land and Water Conservations (2003) Ulan Mine area – Impacts of proposed land use and Management Changes on Catchment Water and Salt Yields.Dwyer, P.D. (1995) Common Bentwing-bat Miniopterus schreibersii . in Strahan, R. ed. The Mammals of Australia . Reed Books, Chatswood. pp.494-495.Fly By Night 2009

Eco Logical Australia (2012) Ulan Coal Mines Limited 2011 Annual Monitoring Report. Unpublished report prepared for Ulan Coal Mines Limited.

Fly By Night Bat Surveys (2012) Monitoring of the Bat Fauna of Ulan Underground Coal Mine Lease during autumn/winter 2012. Report to Ulan Underground Coal Mine. October 2012.

Fly By Night Bat Surveys (2012) Monitoring of the Bat Fauna of Ulan Underground Coal Mine Lease during spring/summer 2012. Report to Ulan Underground Coal Mine. October 2012.

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

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

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

Hoye, G.A. (2000) The Discovery of Two and Distinctive Maternity Roosts of the Large Bent-wing Bat in the Hunter Valley, NSW . Spoken Presentation. 9th Australasian Bat Conference. Tocal, New South Wales. April 2000.

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

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

Tidemann, C.R. and Woodside, D.P. (1978) A collapsible bat trap and comparison of results obtained with the trap and with mist-nets. Australian Wildlife Research 5:355-362.

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

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

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

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

Appendix A: Floristic site descriptions

Site BOB4 – White Box Woodland Site BOB4 is located south east of Bobadeen Loop Road, within the south-western corner of the Bobadeen Vegetation Offset Domain. Vegetation within the site was mapped as White Box Woodland (Figure AA.1). Evidence of feral animal activity was noted (e.g. rabbit scats and feral pig diggings) and light weed invasion. This plot appeared to be located on the ecotone of two vegetation communities. The soil at this site was comprised of a red brown clay loam.

Figure AA.1: Site BOB4 plot photo (30 April 2012),

Floristic survey Site BOB4 was dominated by a canopy of Eucalyptus albens . A scattered layer of low shrubs (0.2 – 2 m) were present, with common species including Cassinia arcuata, Leucopogon muticus (Blunt Beard-heath) and Acacia verniciflua (Varnish Wattle). Microlaena stipoides dominated the ground layer with smaller patches of other native grass and herb species such as, Austrostipa scabra (Speargrass), Rytidosperma caespitosum , Calotis cuneata (Mountain Burr-daisy) and Chrysocephalum semipapposum (Clustered Everlasting) also present.

A total of 38 species were recorded within the site, which included five exotic species (Table AA.1 ).

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

Litter abundance was high within this plot and was increased by the presence of a large fallen ironbark within the plot (Table AA.1). Bare ground and canopy species regeneration were identified, however, rock and cryptogams were absent from within the site.

Table AA. 1: Structural ground composition for Site BOB4

DESCRIPTION PERCENT COVER (%)

Litter 65

Bare ground <5

Rock <5

Cryptogam <5

Regeneration (Y/N) Y – Eucalyptus albens

Site BOB10 – Derived Native Grassland The site was relocated from 2011 to 2012 based on revised vegetation community mapping and the target vegetation community. It contains both exotic and native grasses and herbs (Figure AA.2).

Figure AA.2: Site BOB10 plot photo, south aspect, (19 April 2012).

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

Floristic survey A total of 27 plant species were recorded, including 18 native and nine exotic plant species (Table AA.2).

An absence of trees and shrubs, and a dense vegetative ground cover limited the accumulation of litter within the site. Table AA.2 summarises groundcover components of the site.

Table AA. 2: Structural ground composition for Site BOB10 DESCRIPTION PERCENT COVER (%)

Litter 10

Bare ground <5

Rock <5

Cryptogam <5

Regeneration (Y/N) N

Site BOB11 – Blakely’s Red Gum Open Forest The site was relocated from 2011 to 2012 based on revised vegetation community mapping and the target vegetation community. The vegetation of BOB11 is mapped as Blakely’s Red Gum Open Forest (regenerating) (Figure AA.3).

Figure AA.3: Site BOB11 plot photo (1 May 2012).

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

Floristic survey Site BOB11 is a regenerating Eucalyptus blakelyi with an understorey of Cassinia arcuata . Grass species Arundinella nepalensis and Aristida vagans dominated the ground layer.

A total of 41 plant species were recorded within the site (Table AA.3 ) of which 35 were native species and six were exotic. Table AA.3 summarises additional groundcover components of the site.

Table AA. 3: Structural ground composition for Site BOB11 DESCRIPTION PERCENT COVER (%)

Litter 10

Bare ground 5

Rock <5

Cryptogam <5

Regeneration (Y/N) Y- Eucalyptus blakelyi

Site BOB13 – Unimproved Pasture The site was relocated from 2011 to 2012 based on revised vegetation community mapping and the target vegetation community. Site BOB13 is located near the north-west boundary of the Bobadeen Vegetation Offset Domain and the nearest cross-roads are Bobadeen and Bobadeen Loop Roads. Vegetation within the site was mapped as Unimproved Pasture ( Figure AA.4). The soils are red brown clay.

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

Figure AA.4: Site BOB13 plot photo (19 October 2012)

Floristic survey The vegetation within site BOB13 was dominated by a dense shrub and ground layer. The canopy was dominated by Eucalyptus crebra with sparsely scattered Blakely’s Red Gum (Eucalyptus blakelyi ). In contrast, the shrub layer was low-lying, dense and dominated by Cassinia arcuata. A small number of exotic species were scattered throughout a predominantly native grass groundcover.

A total of 46 species were recorded within the site, including 43 native species and three exotic species (Table AA.4 ). The site was relatively diverse with limited weed invasion. Table AA.4 summarises groundcover components of the site.

Table AA. 4: Structural ground composition for Site BOB13 DESCRIPTION PERCENT COVER (%)

Litter <5

Bare ground 20

Rock 0

Cryptogam <5

Regeneration (Y/N) Y - Angophora floribunda

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

Site BOB14 – Derived Native Grassland Site BOB14 is located within the Bobadeen Vegetation Offset Domain, south of Bobadeen Road, west of the pump station, along a drainage line. The soils are dark brown clay loams.

Floristic Survey Site BOB14 is within a regenerating paddock and supported a low canopy, 3 m to 8 m in height, of regenerating Red Gum ( Eucalyptus sp.). Melaleuca thymifolia (Thyme Honey-myrtle) represented the scattered shrub layer and the grassy groundcover was dominated by dense swards of native perennial species such as Arundinella nepalensis, and Themeda australis.

A total of 38 species were recorded within the site, including 30 native species and eight exotic species (Table AA.5 ). Exotic species were widely distributed throughout the site at low densities. Table AA.5 summaries additional groundcover components of the site.

Table AA. 5: Structural ground composition for Site BOB14

DESCRIPTION PERCENT COVER (%)

Litter 5

Bare ground <5

Rock 0

Cryptogam 0

Regeneration (Y/N) Y – Eucalyptus sp. (red gum)

Site BOB15 – Unimproved Pasture Site BOB15 is located within the north-east section of the Bobadeen Vegetation Offset Domain area, adjacent to Bobadeen Road. The vegetation within the site mapped as Unimproved Pasture (Umwelt 2009). The soils are red brown clays.

Floristic Survey Site BOB15 supported a shrubby pasture with a mixed groundcover of native and exotic species. The canopy was absent and a moderately dense shrub layer of Acacia linearifolia, Acacia leucolobia and Cassinia arcuata was present. Ground layer was a mix of native and exotic species. A total of 36 species were recorded within the site, including; 27 native species and 9 exotic species (Table AA.6 ). Table AA.6 summarises additional groundcover components of the site.

Table AA. 6: Structural ground composition for Site BOB15

DESCRIPTION PERCENT COVER (%)

Litter 5

Bare ground 4

Rock 2

Cryptogam 2

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

Regeneration (Y/N) Y – Eucalyptus blakelyi , E. crebra

Site BOBE7 – Modified White Box Woodland Site BOBE7 is located within the Bobadeen East Vegetation Offset Domain, south of Apple Road. A sparse canopy of Eucalyptus albens occurred above a derived grassland. The soils are brown clays.

Floristic survey A tall grass cover of native and exotic species was present amongst a scattered canopy of Eucalyptus albens . A total of 32 species were recorded at the site, including 21 native species and 11 exotic species (Table AA.7 ). The absence of canopy species and the dense grass layer meant that the percentage of litter and bare ground was low. Table AA.7 summarises additional groundcover components of the site.

Table AA. 7: Structural ground composition for Site BOBE7

DESCRIPTION PERCENT COVER (%)

Litter 5

Bare ground <5

Rock <5

Cryptogam <5

Regeneration (Y/N) N

Site RPA3 - Rough-barked Apple Open Forest on Alluvium/Colluvium Site RPA3 is located north of the Open Cut Extension area on a drainage line within the Residual EA Project Area Domain. Vegetation was mapped as Rough-barked Apple Open Forest on Alluvium/Colluvium (Figure AA.5). Evidence of wombat activity including a wombat burrow was noted within the site.

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

Figure AA. 5: Site RPA3 photo point (30 April 2012).

Floristic survey The vegetation within site RPA3 was dominated by a scattered canopy of Angophora floribunda and Eucalyptus microcarpa , with a shrub layer dominated by Acacia linearifolia . Microlaena stipoides was interspersed with native groundcover species, such as Geranium solanderi , and exotic herbs, including Anagallis arvensis (Scarlet Pimpernel).

A total of 37 species were recorded within the site (Table AA.8 ), including 26 native species and 11 exotic species. The species composition identified within site RPA3 reflects the surrounding disturbed environment and a history of vegetation clearing.

Litter, bare ground, rocks and cryptogam cover was less than 5% of the ground layer ( Table AA.8).

Table AA. 8: Structural ground composition for Site RPA3 DESCRIPTION PERCENT COVER (%)

Litter <5

Bare ground <5

Rock <5

Cryptogam <5

Regeneration (Y/N) Y

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

Site RPA8 – Derived Native Grassland The vegetation of RPA8 is mapped as Derived Native Grassland (Figure AA.6).

Figure AA. 6: Site RPA8 plot photo (2 May 2012)

Floristic survey Site RPA8 supported native grassland dominated by Dichanthium sericeum, Bothriochloa macra and Rytidosperma spp.

In spring 2012, a total of 22 species were recorded within this site (Table 3.1 ), including 13 native species and 9 exotic species (Table AA.9 ). Native grasses dominated the groundcover, with only a small percentage of litter, bare ground and cryptogam recorded at the site ( Table AA.9).

Table AA. 9: Structural ground composition for Site RPA8

DESCRIPTION PERCENT COVER (%)

Litter 5

Bare ground <5

Rock <5

Cryptogam <5

Regeneration (Y/N) N

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

Site RPA15 – Tumbledown Red Gum – Callitris Open Forest on Granite Site RPA15 is located in the south of the study area off Highet Road at the southern boundary of the Residual EA Project Area Domain. The site has been mapped as Tumbledown Red Gum - Callitris Open Forest on Granite (Figure AA.7). Evidence of weed and feral animal disturbances were noted. The soils are dark brown sandy loam.

Figure AA. 7: Site RPA15 photo point. (17 April 2012)

Floristic survey Site RPA15 was characterised by a dense woodland with a mixed canopy of Eucalyptus crebra , Angophora floribunda and Callitris endlicheri, with E. rossii in small numbers. A very sparse shrub layer was present comprising only a few species; Brachyloma daphnoides (Daphne Heath) and Lissanthe strigosa. Groundcover species were poorly represented as leaf litter was abundant. Small patches of native herbs such as Cheilanthes sieberi , Geranium solanderi and Podolepis neglecta were present.

A total of 40 species were recorded within the site (Table AA.10 ) including 37 native species and three exotic species. The ground layer primarily consisted of fallen leaf litter ( Table AA.10 ). Bare ground, rocks and cryptogam cover was less than 5 % of the groundcover. Juvenile E. crebra and A. floribunda were present at the site.

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

Table AA. 10: Structural ground composition for Site RPA15

DESCRIPTION PERCENT COVER (%)

Litter 75

Bare ground 5

Rock <5

Cryptogam <5

Regeneration (Y/N) Y

Site FBS3 – Scribbly Gum – Ironbark woodland The vegetation of FBS3 is mapped as Scribbly Gum – Ironbark Woodland (Figure AA.8).

Figure AA. 8: Site FBS 3 plot photo (18 October 2012)

Floristic Survey The site has sparse canopy of Eucalyptus rossi and E. crebra , both of which are regenerating. Shrub and small trees common in the site were Persoonia linearis , Calytrix tetragona , Acacia spp. and Leptospermum spp. The ground layer consists of Lomandra spp. and Pomax umbellata .

A total of 42 plant species were identified on site, with no exotic plant species present ( Table AA.11 ). Table AA.11 summarises additional groundcover components of the site.

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

Table AA. 11: Structural ground composition for Site FBS3

DESCRIPTION PERCENT COVER (%)

Litter 50

Bare ground 35

Rock 0

Cryptogam 10

Regeneration (Y/N) Y - Eucalyptus rossii and E. crebra.

Site FBS3 – Rough-barked Apple- Blakely’s Red Gum Woodland

The vegetation of FBS3 is mapped as Rough-barked Apple - Blakely’s Red Gum Woodland (Figure AA.9).

Figure AA. 9: Site FBS4 plot photo (21 October 2012)

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

Floristic Survey

The site has a canopy of Angophora floribunda and Eucalyptus blakelyi of 13 m to 19 m in height. The shrub and small tree layer consists of Cassinia spp. and juvenile eucalypts. Ground layer is a mix of Aristida spp. and Microlaena stipoides .

A total of 41 plant species were identified at the site of which 35 were native and six exotic ( Table AA.12 ). Table AA.12 summarises additional groundcover components of the site

Table AA. 12: Structural ground composition for Site FBS4

DESCRIPTION PERCENT COVER (%)

Litter 45

Bare ground 10

Rock <5

Cryptogam <5

Regeneration (Y/N) Y - Eucalyptus blakelyi and Angophora floribunda.

Site BOBC2 – Box-Gum Woodland The vegetation of BOBC2 is mapped as Box - Gum Woodland (Figure AA.10 ).

Figure AA. 10: Site BOBC2 plot photo (30 October 2012)

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

Floristic survey

Dominated with an understorey of Cassinia arcuata , and a dense grass cover of Sporobolus sp., Aristida spp., Eragrostis spp. and Microlaena stipoides .

A total of 39 plant species were identified, comprising 34 native species and five exotic species ( Table AA.13 ). Table AA.13 summarises additional groundcover components of the site.

Table AA. 13: Structural ground composition for Site BOBC2 DESCRIPTION PERCENT COVER (%)

Litter 20

Bare ground 10

Rock <5

Cryptogam <5

Regeneration (Y/N) Y – Eucalyptus sp.

Site BOBC4 –Rough-barked Apple Woodland The vegetation of BOBC4 is mapped as Rough-barked Apple Woodland.

Floristic Survey

The dominant canopy tree is Angophora floribunda with an understorey of Cassinia spp., Leucopogon spp. and young Angophora floribunda . Ground layer contained Sporobolus crebra , Microlaena stipoides , Eragrostis spp., Aristida spp., Austrostipa spp. and Rytidosperma spp.

A total of 41 plant species were identified, comprising 35 native species and six exotic species ( Table AA.14 ). Table AA.14 summarises additional groundcover components of the site.

Table AA. 14: Structural ground composition for Site BOBC4 DESCRIPTION PERCENT COVER (%)

Litter 60

Bare ground 5

Rock 5

Cryptogam <5

Regeneration (Y/N) Y – Angophora floribunda

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

Site BOBC5 – Ironbark-Cypress Woodland The vegetation of BOBC5 is mapped as Ironbark-Cypress Woodland (Figure AA.11 ).

Figure AA. 11: Site BOBC5 plot photo. (30 October 2012)

Floristic survey

The canopy is comprised of Eucalyptus fibrosa and Callitris endlicheri . In the mid-layer were Calytrix tetragona , Cassinia spp., Leucopogon spp., Allocasuarin a spp., and Callitris endlicheri . Ground layer contained Pomax umbellata, Phyllanthus hirtellus and Microlaena stipoides .

A total of 28 plant species were identified, with no exotic species ( Table AA.15 ). Table AA.15 summarises additional groundcover components of the site.

Table AA. 15: Structural ground composition for Site BOBC5

DESCRIPTION PERCENT COVER (%)

Litter 15

Bare ground 45

Rock 20

Cryptogam 20

Regeneration (Y/N) N

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

Site BOBC6 – Derived Native Grassland The vegetation of BOBC6 is mapped as Derived Native Grassland (Figure AA.12 ).

Figure AA. 12: Site BOBC6 plot photo (30 October 2012)

Floristic survey

The site was had 95% cover of grasses, comprising both native ( Chloris sp. and Aristida spp.) and exotic grasses (Hordeum leporinum and Lolium spp.).

A total of 38 plant species were identified, comprising 27 native species and 11 exotic species ( Table AA.16 ). Table AA.16 summarises additional groundcover components of the site.

Table AA. 16: Structural ground composition for Site BOBC6 DESCRIPTION PERCENT COVER (%)

Litter 5

Bare ground <5

Rock 0

Cryptogam 0

Regeneration (Y/N) N

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

Appendix B: Flora species list

FAMILY SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME NATIVE / EXOTIC

Adiantaceae Cheilanthes sieberi Native

Amaranthaceae Alternanthera denticulata Lesser Joyweed Native

Anthericaceae Dichopogon sp. Native

Anthericaceae Dichopogon strictus Chocolate Lily Native

Anthericaceae Laxmannia gracilis Slender Wire Lily Native

Anthericaceae Tricoryne sp. Native

Apiaceae Cyclospermum leptophyllum Slender Celery Exotic

Apiaceae Hydrocotyle laxiflora Stinking Pennywort Native

Apiaceae Platysace linearifolia Native

Araliaceae Astrotricha longifolia Native

Asteraceae Arctotheca calendula Capeweed Exotic

Asteraceae Bidens pilosa Cobblers Pegs Exotic

Asteraceae Carthamus lanatus Saffron Thistle Exotic

Asteraceae Carthamus sp. Exotic

Asteraceae Cirsium vulgare Spear Thistle Exotic

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

FAMILY SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME NATIVE / EXOTIC

Asteraceae Conyza bonariensis Flaxleaf Fleabane Exotic

Asteraceae Conyza sp. Exotic

Asteraceae Gamochaeta calviceps Cudweed Exotic

Asteraceae Gamochaeta sp. Exotic

Asteraceae Hypochaeris radicata Catsear Exotic

Asteraceae Onopordum acanthium Scotch Thistle Exotic

Asteraceae Senecio madagascariensis Fireweed Exotic

Asteraceae Silybum marianum Variegated Thistle Exotic

Asteraceae Sonchus oleraceus Common Sowthistle Exotic

Asteraceae Sonchus sp. Exotic

Asteraceae Tagetes minuta Stinking Roger Exotic

Asteraceae Taraxacum officinale Dandelion Exotic

Asteraceae Xanthium spinosum Bathurst Burr Exotic

Asteraceae Brachyscome sp. Native

Asteraceae Calotis cuneata Mountain Burr-daisy Native

Asteraceae Calotis cuneifolia Purple Burr-daisy Native

Asteraceae Calotis lappulacea Yellow Burr-daisy Native

Asteraceae Calotis sp. Native

Asteraceae Cassinia arcuata Sifton Bush Native

Asteraceae Cassinia sp. Native

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

FAMILY SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME NATIVE / EXOTIC

Asteraceae Chrysocephalum apiculatum Common Everlasting Native

Asteraceae Chrysocephalum semipapposum Clustered Everlasting Native

Asteraceae Cymbonotus lawsonianus Bears-ear Native

Asteraceae Euchiton sp. Native

Asteraceae Euchiton sphaericus Native

Asteraceae Helichrysum sp. Native

Asteraceae Lagenophora stipitata Blue Bottle-daisy Native

Asteraceae Ozothamnus diosmifolius Rice Flower Native

Asteraceae Podolepis neglecta Native

Asteraceae Podolepis sp. Native

Asteraceae Sigesbeckia orientalis Native

Asteraceae Solenogyne bellioides Native

Asteraceae Solenogyne sp. Native

Asteraceae Triptilodiscus pygmaeus Common Sunray Native

Asteraceae Vittadinia muelleri Native

Asteraceae Vittadinia sp. Native

Asteraceae Vittadinia sulcata Native

Asteraceae Senecio sp. Native/Exotic

Asteraceae Lactuca sp. Exotic

Boraginaceae Echium plantagineum Paterson's Curse Exotic

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

FAMILY SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME NATIVE / EXOTIC

Boraginaceae Echium vulgare Vipers Bugloss Exotic

Brassicaceae Capsella bursa-pastoris Shepherd's Purse Exotic

Brassicaceae Rorippa sp. Exotic

Brassicaceae Lepidium sp. Native/Exotic

Cactaceae Opuntia sp. Prickly Pear Exotic

Campanulaceae Wahlenbergia communis Tufted Bluebell Native

Campanulaceae Wahlenbergia gracilis Sprawling Bluebell Native

Campanulaceae Wahlenbergia luteola Native

Campanulaceae Wahlenbergia sp. Native

Caryophyllaceae Cerastium sp. Exotic

Caryophyllaceae Paronychia brasiliana Chilean Whitlow Wort Exotic

Caryophyllaceae Petrorhagia nanteuilii Exotic

Caryophyllaceae Petrorhagia velutina Exotic

Caryophyllaceae Petrorhagia sp. Native

Caryophyllaceae Stellaria flaccida Native

Casuarinaceae Allocasuarina gymnanthera Native

Casuarinaceae Allocasuarina luehmannii Bulloak Native

Casuarinaceae Allocasuarina sp. Native

Casuarinaceae Casuarina sp. Native

Chenopodiaceae Einadia hastata Berry Saltbush Native

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

FAMILY SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME NATIVE / EXOTIC

Chenopodiaceae Einadia sp. Native

Chenopodiaceae Einadia trigonos Fishweed Native

Chenopodiaceae Sclerolaena sp. Native/Exotic

Clusiaceae Hypericum perforatum St John's Wort Exotic

Clusiaceae Hypericum gramineum Small St John's Wort Native

Clusiaceae Hypericum sp. Native

Colchicaceae Wurmbea sp. Native

Convolvulaceae Convolvulus erubescens Blushing Bindweed Native

Convolvulaceae Convolvulus sp. Native

Convolvulaceae Dichondra repens Kidney Weed Native

Convolvulaceae Dichondra sp. A Native

Cupressaceae Callitris endlicheri Black Cypress Pine Native

Cyperaceae Carex appressa Tall Sedge Native

Cyperaceae Carex inversa Native

Cyperaceae Carex sp. Native

Cyperaceae Fimbristylis dichotoma Common Fringe-sedge Native

Cyperaceae Gahnia aspera Rough Saw-sedge Native

Cyperaceae Lepidosperma laterale Native

Cyperaceae Lepidosperma sp. Native

Cyperaceae Schoenus apogon Common Bog-rush Native

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

FAMILY SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME NATIVE / EXOTIC

Cyperaceae Schoenus imberbis Native

Cyperaceae Schoenus sp. Native

Cyperaceae Cyperus sp. Native/Exotic

Cyperaceae Lepidosperma viscidum Native

Dennstaedtiaceae Pteridium esculentum Common Bracken Native

Dilleniaceae Hibbertia circumdans Native

Dilleniaceae Hibbertia diffusa Wedge Guinea Flower Native

Dilleniaceae Hibbertia obtusifolia Hoary Guinea Flower Native

Dilleniaceae Hibbertia sp. Native

Droseraceae Drosera peltata Native

Droseraceae Drosera sp. Native

Ericaceae - Styphelioideae Acrotriche rigida Native

Ericaceae - Styphelioideae Astroloma humifusum Native Cranberry Native

Ericaceae - Styphelioideae Brachyloma daphnoides Daphne Heath Native

Ericaceae - Styphelioideae Leucopogon attenuatus Native

Ericaceae - Styphelioideae Leucopogon muticus Blunt Beard-heath Native

Ericaceae - Styphelioideae Leucopogon parviflorus Coastal Beard-heath Native

Ericaceae - Styphelioideae Leucopogon sp. Native

Ericaceae - Styphelioideae Leucopogon virgatus Native

Ericaceae - Styphelioideae Lissanthe strigosa Peach Heath Native

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

FAMILY SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME NATIVE / EXOTIC

Ericaceae - Styphelioideae Melichrus erubescens Ruby Urn Heath Native

Ericaceae - Styphelioideae Melichrus sp. Native

Ericaceae - Styphelioideae Melichrus urceolatus Urn-heath Native

Ericaceae - Styphelioideae Monotoca elliptica Tree Broom-heath Native

Ericaceae - Styphelioideae Monotoca scoparia Native

Ericaceae - Styphelioideae Monotoca sp. Native

Ericaceae - Styphelioideae Styphelia triflora Pink Five-Corners Native

Euphorbiaceae Chamaesyce drummondii Caustic Weed Native

Euphorbiaceae Chamaesyce sp. Native

Fabaceae Bossiaea obcordata Spiny Bossiaea Native

Fabaceae - Faboideae Medicago minima Woolly Burr Medic Exotic

Fabaceae - Faboideae Medicago sp. Exotic

Fabaceae - Faboideae Trifolium arvense Haresfoot Clover Exotic

Fabaceae - Faboideae Trifolium campestre Hop Clover Exotic

Fabaceae - Faboideae Trifolium sp. Exotic

Fabaceae - Faboideae Bossiaea buxifolia Native

Fabaceae - Faboideae Bossiaea prostrata Native

Fabaceae - Faboideae Desmodium sp. Native

Fabaceae - Faboideae Desmodium varians Slender Tick-trefoil Native

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

FAMILY SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME NATIVE / EXOTIC

Fabaceae - Faboideae Dillwynia sp. Native

Fabaceae - Faboideae Glycine clandestina Native

Fabaceae - Faboideae Glycine sp. Native

Fabaceae - Faboideae Gompholobium huegelii Pale Wedge Pea Native

Fabaceae - Faboideae Hardenbergia violacea Purple Coral Pea Native

Fabaceae - Faboideae Podolobium ilicifolium Prickly Shaggy Pea Native

Fabaceae - Faboideae Pultenaea cinerascens Native

Fabaceae - Faboideae Pultenaea microphylla Native

Fabaceae - Faboideae Pultenaea sp. Native

Fabaceae - Faboideae Swainsona behriana Behr's Swainson-pea Native

Fabaceae - Faboideae Swainsona galegifolia Smooth Darling-pea Native

Fabaceae - Faboideae Swainsona sp. Native

Fabaceae - Faboideae Vicia sp. Native

Fabaceae - Faboideae Zornia dyctiocarpa var. dyctiocarpa Zornia Native

Fabaceae - Faboideae Glycine microphylla Native

Fabaceae - Faboideae Indigofera sp. Native

Fabaceae - Faboideae Medicago polymorpha Native

Fabaceae - Mimosoideae Acacia ausfeldii Ausfeld's Wattle Native

Fabaceae - Mimosoideae Acacia decora Western Silver Wattle Native

Fabaceae - Mimosoideae Acacia doratoxylon Lancewood Native

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

FAMILY SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME NATIVE / EXOTIC

Fabaceae - Mimosoideae Acacia gladiiformis Sword Wattle Native

Fabaceae - Mimosoideae Acacia implexa Hickory Wattle Native

Fabaceae - Mimosoideae Acacia leucolobia Wattle Native

Fabaceae - Mimosoideae Acacia linearifolia Narrow-leaved Wattle Native

Fabaceae - Mimosoideae Acacia paradoxa Kangaroo Thorn Native

Fabaceae - Mimosoideae Acacia sp. Native

Fabaceae - Mimosoideae Acacia spectabilis Mudgee Wattle Native

Fabaceae - Mimosoideae Acacia verniciflua Varnich Wattle Native

Gentianaceae Centaurium sp. Exotic

Gentianaceae Centaurium tenuiflorum Exotic

Geraniaceae Geranium solanderi Native Geranium Native

Geraniaceae Geranium sp. Native

Geraniaceae Erodium sp. Native/ Exotic

Goodeniaceae Dampiera sp. Native

Goodeniaceae Goodenia hederacea Forest Goodenia Native

Goodeniaceae Goodenia pinnatifida Native

Goodeniaceae Goodenia sp. Native

Haloragaceae Gonocarpus elatus Native

Haloragaceae Gonocarpus sp. Native

Haloragaceae Gonocarpus tetragynus Native

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

FAMILY SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME NATIVE / EXOTIC

Haloragaceae Gonocarpus teucrioides Raspwort Native

Haloragaceae Haloragis heterophylla Rough Raspwort Native

Haloragaceae Haloragis sp. Native

Iridaceae Sisyrinchium sp. Scourweed Exotic

Iridaceae Patersonia sericea Silky Purple-Flag Native

Juncaceae Juncus homalocaulis Native

Juncaceae Juncus usitatus Native

Juncaceae Juncus sp. Native/Exotic

Juncaceae Luzula sp. Exotic

Lamiaceae Marrubium vulgare White Horehound Exotic

Lamiaceae Salvia verbenaca Wild Sage Exotic

Lamiaceae Mentha sp. Exotic

Lauraceae Cassytha glabella Native

Linaceae Linum trigynum French Flax Native

Lobeliaceae Pratia purpurascens Whiteroot Native

Loganiaceae Mitrasacme sp. Native

Lomandraceae Lomandra filiformis Native

Lomandraceae Lomandra filiformis subsp. coriacea Wattle Mat-rush Native

Lomandraceae Lomandra filiformis subsp. filiformis Wattle Mat-rush Native

Lomandraceae Lomandra glauca Pale Mat-rush Native

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

FAMILY SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME NATIVE / EXOTIC

Lomandraceae Lomandra leucocephala Woolly Mat-rush Native

Lomandraceae Lomandra longifolia Spiny-headed Mat-rush Native

Lomandraceae Lomandra multiflora subsp. multiflora Many-flowered Mat-rush Native

Lomandraceae Lomandra sp. Native

Loranthaceae Amyema miquelii Native

Loranthaceae Amyema sp. Native

Malvaceae Modiola caroliniana Red-flowered Mallow Exotic

Malvaceae Sida rhombifolia Paddy's Lucerne Exotic

Malvaceae Sida corrugata Corrugated Sida Native

Myoporaceae Myoporum sp.

Myrsinaceae Anagallis arvensis Scarlet Pimpernel Exotic

Myrtaceae Angophora floribunda Rough-barked Apple Native

Myrtaceae Babingtonia cunninghamii Native

Myrtaceae Callistemon pinifolius Pine-leaved Bottlebrush Native

Myrtaceae Calytrix tetragona Common Fringe-myrtle Native

Myrtaceae Eucalyptus agglomerata Blue-leaved Stringybark Native

Myrtaceae Eucalyptus albens White Box Native

Myrtaceae Eucalyptus blakelyi Blakely's Red Gum Native

Myrtaceae Eucalyptus crebra Narrow-leaved Ironbark Native

Myrtaceae Eucalyptus dwyeri Dwyer's Red Gum Native

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

FAMILY SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME NATIVE / EXOTIC

Myrtaceae Eucalyptus fibrosa Red Ironbark Native

Myrtaceae Eucalyptus macrorhyncha Red Stringybark Native

Myrtaceae Eucalyptus melliodora Yellow Box Native

Myrtaceae Eucalyptus microcarpa Grey Box Native

Myrtaceae Eucalyptus moluccana Grey Box Native

Myrtaceae Eucalyptus parramattensis Parramatta Red Gum Native

Myrtaceae Eucalyptus rossii Inland Scribbly Gum Native

Myrtaceae Eucalyptus sp. Native

Myrtaceae Eucalyptus sparsifolia Narrow-leaved Stringybark Native

Myrtaceae Kunzea parvifolia Violet Kunzea Native

Myrtaceae Leptospermum arachnoides Native

Myrtaceae Leptospermum parvifolium Native

Myrtaceae Leptospermum polygalifolium Tantoon Native

Myrtaceae Leptospermum polygalifolium subsp. transmontanum Tantoon Native

Myrtaceae Melaleuca thymifolia Thyme Honey-myrtle Native

Myrtaceae Sannantha cunninghamii Native

Nyctaginaceae Boerhavia dominii Tarvine Native

Orchidaceae Caladenia sp. Native

Orchidaceae Diuris sp. Native

Orchidaceae Microtis sp. Native

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

FAMILY SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME NATIVE / EXOTIC

Orchidaceae Pterostylis sp. Native

Orchidaceae Calochilus sp. Native

Orchidaceae Diuris sulphurea Native

Orchidaceae Pterostylis mutica Native

Oxalidaceae Oxalis perennans Native

Oxalidaceae Oxalis sp. Native/Exotic

Phormiaceae Dianella longifolia Blueberry Lily Native

Phormiaceae Dianella revoluta Blueberry Lily Native

Phyllanthaceae Phyllanthus hirtellus Thyme Spurge Native

Phyllanthaceae Phyllanthus occidentalis Native

Phyllanthaceae Phyllanthus sp. Native

Phyllanthaceae Phyllanthus virgatus Native

Phyllanthaceae Poranthera corymbosa Native

Phyllanthaceae Poranthera microphylla Native

Pittosporaceae Billardiera scandens Hairy Apple Berry Native

Pittosporaceae Bursaria spinosa Blackthorn Native

Plantaginaceae Plantago lanceolata Lamb's Tongues Exotic

Plantaginaceae Plantago debilis Native

Plantaginaceae Plantago gaudichaudii Narrow plantain Native

Plantaginaceae Plantago sp. Native

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

FAMILY SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME NATIVE / EXOTIC

Poaceae Aira sp. Exotic

Poaceae Briza minor Shivery Grass Exotic

Poaceae Bromus catharticus Prairie Grass Exotic

Poaceae Bromus diandrus Great Brome Exotic

Poaceae Bromus molliformis Soft Brome Exotic

Poaceae Bromus sp. Exotic

Poaceae Chloris gayana Rhodes Grass Exotic

Poaceae Chloris virgata Feathertop Rhodes Grass Exotic

Poaceae Dactylis glomerata Cocksfoot Exotic

Poaceae Eragrostis curvula African Lovegrass Exotic

Poaceae Hordeum sp. Exotic

Poaceae Lolium perenne Perennial Ryegrass Exotic

Poaceae Paspalum dilatatum Paspalum Exotic

Poaceae Pennisetum clandestinum Kikuyu Grass Exotic

Poaceae Setaria sp. Exotic

Poaceae Vulpia sp. Exotic

Poaceae Aristida ramosa Purple Wiregrass Native

Poaceae Aristida sp. Native

Poaceae Aristida vagans Threeawn Speargrass Native

Poaceae Arundinella nepalensis Reedgrass Native

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

FAMILY SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME NATIVE / EXOTIC

Poaceae Rytidosperma caespitosum Ringed Wallaby Grass Native

Poaceae Rytidosperma erianthum Native

Poaceae Rytidosperma racemosum var. racemosum Native

Poaceae Rytidosperma sp. Native

Poaceae Austrostipa scabra Speargrass Native

Poaceae Austrostipa sp. Native

Poaceae Austrostipa verticillata Native

Poaceae Bothriochloa decipiens Red Grass Native

Poaceae Bothriochloa macra Red Grass Native

Poaceae Bothriochloa sp. Native

Poaceae Chloris truncata Windmill Grass Native

Poaceae Chloris ventricosa Plump Windmill Grass Native

Poaceae Cleistochloa rigida Native

Poaceae Cymbopogon refractus Barbed Wire Grass Native

Poaceae Cynodon dactylon Couch Native

Poaceae Dichanthium sericeum Queensland Bluegrass Native

Poaceae Dichanthium sp. Native

Poaceae Dichelachne crinita Native

Poaceae Dichelachne micrantha Shorthair Plumegrass Native

Poaceae Dichelachne sp. Native

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

FAMILY SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME NATIVE / EXOTIC

Poaceae Digitaria diffusa Open Summer-grass Native

Poaceae Digitaria parviflora Small-flowered Finger Grass Native

Poaceae Digitaria sp. Native

Poaceae Echinopogon caespitosus Bushy Hedgehog-grass Native

Poaceae Echinopogon ovatus Forest Hedgehog Grass Native

Poaceae Echinopogon sp. Native

Poaceae Elymus scaber Native

Poaceae Entolasia stricta Wiry Panic Native

Poaceae Eragrostis benthamii Native

Poaceae Eragrostis sp. Native

Poaceae Joycea pallida Silvertop Wallaby Grass Native

Poaceae Microlaena stipoides Weeping Grass Native

Poaceae Panicum effusum Hairy Panic Native

Poaceae Paspalidium distans Native

Poaceae Poa sp. Native

Poaceae Sporobolus creber Western Rat-tail Grass Native

Poaceae Themeda australis Kangaroo Grass Native

Poaceae Chloris sp. Native/Exotic

Poaceae Sporobolus sp. Native/Exotic

Polygonaceae Acetosella vulgaris Sorrel Exotic

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

FAMILY SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME NATIVE / EXOTIC

Polygonaceae Rumex brownii Swamp Dock Native

Polygonaceae Rumex sp. Native/Exotic

Polygonaceae Polygonum sp. Native

Proteaceae Grevillea diffusa Native

Proteaceae Grevillea sericea Pink Spider Flower Native

Proteaceae Grevillea sp. Native

Proteaceae Hakea dactyloides Finger Hakea Native

Proteaceae Isopogon sp. Native

Proteaceae Lomatia sp. Native

Proteaceae Persoonia linearis Narrow-leaved Geebung Native

Proteaceae Persoonia myrtilloides subsp. cunninghamii Native

Restionaceae Lepyrodia scariosa Native

Rhamnaceae Cryptandra spinescens Native

Rhamnaceae Pomaderris ferruginea Rusty Pomaderris Native

Rosaceae Acaena ovina Native

Rosaceae Acaena sp. Native

Rubiaceae Richardia sp. Exotic

Rubiaceae Richardia stellaris Exotic

Rubiaceae Asperula conferta Common Woodruff Native

Rubiaceae Asperula sp. Native

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

FAMILY SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME NATIVE / EXOTIC

Rubiaceae Cyclophyllum longipetalum Coast Canthium Native

Rubiaceae Opercularia diphylla Native

Rubiaceae Opercularia sp. Native

Rubiaceae Pomax umbellata Native

Rubiaceae Cyclophyllum sp.

Rutaceae Boronia sp. Native

Rutaceae Correa reflexa Common Correa Native

Santalaceae Exocarpos strictus Pale-fruit Ballart Native

Sapindaceae Dodonaea sp. Native

Sapindaceae Dodonaea viscosa subsp. cuneata Wedge-leaf Hop-bush Native

Scrophulariaceae Veronica plebeia Trailing Speedwell Native

Solanaceae Solanum nigrum Black-berry Nightshade Exotic

Solanaceae Solanum campanulatum Native

Solanaceae Solanum sp. Native/Exotic

Stackhousiaceae Stackhousia muricata Western Stackhousia Native

Stackhousiaceae Stackhousia sp. Native

Sterculiaceae Brachychiton populneus Kurrajong Native

Thymelaeaceae Pimelea linifolia Slender Rice Flower Native

Urticaceae Urtica incisa Stinging Nettle Native

Verbenaceae Verbena bonariensis Purpletop Exotic

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

FAMILY SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME NATIVE / EXOTIC

Verbenaceae Verbena sp. Exotic

Violaceae Hybanthus monopetalus Slender Violet-bush Native

Violaceae Viola hederacea Native

Xanthorrhoeaceae Xanthorrhoea johnsonii Johnson's Grass Tree Native

Zamiaceae Macrozamia sp. Native

Zamiaceae Macrozamia spiralis Native

Zamiaceae Macrozamia flexuosa

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

Appendix C: LFA & Vegetation Dynamics detailed results

Site 1 – She-oak Low Forest on Sandstone Crests

This site is located in the Residual Project Area within the vegetation type She-oak Low Forest on Sandstone Crests.

Landscape organisation Table AC.1 below identifies the different patch and inter-patch types, the average type length, percentage of the transect length, the average patch width and the number of patches sampled. A summary of data from the LFA is as follows:

• Number of patches per 10 m – 14.9

• Total patch area – 310 m 2

• Patch area index – 0.86

• Landscape organisation index – 0.98

• Average inter-patch length – 0.20 m

• Range inter-patch length – 0.12 to 0.36 m

Table AC.1: Site 1a patch and inter-patch types

MEAN ZONE % OF THE NO OF MEAN WIDTH ZONE LENGTH (m) TRANSECT PATCHES (cm) Litter 1.06 85.20 29 1000.00 Shrub 0.01 0.06 3 4.0 Tree 0.12 0.66 2 50.0 Cryptogam 0.25 5.42 8 24.1 Log 0.25 6.81 10 46.2 Herb 0.03 0.17 6.0 3.0

Soil surface assessment The soil surface assessment charts show the contribution of each of the patch/inter-patch types to zone infiltration ( Figure AC.1 ), zone stability ( Figure AC.2 ) and zone nutrients ( Figure AC.3 ).

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

Zone Infiltration 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 InfiltrationIndex (%) 10.0 0.0 Litter Cryptogram Bare Soil Shrub Log Herb Tree

Figure AC.1: Site 1 infiltration results with standard error (the lower the number of sampled replicates, the higher the standard error)

Zone Stability 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 Stability Stability (%) Index 10.0 0.0 Litter Cryptogram Bare Soil Shrub Log Herb Tree

Figure AC.2: Site 1 stability results with standard error

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

Zone Nutrients 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 Nutrient Cycling Cycling NutrientIndex (%) 0.0 Litter Cryptogram Bare Soil Shrub Log Herb Tree

Figure AC.3: Site 1 nutrient results with standard error

Vegetation dynamics Table AC.2 provides a summary of the vegetation dynamics data for the site. This includes the number of plants per hectare for each of strata layers sampled grasses, other ground covers, shrubs and trees.

Table AC.2: Site 1 vegetation dynamics LAYER 2 - LAYER 3 LAYER 1 - LAYER 4 GROUND - TOTAL GRASSES - TREES COVER OTHER SHRUBS No plants/hectare 9,712 16,228 14,240 948 41,128 Mean distance between plants (m) 1.014737 0.785 0.838 3.247 0 Canopy volume/hectare (m³/ha) 0 0 235 6888

Site 2 – Narrow-leaved Ironbark Woodland

This site is located in the Bobadeen Vegetation Offset Area within the vegetation type Narrow-leaved Ironbark Woodland.

Landscape organisation Table AC.3 below identifies the different patch and inter-patch types, the average type length, percentage of the transect length, the average patch width and the number of patches sampled. A summary of data from the LFA is as follows:

• Number of patches per 10 m – 17.3

• Total patch area – 289.1 m 2

• Patch area index – 0.76

• Landscape organisation index – 0.91

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

• Average inter-patch length – 1.19 m

• Range inter-patch length – 0.00 to 1.55 m

Table AC.3: Site 2 patch and inter-patch types

MEAN ZONE % OF THE NO OF MEAN WIDTH ZONE LENGTH (m) TRANSECT PATCHES (cm) Grass 0.24 3.85 6 34.3 Litter 0.67 61.34 35 1000.0 Sedge 0.50 20.80 16 76.5 Herb 0.09 0.71 3 85.0 Shrub 0.25 3.95 6 22.5

Soil surface assessment The soil surface assessment charts show the contribution of each of the patch/inter-patch types to zone infiltration ( Figure AC.4 ), zone stability ( Figure AC.5 ) and zone nutrients ( Figure AC.6 ).

Zone Infiltration 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 Infiltration IndexInfiltration (%) 10.0 0.0 Grass Litter Sedge Herb Shrub Bare Soil

Figure AC.4: Site 2 infiltration results with standard error (the lower the number of sampled replicates, the higher the standard error)

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

Zone Stability 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 Stability Stability (%) Index 10.0 0.0 Grass Litter Sedge Herb Shrub Bare Soil

Figure AC.5: Site 2 stability results with standard error

Zone Nutrients 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 Nutrient Cycling Cycling NutrientIndex (%) -10.0 Grass Litter Sedge Herb Shrub Bare Soil

Figure AC.6: Site 2 nutrient results with standard error

Vegetation dynamics Table A3.4 provides a summary of the vegetation dynamics data for the site. This includes the number of plants per hectare for each of strata layers sampled grasses, other ground covers, shrubs and trees.

Table AC.4: Site 2 vegetation dynamics LAYER 2 - LAYER 3 LAYER 1 - LAYER 4 GROUND - TOTAL GRASSES - TREES COVER OTHER SHRUBS No plants/hectare 123,983 145,679 9,980 323 279,965 Mean distance between plants (m) 0.284 0.262 1.001 5.5675 n/a Canopy volume/hectare (m³/ha) 15 4384 231 25,784 30,414.07

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

Site 3 – Rough-barked Apple Open Forest

This site is located in the Bobadeen East Vegetation Offset Area within the vegetation type Rough- barked Apple Open Forest.

Landscape organisation Table AC.5 below identifies the different patch and inter-patch types, the average type length, percentage of the transect length, the average patch width and the number of patches sampled. A summary of data from the LFA is as follows:

• Number of patches per 10 m – 9.2

• Total patch area – 445.6 m 2

• Patch area index – 0.93

• Landscape organisation index – 0.95

• Average inter-patch length – 0.30 m

• Range inter-patch length – 0.03 to 0.72 m

Table AC.5: Site 3 patch and inter-patch types

MEAN ZONE % OF THE NO OF MEAN WIDTH ZONE LENGTH (m) TRANSECT PATCHES (cm) Litter 1.68 87.67 25 1000.0 Bare Soil 0.30 4.98 Cryptogam 0.62 1.29 1 35.0 Root 0.05 0.10 1 40.0 Log 0.17 5.95 17 128.1

Soil surface assessment The soil surface assessment charts show the contribution of each of the patch/inter-patch types to zone infiltration ( Figure AC.7 ), zone stability ( Figure AC.8 ) and zone nutrients ( Figure AC.9 ).

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

Zone Infiltration 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 Infiltration IndexInfiltration (%) 10.0 0.0 Litter Bare SoilCryptogram Root Log

Figure AC.7: Site 3 infiltration results with standard error (the lower the number of sampled replicates, the higher the standard error)

Zone Stability 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 Stability Stability (%) Index 10.0 0.0 Litter Bare SoilCryptogram Root Log

Figure AC.8: Site 3 stability results with standard error

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

Zone Nutrients 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 Nutrient Cycling Cycling NutrientIndex (%) -10.0 Litter Bare SoilCryptogram Root Log

Figure AC.9: Site 3 nutrient results with standard error

Vegetation dynamics Table AC.6 provides a summary of the vegetation dynamics data for the site. This includes the number of plants per hectare for each of strata layers sampled grasses, other ground covers, shrubs and trees.

Table AC.6: Site 3 vegetation dynamics LAYER 2 - LAYER 3 LAYER 1 - GROUND - LAYER 4 GRASSES COVER OTHER SHRUBS - TREES TOTAL No plants/hectare 13,091 3,773 1,858 607 19,329 Mean distance between plants (m) 0.874 1.628 2.32 4.059 n/a Canopy volume/hectare (m³/ha) 4 4 1,609 47,244 48,860.34

Site 4 – Narrow-leaved Ironbark Open Forest on Alluvium/Colluvium

This site is located in the Bobadeen Vegetation Offset Area within the vegetation type Narrow-leaved Ironbark Forest on Alluvium/Colluvium.

Landscape organisation Table AC.7 below identifies the different patch and inter-patch types, the average type length, percentage of the transect length, the average patch width and the number of patches sampled. A summary of data from the LFA is as follows:

• Number of patches per 10 m – 11.3

• Total patch area – 366.8 m 2

• Patch area index – 0.83

• Landscape organisation index – 0.92

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

• Average inter-patch length – 0.41 m

• Range inter-patch length – 0.02 to 3.32 m

Table AC.7: Site 4 patch and inter-patch types

MEAN ZONE % OF THE NO OF MEAN WIDTH ZONE LENGTH (m) TRANSECT PATCHES (cm) Litter 1.14 61.49 24 959.0 Bare Soil 0.41 8.39 Cryptogam 1.51 27.21 8 351.9 Herb 0.01 0.14 5 2.9 Shrub 0.02 0.20 5 1.3 Log 0.14 2.57 8 154.8

Soil surface assessment The soil surface assessment charts show the contribution of each of the patch/inter-patch types to zone infiltration ( Figure AC.10 ), zone stability ( Figure AC.11 ) and zone nutrients ( Figure AC.12 ).

Zone Infiltration 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0

InfiltrationIndex (%) 10.0 0.0 Litter Bare Soil Cryptogram Herb Shrub Log

Figure AC.10: Site 4 infiltration results with standard error (the lower the number of sampled replicates, the higher the standard error)

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

Zone Stability 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 Stability Stability Index(%) 10.0 0.0 Litter Bare Soil Cryptogram Herb Shrub Log

Figure AC.11: Site 4 stability results with standard error

Zone Nutrients 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 Nutrient Cycling Cycling NutrientIndex (%) -10.0 Litter Bare Soil Cryptogram Herb Shrub Log

Figure AC.12: Site 4 nutrient results with standard error

Vegetation dynamics Table AC.8 provides a summary of the vegetation dynamics data for the site. This includes the number of plants per hectare for each of strata layers sampled grasses, other ground covers, shrubs and trees.

Table AC.8: Site 4 vegetation dynamics

LAYER 1 - LAYER 2 - LAYER 3 GRASSES GROUND - LAYER 4 COVER OTHER SHRUBS - TREES TOTAL No plants/hectare 792 35,200 19,726 1,595 57,313 Mean distance between plants (m) 3.553684 0.533 0.712 2.504 n/a Canopy volume/hectare (m³/ha) 0 0 526 37,898 38,423.41

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

Site 5 – Blakely’s Red Gum Open Forest

This site is located in the Bobadeen Vegetation Offset Area within the vegetation type Blakely’s Red Gum Open Forest.

Landscape organisation Table AC.9 below identifies the different patch and inter-patch types, the average type length, percentage of the transect length, the average patch width and the number of patches sampled. A summary of data from the LFA is as follows:

• Number of patches per 10 m – 20.3

• Total patch area – 253.6 m 2

• Patch area index – 0.85

• Landscape organisation index – 1.00

• Average inter-patch length – n/a

• Range inter-patch length – n/a

Table AC.9: Site 5 patch and inter-patch types

MEAN ZONE % OF THE NO OF MEAN WIDTH ZONE LENGTH (m) TRANSECT PATCHES (cm) Litter 0.39 53.77 50 679.4 Bare Soil 0.13 0.36 Herb 0.18 0.99 2 2.5 Sedge 0.09 1.27 5 4.0 Shrub 0.35 1.93 2 30.0 Log 0.05 0.14 1 70.0 Grass 0.34 41.54 45 306.7

Soil surface assessment The soil surface assessment charts show the contribution of each of the patch/inter-patch types to zone infiltration ( Figure AC.13 ), zone stability ( Figure AC.14 ) and zone nutrients ( Figure AC.15 ).

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

Zone Infiltration 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0

Infiltration IndexInfiltration (%) 10.0 0.0 Litter Bare Soil Herb Sedge Shrub Log Grass

Figure AC.13: Site 5 infiltration results with standard error (the lower the number of sampled replicates, the higher the standard error)

Zone Stability 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 Stability Stability (%) Index 10.0 0.0 Litter Bare Soil Herb Sedge Shrub Log Grass

Figure AC.14: Site 5 stability results with standard error

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

Zone Nutrients 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 Nutrient Cycling Cycling NutrientIndex(%) -10.0 Litter Bare Soil Herb Sedge Shrub Log Grass

Figure AC.15: Site 5 nutrient results with standard error

Vegetation dynamics Table AC.10 provides a summary of the vegetation dynamics data for the site. This includes the number of plants per hectare for each of strata layers sampled grasses, other ground covers, shrubs and trees.

Table AC.10: Site 5 vegetation dynamics Layer 2 - Layer 1 - Ground cover Layer 3 - Layer 4 - Grasses other Shrubs Trees Total No plants/hectare 3,559,986 591,716 3,489 209 4,155,399 Mean distance between plants (m) 0.053 0.13 1.693 6.9205 n/a Canopy volume/hectare (m³/ha) 9 1 12,859 21,735 34,604.05

Site 6 – White Box Woodland

This site is located in the Residual Project Area within the vegetation type White Box Woodland.

Landscape organisation Table AC.11 below identifies the different patch and inter-patch types, the average type length, percentage of the transect length, the average patch width and the number of patches sampled. A summary of data from the LFA is as follows:

• Number of patches per 10 m – 15.9

• Total patch area – 288.8 m 2

• Patch area index – 0.82

• Landscape organisation index – 1.0

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

• Average inter-patch length – n/a

• Range inter-patch length – n/a

Table AC.11: Site 6 patch and inter-patch types

MEAN ZONE % OF THE NO OF MEAN WIDTH ZONE LENGTH (m) TRANSECT PATCHES (cm) Litter 0.96 73.95 27 854.3 Grass 0.34 18.38 19 103.2 Rock 0.23 2.64 4 35.0 Shrub 0.05 0.14 1 3.0 Log 0.51 4.32 3 186.7 Tree 0.10 0.57 2 37.5

Soil surface assessment The soil surface assessment charts show the contribution of each of the patch/inter-patch types to zone infiltration ( Figure AC.16 ), zone stability ( Figure AC.17 ) and zone nutrients ( Figure AC.18 ).

Zone Infiltration 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0

Infiltration IndexInfiltration (%) 10.0 0.0 Litter Grass Rock Shrub Log Tree

Figure AC.16: Site 6 infiltration results with standard error (the lower the number of sampled replicates, the higher the standard error)

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

Zone Stability 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0

Stability Stability (%) Index 20.0 10.0 0.0 Litter Grass Rock Shrub Log Tree

Figure AC.17: Site 6 stability results with standard error

Zone Nutrients 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 -10.0

Nutrient Cycling NutrientCycling Index(%) Litter Grass Rock Shrub Log Tree -20.0

Figure AC.18: Site 6 nutrient results with standard error

Vegetation dynamics Table AC.12 provides a summary of the vegetation dynamics data for the site. This includes the number of plants per hectare for each of strata layers sampled grasses, other ground covers, shrubs and trees.

Table AC.12: Site 6 vegetation dynamics

LAYER 1 - LAYER 2 - LAYER 3 LAYER GRASSE GROUND - 4 - S COVER OTHER SHRUBS TREES TOTAL No plants/hectare 210,420 118,906 1,623 699 331,647 Mean distance between plants (m) 0.218 0.29 2.4825 3.7825 n/a Canopy volume/hectare (m³/ha) 3 0 9 23,212 23,223.45

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

Site 7 – Grey Box Woodland

This site is located in the Residual Project Area within the vegetation type Grey Box Woodland.

Landscape organisation Table AC.13 below identifies the different patch and inter-patch types, the average type length, percentage of the transect length, the average patch width and the number of patches sampled. A summary of data from the LFA is as follows:

• Number of patches per 10 m – 43.9

• Total patch area – 91.5 m 2

• Patch area index – 0.64

• Landscape organisation index – 0.96

• Average inter-patch length – 0.09 m

• Range inter-patch length – 0.03 to 0.99 m

Table AC.13: Site 7 patch and inter-patch types

MEAN ZONE % OF THE NO OF MEAN WIDTH ZONE LENGTH (m) TRANSECT PATCHES (cm) Litter 0.30 66.48 32 730.9 Bare Soil 0.09 3.69 Cryptogam 0.06 1.32 3 15.0 Rock 0.00 0.00 1 30.0 Root 0.43 3.00 1 30.0 Herb 0.02 1.18 9 5.0 Grass 0.22 24.04 16 138.4 Shrub 0.04 0.3 1 3.0

Soil surface assessment The soil surface assessment charts show the contribution of each of the patch/inter-patch types to zone infiltration ( Figure AC.19 ), zone stability ( Figure AC.20 ) and zone nutrients ( Figure AC.21 ).

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

Zone Infiltration 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0

InfiltrationIndex (%) 10.0 0.0 Litter Bare Soil Cryptogram Rock Root Herb Grass

Figure AC.19: Site 7 infiltration results with standard error (the lower the number of sampled replicates, the higher the standard error)

Zone Stability 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 Stability Stability Index(%) 10.0 0.0 Litter Bare Soil Cryptogram Rock Root Herb Grass

Figure AC.20: Site 7 stability results with standard error

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

Zone Nutrients 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 Nutrient Cycling Cycling NutrientIndex (%) 0.0 Litter Bare Soil Cryptogram Rock Root Herb Grass

Figure AC.21: Site 7 nutrient results with standard error

Vegetation dynamics Table AC.14 provides a summary of the vegetation dynamics data for the site. This includes the number of plants per hectare for each of strata layers sampled grasses, other ground covers, shrubs and trees.

Table AC.14: Site 7 vegetation dynamics LAYER 2 - LAYER 3 LAYER 1 - LAYER 4 GROUND - TOTAL GRASSES - TREES COVER OTHER SHRUBS No plants/hectare 188,217 45,657 10,942 808 245,624 Mean distance between plants (m) 0.2305 0.468 0.956 3.517 n/a Canopy volume/hectare (m³/ha) 3 0 74 15,352 15,429.3

Site 8 – Stringybark-Ironbark Open Forest on Sandstone Slopes

This site is located in the Residual Project Area within the vegetation type Stringybark-Ironbark Open Forest on Sandstone Slopes.

Landscape organisation Table AC.15 below identifies the different patch and inter-patch types, the average type length, percentage of the transect length, the average patch width and the number of patches sampled. A summary of data from the LFA is as follows:

• Number of patches per 10 m – 16.0

• Total patch area – 302.4 m 2

• Patch area index – 0.83

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

• Landscape organisation index – 0.80

• Average inter-patch length – 0.38 m

• Range inter-patch length – 0.00 to 1.18

Table AC.15: Site 8 patch and inter-patch types

MEAN ZONE % OF THE NO OF MEAN WIDTH ZONE LENGTH (m) TRANSECT PATCHES (cm) Litter 0.55 61.95 41 1000.0 Bare Soil 0.38 20.02 Ground Cover 0.06 0.17 1 5.0 Rock 0.12 3.01 9 22.7 Shrub 0.74 6.15 3 2.0 Herb 0.79 8.71 4 4.8

Soil surface assessment The soil surface assessment charts show the contribution of each of the patch/inter-patch types to zone infiltration ( Figure AC.22 ), zone stability ( Figure AC.23 ) and zone nutrients ( Figure AC.24 ).

Zone Infiltration 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0

InfiltrationIndex (%) 10.0 0.0 Litter Bare SoilGround Cover Rock Shrub Herb

Figure AC.22: Site 8 infiltration results with standard error (the lower the number of sampled replicates, the higher the standard error)

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

Zone Stability 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 Stability Stability Index(%) 10.0 0.0 Litter Bare SoilGround Cover Rock Shrub Herb

Figure AC.23: Site 8 stability results with standard error

Zone Nutrients 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 Nutrient Cycling Cycling NutrientIndex (%) 0.0 Baresoil Rock Litter Log Herb Shrub Tree

Figure AC.24: Site 8 nutrient results with standard error

Vegetation dynamics Table AC.16 provides a summary of the vegetation dynamics data for the site. This includes the number of plants per hectare for each of strata layers sampled grasses, other ground covers, shrubs and trees.

Table AC.176: Site 8 vegetation dynamics LAYER 2 - LAYER 3 LAYER LAYER 1 - GROUND - 4 - GRASSES COVER OTHER SHRUBS TREES TOTAL No plants/hectare 6,604 63,930 15,763 660 86,957.07 Mean distance between plants (m) 1.2305 0.3955 0.7965 3.8935 n/a Canopy volume/hectare (m³/ha) 0 27 4,397 80,548 84,971.89

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

Site 9 – 2009 Rehabilitation Areas

This site is located in the LOM Rehabilitation Area within the 2009 Rehabilitation Area.

Landscape organisation Table AC.17 below identifies the different patch and inter-patch types, the average type length, percentage of the transect length, the average patch width and the number of patches sampled. A summary of data from the LFA is as follows:

• Number of patches per 10 m – 24.1

• Total patch area – 417.2 m 2

• Patch area index – 0.98

• Landscape organisation index – 0.91

• Average inter-patch length – 0.49

• Range inter-patch length – 0.17 to 0.74

Table AC.17: Site 9 patch and inter-patch types

MEAN ZONE % OF THE NO OF MEAN WIDTH ZONE LENGTH (m) TRANSECT PATCHES (cm) Trough Plant 0.34 42.66 53 981.9 Bank Plant 0.41 48.15 50 980.2 Bank Bare Soil 0.41 5.78 Trough Bare Soil 0.73 3.41

Soil surface assessment The soil surface assessment charts show the contribution of each of the patch/inter-patch types to zone infiltration ( Figure AC.25 ), zone stability ( Figure AC.26 ) and zone nutrients ( Figure AC.27 ).

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

Zone Infiltration 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0

InfiltrationIndex (%) 10.0 0.0 Trough PlantBank PlantBank Bare TroughSoil Bare Soil

Figure AC.25: Site 9 infiltration results with standard error (the lower the number of sampled replicates, the higher the standard error)

Zone Stability 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0

Stability Stability Index(%) 20.0 10.0 0.0 Trough PlantBank PlantBank Bare TroughSoil Bare Soil

Figure AC.26: Site 9 stability results with standard error

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

Zone Nutrients 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 Nutrient Cycling Cycling NutrientIndex (%) -10.0 Trough Bank Plant Bank Bare Trough Plant Soil Bare Soil

Figure AC.27: Site 9 nutrient results with standard error

Vegetation dynamics Table AC.18 provides a summary of the vegetation dynamics data for the site. This includes the number of plants per hectare for each of strata layers sampled grasses, other ground covers, shrubs and trees.

Table AC.18: Site 9 vegetation dynamics LAYER 2 - LAYER 3 LAYER 1 - LAYER 4 GROUND - TOTAL GRASSES - TREES COVER OTHER SHRUBS No plants/hectare 1,956,086 1,085,069 1,544 0 3,042,699 Mean distance between plants (m) 0.0715 0.096 2.545 0 n/a Canopy volume/hectare (m³/ha) 3 2 300 0 304.9

Site 10 – Pre 2001 Rehabilitation Areas (western portion)

This site is located in the LOM Rehabilitation Area within the Pre 2001 Rehabilitation Area (western portion).

Landscape organisation Table AC.19 below identifies the different patch and inter-patch types, the average type length, percentage of the transect length, the average patch width and the number of patches sampled. A summary of data from the LFA is as follows:

• Number of patches per 10 m – 12.7

• Total patch area – 308.8 m 2

• Patch area index – 0.87

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

• Landscape organisation index – 0.92

• Average inter-patch length – 0.37 m

• Range inter-patch length – 0.03 to 1.53 m

Table AC.18: Site 10 patch and inter-patch types

MEAN ZONE % OF THE NO OF MEAN WIDTH ZONE LENGTH (m) TRANSECT PATCHES (cm) Litter 1.04 84.70 29 965.9 Bare Soil 0.37 8.40 Cryptogam 0.20 0.56 1 5.0 Rock 0.00 0.00 1 15.0 Herb 0.16 0.87 2 20.0 Grass 0.16 5.47 12 54.6

Soil surface assessment The soil surface assessment charts show the contribution of each of the patch/inter-patch types to zone infiltration ( Figure AC.28 ), zone stability ( Figure AC.29 ) and zone nutrients ( Figure AC.30 ).

Zone Infiltration 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0

InfiltrationIndex (%) 10.0 0.0 Litter Bare SoilCryptogram Rock Herb Grass

Figure AC.28: Site 10 infiltration results with standard error (the lower the number of sampled replicates, the higher the standard error)

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

Zone Stability 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 Stability Stability (%) Index 10.0 0.0 Litter Bare SoilCryptogram Rock Herb Grass

Figure AC.29: Site 10 stability results with standard error

Zone Nutrients 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 Nutrient Cycling Cycling NutrientIndex (%) -10.0 Litter Bare SoilCryptogram Rock Herb Grass

Figure AC.30: Site 10 nutrient results with standard error

Vegetation dynamics Table AC.20 provides a summary of the vegetation dynamics data for the site. This includes the number of plants per hectare for each of strata layers sampled grasses, other ground covers, shrubs and trees.

Table AC.19: Site 10 vegetation dynamics LAYER 1 - LAYER 2 - LAYER 3 GRASSE GROUND - LAYER 4 S COVER OTHER SHRUBS - TREES TOTAL No plants/hectare 92,106 3,054 1,304 412 96,876 Mean distance between plants (m) 0.3295 1.8095 2.769 4.929 n/a 13,666.9 Canopy volume/hectare (m³/ha) 49 1 18 13,599 5

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

Site 11 - Pre 2001 Rehabilitation Areas (eastern portion)

This site is located in the LOM Rehabilitation Area within the Pre 2001 Rehabilitation Area (eastern portion).

Landscape organisation Table AC.21 below identifies the different patch and inter-patch types, the average type length, percentage of the transect length, the average patch width and the number of patches sampled. A summary of data from the LFA is as follows:

• Number of patches per 10 m – 46.2

• Total patch area – 73.6 m 2

• Patch area index – 0.26

• Landscape organisation index – 0.77

• Average inter-patch length – 0.19

• Range inter-patch length – 0.00 to 3.55

Table AC.21: Site 11 patch and inter-patch types

MEAN ZONE % OF THE NO OF MEAN WIDTH ZONE LENGTH (m) TRANSECT PATCHES (cm) Litter 0.14 25.67 51 14.7 Grass 0.21 36.04 48 58.1 Bare Soil 0.19 23.47 Cryptogam 0.15 3.19 6 5.7 Herb 0.12 10.79 25 14.8 Rock 0.12 0.84 2 4.8

Soil surface assessment The soil surface assessment charts show the contribution of each of the patch/inter-patch types to zone infiltration ( Figure AC.31 ), zone stability ( Figure AC.32 ) and zone nutrients ( Figure AC.33 ).

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

Zone Infiltration 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0

Infiltration IndexInfiltration (%) 10.0 0.0 Cryptogram Baresoil Rock Litter Herb Grass

Figure AC.31: Site 11 infiltration results with standard error (the lower the number of sampled replicates, the higher the standard error)

Zone Stability 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 Stability Stability Index(%) 10.0 0.0 Cryptogram Baresoil Rock Litter Herb Grass

Figure AC.32: Site 11 stability results with standard error

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

Zone Nutrients 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 Nutrient Cycling Cycling NutrientIndex(%) 0.0 Cryptogram Baresoil Rock Litter Herb Grass

Figure AC.33: Site 11 nutrient results with standard error

Vegetation dynamics Table AC.22 provides a summary of the vegetation dynamics data for the site. This includes the number of plants per hectare for each of strata layers sampled grasses, other ground covers, shrubs and trees.

Table AC.22: Site 1 vegetation dynamics LAYER 2 - LAYER 3 LAYER 1 - LAYER 4 GROUND - TOTAL GRASSES - TREES COVER OTHER SHRUBS No plants/hectare 804,360 3,132,587 229 22 3,937,197 Mean distance between plants (m) 0.1115 0.0565 6.607647 21.3 n/a Canopy volume/hectare (m³/ha) 224 60 3 636 923.0

Site 12 – White Box Woodland

This site is located in the Bobadeen Vegetation Offset Area and is a revegetation/regeneration site that is located within White Box Woodland.

Landscape organisation Table AC.23 below identifies the different patch and inter-patch types, the average type length, percentage of the transect length, the average patch width and the number of patches sampled. A summary of data from the LFA is as follows:

• Number of patches per 10 m – 1

• Total patch area – 351.4 m2

• Patch area index – 0.7

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

• Landscape organisation index – 1

• Average inter-patch length – N/A

• Range inter-patch length – N/A Table AC.23: Site 11 patch and inter-patch types

MEAN ZONE % OF THE NO OF MEAN WIDTH ZONE LENGTH (m) TRANSECT PATCHES (cm) Grass 16.16 96.98 3 673.33 Herb 1.10 2.20 1 1000.00 Sedge 0.41 0.82 1 1000.00

Soil surface assessment The soil surface assessment charts show the contribution of each of the patch/inter-patch types to zone infiltration ( Figure AC.34 ), zone stability ( Figure AC.35 ) and zone nutrients ( Figure AC.36 ).

Zone Infiltration 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0

InfiltrationIndex (%) 10.0 0.0 Grass Herb Sedge

Figure AC.34: Site 11 infiltration results with standard error (the lower the number of sampled replicates, the higher the standard error)

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

Zone Stability 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 Stability Stability (%) Index 10.0 0.0 Grass Herb Sedge

Figure AC.35: Site 11 stability results with standard error

Zone Nutrients 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 Nutrient Cycling Cycling NutrientIndex (%) 0.0 Grass Herb Sedge

Figure AC.36: Site 11 nutrient results with standard error

Vegetation dynamics Table AC.24 provides a summary of the vegetation dynamics data for the site. This includes the number of plants per hectare for each of strata layers sampled grasses, other ground covers, shrubs and trees.

Table AC.24: Site 11 vegetation dynamics LAYER 2 - LAYER 3 LAYER 1 - LAYER 4 GROUND - TOTAL GRASSES - TREES COVER OTHER SHRUBS No plants/hectare 456,538 75,474 16 1 532,028 Mean distance between plants (m) 0.148 0.364 25 118 n/a Canopy volume/hectare (m³/ha) 2 640 0 457 1,098.78

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

Site 13 – Yellow Box – Red Gum Woodland

This site is located in the Bobadeen East Vegetation Offset Area within the vegetation type Yellow Box Red Gum Woodland.

Landscape organisation Table AC.25 below identifies the different patch and inter-patch types, the average type length, percentage of the transect length, the average patch width and the number of patches sampled. A summary of data from the LFA is as follows:

• Number of patches per 10 m – 12.9

• Total patch area – 332.5 m2

• Patch area index – 0.81

• Landscape organisation index – 0.97

• Average inter-patch length – 0.40 m

• Range inter-patch length – 0.24to 0.72 m.

Table AC.25: Site 12 patch and inter-patch types

MEAN ZONE % OF THE NO OF MEAN WIDTH ZONE LENGTH (m) TRANSECT PATCHES (cm) Grass 1.29 78.57 25 960.00 Litter 0.41 9.91 10 127.00 Log 0.16 6.02 15 81.33 Herb 0.52 2.53 2 65.00 Bare Soil 0.40 2.92 3 200.00 Shrub 0.02 0.05 1

Soil surface assessment The soil surface assessment charts show the contribution of each of the patch/inter-patch types to zone infiltration ( Figure AC.37) , zone stability ( Figure AC.38 ) and zone nutrients ( Figure AC.39 ).

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

Zone Infiltration 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0

InfiltrationIndex (%) 10.0 0.0 Grass Litter Log Herb Bare Soil Shrub

Figure AC.37: Site 12 infiltration results with standard error (the lower the number of sampled replicates, the higher the standard error)

Zone Stability 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 Stability Stability (%) Index 10.0 0.0 Grass Litter Log Herb Bare Soil Shrub

Figure AC.38: Site 12 stability results with standard error

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

Zone Nutrients 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 Nutrient Cycling NutrientCycling Index(%) 0.0 Grass Litter Log Herb Bare Soil Shrub

Figure AC.39: Site 12 nutrient results with standard error

Vegetation dynamics Table AC.26 provides a summary of the vegetation dynamics data for the site. This includes the number of plants per hectare for each of strata layers sampled grasses, other ground covers, shrubs and trees.

Table AC.26: Site 12 vegetation dynamics LAYER 2 - LAYER 3 LAYER LAYER 1 - GROUND - 4 - TOTAL GRASSES COVER OTHER SHRUBS TREES No plants/hectare 1,143870 374,080 1,862 195 1,520,008 Mean distance between plants (m) 0.0935 0.1635 2.3175 7.155 n/a Canopy volume/hectare (m³/ha) 192 1 782 17,441 18,416.76

Site 14 – Ironbark Open Forest Complex on Sandstone

This site is located in the Bobadeen Vegetation Offset Area within the vegetation type Ironbark Open Forest Complex on Sandstone.

Landscape organisation Table AC.27 below identifies the different patch and inter-patch types, the average type length, percentage of the transect length, the average patch width and the number of patches sampled. A summary of data from the LFA is as follows:

• Number of patches per 10 m – 15.3

• Total patch area – 296.5 m2

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

• Patch area index – 0.78

• Landscape organisation index – 0.97

• Average inter-patch length – 0.16 m

• Range inter-patch length – 0 to 2.87 m

Table AC.27: Site 13 patch and inter-patch types

MEAN ZONE % OF THE NO OF MEAN WIDTH ZONE LENGTH (m) TRANSECT PATCHES (cm) Litter 1.04 74.46 27 933.52 Bare Soil 0.16 2.56 6 226.88 Cryptogam 0.38 7.92 8 130.71 Rock 0.09 1.74 7 117.33 Shrub 0.49 11.70 9 164.00 Log 0.06 0.79 5 50.00 Grass 0.31 0.82 1 10.00

Soil surface assessment The soil surface assessment charts show the contribution of each of the patch/inter-patch types to zone infiltration ( Figure AC.40 ), zone stability ( Figure AC.41 ) and zone nutrients ( Figure AC.42 ).

Zone Infiltration 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0

InfiltrationIndex (%) 10.0 0.0 Litter Bare Soil Cryptogram Rock Shrub Log Grass

Figure AC.40: Site 13 infiltration results with standard error (the lower the number of sampled replicates, the higher the standard error)

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

Zone Stability 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 Stability Stability (%) Index 10.0 0.0 Litter Bare Soil Cryptogram Rock Shrub Log Grass

Figure AC.41: Site 13 stability results with standard error

Zone Nutrients 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 Nutrient Cycling Cycling NutrientIndex (%) 0.0 Litter Bare Soil Cryptogram Rock Shrub Log Grass

Figure AC.42: Site 13 nutrient results with standard error

Vegetation dynamics Table AC.28 provides a summary of the vegetation dynamics data for the site. This includes the number of plants per hectare for each of strata layers sampled grasses, other ground covers, shrubs and trees.

Table AC.28: Site 13 vegetation dynamics LAYER 1 - LAYER 2 - LAYER 3 LAYER 4 GRASSE GROUND - TOTAL - TREES S COVER OTHER SHRUBS 73,411.5 No plants/hectare 5,297 21,437 45,173 1,505 2 Mean distance between plants (m) 1.374 0.683 0.4705 2.578 n/a Canopy volume/hectare (m³/ha) 0 0 620 38367 38986.51

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

Site 15 – White Box Woodland

This site is located in the Bobadeen Vegetation Offset Area and is a revegetation/regeneration site that is located within White Box Woodland.

Landscape organisation Table AC.29 below identifies the different patch and inter-patch types, the average type length, percentage of the transect length, the average patch width and the number of patches sampled. A summary of data from the LFA is as follows:

• Number of patches per 10 m – 1

• Total patch area – 498.6 m2

• Patch area index – 1

• Landscape organisation index – 1

• Average inter-patch length – N/A

• Range inter-patch length – N/A

Table AC.29: Site 14 patch and inter-patch types

MEAN ZONE % OF THE NO OF MEAN WIDTH ZONE LENGTH (m) TRANSECT PATCHES (cm) Grass 16.62 99.72 3 1000.00 Herb 0.07 0.28 2 2.25

Soil surface assessment The soil surface assessment charts show the contribution of each of the patch/inter-patch types to zone infiltration ( Figure AC.43 ), zone stability ( Figure AC.44 ) and zone nutrients ( Figure AC.45 ).

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

Zone Infiltration 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0

InfiltrationIndex (%) 10.0 0.0 Grass Herb

Figure AC.43: Site 14 infiltration results with standard error (the lower the number of sampled replicates, the higher the standard error)

Zone Stability 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 Stability Stability Index(%) 10.0 0.0 Grass Herb

Figure AC.44: Site 14 stability results with standard error

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

Zone Nutrients 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 Nutrient Cycling NutrientCycling Index(%) 0.0 Grass Herb

Figure AC.45: Site 14 nutrient results with standard error

Vegetation dynamics Table AC.30 provides a summary of the vegetation dynamics data for the site. This includes the number of plants per hectare for each of strata layers sampled grasses, other ground covers, shrubs and trees.

Table AC.30: Site 14 vegetation dynamics LAYER 2 -

LAYER 1 - GROUND LAYER 3 - LAYER 4 TOTAL GRASSES COVER SHRUBS - TREES

OTHER No plants/hectare 3,770,384 20,206 0 0 3,790,589 Mean distance between plants (m) 0.0515 0.7035 0 0 n/a Canopy volume/hectare (m³/ha) 4 0 0 0 4.418136

Site 16 - Blakely’s Red Gum Open Forest

Landscape organisation Table AC.31 below identifies the different patch and inter-patch types, the average type length, percentage of the transect length, the average patch width and the number of patches sampled. A summary of data from the LFA is as follows:

• Number of patches per 10 m – 9.2

• Total patch area – 386.7 m 2

• Patch area index – 0.77

• Landscape organisation index – 0.99

• Average inter-patch length – 0.11 m

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

• Range inter-patch length – 0.06 to 1.53 m Table AC.31: Site 1 patch and inter-patch types

MEAN ZONE % OF THE NO OF MEAN WIDTH ZONE LENGTH (m) TRANSECT PATCHES (cm) Litter 0.61 23.18 19 242.8 Herb 0.07 0.28 2 10.0 Sedge 0.23 0.46 1 30.0 Tree 0.23 0.46 1 45.0 Grass 1.62 74.48 23 457.2 Bare soil 0.11 1.14

Soil Surface assessment The soil surface assessment charts show the contribution of each of the patch/inter-patch types to zone infiltration ( Figure AC.46 ), zone stability ( Figure AC.47 ) and zone nutrients ( Figure AC.48 ).

Zone Infiltration 90.0 80.0 70.0

60.0 50.0 40.0

30.0 20.0 Infiltration IndexInfiltration (%) 10.0

0.0

Litter Herb Sedge Tree Grass Baresoil

Figure AC.46: Site 1 infiltration results with standard error (the lower the number of sampled replicates, the higher the standard error)

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

Zone Stability 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0

Stability Stability Index(%) 20.0 10.0 0.0 Litter Herb Sedge Tree Grass Baresoil

Figure AC.47: Site 1 stability results with standard error

Zone Nutrients 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 Nutrient Cycling Cycling NutrientIndex (%) -10.0 Litter Herb Sedge Tree Grass Baresoil

Figure AC.48: Site 1 nutrient results with standard error

Vegetation dynamics Table AC.32 provides a summary of the vegetation dynamics data for the site. This includes the number of plants per hectare for each of strata layers sampled grasses, other ground covers, shrubs and trees.

Table AC.32: Site 1 vegetation dynamics LAYER 2 - LAYER 3 LAYER 1 - LAYER 4 GROUND - TOTAL GRASSES - TREES COVER OTHER SHRUBS No plants/hectare 510,204 30725 64 298 541,291.1 Mean distance between plants (m) 0.14 0.5705 12.47059 5.793333 n/a Canopy volume/hectare (m³/ha) 1 14 1 7540 7556.149

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

Site 17 – White Box Woodland

Landscape organisation Table AC.33 below identifies the different patch and inter-patch types, the average type length, percentage of the transect length, the average patch width and the number of patches sampled. A summary of data from the LFA is as follows:

• Number of patches per 10 m – 15.5

• Total patch area – 238.7 m 2

• Patch area index – 0.64

• Landscape organisation index – 1.00

• Average inter-patch length – n/a

• Range inter-patch length – n/a

Table AC.33: Site 2 patch and inter-patch types

MEAN ZONE % OF THE NO OF MEAN WIDTH ZONE LENGTH (m) TRANSECT PATCHES (cm) Litter 0.21 5.67 10 13.5 Log 0.88 28.12 12 137.9 Grass 0.89 62.22 26 846.9 Bare soil 0.20 3.13 6 85.0 Herb 0.08 0.86 4 21.3

Soil surface assessment The soil surface assessment charts show the contribution of each of the patch/inter-patch types to zone infiltration ( Figure AC.49 ), zone stability ( Figure AC.50 ) and zone nutrients ( Figure AC.51 ).

Zone Infiltration 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0

Infiltration IndexInfiltration (%) 10.0 0.0 Litter Log Grass Baresoil Herb

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

Figure AC.49: Site 2 infiltration results with standard error (the lower the number of sampled replicates, the higher the standard error)

Zone Stability 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 Stability Stability (%) Index 10.0 0.0 Litter Log Grass Baresoil Herb

Figure AC.50: Site 2 stability results with standard error

Zone Nutrients 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 Nutrient Cycling Cycling NutrientIndex (%) -10.0 Litter Log Grass Baresoil Herb

Figure AC.51: Site 2 nutrient results with standard error

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

Vegetation dynamics Table AC.34 provides a summary of the vegetation dynamics data for the site. This includes the number of plants per hectare for each of strata layers sampled grasses, other ground covers, shrubs and trees.

Table AC.34: Site 2 vegetation dynamics LAYER 2 - LAYER 3 LAYER 1 - LAYER 4 GROUND - TOTAL GRASSES - TREES COVER OTHER SHRUBS No plants/hectare 2,040,816 47,804 112 4 2,088,737 Mean distance between plants (m) 0.07 0.457368 9.45 50 n/a Canopy volume/hectare (m³/ha) 22 1 2 1,696 1,721.122

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

Appendix D: Acacia ausfeldii data

SEEDLING (SE), RATING RATING CONDITION HEIGHT (M) DMS (CM) SAPLING (SP, (FLOWERS) (FRUIT) COMMENTS MATURE (M) TAG NO. EASTING EASTING NORTHING 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 dead leaves / A001 754829 6426092 3 3 3 5 1 1 2 2.45 1.3 1.2 M M missing leaves / red A002 754839 6426115 4 2 4 1 1 1 minor browning 1.4 1.05 0.8 0.7 SP M A003 754840 6426111 4 Removed 1 1 minor browning 0.6 - 0.8 - SE M A004 754482 6426131 5 5 5 45 1 1 good health 2.2 2.35 2.0 2 M M many dead A005 754837 6426125 2 to 3 2 5 5 1 1 2.4 2.8 3.0 1 M M branches minor chewed/dead A006 754837 6426133 4 5 4 5 1 5 0.7 1.04 1.0 1 SE M leaves A007 754851 6426140 5 5 4 4 1 4 healthy 1.9 2.1 1.7 2.1 M M 1.6 (stem A008 754837 6426149 4 3 5 5 1 4 some missing leaves 1.9 1.55 close to 1.3 M M ground) dead leaves and A009 754804 6426318 3 4 3 5 1 4 2.3 2.31 1.7 2.2 M M branch chewing A010 754812 6426330 5 4 4 4 1 3 2.1 1.65 1.5 2 M M many brown leaves / A011 754817 6426331 3 4 2 5 1 5 1.7 1.7 1.3 1.1 M M leaf loss many dead A012 754807 6426337 2 2 3 4 1 1 2.2 .57 2.0 1.5 M M branches A013 754798 6426333 5 5 1 1 1 1 healthy 0.6 .97 0.8 0.9 SP M

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

SEEDLING (SE), RATING RATING CONDITION HEIGHT (M) DMS (CM) SAPLING (SP, (FLOWERS) (FRUIT) COMMENTS MATURE (M) TAG NO. EASTING EASTING NORTHING 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 A014 754793 6426337 4 4 4 4 1 2 leaf loss 2 1.9 2.0 2 M M A015 754792 6426341 5 5 4 5 1 4 some missing leaves 1.7 1.55 1.3 .9 M MM A016 754794 6426330 5 4 1 5 1 4 healthy 1 1.82 0.8 1.2 SP M many dead A017 754792 6426331 3 4 4 5 1 4 1.9 1.37 1.3 1.2 M M branches minor browning of A018 754790 6426336 4 4 2 5 1 4 1.1 1.45 0.7 .9 SP M leaves A019 754788 6426327 5 5 1 5 1 5 healthy 0.8 1.27 0.7 .7 SP M A020 754790 6426329 5 4 1 3 1 3 healthy 1 1.53 1.2 1.2 SP M A021 754785 6426337 5 4 2 5 1 4 minor leaf chewing 0.9 1.6 0.8 1 SP M A022 754783 6426338 4 4 2 5 1 4 charred browning 1.1 1.48 0.8 1.1 SP M A023 754779 6426331 5 5 1 11 1 1 healthy 0.2 .73 <0.3 .5 SE SP A024 754777 6426333 5 5 1 4 1 1 healthy 0.1 .37 <0.3 .3 SE SP A025 754775 6426324 5 4 1 4 1 4 healthy 0.8 1.28 1.0 1.3 SP M some dead A026 754766 6426346 4 3 5 4 1 4 2.6 3.34 4.0 3.3 M M branches A027 754770 6426350 3 3 1 1 1 1 dead branches 2 .49 1.3 1.1 M M some dead A028 754767 6426346 4 3 4 4 1 4 2.2 2.23 2.3 2.1 M M branches/red leaves A029 754779 6426345 3 Dead 5 1 brown leaves, stems 2.3 2.36 2.7 3 M M A030 754789 6426345 4 4 1 3 1 3 1.2 1.22 1.0 1 SP M A031 754793 6426342 4 4 1 4 1 4 some brown leaves 0.8 1.1 <0.3 0.4 SP M A032 754800 6426351 5 4 1 1 1 1 very small 0.06 .14 <0.3 0.2 SE M some dead charred A033 754804 6426361 4 5 1 4 1 3 1.2 1.36 0.8 .8 SP M leaves

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

SEEDLING (SE), RATING RATING CONDITION HEIGHT (M) DMS (CM) SAPLING (SP, (FLOWERS) (FRUIT) COMMENTS MATURE (M) TAG NO. EASTING EASTING NORTHING 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 A034 754808 6426357 5 1 1 1 1 1 n/a 0.18 .19 <0.3 .2 SE SP A035 754814 6426344 5 Dead 1 1 n/a 0.1 - <0.3 0 SE M A036 754801 6426351 4 4 4 4 1 2 browning leaves 2 2.23 1.5 .8 SP M A037 754804 6426353 4 5 2 3 1 1 minor leaf damage 0.8 1.17 0.7 .6 SP M A038 754815 6426349 4 1 1 minor leaf chewing 0.1 - <0.3 0 SE M A039 754827 6426353 5 1 1 1 1 1 n/a 0.7 .14 0.3 .1 SP SE A040 754811 6426353 5 5 1 2 1 1 n/a 0.6 1.26 <0.3 1 SP M A041 754831 6426360 4 5 2 5 1 4 some leaf browning 1.1 1.35 1.0 .9 SP M dead A042 754794 6426371 3 4 1 4 1 3 branches/browning 1.2 1.2 0.8 .5 SP M leaves A043 754790 6426363 4 5 5 5 1 4 some browning 1.5 1.4 1.3 .9 SP M A044 754842 6426373 4 3 4 5 1 4 some browning 1.4 1.38 1.7 .4 SP M some dead A045 754802 6426370 4 4 4 4 1 3 2.2 2.6 1.5 .9 M M branches A046 754790 6426371 5 Removed 1 4 1 0.25 - <0.3 - SE A047 754786 6426388 4 4 4 1 3 missing leaves 2 2.06 1.7 1.2 M M A048 754789 6426379 4 4 5 5 1 3 one dead branch 1.1 1.15 1.0 .8 SP M A049 754794 6426379 5 3 4 to 5 4 1 3 1.9 1.75 1.3 1.3 M M some dead A050 754788 6426384 4 3 4 5 1 4 3 3.1 2.3 2 M M branches A051 754784 6426391 5 4 1 4 1 4 0.6 .82 <0.3 0.5 SP M A052 754780 6426394 3 4 3 4 1 4 1.9 2.3 1.3 1.2 M A053 754794 6426383 4 4 4 3 1 4 some brown leaves 2.1 2.19 1.3 1 M M

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

SEEDLING (SE), RATING RATING CONDITION HEIGHT (M) DMS (CM) SAPLING (SP, (FLOWERS) (FRUIT) COMMENTS MATURE (M) TAG NO. EASTING EASTING NORTHING 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 A054 754785 6426391 5 4 2 4 1 4 1.6 2 1.2 .9 M M some A055 754779 6426387 4 4 2 4 1 3 dead/browning 1 .82 1.0 .5 SP M leaves A056 754771 6426384 3 2 4 3 1 1 dead branches 2.5 .41 2.3 1.2 SP M A057 754766 6426387 4 4 4 5 1 4 fallen leaves 1.5 1.6 1.3 1 M M A058 754761 6426387 5 4 4 4 1 3 1 1.32 1.0 1.1 SP M many dead A059 754774 6426387 3 4 4 4 1 5 2 2.16 1.3 .9 M M branches A060 754766 6426388 5 5 4 4 1 4 1.3 1.4 1.0 .9 SP M A061 754766 6426408 4 5 4 4 4 4 browning leaves 1.6 1.67 1.0 1 M M A062 754766 6426410 4 3 4 4 1 4 some dead stems 2.4 2.72 3.7 2.9 M M A063 754769 6426409 5 3 5 5 1 4 2.2 2.24 2.0 .9 M M A064 754777 6426414 5 4 5 5 1 4 2.1 2.1 2.3 .7 M M many dead A065 754772 6426430 3 3 3 4 1 4 2 1.95 1.3 1.4 M M branches some dead A066 754777 6426424 4 4 3 5 1 3 2 1.73 1.8 1.5 M M branches some dead A067 754762 6426432 4 2 3 4 1 4 1.9 1.9 2.0 1.4 M M branches A068 754762 6426446 5 4 1 4 1 2 1.1 1.31 1.0 1 SP M some chewed A069 754773 6426446 4 5 1 4 1 1 0.6 1.92 0.3 .7 SP M branches A070 754775 6426446 5 3 4 4 4 4 2.3 3.0 .2 M M some dead A071 754764 6426447 4 3 4 4 4 4 3.2 2.9 4.3 2.6 M M branches A072 754761 6426445 5 4 4 5 5 5 2.3 2.2 2.0 1.2 M M

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

SEEDLING (SE), RATING RATING CONDITION HEIGHT (M) DMS (CM) SAPLING (SP, (FLOWERS) (FRUIT) COMMENTS MATURE (M) TAG NO. EASTING EASTING NORTHING 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 A073 754748 6426443 4 3 4 4 4 4 some missing leaves 2.5 2.7 3.3 2 M M some missing A074 754752 6426437 3 3 4 4 4 4 leaves, one dead 2.5 1.56 3.0 3 M M branch A075 754751 6426450 4 3 2 5 4 4 2.7 2.85 4.3 2.2 M M some dead A076 754765 6426453 3 4 4 3 1 4 2.1 2.09 3.0 1.2 M M branches A077 754770 6426458 4 3 3 5 3 4 some leaf loss 1.8 2 1.3 1.1 M M M PH A078 754784 6426459 4 4 4 3 4 1 some leaf loss 1.9 1.65 2.0 1 M 310 some dead A079 754784 6426455 4 3 4 4 1 4 2.8 3.04 3.0 1.7 M M branches some dead A080 754769 6426462 4 3 4 3 4 4 2.1 2 3.3 1.2 M M branches some dead A081 754730 6426486 4 3 4 4 1 2 2.8 3.4 3.4 M M branches 4.0 some chewed A082 754742 6426499 4 3 4 1 1 1 1.9 2.1 1.3 1 M M leaves A083 754742 6426497 5 4 3 1 4 1 1.5 1.59 1.3 1 M M A084 754739 6426506 5 4 5 4 1 1 1.6 1.8 1.3 .8 M M A085 754742 6426508 5 4 1 3 4 1 1.5 1.89 1.2 .6 M M A086 754748 6426511 5 4 4 3 2 1 2.9 2.83 2.7 1.5 M M A087 754752 6426516 3 2 4 5 1 1 dead branch 4 4.55 7.3 5 M M A088 754770 6426539 5 5 1 1 1 1 0.5 .73 <0.3 0.6 SP SP A089 754745 6426528 5 4 2 2 1 1 1.2 1.27 0.8 .5 SP M some dead A090 754750 6426536 4 Dead 5 1 1 3.8 - 3.0 - M M branches A091 7547757 6426538 4 5 2 4 1 some brown leaves 0.9 1.5 0.3 0.4 SP M

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

SEEDLING (SE), RATING RATING CONDITION HEIGHT (M) DMS (CM) SAPLING (SP, (FLOWERS) (FRUIT) COMMENTS MATURE (M) TAG NO. EASTING EASTING NORTHING 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 A092 7547761 6426536 5 5 1 1 1 4 0.9 1.05 0.8 .4 SP SP A093 7547744 6426532 5 5 1 1 1 1 0.9 1.34 0.7 .8 SP SP A094 7547750 6426541 5 5 1 1 1 1 0.7 .97 <0.3 .4 SP M A095 7547758 6426541 3 3 5 2 1 1 dead branches 2.6 2.7 3.0 1.7 M M A096 754748 6426546 5 3 4 3 1 1 0.7 1.7 3.3 2.81 M M A097 754751 6426555 5 3 4 2 4 1 2 2.15 1.7 1.3 M M A098 754749 6426550 5 3 4 2 1 1 2.3 2.45 2.0 1.4 M M A099 754751 6426547 4 Removed 4 1 1.9 - 3.3 - M M A100 754763 6426547 5 3 5 4 5 2.6 2.9 3.7 1.6 M M

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

Appendix E: Fauna monitoring report

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

Appendix F: Microbat monitoring report

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

Appendix G: Aquatic fauna & riparian habitat report

2012 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report

HEAD OFFICE SYDNEY ST GEORGES BASIN Suite 4, Level 1 Level 6 8/128 Island Point Road 2-4 Merton Street 299 Sussex Street St Georges Basin NSW 2540 Sutherland NSW 2232 Sydney NSW 2000 T 02 4443 5555 T 02 8536 8600 T 02 8536 8650 F 02 4443 6655 F 02 9542 5622 F 02 9264 0717

CANBERRA NEWCASTLE NAROOMA Level 2 Suite 17, Level 4 5/20 Canty Street 11 London Circuit 19 Bolton Street Narooma NSW 2546 Canberra ACT 2601 Newcastle NSW 2300 T 02 4476 1151 T 02 6103 0145 T 02 4910 0125 F 02 4476 1161 F 02 6103 0148 F 02 4910 0126

COFFS HARBOUR ARMIDALE MUDGEE 35 Orlando Street 92 Taylor Street Unit 1, Level 1 Coffs Harbour Jetty NSW 2450 Armidale NSW 2350 79 Market Street T 02 6651 5484 T 02 8081 2681 Mudgee NSW 2850 F 02 6651 6890 F 02 6772 1279 T 02 4302 1230 F 02 6372 9230

PERTH WOLLONGONG GOSFORD Suite 1 & 2 Suite 204, Level 2 Suite 5, Baker One 1-5 Baker Street 49 Ord Street 62 Moore Street West Perth WA 6005 Austinmer NSW 2515 Gosford NSW 2250 T 08 9227 1070 T 02 4201 2200 T 02 4302 1220 F 08 9322 1358 F 02 4268 4361 F 02 4322 2897

DARWIN

Ulan Coa l Mines Limited 2012 Annual Salinity Offset Scheme Report

Prepared for Ulan Coal Mines Limited

26 March 2013

2012 Annual Salinity Offset Scheme Report

PREPARED FOR Ulan Coal Mines Limited

PROJECT NO 11MUDECO -0012

DATE March 13

DOCUMENT TRACKING

ITEM DETAIL Project Name Ulan Coal Ecological Monitoring Program for 2011_2012 Project Number 11MUDECO-0012 W:\Projects\Mudgee\11MUDECO\11MUDECO-0012 Ulan Coal Ecological Monitoring File location Program for 2011_2012\Report\Draft Reports Prepared by Daniel Magdi Ben Martin Approved by Dr Paul Frazier Status Final Version Number 1 Last saved on 26 March 2013

Cover photo Flora monitoring sites BOB4, BOB9, BOB13 and RPA13 (Tammy Paartalu, ELA)

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

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

2012 Annual Salinity Offset Scheme Report

Contents

Contents ...... iv

List of Figures ...... v

List of Tables ...... vi

Abbreviations ...... vii

1 Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Salinity Offset Area ...... 3 1.2 Salinity Offset Program ...... 3 1.2.1 Salinity Offset Area Objectives ...... 4 1.2.2 Monitoring ...... 4

2 Performance against Mitigation Strategy ...... 7

3 Methodology ...... 8 3.1 Floristic Monitoring...... 8 3.2 Weather Conditions ...... 11

4 Results ...... 12 4.1 Floristic Surveys ...... 12 4.2 Rotational Grazing ...... 16

5 Discussion & Recommendations ...... 18 5.1 Ground Cover & Floristic Monitoring ...... 18 5.2 Tree Planting ...... 20 5.3 Grazing Management ...... 20

References ...... 21

Appendix A: Flora Species List ...... 22

2012 Annual Salinity Offset Scheme Report

List of Figures

Figure 1.1: UCML regional location ...... 2

Figure 1.2: Salinity Offset Area ...... 6

Figure 3.1: Vegetation monitoring sites within the SOA ...... 10

Figure 4.1: Structural ground composition ...... 15

Figure 5.1: Native and exotic species richness recorded at analogue sites in spring 2011 and 2012. ... 18

Figure 5.2: Native and exotic species percentage cover recorded within the ground layer at analogue sites in spring 2011 and 2012 ...... 19

2012 Annual Salinity Offset Scheme Report

List of Tables

Table 1.1: Residual vegetation monitoring sites (BMP 2011) ...... 4

Table 3.1: Vegetation monitoring sites within SOA ...... 9

Table 3.2: Weather conditions preceding the 2012 autumn monitoring period ...... 11

Table 3.3: Table 4: Weather conditions preceding the 2012 spring monitoring period...... 11

Table 4.1: Floristic survey summary ...... 13

Table 4.2: Bobadeen Irrigation Scheme Performance against Design Criteria for 2012 ...... 16

Table 4.3: Rotational Grazing Practices undertaken in 2012 ...... 17

2012 Annual Salinity Offset Scheme Report

Abbreviations

ABBREVIATION DESCRIPTION

BMP Biodiversity Management Plan

DP&I Department of Planning and Infrastructure

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

ELA Eco Logical Australia

EPBC Act Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

EPL Environment Protection Licence

MWRC Mid-Western Regional Council

OEH Office of Environment and Heritage

SOA Salinity Offset Area

SOP Salinity Offset Program

UCML Ulan Coal Mines Limited

XCN Xstrata Coal NSW

2012 Annual Salinity Offset Scheme Report

1 Introduction

In 2003, as part of the implementation of the Bobadeen Irrigation Scheme, Ulan Coal Mines Limited (UCML) established a Salinity Offset Area (SOA) to offset the salt load within the catchment due to irrigation. This SOA was established in consultation with the former Department of Environment and Climate Change (now Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH)) and the Department of Land and Water Conservation (DLWC) (now Office of Water / OEH).

Modelling undertaken by DLWC (2003) identified that 4,464 hectares of land was required to offset the salt load associated with the operation of the Bobadeen Irrigation Scheme (DLWC 2003). This SOA is subject to altered land use and management in order to increase its salt holding potential and thereby compensate for the increased salt loadings within the pivot irrigators.

The Salinity Offset Program (SOP) is a Special Condition under the UCML Environment Protection Licence (EPL) No. 394 issued by the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) under Section 55 of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 .

UCML’s Biodiversity Management Plan (BMP) considers the biophysical outcomes of the SOA as part of the implementation of the Bobadeen Irrigation Scheme (BIS). As such, to meet the SOP objectives, UCML is required to achieve the following:

• Reduce the percentage of bare ground; • Regeneration of woody vegetation (DLWC 2003).

Eco Logical Australia (ELA) was engaged by UCML to prepare a component of the 2012 annual salinity offset scheme reporting under the BMP, in line with the UCML Project Approval 08_0184 approved by the NSW DP&I, and EPL No. 394 provided by EPA.

This report details the monitoring survey undertaken for flora within the SOA as detailed in the BMP. Where improvements to the monitoring program were identified, these have been provided within this report.

2012 Annual Salinity Offset Scheme Report

Figure 1.1: UCML regional location

2012 Annual Salinity Offset Scheme Report

1.1 SALINITY OFFSET AREA The SOA comprises 4,464 ha located at “Bobadeen” approximately 20 km north of Gulgong, situated over the Great Dividing Range in the headwaters of the Goulburn River (Hunter River Catchment) and Talbragar River (Macquarie River Catchment). The SOA also incorporates the Bobadeen Irrigation Scheme (BIS) (Figure 1.2 ).

The SOA contains a mix of a remnant, regenerating, modified and disturbed vegetation communities. The SOA incorporates 34 vegetation communities, of which Ironbark Open Forest Complex on Sandstone dominates, covering approximately 1,899 ha in remnant and regenerating forms. Other vegetation communities that occupy the SOA include Blakely’s Red Gum Open Forest (remnant and regenerating forms), Derived Native Grassland, Grey Box Woodland, Narrow-leaved Ironbark Open Forest on Alluvium/Colluvium, Rough-barked Apple Open Forest on Alluvium/Colluvium, Scribbly Gum Woodland in Heathland on Sand Plateaux, Stringybark-Ironbark Open Forest on Sandstone Slopes, Yellow-Box-Red Gum Woodland and White Box Woodland (remnant, modified and regenerating forms). Cleared and disturbed land (including unimproved pastures, improved pastures, water bodies and planted areas) occupies an area of approximately 615 ha.

1.2 SALINITY OFFSET PROGRAM A SOP was implemented to satisfy Special Condition E1 of EPL No. 394. The SOA was established in order to offset the increased salt load within the catchment due to the implementation of the BIS. This scheme involves the disposal of surplus mine water through pivot irrigation. UCML pumps surplus mine water to a dam north of the operations and irrigates land planted with vigorously growing pasture crops. The pasture is managed through rotational grazing of livestock, with a series of fences erected to facilitate grazing management.

The SOP represents a component within the overall UCML Biodiversity monitoring program. In regards to “Measurement and Evaluation” of the BMP, a comprehensive monitoring program has been developed and has already commenced to assess performance of biodiversity management measures.

Within the BMP, the Impact Mitigation Strategy and Completion Criteria for the SOA have been identified (Table 1.1 ). Progress towards meeting these criteria will be discussed within this report. The SOA forms one of nine ecological management domains within the Project Area.

The program of offset works was established within the SOA to progressively offset the predicted amounts of salt that are expected to reach shallow aquifers as a result of using the BIS as a method of using surplus mine water from UCML mining operations. These on ground works involve land use and land management changes to reduce salt exports from other lands that the mine owns and manages. The changes involve:

• Controlled rotational grazing; • Establishment/maintenance of stable vegetative cover; • 6000 trees planted along pivot fence lines; • Natural regeneration of vegetation cover.

2012 Annual Salinity Offset Scheme Report

These land use changes should result in: • A shift from degraded native forest and poor pasture to an improvement in the condition (and increase in the area) of native forests and pasture lands (improvement in both quality and quantity of native vegetation); • A reduction in salt exported from the offset areas and into the catchment due to an increase in water use by the recovering native vegetation.

1.2.1 Salinity Offset Area Objectives The Impact Mitigation Strategies and Completion Criteria for the SOA are shown in Table 1.1 .

Table 1.1: Residual vegetation monitoring sites (BMP 2011)

IMPACT MITIGATION COMPLETION CRITERIA STRATEGY Controlled rotational grazing activities have been implemented in a manner that Controlled rotational grazing (in controls pasture in the pivot area. pivot areas) Controlled rotational grazing activities are documented. Monitoring has shown that sufficient groundcover has been established such that the percentage of bare ground has reduced. Establishment/maintenance of No significant erosion is present. stable vegetative cover There are no significant weed infestations and weeds do not comprise a significant proportion of the species in any stratum. The required number of trees has been planted More than 75% of trees are healthy and growing as indicated by long term 6000 trees planted along pivot monitoring. fence lines There are no significant weed infestations and weeds do not comprise a significant proportion of the species in any stratum. Natural regeneration is shown through monitoring to be occurring. Natural regeneration of the There are no significant weed infestations and weeds do not comprise a vegetation cover significant proportion of the species in any stratum.

1.2.2 Monitoring As a result of the revised biodiversity monitoring program developed for PA 08_0184 and detailed in the BMP, UCML has integrated the SOA monitoring program into the broader biodiversity monitoring framework.

An integral part of the BMP is the measurement and evaluation of monitoring methodologies and processes. The condition of vegetation within the SOA will be monitored to identify performance and compliance with the identified Impact Mitigation Strategies during the life of the mine. Initially monitoring will be undertaken annually, however, where results are showing negligible change the frequency of monitoring may be reduced (i.e. biennial) in consultation with DP&I and OEH. Permanent monitoring plots will be established within the residual vegetation of the SOA and will incorporate existing analogue sites, where appropriate.

Floristic monitoring was conducted during 2012 as part of the ecological monitoring program. Sites were surveyed using the methodology outlined in Section 2 of this report. In addition to the sites identified for annual monitoring, the pivot fence lines will be added as an additional monitoring location.

2012 Annual Salinity Offset Scheme Report

This is required due to the completion criteria specifying that 75% of the 6000 trees planted must be healthy and growing. Monitoring to be carried out in this location will assess and systematically record the following characteristics:

• Total tree count along pivot fence lines; • General health of vegetation; • Occurrence and abundance of weed species; • Presence of erosion.

To demonstrate rotational grazing practices utilised by UCML within pivot areas requires that these practices be documented.

Monitoring results will be used to determine what, if any, mitigation actions are to be implemented (i.e. weed control).

2012 Annual Salinity Offset Scheme Report

Figure 1.2: Salinity Offset Area

2012 Annual Salinity Offset Scheme Report

2 Performance against Mitigation Strategy

IMPACT MITIGATION COMPLETION CRITERIA ASSESSMENT AGAINST CRITERIA STRATEGY Controlled rotational grazing activities Rotational grazing practices are undertaken by a Controlled have been implemented in a manner contracted grazing company that manage the area rotational that controls pasture in the pivot area. within the Bobadeen Irrigation Scheme as well as grazing (in Controlled rotational grazing activities other grazing areas in and around the Salinity Offset pivot areas) are documented. Areas. See Section 4.2 . The structural ground composition recorded during Monitoring has shown that sufficient the 2012 surveys has provided baseline and groundcover has been established such continuing key data for comparison in future years to Establishment/ that the percentage of bare ground has determine if the percentage of bare ground is reduced maintenance reduced. due to rehabilitation activities. See Section 4.1 . of stable No significant erosion is present. No significant erosion present during reporting period vegetative There are no significant weed cover No significant weed infestations present during infestations and weeds do not comprise reporting period. Weed control for 2013 in accordance a significant proportion of the species in with BMP. any stratum. The required number of trees has been 6000 trees planted in 2005. planted. More than 75% of trees are healthy and 6000 trees No assessment available. 2013 monitoring program growing as indicated by long term planted along will include an assessment of: monitoring. pivot fence • Total tree count along pivot fence lines; There are no significant weed lines • General health of vegetation; infestations and weeds do not comprise • Occurrence and abundance of weed species; a significant proportion of the species in • Presence of erosion; any stratum. Monitoring has measured high number of native species within the SOA. Improved surveys will allow Natural regeneration is shown through for further measurable parameters to be established Natural monitoring to be occurring. demonstrating the increase in natural regeneration. regeneration See Section 4.1 . of the Weed species are more evident in modified monitored vegetation There are no significant weed vegetation communities and less abundant in cover infestations and weeds do not comprise unmodified communities. Exotic species where a significant proportion of the species in evident comprise of less than 15% of the species and any stratum. ground cover. See Section 4.1 .

2012 Annual Salinity Offset Scheme Report

3 Methodology

Monitoring during 2012 was undertaken in accordance with the methods and survey techniques prescribed in Section 4 of the BMP.

3.1 FLORISTIC MONITORING Floristic monitoring was undertaken at 18 sites within the SOA, which consists of sites within the Bobadeen Offset Area and Residual Project Area (Table 3.1 and Figure 3.1 ). Floristic monitoring was undertaken during autumn and spring 2012 and monitoring included:

• 8 floristic sites in autumn 2012; • 10 floristic sites in spring 2012.

Based upon the recommendations from the 2011 monitoring, several sites were relocated during the 2012 monitoring to better reflect the vegetation communities that were to be surveyed. The sites that were relocated include BOB4, BOB10, BOB11, BOB13, BOB14, BOB15 and RPA14.

Floristic monitoring was undertaken by Tammy Paartalu, Will Introna, Niels Rueegger and Danielle Bennett of ELA and consisted of collecting specific biotic and abiotic data at all 18 sites. Floristic monitoring was undertaken from 16 April to 18 April 2012, 30 April to 2 May 2012, 15 October to 19 October 2012, 22 October to 26 October 2012 and 29 to 31 October 2012.

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

2012 Annual Salinity Offset Scheme Report

Table 3.1: Vegetation monitoring sites within SOA

SITE NUMBERS BY LOCATION VEGETATION TYPE BOBADEEN (BOB) RESIDUAL (RPA) AUTUMN SPRING AUTUMN SPRING Residual vegetation monitoring (analogue sites) Blakely’s Red Gum Open Forest BOB 6 RPA13 Ironbark Open Forest Complex on Sandstone BOB 3, BOB 8 BOB 7 Narrow-leaved Ironbark Open Forest on BOB 2 Alluvium/Colluvium Rough-barked Apple Open Forest on BOB 5 Alluvium/Colluvium Unimproved Pasture RPA14 White Box Woodland BOB 4 BOB 1 Revegetation/regeneration vegetation monitoring Blakely’s Red Gum Open Forest BOB11 Derived Native Grassland BOB10 BOB14 Ironbark Open Forest Complex on Sandstone BOB16 Modified White Box Woodland BOB12 BOB9 Unimproved Pasture BOB13,

BOB15

2012 Annual Salinity Offset Scheme Report

Figure 3.1: Vegetation monitoring sites within the SOA

2012 Annual Salinity Offset Scheme Report

3.2 WEATHER CONDITIONS Weather conditions in three months proceeding the autumn and spring monitoring period were cool to mild, with above average rainfall leading into the autumn survey and below average rainfall in August and average rainfall during July and September leading into the spring survey. Temperatures during these periods were close to averages for the Gulgong area, with mean minimum temperatures generally the same or below average and mean maximum temperatures above average, as shown in Table 3.2 and Table 3.3.

Table 3.2: Weather conditions preceding the 2012 autumn monitoring period

2012 MONTHLY MEAN TOTAL HISTORICAL AVERAGES TOTAL MONTH MIN TEMP RAINFALL RAINFALL MAX TEMP (oC) MIN TEMP (°C) MAX TEMP (°C) (oC) (mm) (mm) January 16.1 28.2 99.3 16.7 31.0 70.5 February 15.2 27.2 157.3 16.3 29.7 62.5 March 13.6 25.6 113.7 13.7 27.3 54.8 Weather observations were taken from Gulgong (www.bom.gov.au )

Table 3.3: Table 4: Weather conditions preceding the 2012 spring monitoring period

2012 MONTHLY MEAN TOTAL HISTORICAL AVERAGES TOTAL MONTH MIN TEMP RAINFALL RAINFALL MAX TEMP (°C) MIN TEMP (°C) MAX TEMP (°C) (°C) (MM) (MM) July 2.6 15.4 59.6 2.6 14.7 49.3 August 1.6 16.9 7.6 3.4 16.5 46.5 September 4.9 21.8 51.8 6.1 19.6 46.8 Weather observations were taken from Gulgong (www.bom.gov.au )

2012 Annual Salinity Offset Scheme Report

4 Results

4.1 FLORISTIC SURVEYS The following section provides a summary of the floristic monitoring survey undertaken within the SOA as detailed in BMP. Floristic data collected during monitoring are summarised below in Table 4.1 , with a full species list provided in Appendix A.

Floristic surveys identified a total of 210 species, with 161 native species, 43 introduced species and 6 species that could only be identified to genus level and could not be confidently classified as either native or introduced.

Species diversity varied within each floristic site, as identified in Table 4.1 , with total species identified ranging from 19 species (BOB7 – Ironbark open Forest Complex on Sandstone) to 61 species (BOB1 – White Box Woodland). Native and introduced species presence also varied within each floristic site, with native species identified ranging from 11 species (BOB12 – White box Woodland (Modified)) to 55 species (BOB1 – White Box Woodland) and introduced species identified ranging from 0 species at five sites to 33 species (RPA13 - Blakely’s Red Gum Open Forest).

Floristic surveys were undertaken within six mapped vegetation communities across the SOA, including:

• Blakely’s Red Gum Open Forest; • Derived Native Grassland; • Ironbark Open Forest Complex on Sandstone; • Narrow-leaved Ironbark Open Forest on Alluvium/Colluvium; • Rough-barked Apple Open Forest on Alluvium/Colluvium; • White Box Woodland.

Figure 4.1 illustrates the structural ground composition for each site surveyed during the autumn and spring 2012 period. Litter was dominant across the majority of sites surveyed, ranging from 5% (multiple sites) to 90% (BOB3). Bare ground, rock, cryptogams and logs were also recorded at multiple sites, with bare ground occurring at seven sites ranging from 5% (four sites) to 30% (RPA13), rock occurring at three sites ranging from 15% (BOB7) to 20% (BOB13 and BOB16), cryptogams occurring at two sites ranging from 10% (BOB7) to 20% (BOB6) and logs occuring at six sites ranging from 5% (three sites) to 15% (BOB8).

2012 Annual Salinity Offset Scheme Report

Table 4.1: Floristic survey summary SITE TOTAL NATIVE EXOTIC STRUCTURAL PERCENT COVER VEGETATION COMMUNITY SITE TYPE NO. SPECIES NO. SPECIES SPECIES LAYER NATIVE EXOTIC Residual Vegetation Monitoring Canopy 20 0 Bobadeen Offset BOB6 35 33 2 Shrub 30 0 Ground 20 <5 Blakely’s Red Gum Open Forest Canopy 20 0 Residual Project Area RPA13 49 16 33 Shrub <5 0 Ground 40 <5 Canopy 35 0 Bobadeen Offset BOB3 22 22 0 Shrub 5 0 Ground 10 0 Ironbark Open Forest Complex on Sandstone Canopy 20 0 Bobadeen Offset BOB7 19 19 0 Shrub 30 0 Ground 5 0 Canopy 35 0 Ironbark Open Forest Complex on Sandstone Bobadeen Offset BOB8 22 22 0 Shrub 10 0 (regenerating) Ground 35 0 Canopy 15 0 Narrow-leaved Ironbark Open Forest on Bobadeen Offset BOB2 42 40 2 Shrub 10 0 Alluvium/Colluvium Ground 60 <5 Canopy 20 0 Rough-barked Apple Open Forest on Bobadeen Offset BOB5 39 39 0 Shrub 30 0 Alluvium/Colluvium Ground 50 0 Shrub 50 0 Unimproved Pasture Residual Project Area RPA14 24 21 3 Ground 80 <1 Canopy 10 0 Bobadeen Offset BOB1 61 55 6 Shrub <5 0 White Box Woodland Ground 85 5 Bobadeen Offset BOB4 44 28 7 Canopy 40 0

2012 Annual Salinity Offset Scheme Report

SITE TOTAL NATIVE EXOTIC STRUCTURAL PERCENT COVER VEGETATION COMMUNITY SITE TYPE NO. SPECIES NO. SPECIES SPECIES LAYER NATIVE EXOTIC Shrub 10 0 Ground 30 <5 Revegetation/Regenerating Vegetation Monitoring Canopy 15 0 Blakely’s Red Gum Open Forest (regenerating) Bobadeen Offset BOB11 34 28 6 Shrub <5 0 Ground 70 10 Shrub <5 0 Bobadeen Offset BOB10 21 13 8 Ground <5 90 Derived Native Grassland Canopy 20 0 Bobadeen Offset BOB14 37 20 17 Shrub <5 0 Ground 85 10 Canopy 20 0 Ironbark Open Forest Complex on Sandstone Shrub 1 <5 0 Bobadeen Offset BOB16 34 34 0 (regenerating) Shrub 2 5 0 Ground >5 <5 Canopy 10 0 Bobadeen Offset BOB13 46 39 7 Shrub 60 0 Unimproved Pasture Ground 55 10 Shrub 25 <5 Bobadeen Offset BOB15 36 26 10 Ground 75 10 Bobadeen Offset BOB12 21 11 10 Ground 70 25 Canopy 15 0 White Box Woodland (Modified) Bobadeen Offset BOB9 42 31 11 Shrub 0 <5 Ground 60 35

2012 Annual Salinity Offset Scheme Report

100

60 Logs % 50 Cryptogam

40 Rock Bare Gorund 30 Litter

0 BOB1 BOB2 BOB3 BOB4 BOB5 BOB6 BOB7 BOB8 BOB9 BOB10 BOB11 BOB12 BOB13 BOB14 BOB15 BOB16 RPA13 RPA14

Figure 4.1: Structural ground composition

2012 Annual Salinity Offset Scheme Report

4.2 ROTATIONAL GRAZING Rotational grazing practices are undertaken by a contracted grazing company that manage the area within the Bobadeen Irrigation Scheme as well as other grazing areas in and around the Salinity Offset Areas. Table 4.2 summarises the Bobadeen Irrigation Scheme perfromance aginast design criteria for 2012 within the overall pivot areas that have undergone rotational grazing during 2012.

Table 4.2: Bobadeen Irrigation Scheme Performance against Design Criteria for 2012

TOTAL VOLUME VOLUME BOBADEEN APPLIED SALT MODELLED PIVOT AREA IRRIGATED DESIGN DAM EC LOAD SALT LOAD (ha) (ML) (ML/year) (µs/cm) (tonnes/year) (tonnes/year)

242 1391 1694 824 733.6 1452

Rotational grazing practices aim to maximise groundcover through:

• Appropriate grazing time spent in any one location; • Maintaining a minimum pasture height through timely stock rotations; • Annual soil analysis to monitor plant nutritional requirements; • Continuous soil moisture monitoring within the pivot irrigation areas to ensure optimal pasture growth.

Areas outside the irrigated pivot areas are grazed rotationally to take advantage of seasonal pasture growth. Low grazing pressure is achieved through minimal stock numbers. Table 4.3 summarises the rotational grazing practices that have been implemented during 2012 within the pivot areas.

2012 Annual Salinity Offset Scheme Report

Table 4.3: Rotational Grazing Practices undertaken in 2012

PIVOT DATE CATTLE MOVEMENT / ROTATION 21/1/2012 Southern side 5/03/2012 Northern Side 1 3/07/2012 Southern side 1/09/2012 Northern Side 21/11/2012 Southern side 2/01/2012 Northern Side 3/03/2012 Southern side 2 03/06/2012 Northern Side 5/08/2012 Southern side 2/01/2012 Northern Side 3/03/2012 Southern side 3 3/06/2012 Northern Side 5/08/2012 Southern side 2/01/2012 Northern Side 22/02/2012 Southern side 5/05/2012 Northern Side 4 7/07/2012 Southern side 1/09/2012 Northern Side 11/11/2012 Southern side 13/01/2012 Northern Side 2/03/2012 Southern side 13/05/2012 Northern Side 5 7/07/2012 Southern side 4/09/2012 Northern Side 24/12/2012 Southern side

2012 Annual Salinity Offset Scheme Report

5 Discussion & Recommendations

5.1 GROUND COVER & FLORISTIC MONITORING Floristic monitoring undertaken during the autumn and spring 2012 monitoring period collected data that was compared to baseline data collected in the 2011 monitoring period (spring survey sites) and established new baseline data for sites surveyd in autumn and relocated sites. The methods undertaken during the monitoring were based upon those stated within the BMP and undertaken during the 2011 baseline survey.

Spring data Spring 2012 surveys identified a higher number of exotic species within the revegetation/regeneration sites and greater structural diversity within analogue sites.

Figure 5.1 compares spring 2011 and 2012 data for native and exotic species richness at sites within the SOA. An increase in native species from spring 2011 to 2012 was observed at two sites and a reduction of native species observed at five sites. A small increase in native species was observed at BOB1 (White Box Woodland) and a substantial decrease was observed at RPA13 (Blakely’s Red Gum Open Forest). Exotic species observed within the monitoring sites were generally similar with an increase observed at two sites and a decrease observed at three sites. A considerable increase in exotic species was observed at one site, RPA13 (Blakely’s Red Gum Open Forest).

70 60 50 40 30 20 Exotic 10 Native 0

Figure 5.1: Native and exotic species richness recorded at analogue sites in spring 2011 and 2012.

Figure 5.2 illustrates the cover of native and exotic species within the ground layer at the sites within the SOA. The same cover of introduced species was observed during the spring 2012 survey than the previous year. One site, RPA13, observed a lower native species cover abundance in the groundcover during the spring 2012 survey. Within RPA 13, there was an increase in exotic species richness observed, however the exotic groundcover abundance remained similar to that observed during the 2011 survey. Seasonal variability is more likely the contributing factor to the increase in exotic species

2012 Annual Salinity Offset Scheme Report

richness within this site.One site, RPA13, observed a lower native species cover abundance in the groundcover during the spring 2012 survey.

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 Ground - Native 20 Ground - Extoic 10 0

Figure 5.2: Native and exotic species percentage cover recorded within the ground layer at analogue sites in spring 2011 and 2012

Autumn data Floristic surveys undertaken during autumn 2012 form the baseline data for these sites, with continued monitoring to occur in autumn 2013. The 2012 autumn survey at sites within the SOA identified similar results, with native species ranging from 22 species at three sites (BOB3 - Ironbark Open Forest Complex on Sandstone, BOB8 - Ironbark Open Forest Complex on Sandstone (regenerating) and BOB12 – Modified White Box Woodland) to 33 species at one site (BOB6 - Blakely’s Red Gum Open Forest). Generally low numbers of exotic species were observed at all sites, ranging from no species at two sites (BOB3 - Ironbark Open Forest Complex on Sandstone and BOB8 - Ironbark Open Forest Complex on Sandstone (regenerating)) to four species at one site (BOB12 – Modified White Box Woodland).

Relocated sites Relocated floristic survey sites were undertaken during the autumn and spring 2012 survey seasons and form the baseline surveys for these sites, with continuing monitoring to occur during both autumn and spring 2013. The 2012 autumn and spring surveys identified varying results with native and exotic species richness at sites within the SOA. The 2012 surveys identified varying results, with native species ranging from 13 species at two sites (BOB10 - Derived Native Grassland) to 39 species at one site (BOB13 - Unimproved Pasture). Exotic species were observed at all sites, ranging from three species at one site (RPA14 - Unimproved Pasture) to 17 species at one site (BOB14 – Derived Native Grassland).

Weeds Based on the generally higher numbers of exotic species within some of the sites located within the SOA, it is recommended that any works to rehabilitate the offset sites aim to increase native species diversity and cover towards the analogue site levels, with similar species diversity and composition with associated vegetation types. The 2012 surveys identified weeds within the SOA that should be targeted

2012 Annual Salinity Offset Scheme Report

as part of noxious and environmental weed control. One noxious weed Hypericum perforatum (St. John’s Wort), was observed at two sites within the SOA (BOB9 and BOB14). Dominant weeds within RPA13 require control. These dominant weeds include Bromus diandrus (Great Brome), Bromus molliformis (Soft Brome), Conyza sp, Hordeum sp and Lolium perenne (Perennial Ryegrass).

Future Monitoring Floristic monitoring within the SOA should be expanded to cover sites surveyed previously in 2008 (Umwelt, 2008) which will provide a comparison of cover abundance over a longer period of time. A representative number of sites should be established within the previously surveyed sites, which may be up to 14 sites, depending on vegetation communities and their condition within the SOA. This will also expand the area of survey being currently undertaken; given the current floristic survey sites are largely concentrated within the Bobadeen Vegetation Offset Area. The combined 2011 and 2012 monitoring results will act as baseline data for future annual monitoring.

5.2 TREE PLANTING 6000 trees were planted in 2005, with no significant weed infestations within the planted areas being evident. To meet the objectives of the planting, 75% of the 6,000 trees must be healthy and growing. To monitor the performance of these trees, monitoring is to be undertaken in autumn 2013 along pivot fence lines to assess and systematically record the following characteristics:

• Total tree count along pivot fence lines; • Health of vegetation (which may include height, evidence of dieback, evidence of flowering and fruiting); • Occurrence and abundance of weed species; • Presence of erosion.

5.3 GRAZING MANAGEMENT Rotational grazing, currently being undertaken within the pivot areas, will continue during 2013.

Rotational grazing must be responsive to vegetative growth and the impact of livestock if the SOA is to sustain a healthy vegetative cover and reduce bare ground in the long term. The rotational grazing records will be compared with results from monitoring within the SOA to ensure that current management practices are appropriate and to help identify improvements in management techniques.

Incidental observations of weeds and erosion should also be recorded during these surveys and the necessary management procedures undertaken.

2012 Annual Salinity Offset Scheme Report

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.

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

Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) (2012) Daily Weather Observation, Mudgee: http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/dwo/IDCJDW2088.latest.shtml

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

Department of Land and Water Conservations (2003) Ulan Mine area – Impacts of proposed land use and Management Changes on Catchment Water and Salt Yields.

Eco Logical Australia (2012) Ulan Coal Mines Limited 2011 Annual Monitoring Report. Unpublished report prepared for Ulan Coal Mines Limited.

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

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited (2008) DRAFT – The Vegetation of Ulan Coal Mine Leases. Report prepared for Ulan Coal.

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

2012 Annual Salinity Offset Scheme Report

Appendix A: Flora Species List

FAMILY SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME NATIVE / EXOTIC Adiantaceae Cheilanthes sieberi Native Anthericaceae Dichopogon sp. Native Anthericaceae Laxmannia gracilis Slender Wire Lily Native Anthericaceae Tricoryne sp. Native Apiaceae Daucus sp. Native Apiaceae Hydrocotyle laxiflora Stinking Pennywort Native Apiaceae Platysace linearifolia Native Apiaceae Xanthium sp. Native Araliaceae Astrotricha longifolia Native Asteraceae Bidens pilosa Cobblers Pegs Exotic Asteraceae Cirsium vulgare Spear Thistle Exotic Asteraceae Conyza bonariensis Flaxleaf Fleabane Exotic Asteraceae Conyza sp. Exotic Asteraceae Gamochaeta calviceps Cudweed Exotic Asteraceae Gamochaeta sp. Exotic Asteraceae Hypochaeris radicata Catsear Exotic Asteraceae Onopordum acanthium Scotch Thistle Exotic Asteraceae Sonchus sp. Exotic Asteraceae Taraxacum officinale Dandelion Exotic Asteraceae Brachyscome sp. Native Asteraceae Calotis cuneata Mountain Burr-daisy Native Asteraceae Calotis cuneata Mountain Burr-daisy Native Asteraceae Calotis cuneifolia Purple Burr-daisy Native Asteraceae Calotis lappulacea Yellow Burr -daisy Native Asteraceae Calotis sp. Native Asteraceae Cassinia arcuata Sifton Bush Native Asteraceae Chrysocephalum apiculatum Common Everlasting Native Asteraceae Chrysocephalum semipapposum Clustered Everlasting Native Asteraceae Cymbonotus lawsonianus Bears-ear Native Asteraceae Euchiton sp. Native Asteraceae Euchiton sphaericus Native Asteraceae Helichrysum sp. Native Asteraceae Lagenophora stipitata Blue Bottle-daisy Native Asteraceae Podolepis neglecta Native Asteraceae Podolepis sp. Native Asteraceae Solenogyne sp. Native Asteraceae Triptilodiscus pygmaeus Common Sunray Native Asteraceae Vittadinia muelleri Native Asteraceae Vittadinia sp. Native

2012 Annual Salinity Offset Scheme Report

FAMILY SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME NATIVE / EXOTIC Boraginaceae Echium plantagineum Paterson's Curse Exotic Boraginaceae Echium vulgare Vipers Bugloss Exotic Brassicaceae Capsella bursa-pastoris Shepherd's Purse Exotic Brassicaceae Rorippa sp. Exotic Brassicaceae Lepidium sp. Native/Exotic Campanulaceae Wahlenbergia communis Tufted Bluebell Native Campanulaceae Wahlenbergia sp. Native

Caryophyllaceae Cerastium sp. Exotic Caryophyllaceae Paronychia brasiliana Chilean Whitlow Wort Exotic Caryophyllaceae Petrorhagia nanteuilii Exotic Caryophyllaceae Petrorhagia sp. Native

Casuarinaceae Casuarina sp. Native Chenopodiaceae Einadia hastata Berry Saltbush Native Chenopodiaceae Einadia sp. Native Clusiaceae Hypericum perforatum St John's Wort Exotic Clusiaceae Hypericum gramineum Small St John's Wort Native Colchicaceae Wurmbea sp. Native Convolvulaceae Dichondra repens Kidney Weed Native Cupressaceae Callitris endlicheri Black Cypress Pine Native Cyperaceae Carex sp. Native Cyperaceae Fimbristylis dichotoma Common Fringe-sedge Native Cyperaceae Gahnia aspera Rough Saw-sedge Native Cyperaceae Lepidosperma laterale Native Cyperaceae Schoenus apogon Common Bog-rush Native Cyperaceae Schoenus imberbis Native Cyperaceae Schoenus sp. Native Dilleniaceae Hibbertia obtusifolia Hoary Guinea Flower Native Dilleniaceae Hibbertia sp. Native

Droseraceae Drosera sp. Native Ericaceae - Styphelioideae Acrotriche rigida Native Ericaceae - Styphelioideae Astroloma humifusum Native Cranberry Native Ericaceae - Styphelioideae Brachyloma daphnoides Daphne Heath Native Ericaceae - Styphelioideae Leucopogon muticus Blunt Beard-heath Native Ericaceae - Styphelioideae Lissanthe strigosa Peach Heath Native Ericaceae - Styphelioideae Melichrus urceolatus Urn-heath Native Ericaceae - Styphelioideae Monotoca elliptica Tree Broom -heath Native Euphorbiaceae Chamaesyce drummondi Caustic Weed Native Fabaceae - Faboideae Medicago polymorpha Exotic Fabaceae - Faboideae Medicago sp. Exotic

2012 Annual Salinity Offset Scheme Report

FAMILY SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME NATIVE / EXOTIC Fabaceae - Faboideae Templetonia sp. Exotic Fabaceae - Faboideae Trifolium arvense Haresfoot Clover Exotic Fabaceae - Faboideae Trifolium sp. Exotic Fabaceae - Faboideae Vicia sp. Exotic Fabaceae - Faboideae Bossiaea prostrata Native Fabaceae - Faboideae Desmodium sp. Native Fabaceae - Faboideae Desmodium varians Slender Tick-trefoil Native Fabaceae - Faboideae Glycine microphylla Native Fabaceae - Faboideae Glycine sp. Native Fabaceae - Faboideae Podolobium ilicifolium Prickly Shaggy Pea Native Fabaceae - Faboideae Pultenaea cinerascens Native Fabaceae - Faboideae Swainsona sp. Native Fabaceae - Faboideae Zornia dyctiocarpa var. dyctiocarpa Zornia Native Fabaceae - Mimosoideae Acacia decora Western Silver Wattle Native Fabaceae - Mimosoideae Acacia doratoxylon Lancewood Native Fabaceae - Mimosoideae Acacia gladiiformis Sword Wattle Native Fabaceae - Mimosoideae Acacia leucolobia Wattle Native Fabaceae - Mimosoideae Acacia linearifolia Narrow-leaved Wattle Native Fabaceae - Mimosoideae Acacia paradoxa Kangaroo Thorn Native Fabaceae - Mimosoideae Acacia sp. Native Gentianaceae Centaurium sp. Exotic Geraniaceae Geranium solanderi Native Geranium Native Geraniaceae Geranium sp. Native Geraniaceae Erodium sp. Native/ Exotic Goodeniaceae Goodenia hederacea Forest Goodenia Native Goodeniaceae Goodenia sp. Native Haloragaceae Gonocarpus sp. Native Haloragaceae Gonocarpus teucroides Raspwort Native Haloragaceae Haloragis heterophylla Rough Raspwort Native Haloragaceae Haloragis sp. Native Iridaceae Sisyrinchium sp. Scourweed Exotic

Juncaceae Juncus usitatus Native Juncaceae Luzula sp. Native Juncaceae Juncus sp. Native/Exotic Juncaceae Juncus sp. Native/Exotic

2012 Annual Salinity Offset Scheme Report

FAMILY SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME NATIVE / EXOTIC Lamiaceae Salvia verbenaca Wild Sage Exotic Lauraceae Cassytha glabella Native Lobeliaceae Pratia purpurascens Whiteroot Native Lomandraceae Lomandra filiformis Native Lomandraceae Lomandra filiformis subsp. coriacea Wattle Mat-rush Native Lomandraceae Lomandra filiformis subsp. filiformis Wattle Mat-rush Native Lomandraceae Lomandra glauca Pale Mat-rush Native Lomandraceae Lomandra longifolia Spiny-headed Mat-rush Native Lomandraceae Lomandra multiflora subsp. multiflora Many-flowered Mat-rush Native Loranthaceae Amyema miquelii Native Malvaceae Modiola caroliniana Red-flowered Mallow Exotic Myrsinaceae Anagallis arvensis Scarlet Pimpernel Exotic Myrtaceae Angophora floribunda Rough-barked Apple Native Myrtaceae Babingtonia cunninghamii Native Myrtaceae Calytrix tetragona Common Fringe-myrtle Native Myrtaceae Calytrix tetragona Common Fringe-myrtle Native Myrtaceae Eucalyptus albens White Box Native Myrtaceae Eucalyptus blakelyi Blakely's Red Gum Native Myrtaceae Eucalyptus crebra Narrow-leaved Ironbark Native Myrtaceae Eucalyptus dwyeri Dwyer's Red Gum Native Myrtaceae Eucalyptus fibrosa Red Ironbark Native Myrtaceae Eucalyptus macroryncha Inland Scribbly Gum Native Myrtaceae Kunzea parvifolia Violet Kunzea Native Myrtaceae Melaleuca thymifolia Thyme Honey-myrtle Native Myrtaceae Sannantha cunninghamii Native Orchidaceae Diuris sulphurea Native Orchidaceae Microtis sp. Native Orchidaceae Pterostylis mutica Native Oxalidaceae Oxalis perennans Native Oxalidaceae Oxalis sp. Native/Exotic

Phormiaceae Dianella revoluta Blueberry Lily Native Phyllanthaceae Phyllanthus hirtellus Thyme Spurge Native Phyllanthaceae Phyllanthus occidentalis Native Phyllanthaceae Phyllanthus virgatus Native Phyllanthaceae Poranthera corymbosa Native Phyllanthaceae Poranthera microphylla Native

Plantaginaceae Plantago lanceolata Lamb's Tongues Exotic Plantaginaceae Plantago debilis Native Plantaginaceae Plantago gaudichaudii Narrow plantain Native Poaceae Aira sp. Exotic Poaceae Briza minor Shivery Grass Exotic Poaceae Bromus diandrus Great Brome Exotic

2012 Annual Salinity Offset Scheme Report

FAMILY SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME NATIVE / EXOTIC Poaceae Bromus molliformis Soft Brome Exotic Poaceae Bromus sp. Exotic Poaceae Dactylis glomerata Cocksfoot Exotic Poaceae Hordeum sp. Exotic Poaceae Lolium perenne Perennial Ryegrass Exotic Poaceae Paspalum dilatatum Paspalum Exotic Poaceae Setaria sp. Exotic Poaceae Vulpia sp. Exotic Poaceae Aristida ramosa Purple Wiregrass Native Poaceae Aristida sp. Native Poaceae Aristida vagans Threeawn Speargrass Native Poaceae Arundinella napalensis Reedgrass Native Austrodanthonia racemosa var. Poaceae racemosa Native Poaceae Austrodanthonia sp. Native Poaceae Austrostipa scabra Speargrass Native Poaceae Austrostipa sp. Native Poaceae Austrostipa verticillata Native Poaceae Bothriochloa decipiens Red Grass Native Poaceae Bothriochloa macra Red Grass Native Poaceae Bothriochloa sp. Native Poaceae Chloris truncata Windmill Grass Native Poaceae Cleistochloa rigida Native Poaceae Cymbopogon refractus Barbed Wire Grass Native Poaceae Dichanthium sericeum Queensland Bluegrass Native Poaceae Dichelachne crinita Native Poaceae Dichelachne micrantha Shorthair Plumegrass Native Poaceae Digitaria diffusa Open Summer-grass Native Poaceae Digitaria sp. Native Poaceae Echinopogon caespitosus Bushy Hedgehog-grass Native Poaceae Echinopogon ovatus Forest Hedgehog Grass Native Poaceae Elymus scaber Native Poaceae Entolasia stricta Wiry Panic Native Poaceae Eragrostis benthamii Native Poaceae Eragrostis sp. Native Poaceae Joycea pallida Silvertop Wallaby Grass Native Poaceae Microlaena stipoides Weeping Grass Native Poaceae Panicum effusum Hairy Panic Native Poaceae Sporobolus creber Western Rat-tail Grass Native Poaceae Themeda australis Kangaroo Grass Native Polygonaceae Acetosella vulgaris Sorrel Exotic Polygonaceae Rumex sp. Native/Exotic Proteaceae Persoonia linearis Narrow-leaved Geebung Native

2012 Annual Salinity Offset Scheme Report

FAMILY SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME NATIVE / EXOTIC Rosaceae Acaena sp. Native Rubiaceae Asperula conferta Common Woodruff Native Rubiaceae Asperula sp. Native Rubiaceae Cyclophyllum longipetalum Coast Canthium Native Rubiaceae Cyclophyllum sp. Native Rubiaceae Opercularia sp. Native Rubiaceae Pomax umbellata Native Rubiaceae Richardia sp. Native Scrophulariaceae Veronica plebeia Trailing Speedwell Native Stackhousiaceae Stackhousia muricata Western Stackhousia Native Stackhousiaceae Stackhousia sp. Native Verbenaceae Verbena bonariensis Purpletop Exotic Zamiaceae Macrozamia sp. Native

2011 Annual Monitoring & Implementation Report

DARWIN