Environmental Consulting Options Tasmania

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF THE PROPOSED SCOTTSDALE IRRIGATION SCHEME, NORTHEAST TASMANIA: CAMDEN DAM EXTENSION SURVEY

Environmental Consulting Options Tasmania (ECOtas) for Tasmanian Irrigation Pty Ltd 12 April 2015

Mark Wapstra ABN 83 464 107 291 28 Suncrest Avenue email: [email protected] (03) 62 283 220 Lenah Valley, TAS 7008 web: www.ecotas.com.au 0407 008 685

ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

CITATION This report can be cited as: ECOtas (2015). Ecological Assessment of the Proposed Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme, Northeast Tasmania: Camden Dam Extension Area. Report by Environmental Consulting Options Tasmania (ECOtas) for Tasmanian Irrigation Pty Ltd, 12 April 2015.

AUTHORSHIP Field assessment: Mark Wapstra Report production: Mark Wapstra Habitat and vegetation mapping: Mark Wapstra Base data for mapping: TheList, Tasmanian Irrigation Pty Ltd Digital and aerial photography: Mark Wapstra, GoogleEarth, TheList

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Kathryn Pugh (TI) provided background information and field assistance (burrowing crayfish survey). Alastair Richardson (ECOtas) undertook burrowing crayfish surveys and identifications. Marlaina Pickering (TI) undertook some GIS analyses of threatened fauna records. Miguel de Salas and Matthew Baker (Tasmanian Herbarium) confirmed some plant identifications.

COVER ILLUSTRATIONS View of the Camden Rivulet through callidendrous rainforest.

Please note: the blank pages in this document are deliberate to facilitate double-sided printing.

Ecological Assessment of Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Camden Dam), Tasmania i ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Ecological Assessment of Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Camden Dam), Tasmania ii ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

CONTENTS SUMMARY ...... 1 PURPOSE, SCOPE, LIMITATIONS AND QUALIFICATIONS OF THE SURVEY ...... 5 Purpose ...... 5 Scope ...... 5 Limitations ...... 6 Qualifications ...... 6 Permit ...... 6 THE STUDY AREA ...... 7 METHODS ...... 7 Nomenclature ...... 7 Preliminary investigation ...... 10 Field assessment ...... 10 Botanical survey – threatened flora ...... 11 Botanical survey – declared and environmental weeds ...... 11 Botanical survey – vegetation classification ...... 11 Zoological survey ...... 11 Masked owl survey ...... 12 Spotted-tailed quoll and Tasmanian devil survey ...... 13 Growling grass frog survey ...... 13 Wedge-tailed eagle survey ...... 13 Grey goshawk habitat analysis ...... 15 Burrowing crayfish survey ...... 15 RESULTS ...... 15 Vegetation types ...... 15 Comments on TASVEG mapping ...... 15 Vegetation types recorded as part of the present study ...... 17 Plant species ...... 18 General observations (flora) ...... 18 Priority flora species known from the study area ...... 18 Analysis of records of priority flora from vicinity of study area ...... 18 Fauna species ...... 20 General observations (fauna) ...... 20 Priority fauna species known from the study area (or potentially present) ...... 20 Other ecological values ...... 27 Additional “Matters of National Environmental Significance” ...... 27

Ecological Assessment of Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Camden Dam), Tasmania iii ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Weed species ...... 27 Rootrot pathogen, Phytophthora cinnamomi ...... 27 Myrtle wilt ...... 28 Myrtle rust ...... 28 Chytrid fungus and other freshwater pathogens ...... 28 DISCUSSION ...... 29 Summary of key findings ...... 29 Legislative and policy implications ...... 31 Recommendations ...... 33 REFERENCES ...... 34 APPENDIX A. Vegetation community structure and composition ...... 36 APPENDIX B. Vascular plant species recorded from study area ...... 39 APPENDIX C. Vertebrate fauna recorded from study area ...... 42 APPENDIX D. Details of key fauna point locations ...... 45 APPENDIX E. Analysis of database records of threatened flora ...... 48 APPENDIX F. Analysis of database records of threatened fauna...... 51 APPENDIX G. Notes on Juncus amabilis (gentle rush) ...... 55 APPENDIX H. Notes on Pimelea curviflora var. gracilis (slender curved riceflower)...... 59 APPENDIX I. Notes on Epilobium pallidiflorum (showy willowherb) ...... 63 APPENDIX J. Identification of Engaeus species from project area ...... 67 APPENDIX K. Commentary on growling grass frog (Litoria raniformis) ...... 70 APPENDIX L. Presence of “Alpine Sphagnum Bogs and Associated Fens” ...... 72 APPENDIX M. DPIPWE’s Natural Values Atlas report for study area ...... 82 APPENDIX N. Forest Practices Authority’s Biodiversity Values Atlas report for study area ...... 82 APPENDIX O. CofA’s Protected Matters report for study area ...... 82 OTHER ATTACHMENTS ...... 82

Ecological Assessment of Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Camden Dam), Tasmania iv ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

SUMMARY

General

Tasmanian Irrigation Pty Ltd engaged Environmental Consulting Options Tasmania (ECOtas) to undertake an assessment of part of the proposed Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (SIS), to inform project planning in the context of the ecological values of the site. The primary focus of the present assessment and report is on the “extension area” previously unassessed for its ecological significance. Additional advice was also sought on several ecological matters. Site assessment was undertaken on 29 January and 4-6 February 2015 by Mark Wapstra.

Summary of key findings

Threatened flora  No plant species listed as threatened on the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 or the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 were detected, or are known from database records, from the study area. The study area does not support significant potential habitat of listed species such that further surveys are not warranted. Threatened fauna  One fauna species listed as threatened on the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (species marked with * are also listed on the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995) was detected from the study area, as follows:  Sarcophilus harrisii (Tasmanian devil)*: several scats detected from plantation boundary tracks and several potential den sites above Camden Rivulet.  Potential habitat is present for an additional species listed on this Act, as follows:  Dasyurus maculatus subsp. maculatus (spotted-tailed quoll)*: no direct evidence noted but potential habitat widespread.  Marginal potential habitat is present for an additional two species listed on this Act, as follows:  Tyto novaehollandiae subsp. castanops (Tasmanian masked owl)*: site considered to be at elevation limit of species but see discussion below; and  Aquila audax subsp. fleayi (Tasmanian wedge-tailed eagle)*: no potential nesting habitat in study area (mainly plantation, rainforest and silver wattle forest) but area would be utilised for foraging and form part of a wider territory.  Marginal potential habitat for one additional fauna species listed as threatened on the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 was detected from the study area, as follows:  Accipiter novaehollandiae (grey goshawk): site considered to be at elevation limit of species but habitat superficially suitable.  Targeted surveys indicated that the Engaeus species within and close to the Camden Dam site is Engaeus leptorhynchus, a widespread, common and non-threatened species.

Ecological Assessment of Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Camden Dam), Tasmania 1 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

 It is recommended that management of these species should be discussed with DPIPWE (Policy & Conservation Advice Branch) to develop an appropriate set of prescriptions including further surveys, habitat offsets and/or alternative mitigation. Vegetation types  The study area supports five TASVEG mapping units:  “permanent easements” (FPE): roads;  “Eucalyptus delegatensis over rainforest” (WDR): slopes on either side of the Camden Rivulet, where it grades into RMT;  “Nothofagus-Atherosperma rainforest” (RMT): broad flats and adjacent gentle slopes on either side of the Camden Rivulet;  “Acacia dealbata forest” (NAD): between Diddleum Road and eucalypt plantations and between plantations and the rainforest/eucalypt forest along Camden Rivulet; and  “plantations for silviculture” (FPL): eucalypt plantations either side of Diddleum Road and Camden Rivulet.  None of these vegetation types are classified as threatened under Schedule 3A of the Tasmanian Nature Conservation Act 2002 or equate to ecological communities listed on the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.  There are unlikely to be significant constraints on the clearing (inundation and dam wall construction) of these vegetation types but this needs to be considered in the context of the whole project and additional areas of these vegetation types that have been identified. Weeds  One species classified as a “declared weeds” within the meaning of the Tasmanian Weed Management Act 1999 was detected from the study area. Ulex europaeus (gorse) is widespread through plantations, along road verges and scattered elsewhere.  One additional “environmental weed: was detected: Digitalis purpurea (foxglove) was locally common in disturbed areas.  Some management recommendations are made to minimise the risk of spreading weeds as a consequence of the project. Plant disease  No evidence of plant disease (Phytophthora cinnamomi, rootrot fungus; myrtle wilt; myrtle rust) was detected.  Some management recommendations are made to minimise the risk of introducing plant pathogens, especially rootrot fungus (mainly machinery hygiene protocols). Animal disease (chytrid)  The study area is not known to support the frog chytrid pathogen.  Some management recommendations are made to minimise the risk of introducing the pathogen. Recommendations

The recommendations provided below are a summary of those provided in relation to each of the ecological features described in the main report. The main text of the report, and supported appendices, provide the relevant context for the recommendations.

Vegetation types

Ecological Assessment of Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Camden Dam), Tasmania 2 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

No special management actions recommended for the extension survey area. The management of vegetation types, especially threatened non-forest mapping units, in the broader project area (Camden Dam) will require further consideration.

Threatened flora A permit under the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 will not be required for the extension survey area because no threatened flora were detected. The management of threatened flora previously identified from the broader project area (Camden Dam) will require further consideration.

Threatened fauna Within the extension survey area, there is potential habitat for several threatened fauna species, namely Sarcophilus harrisii (Tasmanian devil), Dasyurus maculatus subsp. maculatus (spotted- tailed quoll), Tyto novaehollandiae subsp. castanops (Tasmanian masked owl), and Accipiter novaehollandiae (grey goshawk), although field survey only confirmed the presence of the Tasmanian devil (scats). The management of potential habitat of these species, in addition to Aquila audax subsp. fleayi (Tasmanian wedge-tailed eagle), across the whole project area will require consultation with DPIWPE (Policy & Conservation Advice Branch).

Weeds and disease Recommendations provided in Camden Rivulet Dam, Camden Plains, Ecological Assessment and Recommendations (SEMF 2012) is considered applicable.

Ecological Assessment of Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Camden Dam), Tasmania 3 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Ecological Assessment of Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Camden Dam), Tasmania 4 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

PURPOSE, SCOPE, LIMITATIONS AND QUALIFICATIONS OF THE SURVEY

Purpose

Tasmanian Irrigation Pty Ltd engaged Environmental Consulting Options Tasmania (ECOtas) to undertake an assessment of part of the proposed Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (SIS), to inform project planning in the context of the ecological values of the site. The primary focus of the present assessment and report is on the “extension area” previously unassessed for its ecological significance. Additional advice was sought on several ecological matters, which are discussed below under Scope.

Scope

This report relates to:  flora and fauna species of conservation significance, including a discussion of listed threatened species (under the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 and/or the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999) potentially present, and other species of conservation significance/interest;  vegetation types (forest and non-forest, native and exotic) present, including a discussion of the distribution, condition, extent, composition and conservation significance of each community;  plant and animal disease management issues;  weed management issues; and  a discussion of some of the policy and legislative implications of the identified ecological values. This report follows, in a general sense, the government-produced Guidelines for Natural Values Assessments (DPIPWE 2009) in anticipation that the report (or extracts of it) will be used as part of various approval processes that will be required for works at the site. The assessment also complies, in a general sense, with the Tasmanian EPA’s Environmental Effects Report requirements. The report format will also be applicable to other assessment protocols as required the Commonwealth Department of the Environment (for any referral/approval that may be required under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999), should such referral be warranted. The combination of these assessment standards means that ecological matters usually considered under the local planning scheme are also addressed. The specific scope of the engagement includes:  within newly identified areas affected by the construction of the proposed SIS, identify potential distribution of threatened vegetation, flora and fauna species’ habitat, communities or populations listed under State and/or Commonwealth legislation; and  within previously surveyed areas, several natural values have been identified within this area that require further investigation, including: − investigate potential areas of the EPBC‐listed ecological community Alpine Sphagnum Bog and Associated Fens within the dam inundation zone, and quantify and describe any areas of this ecological community; − conduct call‐back and nest surveys for the Tasmanian masked owl;

Ecological Assessment of Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Camden Dam), Tasmania 5 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

− quantify areas of significant habitat for the Commonwealth‐listed Tasmanian masked owl, wedge‐tailed eagle, spotted‐tailed quoll and growling grass frog within the dam construction zone and inundation zone; − quantify habitat suitability for the State‐listed grey goshawk, in accordance with Fauna Technical Note No. 12: Goshawk Habitat Categories within the dam construction zone and inundation zone; and − identify species of burrowing crayfish identified in previous surveys in the vicinity of the St Patricks River.

Limitations

Many plant species have ephemeral or seasonal growth or flowering habits, or patchy distributions (at varying scales), and it is possible that some species were not recorded for this reason. However, every effort was made to sample the range of habitats present in the survey area to maximise the opportunity of recording the majority of species present (particular those of conservation significance). Late spring and into summer is usually regarded as the most suitable period to undertake the majority of botanical assessments. While some species have more restricted flowering periods, a discussion of the potential for the site to support these is presented. The survey was also limited to vascular species: species of mosses, lichens and liverworts were not recorded. However, a consideration is made of species (vascular and non-vascular) likely to be present (based on habitat information and database records) and reasons presented for their apparent absence. Surveys for threatened fauna were practically limited to an examination of “potential habitat” (i.e. comparison of on-site habitat features to habitat descriptions for threatened fauna), and detection of tracks, scats and other signs, except as indicated below in METHODS Zoological survey.

Qualifications

Except where otherwise stated, the opinions and interpretations of legislation and policy expressed in this report are made by the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the relevant agency. The client should confirm management prescriptions with the relevant agency before acting on the content of this report.

Permit

Any plant material was collected under DPIPWE permit TFL 13066 (in the name of Mark Wapstra). Relevant data will be entered into DPIPWE’s Natural Values Atlas database by the author. Some plant material will be lodged at the Tasmanian Herbarium by the author. No vertebrate or invertebrate material was collected (Engaeus specimens were excavated for the purpose of identification without knowledge of the species involved – all were re-released alive at the point of collection).

Ecological Assessment of Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Camden Dam), Tasmania 6 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

THE STUDY AREA

The study area (Figures 1 & 2) comprises the newly identified and previously unsurveyed areas associated with the Camden Rivulet on either side of Camden Road. This area is an extension to areas previously assessed and reported against by SEMF (2012). The study area also comprises the remainder of the area previously assessed by SEMF (2012) but only for the purposes of specific assessments for various ecological values identified under Scope. Note that these areas were not re-assessed in their entirety, but only to the extent required to draw relevant conclusions on the values identified as requiring require further investigation consideration. The study area also included sites on the St Patricks River identified as supporting burrowing crayfish, where the inhabiting species was under investigation. The study area comprises gently undulating terrain in the catchment of Camden Rivulet mainly south of Diddleum Road. Much of the study area supports eucalypt plantation with the balance mainly wet sclerophyll, mixed forest and rainforest, with small areas of swamp forest and other vegetation types (see SEMF (2012) for vegetation mapping). The broader area is known as the Diddleum and Camden plains. Elevation varies from c. 570 m a.s.l. (lowest point of additional survey area) to c. 590 m a.s.l. with the majority of the full supply level just below the 580 m elevation. This is critical to the later classification of grassland vegetation types and consideration of the potential of the area to support some species of threatened fauna. Geology (which is discussed briefly here as it can affect classification of vegetation, and potential for threatened flora, and to a lesser extent threatened fauna) is mapped as Devonian-age “dominantly granodiorite (I-type)” (Geocode: DGL). Land tenure and other categorisations of the study area are as follows:  private titles and State forest;  City of Launceston municipality;  Ben Lomond Bioregion (according to the 5/6.1 boundaries used by most government agencies); and  Northern Natural Resource Management (NRM) region.

METHODS

Nomenclature

All grid references in this report are in GDA94, except where otherwise stated. Vascular species nomenclature follows de Salas & Baker (2014) for scientific names and Wapstra et al. (2005+) for common names. Fauna species scientific and common names follow the listings in the cited Natural Values Atlas reports (DPIPWE 2015a). Vegetation classification follows TASVEG 3.0, as described in Kitchener & Harris (2013).

Ecological Assessment of Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Camden Dam), Tasmania 7 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Figure 1. General location of study area

Ecological Assessment of Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Camden Dam), Tasmania 8 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Figure 2. General location of study area showing aerial imagery

Ecological Assessment of Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Camden Dam), Tasmania 9 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Preliminary investigation

Available sources of threatened flora records, vegetation mapping and other potential environmental values were interrogated. These sources include:  Tasmanian Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water & Environment’s Natural Values Atlas records for threatened flora and fauna (GIS coverage maintained by the author current as at date of report); and  Tasmanian Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water & Environment’s Natural Values Atlas Report No. 63114 ECOtas_SIS_Camden for a polygon defining the approximate extension survey area, buffered by 5 km, dated 9 April 2015 (DPIPWE 2015a) – Appendix M – note that an earlier report dated 26 September 2014 was based on the shape file provided for the dam extension area and the lowlands pipeline extension area but the present report relates only to the upland area so a revised NVA report was produced for consistency;  Forest Practices Authority’s Biodiversity Values Database report, specifically the species’ information for grid reference centroid 538860mE 5425355mN (nominally the centroid of Camden Rivulet extension survey area), buffered by 5 km, hyperlinked species’ profiles and predicted range boundary maps, dated 10 March 2015 (FPA 2015) – Appendix N;  Commonwealth Department of the Environment’s Protected Matters Search Tool Report for -41.32466 147.47468 (nominally the centroid of Camden Rivulet extension survey area), buffered by 5 km, dated 10 March 2015 (CofA 2015) – Appendix O;  Camden Rivulet Dam, Camden Plains, Ecological Assessment and Recommendations. Report to Tasmanian Irrigation Pty Ltd (SEMF 2012);  Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme: Pipeline and Pump Station Installation, Ecological Assessment and Recommendations. Report to Tasmanian Irrigation Pty Ltd (SEMF 2013);  Barbarea australis (Riverbed Wintercress) Surveys, March 2013. Report to Tasmanian Irrigation Pty Ltd, Forest Practices Authority, Hobart (FPA 2013); and  the TASVEG 3.0 vegetation coverage (as available through a GIS coverage);  GoogleEarth and TheList aerial imagery (Figure 2); and  other sources listed in tables and text as indicated.

Field assessment

Field assessment was undertaken as follows: 29 Jan. 2015 M. Wapstra Initial site reconnaissance; vegetation and fauna habitat mapping of extension area; nocturnal masked owl call-back surveys; 4 Feb. 2015 M. Wapstra Investigations of “grassland/sedgeland” area along Camden Rivulet; examination of habitat for grey goshawk, spotted-tailed quoll and Tasmanian devil in broader study area; nocturnal masked owl call-back surveys; 5 Feb. 2015 M. Wapstra, A. Richardson Burrowing crayfish surveys along St Patricks River and Diddleum Road

Ecological Assessment of Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Camden Dam), Tasmania 10 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

5 Feb. 2015 M. Wapstra Further fauna habitat surveys; nocturnal masked owl call-back surveys; in situ discussion of “wetland” classification (with Kathryn Pugh); and 6 Feb. 2015 M. Wapstra Further fauna habitat surveys; more detailed analysis of areas occupied by Sphagnum.

Botanical survey – threatened flora

The study area was assessed by slow-walking meandering transects designed to sample the range of habitat types to maximise the opportunity of detecting populations of threatened flora. No threatened flora species were detected but where individuals suspected of being a threatened species were detected, hand-held GPS (Garmin Oregon 650) was used to waypoint the approximate centre and/or extent of the population (for more extensive populations). Where there was uncertainty over the identification of a particular species (e.g. Juncus species) that may have been later identified as a threatened species, the same recording protocols were applied such that a follow-up site visit could be avoided. However, samples were taken for later laboratory identification. See also Appendices G-I (Notes on Juncus amabilis, Pimelea curviflora var. gracilis and Epilobium pallidiflorum) for more information on these species previously identified from the study area (SEMF 2012).

Botanical survey – declared and environmental weeds

Where “declared weeds” within the meaning of the Tasmanian Weed Management Act 1999 or “environmental weeds” as considered by the author were detected, hand-held GPS (Garmin Oregon 650) was used to waypoint the location of individuals (for single individuals or small but discrete patches) or approximate centre and/or extent of the population (for more extensive populations). Some patches were not pinpointed in such manner e.g. where gorse extended through extensive areas of eucalypt plantation.

Botanical survey – vegetation classification

Vegetation classification follows TASVEG 3.0, as described in From Forest to Fjaeldmark: Descriptions of Tasmania’s Vegetation (Kitchener & Harris 2013). Vegetation was classified by meandering transects to identify vegetation transitions and marking with hand-held GPS (Garmin Oregon 650) for later comparison to aerial photography or key features (e.g. roads, property boundaries, distinctive trees, drainage features, etc.). See also Appendix L (discussion of classification of broad grassy/sedgy flat associated with Camden Rivulet).

Zoological survey

Surveys for threatened fauna were practically limited to an examination of “potential habitat” (i.e. comparison of on-site habitat features to habitat descriptions for threatened fauna), and detection of tracks, scats and other signs, except as indicated below.

Ecological Assessment of Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Camden Dam), Tasmania 11 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Masked owl survey

As required under the scope outlined by Tasmanian Irrigation Pty Ltd, nocturnal call-back surveys were undertaken at selected locations throughout the broader study area. SEMF (2012) undertook some call-back surveys at two locations but did not detect the species. They also undertook habitat modelling, with which I substantially agree, although this is based on an assumption that the project area is actually within the likely range of the species (see discussion under RESULTS). I utilised the method accepted by DPIPWE, which involves selecting a site, undertaking 5-minutes of quiet listening followed by 5-minutes play-back of the call of the masked owl (from an iPhone music file attached to a megaphone), followed by an additional 5-minutes quiet listening (usually including spotlighting the canopy and lower branches of nearby trees). The sites were selected to cover as much of the study area as possible, within practical limitations of nocturnal access along forestry roads and tracks. Table 1 (see also Figure 3) indicates the locations selected for call-back, along with other survey details. For the record, these surveys will, at best, indicate the presence of the species, if an individual is seen and/or heard, but will never be able to definitively indicate that the species is not utilising the area. Even a positive result indicates little about how the species may be utilising the site as the call-back can attract birds from many hundreds of metres away (I tested the distance that my human ears could detect the call-back and it was at least 600 m in open areas, a little less in heavily forested areas). Finding nests during diurnal surveys is a labour-intensive and resource-hungry process because it requires finding trees with potentially suitable hollows. Even where such trees are located, examining the bases for signs of use (e.g. whitewash, pellets, pretty remains, feathers, etc.) can be unreliable. I assessed native forest areas from the plantation/native forest boundaries (where tracks were present) and undertook random meandering transects (not GPSed) through selected native forest areas. No suspected nest sites were detected but it is noted that the extent of potential nesting habitat is large and covering all trees impractical.

Table 1. Locations of owl call-back surveys (refer also Figure 3)

Site Location Easting Northing Date/time Weather Results

fine and clear (part cloud), light 29/01/2015 breeze, 1/2 moon 9.00 pm c. 13-14⁰ Diddleum Road – just drizzle, light to moderate winds, 04/02/2015 -ve for Tyto 1 west of 538795 5425425 no moon 9.40 pm novaehollandiae Camden c. 12-13⁰ Rivulet bridge fine and clear, light winds, no 05/02/2015 moon 10.00 pm c. 15⁰ fine and clear (part cloud), light edge of 29/01/2015 breeze, 1/2 moon plantation and 9.25 pm “grassland” c. 13-14⁰ -ve for Tyto 2 539180 5425040 south of fine and clear, light winds, no novaehollandiae 05/02/2015 Diddleum moon Road 9.20 pm c. 15⁰ fine and clear (part cloud), light 29/01/2015 breeze, 1/2 moon Diddleum 9.50 pm Road, far c. 13-14⁰ -ve for Tyto 3 540410 5424675 eastern end of drizzle, light to moderate winds, novaehollandiae 04/02/2015 survey area no moon 9.10 pm c. 12-13⁰

Ecological Assessment of Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Camden Dam), Tasmania 12 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Site Location Easting Northing Date/time Weather Results

Camden Rivulet fine and clear (part cloud), light headwaters, 29/01/2015 -ve for Tyto 4 539155 5422725 breeze, 1/2 moon outside 10.20 pm novaehollandiae c. 13-14 southern end ⁰ of study area fine and clear (part cloud), light 29/01/2015 breeze, 1/2 moon 10.50 pm main in- c. 13-14⁰ plantation drizzle, light to moderate winds, road, 04/02/2015 -ve for Tyto 5 539200 5424430 no moon approximate 10.10 pm novaehollandiae c. 12-13 middle of ⁰ study area fine and clear, light winds, no 05/02/2015 moon 9.00 pm c. 15⁰ western plantation drizzle, light to moderate winds, 04/02/2015 -ve for Tyto 6 area at end of 538855 5424570 no moon 11.00 pm novaehollandiae –in-coupe c. 12-13⁰ road

eastern side of fine and clear, light winds, no study area, 05/02/2015 -ve for Tyto 7 540490 5424110 moon south along 11.00 pm novaehollandiae c. 13 internal road ⁰

Spotted-tailed quoll and Tasmanian devil survey

Where scats were detected, hand-held GPS (Garmin Oregon 650) was used to pinpoint their location. Some potential den sites, in the form of wombat burrows, especially where such burrows were in sandy banks and clustered, were also recorded in a similar manner. For the record, wombat burrows (obviously used and many dis-used) were numerous throughout the areas I examined and my “potential den” mapping is illustrative only. High-beam headlights and front-mounted spotlights (aimed at either side of the road verge) and a hand-held spotlight held outside the driver window (mainly aimed at tree canopies for masked owls) were also utilised while navigating between masked owl call-back sites.

Growling grass frog survey

No additional surveys for the growling grass frog were undertaken – see Appendix K for more detailed discussion of this issue.

Wedge-tailed eagle survey

No additional assessment for the potential of the study area to support nests of the wedge-tailed eagle were undertaken. SEMF (2012) report appropriately on the extent of potential nesting habitat within and adjacent to the proposed dam site and make recommendations for surveys.

Ecological Assessment of Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Camden Dam), Tasmania 13 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Figure 3. Masked owl call-back sites (numbers cross-reference to Table 1)

Ecological Assessment of Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Camden Dam), Tasmania 14 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Grey goshawk habitat analysis

An additional task was to “quantify habitat suitability for the State‐listed grey goshawk, in accordance with Fauna Technical Note No. 12: Goshawk Habitat Categories” (FPA 2010). Unfortunately, this document relates to the distribution of the goshawk in northwest Tasmania only and is not applicable to the northeast Tasmanian highlands. As such, an alternative approach has been taken to assessing the potential impacts of the proposed dam on the grey goshawk, involving a literature review and analysis of database records to inform the conclusion – see RESULTS Fauna species Priority fauna species known from the study area (or potentially present) for more information.

Burrowing crayfish survey

An additional task was to “identify [the] species of burrowing crayfish identified in previous surveys in the vicinity of the St Patricks River”. Refer to Appendix J for methods and results of this survey.

RESULTS

Vegetation types

Comments on TASVEG mapping

This section, which comments on the existing TASVEG 3.0 mapping for the study area (referring only to the extension area), is included to highlight the differences between existing mapping and the more recent mapping from the present study to ensure that any parties assessing land use proposals (via this report) do not rely on existing mapping. Note that TASVEG mapping, which was mainly a desktop mapping exercise based on aerial photography, is often substantially different to ground-truthed vegetation mapping, especially at a local scale. An examination of existing vegetation mapping is usually a useful pre-assessment exercise to gain an understanding of the range of habitat types likely to be present and the level of previous botanical surveys. TASVEG 3.0 maps the study area as (see also Figure 4):  “Eucalyptus delegatensis forest with broad-leaf shrubs” (TASVEG code: WDB): small area near Camden Rivulet/Diddleum Road;  “Acacia dealbata forest” (TASVEG code: NAS): majority of native forest areas (non- plantation) within study area;  “plantations for silviculture” and “plantations unverified” (TASVEG codes: FPL & FPU): eucalypt plantation areas; and  “permanent easements” (TASVEG code: FPE): cleared areas along Diddleum Road. Vegetation mapping undertaken by SEMF (2012) has not been incorporated into TASVEG 3.0 but has been supplied to the author as a .shp file. This mapping does not cover the extension area but did directly adjoin it so has also been used to inform the mapping of the extension area.

Ecological Assessment of Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Camden Dam), Tasmania 15 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Figure 4. Existing TASVEG 3.0 vegetation mapping for the study area (refer to text for codes)

Ecological Assessment of Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Camden Dam), Tasmania 16 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Vegetation types recorded as part of the present study

Vegetation types (within the extension area only) have been classified according to TASVEG 3.0, as described in From Forest to Fjaeldmark: Descriptions of Tasmania’s Vegetation (Kitchener & Harris 2013). Table 2 provides information on the vegetation types identified from the study area based on field assessments, with notes on extent, composition and condition. Figure 5 indicates the revised mapping of the vegetation within the study area. Appendix A provides detailed descriptions of the vegetation mapping units identified. Of the vegetation types present, none are classified as threatened on Schedule 3A of the Tasmanian Nature Conservation Act 2002 nor on schedules of the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

Table 2. Vegetation mapping units present in study area (based on current on-ground assessment) [conservation priorities: NCA – as per Schedule 3A of the Tasmanian Nature Conservation Act 2002, using units described by Kitchener & Harris (2013), relating to TASVEG mapping units only (DPIPWE 2015b); table headings are as per modules in Kitchener & Harris (2013); EPBCA – as per the listing of ecological communities on the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, relating to communities as described under that Act, but with equivalencies to TASVEG units; area approximate only]

TASVEG Conservation mapping unit priority Area Comments (Kitchener & NCA (ha) Harris 2013) EPBCA

Wet eucalypt forest and woodland

Eucalyptus Not WDR occurs on slopes on either side of the Camden Rivulet, where delegatensis threatened 0.36 over rainforest it grades into RMT. WDR is in the later successional stage as the Not eucalypt canopy senesces and myrtle becomes dominant. (WDR) threatened

Rainforest and related scrub

RMT occupies the broad flats and adjacent gentle slopes on either Nothofagus- Not side of the Camden Rivulet. Eucalyptus delegatensis is occasional Atherosperma threatened 3.82 on the margins, where it grades into WDR. The distinction between rainforest Not RMT and NAD on aerial imagery is not clear but in the field very (RMT) threatened obvious.

Non-eucalypt forest and woodland

Areas dominated by silver wattle (Acacia dealbata) occur between Not Diddleum Road and eucalypt plantations and between plantations Acacia dealbata threatened and the rainforest/eucalypt forest along Camden Rivulet. All areas forest 4.61 Not are disturbance-created, presumably as a result of either wildfires (NAD) threatened prior to plantation establishment and/or as a consequence of plantation establishment (i.e. cleared but later unplanted areas).

Agricultural, urban and exotic vegetation

The study area supports extensive areas of plantations (Eucalyptus Not Plantations for nitens). Areas of firebreak, tracks and unplanted but otherwise threatened silviculture 7.32 non-forested areas amongst plantations have been subsumed into Not (FPL) FPL. threatened Plantation areas are extensively weed-infested with gorse. Not Permanent FPE has been used to map the open area associated with Diddleum threatened Road, which is consistent with current TASVEG 3.0 vegetation easements 0.20 Not mapping. However, note that SEMF (2012) chose to map roads as (FPE) threatened “extra-urban miscellaneous” (TASVEG code: FUM) so there is some

Ecological Assessment of Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Camden Dam), Tasmania 17 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

TASVEG Conservation mapping unit priority Area Comments (Kitchener & NCA (ha) Harris 2013) EPBCA discrepancy between adjoining polygons of obviously the same “vegetation” type. In my opinion, FPE is more appropriate for linear features such as roads but whether the main roads are mapped as FPE or FUM makes no difference to management requirements so TI can internally “correct” the polygons as necessary to produce a more consistent map.

Plant species

General observations (flora)

A total of 101 vascular plant species were recorded from the study area (extension area only) (Appendix B), comprising 58 dicotyledons (including 3 endemic and 10 exotic species), 28 monocotyledons (including 2 endemic and 4 exotic species) and 15 pteridophytes (both native). The surveys undertaken as part of the present assessment were designed to maximise the opportunity to record as many species as possible. Additional surveys at different times of the year will undoubtedly detect additional short-lived herbs and grasses but it is considered unlikely that species with a high priority for conservation management will be detected.

Priority flora species known from the study area

No plant species listed as threatened on the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 were detected, or are known from database records, from the study area. No plant species listed as threatened on the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 were detected from the study area.

Analysis of records of priority flora from vicinity of study area

Table F1 (Appendix F) provides a listing of priority flora from within the study area, and from 500 m and 5000 m of the study area (nominal buffer widths usually used to discuss the potential of a particular study area to support various species listed in databases), with comments on whether potential habitat is present for the species, and possible reasons why a species was not recorded. Some species not listed on databases but considered by the author to have potential to occur in the survey area are also discussed. Note that the field assessment was not restricted to the species listed in Table F1 but considered any threatened flora with the potential to be present. While the database analysis utilises a nominal buffer of 5000 m, the author’s own experience of the vegetation and flora of Tasmania’s northeast highlands, combined with database interrogation, meant that the specific potential for numerous other species previously recorded from the wider area were taken into account. Also refer to Appendices G-I for discussion on Juncus amabilis, Pimelea curviflora var. gracilis and Epilobium pallidiflorum previously reported from the project area by SEMF (2012).

Ecological Assessment of Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Camden Dam), Tasmania 18 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Figure 5. Revised vegetation mapping for the study area (refer to text for codes)

Ecological Assessment of Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Camden Dam), Tasmania 19 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Fauna species

General observations (fauna)

Appendix C provides an annotated list of vertebrate species recorded from the study area (extension area only), based on the present assessments, which includes 28 species comprising 7 mammal, 19 bird, and 2 reptile species. Undoubtedly further surveys will continue to increase this list (especially birds), but it is unlikely that further species with a high priority for conservation management will be detected.

Priority fauna species known from the study area (or potentially present)

One fauna species listed as threatened on the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (species marked with * are also listed on the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995) was detected from the study area, as follows:  Sarcophilus harrisii (Tasmanian devil)*: several scats detected from plantation boundary tracks and several potential den sites above Camden Rivulet. Potential habitat is present for an additional species listed on this Act, as follows:  Dasyurus maculatus subsp. maculatus (spotted-tailed quoll)*: no direct evidence noted but potential habitat widespread. Marginal potential habitat is present for an additional two species listed on this Act, as follows:  Tyto novaehollandiae subsp. castanops (Tasmanian masked owl)*: site considered to be at elevation limit of species but see discussion below; and  Aquila audax subsp. fleayi (Tasmanian wedge-tailed eagle)*: no potential nesting habitat in study area (mainly plantation, rainforest and silver wattle forest) but area would be utilised for foraging and form part of a wider territory. Marginal potential habitat for one additional fauna species listed as threatened on the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 was detected from the study area, as follows:  Accipiter novaehollandiae (grey goshawk): site considered to be at elevation limit of species but see discussion below. These species are all discussed in greater detail below. Note that Appendix J provides information on the species of Engaeus (non-threatened) identified from the wider project area. Appendix K provides commentary on the potential of the study area to support the growling grass frog (Litoria raniformis).

 Sarcophilus harrisii (Tasmanian devil) SEMF (2012) concluded that much of the project area is potential habitat for the Tasmanian devil. While they reported only one potential den site and did not report scats, my investigations of both the extension area and the broader project area (dam site only) indicated a wide use of the site by devils. Scats were detected at several sites (Figure 6, Appendix D for site details and images), mainly on tracks through and around plantations (partially an artefact of sampling), suggesting several individuals are present (scats were of various ages indicating relatively recent activity). Of note also is that the steep sandy slope above the Camden Rivulet (west side, below the plantation amongst rainforest) had a high density of wombat burrows (active and disused), some of which were in clusters below rock outcrops and well-used mammal paths along slopes below vertical overhangs (Figure 7, Appendix D for site details and images). Wombat burrows are also widespread

Ecological Assessment of Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Camden Dam), Tasmania 20 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Figure 6. Distribution of wombat burrows (numbers cross-reference to Table D1 in Appendix D)

Ecological Assessment of Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Camden Dam), Tasmania 21 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Figure 7. Distribution of devil scats (numbers cross-reference to Table D2 in Appendix D)

Ecological Assessment of Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Camden Dam), Tasmania 22 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting through the remainder of the project area. Prey for devils (e.g. pademelons) is relatively high because of the farmland, forest, plantation and natural non-forest mosaic with several roads (high level of roadkill). The management of the Tasmanian devil will require careful consideration by Tasmanian Irrigation, and will need to draw on expert advice (e.g. in relation to the need or extent of den surveys and camera “trapping”), and the combined habitat management requirements of threatened fauna species including the Tasmanian devil, spotted-tailed quoll, masked owl and grey goshawk.

 Dasyurus maculatus subsp. maculatus (spotted-tailed quoll) The project area represents ideal potential habitat for the species, although no direct evidence has been found by either SEMF (2012) nor the present assessments. Management of potential habitat (and potential den sites) is essentially the same as that required for the Tasmanian devil, and the same process of developing a management strategy is suggested.

 Tyto novaehollandiae subsp. castanops (Tasmanian masked owl) SEMF (2012) concluded that: “Significant habitat will be cleared and converted due to dam construction; 14.8 hectares of nesting habitat occurs within the EMSL and of this 9.9 hectares occurs in the ESFL. The impact to this species from the dam construction is likely to be significant as nest trees (which can take decades to grow and develop hollow suitable for nesting) will be lost. To better inform the decision making process of the quality of nesting habitat present in the Survey Area (and if the species is present) further field work of the site including call- back surveys should be conducted in September - October (peak breeding season). If the species is present then more detailed checks of ‘nest potential’ trees should be made to try and locate any nest that may occur within or adjacent to the Survey Area. The reduction in available foraging habitat is relatively small compared to the abundance of foraging habitat within the surrounding landscape so the loss of foraging habitat is not likely to have a significant impact on the species”. Novel nest sites were not detected from the extension survey area assessed as part of the present report. Only marginal potential nesting habitat was present in this area, which has now been effectively searched. The present surveys, undertaken in late January to early February (rather than mid “breeding season”, noting that in parts of Tasmania breeding may be fairly continuous, and defence of territories occurs year-round so there should be response to call-back surveys) did not result in any responses to call-back surveys. This result is only partially informative because it may simply represent a “false negative”. While the project area is within the “core range” of the species as indicated by FPA (2015) and DPIPWE (2015a), the range boundary is somewhat arbitrary. FPA (2015) provides this description of potential habitat: Potential habitat for the masked owl is all areas with trees with large hollows (>15 cm entrance diameter). In terms of using mapping layers, potential habitat is considered to be all areas with at least 20% mature eucalypt crown cover (PI type mature density class 'a', 'b', or 'c'). From on-ground surveys this is areas with at least 8 trees per hectare over 100 cm dbh. Significant habitat for the masked owl includes native dry forest areas with trees with large hollows (>15 cm entrance diameter) that are mostly mature with no or little regrowth component. In terms of using mapping layers, significant habitat is

Ecological Assessment of Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Camden Dam), Tasmania 23 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

considered to be all areas of dry forest (TASVEG dry eucalypt forest and woodland) with at least 20% mature eucalypt crown cover (PI type mature density class 'a', 'b', or 'c') that is classified as mature (Growth Stage class 'M'). From on-ground surveys this is areas with at least 8 trees per hectare over 100 cm dbh and more than half of the canopy cover is comprised of mature trees. Remnants and paddock trees in agricultural areas may also constitute significant habitat”. One of the key aspects of this description of potential habitat is “dry eucalypt forest”, which is essentially absent from the project area that supports a mosaic of eucalypt plantation, silver wattle forest, rainforest and mixed forest, with limited areas of forest that could truly be called “dry eucalypt forest”. That said, it is widely accepted that the masked owl occurs in (including breeding in) other forest types but the purpose of the description of potential (and significant) habitat is to focus assessment and management on areas with the highest likelihood of supporting the species. On this basis alone, I do not recommend further detailed habitat or call-back surveys, and suggest that management of potential habitat be “wrapped up” with the management of potential habitat of other species such as the Tasmanian devil, spotted-tailed quoll and grey goshawk through discussion with DPIPWE (Policy & Conservation Advice Branch). Also of note is that previous descriptions of potential habitat of the masked owl have utilised a 600 m elevation threshold because most nest records are from lowland areas. The range boundary was at least partly defined using lowland areas. There is a detailed discussion of the elevation of the project area (just under the 600 m elevation threshold) under the grey goshawk below and similar arguments apply. It is also noted that recent surveys have reiterated this elevational threshold with Todd (2015) stating, after an analysis of database records that there is “a virtual absence of the Masked Owl from highland areas in Tasmania” and that his “own research supports this assertion — I recorded very few Masked Owls above 575 m elevation in Tasmania”.

 Aquila audax subsp. fleayi (Tasmanian wedge-tailed eagle) The extension survey area assessed as part of the present report did not reveal novel nest sites and only marginal potential nesting habitat, which has now been effectively searched. SEMF (2012) concluded that the project would have a significant impact on the species under the EPBCA and a referral may be warranted. In my opinion, provided that pre-clearance surveys are undertaken and these demonstrate that there are no nests present, the project will not have a significant impact on the species. SEMF (2012) estimated that less than 10 ha of potentially prime nesting habitat may be cleared, which equates to a very small proportion (perhaps in the order of 0.1%) of any particular breeding territory. This in itself may not be significant but the cumulative loss of potential habitat needs to be considered, which would require further analysis. While much of the area has been converted to plantation, large swathes of this was on previously cleared land, and extensive areas of native forest remain within a nominal breeding territory centred on the project area. This is of course an unlikely central point for a territory because nest sites, usually nominally in the middle of a territory are likely to be on the steeper slopes and gullies away from the Camden and Diddleum plains area, meaning that the project area is more likely to include one or more territories such that the loss of potential habitat is shared between territories and less likely to involve any particular pair. Some nest searches have been undertaken such as along the St Patricks River below the dam site and along the pipeline route (FT 2014) but I have no direct evidence of the nature of nest searches within and immediately adjacent to the proposed Camden Dam and I am not aware of a separate report on this matter. In my opinion, undertaking nest searches on foot, except at a highly localised level of small pockets of potential habitat, is not appropriate in the vegetation types present due to the usually dense understorey. I believe that an aerial survey by helicopter should be undertaken of all areas of potential nesting habitat (that have not been searched within the last three years) within a minimum of 500 m of the boundary of the full supply level, extending out to 1 km if in line-of-sight of likely work areas during construction.

Ecological Assessment of Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Camden Dam), Tasmania 24 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Examination of aerial imagery suggests, however, that there are limited areas of potential nesting habitat within this zone with most pockets of taller forest supporting myrtle rainforest rather than older growth eucalypt forest. My main concern are some patches of tall eucalypt forest over rainforest along the tributaries of the Camden Rivulet in the southeastern part of the full supply level and within a few hundred metres further southeast.

 Accipiter novaehollandiae (grey goshawk) An additional task was to “quantify habitat suitability for the State‐listed grey goshawk, in accordance with Fauna Technical Note No. 12: Goshawk Habitat Categories” (FPA 2010). Unfortunately, this document relates to the distribution of the goshawk in northwest Tasmania only and is not applicable to the northeast Tasmanian highlands. As such, an alternative approach has been taken to assessing the potential impacts of the proposed dam on the grey goshawk, involving a literature review and analysis of database records to inform the conclusion below. The Forest Practices Authority’s Biodiversity Values Database (FPA 2015) provides this definition of potential habitat for the grey goshawk: “Potential habitat for the grey goshawk is native forest with mature elements below 600 m altitude, particularly along watercourses. FPA's Fauna Technical Note 12 can be used as a guide in the identification of grey goshawk habitat. Significant habitat may be summarised as areas of wet forest ,rainforest and damp forest patches in dry forest, with a relatively closed mature canopy, low stem density, and open understorey in close proximity to foraging habitat and a freshwater body (i.e. stream, river, lake, swamp, etc.)”. Superficially, this means that much of the project area supports potential habitat, especially the areas of rainforest, mixed forest and wet eucalypt forest but then also logically areas of silver wattle forest, plantation and open “grassland” would form part of the territory/home range of the species in this area. There is little doubt that the project area would be utilised by the grey goshawk but to what degree the area constitutes foraging, breeding or merely opportunistic (e.g. dispersing juveniles, non-breeding individuals, etc.) habitat requires discussion. While the project area is within the “core range” of the species as indicated by FPA (2015) and DPIPWE (2015a), the range boundary is somewhat arbitrary and certainly does not adhere to the nominal 600 m threshold. The “below 600 m altitude” qualifier, however, requires some further discussion. The habitat description used by the FPA (and endorsed by DPIPWE) for use within production forests was developed using expert opinion and peer-reviewed information (discussed below). Mooney & Holdsworth (1988) indicated that the majority of sightings are from “old growth wet forest types” and that “although significant number of sightings were made in agricultural areas almost none was in forest regrowth areas”. They reported that the “non breeding distribution included more records in agricultural, urban and dry forest areas”. Mooney & Holdsworth (1988) reported that “breeding was restricted to wet, old growth forests of a variety of types, generally at low to medium altitudes” and that “mixed wet forest, eucalypt dominated rain forest communities, were obviously very important as was temperate rain forest and blackwood/tea-tree/paperbark swamp forests”. They reported “only one record of an adult occurring at more than 600 m altitude”. They suggested that “there seems considerable unused habitat in the north east”. Brereton & Mooney (1994) indicated that of the nest sites they examined, all were below 440 m a.s.l., and of the eleven sites above 100 m, ten were on watercourses flowing from ranges in the north of the State. An examination of records of the grey goshawk from the northeast included in DPIPWE’s Natural Values Atlas database indicates that there are 150 sighting/nest records. Of these, all but twelve are under 550 m elevation. Of the nine reported nest sites from the northeast, all but one are from below c. 500 m elevation (55, 70, 85, 100, 217, 235, 410, 501). The higher elevation site is from

Ecological Assessment of Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Camden Dam), Tasmania 25 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

645 m a.s.l. and is from the “Lisle” area. This record seems dubious because (a) it is poorly dated, and (b) the grid reference places the site in the Mt Arthur/Lilydale area (not the Lisle area). The project area (Camden Dam area) is between 570-590 m a.s.l., marginally below the nominal 600 m elevation threshold used in the habitat description. That the threshold is arbitrary is recognised but how this impacts on management is critical. If it is accepted that because the site is only just below the threshold such that it should be considered as significant habitat, complex offsets will be warranted. On the other hand, if the arbitrariness of the threshold is recognised and it is accepted that the site is marginally outside the intent of significant habitat (assuming some “fuzziness” around the 600 m), then no complex offsets would be warranted. SEMF (2012) made some detailed conclusions on the extent of potential habitat for the grey goshawk within the project area. In my opinion, if we accept that the site is below the 600 m threshold, their conclusions are reasonable and reflect my own investigations of the extension area and the native forest in the broader project area. Much of the native forest, especially the rainforest and mixed forest, has a “gallery”-like structure, which is superficially ideal foraging habitat. Detecting nest sites is likely to be labour-intensive and involve “tracking” individuals and their behaviour – this would require a specialist familiar with the breeding behaviour of the species. I do not agree with the conclusion of SEMF (2012) that “the loss of habitat may cause the species to become more endangered in the area as the loss of habitat substantially contributes to what has been a long-term gradual decline in the extent and quality of habitat in the north-east”. My opinion is based on the fact that the population in the northeast is clearly very low (Mooney & Holdsworth 1988; Brereton & Mooney 1994) and available evidence suggests it is essentially restricted to lower elevation areas. SEMF (2012) “recommended that the loss of significant habitat for this species from dam construction and operation be offset by the development and implementation of a perpetual reserve (by means of a Conservation Covenant established under the Nature Conservation Act 2002) within the region that protects and suitably manages a commensurate amount of significant habitat for the species”. I suggest that finding equivalent or larger areas (if an offset ratio is applied) in the region that is not already reserved in some manner will be complex, especially in light of production forestry issues. In my opinion, alternative options may have a longer term benefit. As a suggestion, for example, it is clear that we still do not have a good understanding of the breeding, foraging and dispersal ecology of the species in northeast Tasmania and this project may provide an opportunity to explore research into this to better inform future (and more diverse) land management in the region. I also believe that any mitigation strategy developed for this species should be closely linked to that developed for other species such as the Tasmanian devil, spotted-tailed quoll and masked owl. It is noted that in wood production scenarios, the Forest Practices Authority can exercise discretion in exceptional circumstances to allow conversion of threatened fauna significant habitat (after consultation with DPIPWE) but that such decisions take account of “the quality of the habitat; the presence/absence of the species in an area (as determined from surveys); the importance of the area for the connectivity of potential habitat (includes significant habitat); and the extent to which the loss of habitat may be offset through improved conservation measures within the immediate range of the affected species”. In this case, given the fact that the project area is essentially at the high end of the arbitrary elevational range of the species, that there are extensive areas of similar habitat in the local and regional area, and that the inundation would not fragment habitat per se, in my opinion, the loss of potential habitat of the grey goshawk should not be regarded as a “fatal flaw” to the project but rather as an opportunity to gain valuable insights into the ecology of the species through further research. The management of potential habitat of the grey goshawk will require careful consideration by Tasmanian Irrigation, and will need to draw on expert advice (e.g. in relation to degree of significance of the site for the species and the need for further surveys), and the combined habitat management requirements of threatened fauna species including the Tasmanian devil, spotted-

Ecological Assessment of Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Camden Dam), Tasmania 26 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting tailed quoll, masked owl and grey goshawk, noting that a simple reserve-style offset may not be appropriate.

Other ecological values

Additional “Matters of National Environmental Significance”

CofA (2015) indicates that “Lowland Native Grasslands of Tasmania” (listed as a Critically Endangered community) is likely to occur within the area. The extension area (Camden Dam) does not support any areas of native grassland. The broader project area (Camden Dam) was assessed by SEMF (2012) and they identified areas of native grassland, which was classified as the TASVEG 3.0 mapping unit “highland Poa grassland” (TASVEG code: GPH). They did not equate this the EPBCA-listed entity, which is correct in my opinion because of the site conditions (frost hollow on an elevated plain) and elevation (only marginally below the nominal 600 m elevation threshold). CofA (2015) indicates that “Alpine Sphagnum Bogs and Associated Fens” (listed as an Endangered community) may occur within the area. The extension area (Camden Dam) does not support any areas of Sphagnum-dominated vegetation. SEMF (2012) identified areas of the TASVEG 3.0 mapping unit “Sphagnum peatland” (TASVEG code: MSP) from a broad area of low-lying vegetation adjacent to the Camden Rivulet. As part of the present assessment I have re-classified this vegetation and do not consider there to be any areas practically identifiable as the TASVEG unit MSP nor the EPBCA-listed entity (see Appendix L for a detailed discussion).

Weed species

One species classified as a “declared weed” within the meaning of the Tasmanian Weed Management Act 1999 was detected from the study area (extension area), as follows:  Ulex europaeus (gorse): dominant to sub-dominant understorey species in plantation areas, along Diddleum Road and occasional elsewhere. One additional species considered as an “environmental weed” is present, as follows:  Digitalis purpurea (foxglove): locally frequent amongst openings in plantation and along road verges. SEMF (2012) provide recommendations on the management of weeds, with which I concur.

Rootrot pathogen, Phytophthora cinnamomi

Phytophthora cinnamomi (PC) is widespread in lowland areas of Tasmania, across all land tenures. However, disease will not develop when soils are too cold or too dry. For these reasons, PC is not a threat to susceptible plant species that grow at altitudes higher than about 700 metres or where annual rainfall is less than about 600 mm (e.g. Midlands and Derwent Valley). Furthermore, disease is unlikely to develop beneath a dense canopy of vegetation because shading cools the soils to below the optimum temperature for the pathogen. A continuous canopy of vegetation taller than about 2 metres is sufficient to suppress disease. Hence PC is not considered a threat to susceptible plant species growing in wet sclerophyll forests, rainforests (except disturbed rainforests on infertile soils) and scrub e.g. teatree scrub (Rudman 2005; FPA 2009).

Ecological Assessment of Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Camden Dam), Tasmania 27 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

SEMF (2012) concluded that: “It is very unlikely that PC is active in the Survey Area because the local climatic conditions at the study site (mainly wet to damp forest dominated by wet sclerophyll, mixed forest and rainforest species at moderate to higher elevation) are not conducive to the germination, growth and reproduction of the species in the area”. Maintaining the apparent disease-free status of the site is considered an important management priority, although inundation in itself is not considered a risk (i.e. the risk is associated with construction areas only). As with the management of weeds, the key to achieving this will be strict machinery and vehicle hygiene protocols. Myrtle wilt

Myrtle wilt, caused by a wind-borne fungus (Chalara australis), occurs naturally in rainforest where myrtle beech (Nothofagus cunninghamii) is present. The fungus enters wounds in the tree, usually caused by damage from wood-boring insects, wind damage and forest clearing. The incidence of myrtle wilt often increases forest clearing events such as windthrow and wildfire. Nothofagus cunninghamii is widespread in the study area (extension area) and the broader project area. No incidence of myrtle wilt was noted. Inundation in itself is unlikely to introduce the pathogen.

Myrtle rust

No evidence of myrtle rust was noted. No special prescriptions should be required for this project.

Chytrid fungus and other freshwater pathogens

Native freshwater species and habitat are under threat from freshwater pests and pathogens including Phytophthora cinnamomi (root rot), Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (Chytrid frog disease), Mucor amphibiorum (platypus Mucor disease) and the freshwater algal pest Didymosphenia geminata (Didymo) (Allan & Gartenstein 2010). Freshwater pests and pathogens are spread to new areas when contaminated water, mud, gravel, soil and plant material or infected animals are moved between sites. Contaminated materials and animals are commonly transported on boots, equipment, vehicles tyres and during road construction and maintenance activities. Once a pest pathogen is present in a water system it is usually impossible to eradicate. The manual Keeping it Clean – A Tasmanian Field Hygiene Manual to Prevent the Spread of Freshwater Pests and Pathogens (Allan & Gartenstein 2010) provides information on how to prevent the spread of freshwater pests and pathogens in Tasmanian waterways wetlands, swamps and boggy areas. SEMF (2012) undertook some chytrid sampling for the broader project area and concluded: “Chytrid fungus was not detected at the sample site in tadpoles of brown tree frog (Litoria ewingii)” and “chytrid fungus remains undetected in the Upper St Patricks River and Camden Rivulet catchments but it has been recorded from the lower reach of the St Patricks River (near Nunamara) based on the results of this project and the data from the Natural Values Atlas (April 2012)”

Ecological Assessment of Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Camden Dam), Tasmania 28 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

and “It is recommended that further sampling for chytrid fungus be conducted in the areas where the waters within the Camden Rivulet dam will be used (i.e. the receiving waters) to determine if the pathogen exists in the receiving environment. If it is, then the possibility of the source waters becoming infected with chytrid over time becomes unimportant (i.e. chytrid positive sites are receiving chytrid positive water). If further sampling is not conducted in the receiving environment then additional chytrid sampling should occur within the upper reaches of the St Patricks River to ensure that a more representative sampling base is used to increase confidence that the waters used from the St Patricks River to fill the Camden Rivulet Dam (when needed) are indeed likely to be chytrid free”. I concur with the need to carefully consider the risks associated with introducing and spreading the chytrid pathogen, noting that Tasmanian Irrigation have now conducted chytrid fungus surveys in the receiving waters (Brid River, Hurst Creek, Great Forester River) and did not detect chytrid (K. Pugh pers. comm.).

DISCUSSION

Summary of key findings

Threatened flora  No plant species listed as threatened on the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 or the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 were detected, or are known from database records, from the study area. The study area does not support significant potential habitat of listed species such that further surveys are not warranted. Threatened fauna  One fauna species listed as threatened on the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (species marked with * are also listed on the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995) was detected from the study area, as follows:  Sarcophilus harrisii (Tasmanian devil)*: several scats detected from plantation boundary tracks and several potential den sites above Camden Rivulet.  Potential habitat is present for an additional species listed on this Act, as follows:  Dasyurus maculatus subsp. maculatus (spotted-tailed quoll)*: no direct evidence noted but potential habitat widespread.  Marginal potential habitat is present for an additional two species listed on this Act, as follows:  Tyto novaehollandiae subsp. castanops (Tasmanian masked owl)*: site considered to be at elevation limit of species but see discussion below; and  Aquila audax subsp. fleayi (Tasmanian wedge-tailed eagle)*: no potential nesting habitat in study area (mainly plantation, rainforest and silver wattle forest) but area would be utilised for foraging and form part of a wider territory.  Marginal potential habitat for one additional fauna species listed as threatened on the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 was detected from the study area, as follows:

Ecological Assessment of Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Camden Dam), Tasmania 29 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

 Accipiter novaehollandiae (grey goshawk): site considered to be at elevation limit of species but habitat superficially suitable.  Targeted surveys indicated that the Engaeus species within and close to the Camden Dam site is Engaeus leptorhynchus, a widespread, common and non-threatened species.  It is recommended that management of these species should be discussed with DPIPWE (Policy & Conservation Advice Branch) to develop an appropriate set of prescriptions including further surveys, habitat offsets and/or alternative mitigation. Vegetation types  The study area supports five TASVEG mapping units:  “permanent easements” (FPE): roads;  “Eucalyptus delegatensis over rainforest” (WDR): slopes on either side of the Camden Rivulet, where it grades into RMT;  “Nothofagus-Atherosperma rainforest” (RMT): broad flats and adjacent gentle slopes on either side of the Camden Rivulet;  “Acacia dealbata forest” (NAD): between Diddleum Road and eucalypt plantations and between plantations and the rainforest/eucalypt forest along Camden Rivulet; and  “plantations for silviculture” (FPL): eucalypt plantations either side of Diddleum Road and Camden Rivulet.  None of these vegetation types are classified as threatened under Schedule 3A of the Tasmanian Nature Conservation Act 2002 or equate to ecological communities listed on the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.  There are unlikely to be significant constraints on the clearing (inundation and dam wall construction) of these vegetation types but this needs to be considered in the context of the whole project and additional areas of these vegetation types that have been identified. Weeds  One species classified as a “declared weeds” within the meaning of the Tasmanian Weed Management Act 1999 was detected from the study area. Ulex europaeus (gorse) is widespread through plantations, along road verges and scattered elsewhere.  One additional “environmental weed: was detected: Digitalis purpurea (foxglove) was locally common in disturbed areas.  Some management recommendations are made to minimise the risk of spreading weeds as a consequence of the project. Plant disease  No evidence of plant disease (Phytophthora cinnamomi, rootrot fungus; myrtle wilt; myrtle rust) was detected.  Some management recommendations are made to minimise the risk of introducing plant pathogens, especially rootrot fungus (mainly machinery hygiene protocols). Animal disease (chytrid)  The study area is not known to support the frog chytrid pathogen.  Some management recommendations are made to minimise the risk of introducing the pathogen.

Ecological Assessment of Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Camden Dam), Tasmania 30 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Legislative and policy implications

Some commentary is provided below with respect to the key threatened species, vegetation management and other relevant legislation. Note that there may be other relevant policy instruments in addition to those discussed. It is also suggested that the present document be read in conjunction with SEMF (2012), which provides greater detail on some non-legislated policies such as Forestry Tasmania’s “rainforest policy”, and the applications of policies such as the Permanent Native Forest Estate policy.

Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995

No plant species listed as threatened on the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 were detected within the study area (herein considered as the original area assessed by SEMF (2012) and the additional survey area assessed by ECOtas). As such, a permit under Section 51 of the Act will not be necessary. Note that I have also provided commentary on the presence of Juncus amabilis (gentle rush), Pimelea curviflora var. gracilis (slender curved riceflower) and Epilobium pallidiflorum (showy willowherb), identified from the broader Camden Dam area by SEMF (2012) and this should be considered prior to applying for a permit (or at least used to inform discussions with DPIPWE). Potential habitat of threatened fauna is more complex to manage under Section 51 of the Act because unless works would result in the “taking” of a specimen, a permit under the Act is not technically possible. However, it is usual for development proposals involving the disturbance of potential habitat of threatened species listed on the Act to be referred to DPIPWE for advice. In the absence of being in a position to issue a permit under Section 51 of the Act, DPIPWE’s Policy & Conservation Advice Branch (PCAB) may make recommendations to a development proponent in regard to managing habitat of threatened species and/or may endorse or comment on proposed offset/mitigation strategies. In this case, the management of potential habitat of the Tasmanian devil (scats detected, potential den sites present, potential habitat widespread), spotted-tailed quoll (no direct evidence but potential habitat widespread), masked owl (no direct evidence and site is at the nominal 600 m distribution threshold) and grey goshawk (as per masked owl) should be discussed.

Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

No flora species listed on the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 were detected from within the study area (herein considered as the original area assessed by SEMF (2012) and the additional survey area assessed by ECOtas). There is no significant potential habitat for flora species listed on the Act within the subject title. There is potential habitat for several fauna species listed on this Act, namely Sarcophilus harrisii (Tasmanian devil), Dasyurus maculatus subsp. maculatus (spotted-tailed quoll), Tyto novaehollandiae subsp. castanops (Tasmanian masked owl), and Aquila audax subsp. fleayi (Tasmanian wedge-tailed eagle), although field survey only confirmed the presence of the Tasmanian devil (scats). Note that I have discounted the study area as potentially suitable for Perameles gunnii subsp. gunnii (eastern barred bandicoot) and Litoria raniformis (growling grass frog, green and golden frog), previously noted as potentially significant within the broader study area by SEMF (2012). The Commonwealth Department of the Environment provides a Significant Impact Guidelines policy statement (CofA 2013) to determine if referral to the department is required. In my opinion, with

Ecological Assessment of Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Camden Dam), Tasmania 31 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting respect to the above species, any proposed disturbance within the study area will not constitute a “significant impact” because while there may be a loss of/disturbance to a small area of potential habitat (relative to much more extensive expanses of potential habitat), the loss is not such that it is likely to lead to a long-term decrease in the size of an important population of a species, reduce the area of occupancy of an important population, fragment an existing important population into two or more populations, adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of a species, disrupt the breeding cycle of an important population, modify, destroy, remove or isolate or decrease the availability or quality of habitat to the extent that the species is likely to decline, result in invasive species that are harmful to a threatened species becoming established in the threatened species’ habitat, introduce disease that may cause the species to decline, or interfere substantially with the recovery of the species. In my opinion, no formal referral to the Commonwealth Department of the Environment under the Significant Impact Guidelines (CofA 2013) is warranted but I am basing this statement on the detailed examination of the extension survey area and a briefer examination of the broader Camden Dam study area but not a consideration of the whole Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme and its installation and operation. I understand that Tasmanian Irrigation Pty Ltd routinely makes formal referrals under the EPBCA. I recommend initial discussions with DPIPWE (Policy & Conservation Advice Branch) prior to any such referral to develop State-endorsed management actions. The result of any additional surveys (e.g. wedge-tailed eagle nest survey, potential devil/quoll den surveys) will also need to be considered in any referral.

Tasmanian Nature Conservation Act 2002

Schedule 3A of the Act lists vegetation types classified as threatened within Tasmania. The extension study area does not support any such vegetation types. SEMF (2012) identified some threatened non-forest vegetation types from the broader Camden Dam study area, and these will need to be considered as part of project planning (noting that I have made some extensive comments with regard to the classification of some areas identified as threatened non-forest vegetation types).

Tasmanian Wildlife (General) Regulations 2010

The assessment of the subject title indicated the presence of species listed on schedules of the Regulations (i.e. “specially protected wildlife”, “protected wildlife”, “partly protected wildlife” – see Appendix C), and also “products” (e.g. nests, dens, etc.) of these species were detected from within areas likely to be disturbed. There are two species of primary concern under the Regulations. First, there are numerous burrows (active and disused) of the common wombat (Vombatus ursinus) within the extension area and broader Camden Dam study area. Avoiding disturbance to these burrows will be impractical but it is also likely to be impractical to undertake pre-clearance surveys to determine “activity” status of a burrow to allow filling in prior to inundation (essentially to force the individuals outside the inundation zone) because of the high number of burrows. This matter will need to be discussed with the relevant section of DPIPWE (e.g. Policy & Conservation Advice Branch). Second, an adult platypus (Ornithorhynchus anatinus) was sighted foraging in the Camden Rivulet approximately 250 m upstream of Diddleum Road. No formal surveys were undertaken for den sites but it is logical to conclude that this stretch of river bank supports dens of the species. In the absence of a known site, the Regulations have little work to do and it is not routine to undertake

Ecological Assessment of Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Camden Dam), Tasmania 32 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting den surveys for the platypus, especially in sites to be inundated (given the aquatic habit of the species and ability to utilise dams).

Tasmanian Weed Management Act 1999

One species classified as a “declared weeds” within the meaning of the Tasmanian Weed Management Act 1999 was detected from within the project area. Ulex europaeus (gorse) is widespread through plantations, along road verges and scattered elsewhere. This species is subject to a Statutory Weed Management Plan under the Weed Management Act 1999 (see information on weed section of DPIPWE’s web site). The study area falls within the City of Launceston municipality, which for the management of the species is classified as a “Zone B” municipality (widespread infestations). In relation to “Zone B” species, “containment”, within the meaning of the Weed Management Act 1999, is the most appropriate management objective for municipalities who have problematic infestations but no plan and/or resources to undertake control actions at a level required for eradication. The management outcome for these municipalities is ongoing prevention of the spread of declared weeds from existing infestations to areas free or in the process of becoming free of these weeds. SEMF (2012) make some project-level recommendations in relation to weed management, with which I concur. The main management issue is to minimise the risk of activities undertaken as part of the project to introduce weeds or exacerbate existing weed infestations elsewhere in the municipality.

Recommendations

The recommendations provided below are a summary of those provided in relation to each of the ecological features described in the main report. The main text of the report, and supported appendices, provide the relevant context for the recommendations.

Vegetation types No special management actions recommended for the extension survey area. The management of vegetation types, especially threatened non-forest mapping units, in the broader project area (Camden Dam) will require further consideration.

Threatened flora A permit under the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 will not be required for the extension survey area because no threatened flora were detected. The management of threatened flora previously identified from the broader project area (Camden Dam) will require further consideration.

Threatened fauna Within the extension survey area, there is potential habitat for several threatened fauna species, namely Sarcophilus harrisii (Tasmanian devil), Dasyurus maculatus subsp. maculatus (spotted- tailed quoll), Tyto novaehollandiae subsp. castanops (Tasmanian masked owl), and Accipiter

Ecological Assessment of Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Camden Dam), Tasmania 33 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting novaehollandiae (grey goshawk), although field survey only confirmed the presence of the Tasmanian devil (scats). The management of potential habitat of these species, in addition to Aquila audax subsp. fleayi (Tasmanian wedge-tailed eagle), across the whole project area will require consultation with DPIWPE (Policy & Conservation Advice Branch).

Weeds and disease Recommendations provided in Camden Rivulet Dam, Camden Plains, Ecological Assessment and Recommendations (SEMF 2012) is considered applicable.

REFERENCES

Allan, K. & Gartenstein, S. (2010). Keeping It Clean: A Tasmanian Field Hygiene Manual to Prevent the Spread of Freshwater Pests and Pathogens. NRM South, Hobart. Brereton, R.N. & Mooney, N.J. (1994). Conservation of the nesting habitat of the grey goshawk (Accipiter novaehollandiae) in Tasmanian State forests. Tasforests 6: 79–92. Bryant, S.L. & Jackson, J. (1999). Tasmania’s Threatened Fauna Handbook: What, Where and How to Protect Tasmania’s Threatened Animals. Threatened Species Unit, Parks & Wildlife Service, Hobart. CofA (Commonwealth of Australia) (2015). Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 Protected Matters Search Tool Report for -41.32466 147.47468 (nominally the centroid of Camden Rivulet extension survey area), buffered by 5 km, dated 10 March 2015 – Appendix O. CofA (Commonwealth of Australia) (2013). EPBC Act Policy Statement 1.1: Significant Impact Guidelines – Matters of National Environmental Significance. Department of the Environment. de Salas, M.F. & Baker, M.L. (2014). A Census of the Vascular Plants of Tasmania and Index to The Student’s Flora of Tasmania and Flora of Tasmania Online. Tasmanian Herbarium, Hobart. DPIPWE (Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water & Environment) (2009). Guidelines for Natural Values Assessments, Reporting on the Impact of Proposed Activities on the Natural Values and Providing Recommendations for Mitigating Impacts on these Values. Development and Conservation Assessment Branch, Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment. DPIPWE (Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water & Environment) (2015a). Natural Values Atlas Report No. 63114 ECOtas_SIS_Camden for a polygon defining the approximate extension survey area, buffered by 5 km, dated 9 April 2015 – Appendix M. DPIPWE (Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water & Environment) (2015b) Threatened Native Vegetation Communities List July 2007 as per Schedule 3A of the Tasmanian Nature Conservation Act 2002. http://www.dpiw.tas.gov.au/inter.nsf/webpages/awah-6547zl?open Duretto, M.F. (Ed.) (2009+) Flora of Tasmania Online. Tasmanian Herbarium, Tasmanian Museum & Art Gallery: Hobart. www.tmag.tas.gov.au/floratasmania. FPA (Forest Practices Authority) (2009). Management of Phytophthora cinnamomi in Production Forests. Flora Technical Note No. 8. Forest Practices Authority, Hobart. FPA (Forest Practices Authority) (2010). Goshawk Habitat Categories: Fauna Technical Note No. 12. Forest Practices Authority, Hobart. FPA (Forest Practices Authority) (2013). Barbarea australis (Riverbed Wintercress) Surveys, March 2013. Report to Tasmanian Irrigation Pty Ltd, Forest Practices Authority, Hobart. FPA (Forest Practices Authority) (2015). Biodiversity Values Database report, specifically the species’ information for grid reference centroid 538860mE 5425355mN (nominally the centroid

Ecological Assessment of Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Camden Dam), Tasmania 34 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

of Camden Rivulet extension survey area), buffered by 5 km, hyperlinked species’ profiles and predicted range boundary maps, dated 10 March 2015 – Appendix N. FT (Forestry Tasmania) (2014). Raptor Nest Search Form (and supporting maps) for Proposed Camden Rivulet Pipeline (Grid Coordinates: Area 1 541400mE 5430800mN & Area 2 538400mE 5425600mN), 12 March 2014. Forestry Tasmania, Scottsdale. Jones, D., Wapstra, H., Tonelli, P. & Harris, S. (1999). The Orchids of Tasmania. Melbourne University Press, Carlton. Kitchener, A. & Harris, S. (2013). From Forest to Fjaeldmark: Descriptions of Tasmania’s Vegetation. Edition 2. Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water & Environment, Tasmania. Mooney, N. & Holdsworth, M. (1988). Observations of the use of habitat by the grey goshawk in Tasmania. Tasmanian Bird Report 17: 1–11. SEMF (2012). Camden Rivulet Dam, Camden Plains, Ecological Assessment and Recommendations. Report to Tasmanian Irrigation Pty Ltd. SEMF (2013). Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme: Pipeline and Pump Station Installation, Ecological Assessment and Recommendations. Report to Tasmanian Irrigation Pty Ltd. Todd, M. (2015). Owls — from the database. Yellow Throat 80: 8−10. TSS (Threatened Species Section) (2003+). Notesheets and Listing Statements for various threatened species. DPIWE, Hobart. TSS (Threatened Species Section) (2012). Survey Time and Potential Habitat Guide for Tasmania’s Threatened Flora. Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water & Environment, Hobart. Wapstra, M., Roberts, N., Wapstra, H. & Wapstra, A. (2012). Flowering Times of Tasmanian Orchids: A Practical Guide for Field Botanists. Self-published by the authors (Third Edition, May 2012 version). Wapstra, H., Wapstra, A., Wapstra, M. & Gilfedder, L. (2005+, updated online at www.dpipwe.tas.gov.au). The Little Book of Common Names for Tasmanian Plants. Department Primary Industries, Parks, Water & Environment, Hobart.

Ecological Assessment of Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Camden Dam), Tasmania 35 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

APPENDIX A. Vegetation community structure and composition The tables below provide detailed descriptions of the native vegetation mapping units identified from the extension study area only. The lists of species provided are representative species only.

Eucalyptus delegatensis over rainforest (TASVEG code: WDR)

WDR occurs on slopes on either side of the Camden Rivulet, where it grades into RMT. WDR is in the later successional stage as the eucalypt canopy senesces and myrtle becomes dominant.

Localised stand of WDR adjacent to RMT (to left) and harvested plantation (right and foreground)

Height (m) Species Stratum Cover (%) (underline = dominant, parentheses = sparse or occasional)

40-50 m Trees Eucalyptus delegatensis 5-10%

15-20 m Trees Nothofagus cunninghamii, Atherosperma moschatum, Acacia dealbata 30-40%

1-4 m Olearia lirata, Coprosma quadrifida, Olearia phlogopappa, Pittosporum Medium shrubs 5-15% bicolor

<1 m Low shrubs Pultenaea juniperina, Sambucus gaudichaudiana <5%

Grass + Australopyrum pectinatum

1-3 m Trunked ferns Dicksonia antarctica variable

<1 m Ground ferns Pteridium esculentum, Histiopteris incisa variable

Herbs variable Stylidium spp., Stellaria spp.

Ecological Assessment of Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Camden Dam), Tasmania 36 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Nothofagus-Atherosperma rainforest (TASVEG code: RMT)

RMT occupies the broad flats and adjacent gentle slopes on either side of the Camden Rivulet. Eucalyptus delegatensis is occasional on the margins, where it grades into WDR. The distinction between RMT and NAD on aerial imagery is not clear but in the field very obvious.

LHS. Looking across Camden Rivulet into dense RMT RHS. Looking across slope on western side of Camden Rivulet through open RMT

Height (m) Species Stratum Cover (%) (underline = dominant, parentheses = sparse or occasional)

25-30 m Trees Nothofagus cunninghamii, Atherosperma moschatum 80%

1-4 m Medium shrubs Pittosporum bicolor, Tasmannia lanceolata <5%

<1 m Low shrubs Pimelea pauciflora <5%

Grass + Australopyrum pectinatum

1-5 m Trunked ferns Dicksonia antarctica 30%

<1 m Histiopteris incisa, Blechnum spp., Polystichum proliferum, Hypolepis Ground ferns variable rugosula

Epiphtyic ferns localised Hymenophyllum spp., Microsorum pustulatum, Crepidomanes venosum

Herbs + Stylidium spp., Stellaria spp., Urtica incisa

Ecological Assessment of Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Camden Dam), Tasmania 37 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Acacia dealbata forest (TASVEG code: NAD)

Areas dominated by silver wattle (Acacia dealbata) occur between Diddleum Road and eucalypt plantations and between plantations and the rainforest/eucalypt forest along Camden Rivulet. All areas are disturbance-created, presumably as a result of either wildfires prior to plantation establishment and/or as a consequence of plantation establishment (i.e. cleared but later unplanted areas).

LHS. Grass-dominated “old-growth” NAD near plantation RHS. Sparse understorey in NAD on western side of Camden Rivulet between rainforest and plantation

Height (m) Species Stratum Cover (%) (underline = dominant, parentheses = sparse or occasional)

15-20 m Trees Acacia dealbata 40%

1-4 m Olearia lirata, Coprosma quadrifida, Olearia phlogopappa, Pittosporum Medium shrubs 5-15% bicolor, Ulex europaeus, Pimelea pauciflora

Grass +-90% Australopyrum pectinatum, Poa labillardierei

Graminoids 5% Gahnia grandis

<1 m Ground ferns Pteridium esculentum, Histiopteris incisa, Polystichum proliferum variable

Stylidium spp., Stellaria spp., Dichondra repens, Hydrocotyle spp., Acaena Herbs variable spp., Digitalis purpurea

Ecological Assessment of Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Camden Dam), Tasmania 38 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

APPENDIX B. Vascular plant species recorded from study area Botanical nomenclature follows A Census of the Vascular Plants of Tasmania (de Salas & Baker 2014), with family placement updated to reflect the nomenclatural changes recognised in the Flora of Tasmania Online (Duretto 2009+); common nomenclature follows Wapstra et al. (2005+, updated online at www.dpipwe.tas.gov.au). i = introduced/naturalised; e = endemic to Tasmania; D – declared weed within meaning of Tasmanian Weed Management Act 1999 (B – municipality zoning; wi = widespread infestations)

Table B1. Summary of vascular species recorded from the study area

ORDER STATUS DICOTYLEDONAE MONOCOTYLEDONAE GYMNOSPERMAE PTERIDOPHYTA 45 22 - 15 e 3 2 - - i 10 4 - - Sum 58 28 0 15 TOTAL 101

DICOTYLEDONAE ADOXACEAE Sambucus gaudichaudiana white elderberry ARALIACEAE Hydrocotyle hirta hairy pennywort ASTERACEAE Cassinia aculeata subsp. aculeata common dollybush i Cirsium vulgare spear thistle Euchiton japonicus common cottonleaf i Hypochaeris radicata rough catsear Lagenophora montana mountain bottledaisy Olearia lirata forest daisybush e Olearia phlogopappa subsp. gunniana mountain dusty daisybush Ozothamnus ferrugineus tree everlastingbush Ozothamnus thyrsoideus arching everlastingbush Senecio linearifolius var. linearifolius common fireweed groundsel Senecio minimus shrubby fireweed ATHEROSPERMATACEAE Atherosperma moschatum subsp. moschatum sassafras CAMPANULACEAE Wahlenbergia stricta subsp. stricta tall bluebell CARYOPHYLLACEAE Stellaria flaccida forest starwort Stellaria pungens prickly starwort CONVOLVULACEAE Dichondra repens kidneyweed ELATINACEAE Elatine gratioloides waterwort FABACEAE Acacia dealbata subsp. dealbata silver wattle Acacia melanoxylon blackwood i Lotus uliginosus greater birdsfoot-trefoil Pultenaea juniperina prickly beauty i Ulex europaeus gorse D (B – wi) GENTIANACEAE i Centaurium erythraea common centaury GERANIACEAE Geranium potentilloides var. potentilloides mountain cranesbill

Ecological Assessment of Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Camden Dam), Tasmania 39 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

HALORAGACEAE Gonocarpus micranthus subsp. micranthus creeping raspwort Gonocarpus serpyllifolius alpine raspwort HYPERICACEAE Hypericum gramineum small st johns-wort Hypericum japonicum matted st johns-wort LAMIACEAE Ajuga australis australian bugle LOBELIACEAE Lobelia pedunculata matted lobelia MYRSINACEAE i Lysimachia arvensis scarlet pimpernel MYRTACEAE e Eucalyptus delegatensis subsp. tasmaniensis gumtopped stringybark i Eucalyptus nitens shining gum NOTHOFAGACEAE Nothofagus cunninghamii myrtle beech ONAGRACEAE Epilobium billardierianum subsp. billardierianum robust willowherb Epilobium gunnianum bog willowherb OXALIDACEAE Oxalis perennans grassland woodsorrel PHRYMACEAE Mazus pumilio swamp mazus i Mimulus moschatus musk monkeyflower PITTOSPORACEAE Pittosporum bicolor cheesewood PLANTAGINACEAE i Digitalis purpurea foxglove Plantago varia variable plantain POLEMONIACEAE i Navarretia squarrosa skunkweed PROTEACEAE e Lomatia tinctoria guitarplant RHAMNACEAE Pomaderris apetala subsp. apetala common dogwood ROSACEAE Acaena echinata spiny sheepsburr Acaena novae-zelandiae common buzzy RUBIACEAE Coprosma quadrifida native currant STYLIDIACEAE Stylidium armeria subsp. armeria broadleaf triggerplant Stylidium graminifolium narrowleaf triggerplant THYMELAEACEAE Pimelea drupacea cherry riceflower Pimelea linifolia slender riceflower Pimelea pauciflora poison riceflower URTICACEAE Urtica incisa scrub nettle VIOLACEAE Viola hederacea subsp. hederacea ivyleaf violet WINTERACEAE Tasmannia lanceolata mountain pepper MONOCOTYLEDONAE CENTROLEPIDACEAE Centrolepis strigosa subsp. strigosa hairy bristlewort CYPERACEAE Carex appressa tall sedge Carex breviculmis shortstem sedge Gahnia grandis cutting grass Isolepis fluitans floating clubsedge Isolepis subtilissima dwarf clubsedge

Ecological Assessment of Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Camden Dam), Tasmania 40 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Schoenus apogon common bogsedge HEMEROCALLIDACEAE Dianella tasmanica forest flaxlily JUNCACEAE e Juncus astreptus rigid rush Juncus bassianus forest rush Juncus bufonius toad rush Juncus pallidus pale rush Juncus pauciflorus looseflower rush Juncus planifolius broadleaf rush Juncus procerus tall rush Juncus sandwithii alpine jointleaf rush Luzula flaccida pale woodrush e Luzula poimena tasmanian woodrush ORCHIDACEAE Gastrodia procera tall potato-orchid POACEAE i Aira caryophyllea subsp. caryophyllea silvery hairgrass i Anthoxanthum odoratum sweet vernalgrass Australopyrum pectinatum prickly wheatgrass i Dactylis glomerata cocksfoot Deyeuxia quadriseta reed bentgrass Dichelachne rara common plumegrass i Holcus lanatus yorkshire fog Microlaena stipoides var. stipoides weeping grass Poa labillardierei var. labillardierei silver tussockgrass PTERIDOPHYTA BLECHNACEAE Blechnum nudum fishbone waterfern Blechnum pennamarina subsp. alpina alpine waterfern Blechnum wattsii hard waterfern DENNSTAEDTIACEAE Histiopteris incisa batswing fern Hypolepis rugosula ruddy groundfern Pteridium esculentum bracken DICKSONIACEAE Dicksonia antarctica soft treefern DRYOPTERIDACEAE Polystichum proliferum mother shieldfern HYMENOPHYLLACEAE Crepidomanes venosum bristle filmyfern Hymenophyllum cupressiforme common filmyfern Hymenophyllum flabellatum shiny filmyfern Hymenophyllum peltatum alpine filmyfern Hymenophyllum rarum narrow filmyfern LYCOPODIACEAE Huperzia varia long clubmoss POLYPODIACEAE Microsorum pustulatum subsp. pustulatum kangaroo fern

Ecological Assessment of Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Camden Dam), Tasmania 41 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

APPENDIX C. Vertebrate fauna recorded from study area

The following table lists the vertebrate fauna recorded from the study area (extension area only), based on site assessment only. Vertebrate nomenclature follows the following texts for the different groups: Birds: Christidis, L. & Boles, W.E. (2008). Systematics and Taxonomy of Australian Birds. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, with nomenclature updated to the interim working list provided by BirdLife Australia. Reptiles: Hutchinson, M., Swain, R. & Driessen, M. (2001). Snakes and Lizards of Tasmania. Fauna of Tasmania Handbook No. 9. University of Tasmania and Department of Primary Industries, Water & Environment, Hobart, with nomenclature updated to recent scincid taxonomy, as included in A Complete Guide to Reptiles of Australia (Wilson, S. & Swan, G. 2013). status: i = introduced/naturalised; e = endemic to Tasmania (at infrataxon level) record type: s = live sighting; a = audible (call of frog or bird); c = carcass/bones/skull; n = nest/drey; sc = scat; d = diggings or other signs

Table C1. Summary of vertebrate species recorded from the study area

ORDER STATUS MAMMALS BIRDS AMPHIBIANS REPTILES 5 13 - 1 e 1 5 - 1 i 1 1 - - Sum 7 19 0 2 TOTAL 28

Table C2. Vertebrate fauna recorded from study area

Record Status Scientific name Common name Comments

MAMMALS

TACHYGLOSSIDAE (echidna family) Tachyglossus aculeatus Diggings infrequent; one sighted in s, d Short-beaked echidna setosus plantation ORNITHORHYNCHIDAE (platypus family) Adult sighted in Camden Rivulet s Ornithorhynchus anatinus Platypus c. 250 m upstream from Diddleum Road MACROPOIDAE (kangaroo & wallaby family) Several sighted; scats numerous; s, sc, c Macropus rufogriseus Red-necked wallaby occasional skulls and miscellaneous bones

s, sc,c e Thylogale billardierii Tasmanian pademelon As above

PHALANGERIDAE (possum family) Common brushtail Scats on logs, rocks and tracks; s, sc Trichosurus vulpecula possum several spot-lighted VOMBATIDAE (wombat) Vombatus ursinus One sighted along Diddleum Road; s, sc, d Common wombat tasmaniensis numerous burrows and scats

Ecological Assessment of Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Camden Dam), Tasmania 42 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Record Status Scientific name Common name Comments

LEPORIDAE (rabbit and hare family) Scats and diggings in open grassy s, sc, d i Oryctolagus cuniculus European rabbit areas in plantation; one seen along Diddleum Road

REPTILES

SCINCIDAE (skinks) s Niveoscincus metallicus Metallic skink Occasional in grassy openings

Occasional sightings on logs and s e Niveoscincus pretiosus Tasmanian tree skink leaning branches close to ground

BIRDS

COLUMBIDAE (pigeon and dove family)

Calls occasional in forest; one flushed s, a Phaps chalcoptera Common bronzewing from Diddleum Road

CACATUIDAE (cockatoo and corella family)

Calyptorhynchus funereus Tasmanian yellow- One flock sighted through rainforest; s, a, d xanthanotus tailed black cockatoo calls (un distance) numerous

PSITTACIDAE (parrot, lorikeet and rosella family)

Platycercus caledonicus Several seen and heard throughout; s, a, d e Green rosella caledonicus occasional feathers on ground

HALCYONIDAE (tree kingfisher family)

Dacelo novaeguineae Southern laughing One seen and heard in silver wattle s, a i novaeguineae kookaburra forest

MALURIDAE (fairy-wren, emu-wren and grasswren family)

Tasmanian superb Numerous individuals seen and s, a Malurus cyaneus cyaneus fairy-wren heard, especially in open areas

ACANTHIZIDAE (thornbill and gerygone family)

Tasmanian brown Several small flocks and individuals s, a e Acanthiza pusilla diemenensis thornbill seen and heard

PARDALOTIDAE (pardalote family)

Tasmanian striated a Pardalotus striatus striatus Calls infrequent pardalote

MELIPHAGIDAE (honeyeater and chat family)

Yellow-throated Several seen and heard in a range of s, a e Lichenostomus flavicollis honeyeater vegetation types

Phylidonyris pyrrhopterus Eastern crescent s, a Several heard; one seen pyrrhopterus honeyeater

CAMPEPHAGIDAE (whistler and shrike-thrush family)

Coracina novaehollandiae Tasmanian black-faced s, a One seen in harvested plantation area novaehollandiae cuckoo-shrike

PACHYCEPHALIDAE (whistler and shrike-thrush family)

Pachycephala pectoralis Tasmanian golden Calls in rainforest and mixed forest a glaucura whistler occasional

Ecological Assessment of Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Camden Dam), Tasmania 43 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Record Status Scientific name Common name Comments

Colluricincla harmonica Tasmanian grey shrike- Numerous calls, sightings occasional s, a strigata thrush in range of habitats

ARTAMIDAE (woodswallow, currawong, butcherbird and magpie family)

Tasmanian grey a Strepera versicolor arguta One call currawong

s, a e Strepera fuliginosa Black currawong Sightings and calls numerous

RHIPIDURIDAE (fantail family)

Several seen and heard in a range of s, a Rhipidura fuliginosa albiscapa Tasmanian grey fantail vegetation types

CORVIDAE (crow and raven family) Corvus tasmanicus s, a Southern forest raven Several seen and heard tasmanicus PETROICIDAE (australian robin family) Tasmanian scarlet One adult sighted on stump in s Petroica multicolour leggii robin harvested plantation

s Petroica phoenicea Flame robin As above

s, a e Melanodryas vittata vittata Tasmanian dusky robin As above, plus calls

Ecological Assessment of Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Camden Dam), Tasmania 44 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

APPENDIX D. Details of key fauna point locations

For details of point locations of key fauna point locations, refer to attached .xls and .shp files and tables below (refer Figures 6 & 7 in main report; images follow tables). Table D1. Locations of wombat burrows

site easting northing comments

1 538806 5425286 western side of Camden Rivulet, north end

2 538808 5425345 western side of Camden Rivulet, north end

3 538842 5424903 western side of Camden Rivulet, middle section

4 538817 5425009 western side of Camden Rivulet, middle section

5 538611 5424702 edge of plantation (recently harvested)

6 539778 5424433 eastern part of study area (not extension area)

7 539757 5424559 as above

Table D2. Locations of devil scats

site easting northing comments

1 538554 5424692 on old track adjacent plantation; old scats

2 538566 5424694 on old track adjacent plantation; fresher scats

3 538847 5424759 on old track adjacent plantation; very old scats

4 539619 5424806 main road through plantation

5 539499 5424713 main road through plantation

track between “grassland” and main road; old and 6 539406 5424893 fresh scats

7 539431 5424651 main road through plantation

south of study area at crossing of Camden Rivulet; 8 539165 5422734 very old scats

LHS. Old wombat burrow in sandy soils on western side of Camden Rivulet RHS. Cluster of wombat burrows at base of sandy bank

Ecological Assessment of Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Camden Dam), Tasmania 45 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

LHS. Fresh wombat burrows at base of granite outcrops in steep sandy bank RHS. Old wombat burrow in soil bank of old track adjacent to harvested plantation

LHS. Dirt track between “grassland” and main road through plantation – devil scats located in middle of this track RHS. Main road through plantation area – devil scats occasional along this road verge

LHS & RHS. Examples of devil scats from study area

Ecological Assessment of Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Camden Dam), Tasmania 46 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

LHS & RHS. Examples of devil scats from study area

Ecological Assessment of Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Camden Dam), Tasmania 47 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

APPENDIX E. Analysis of database records of threatened flora

Table E1 provides a listing of priority flora from within 500 m and 5000 m of the study area (nominal buffer widths usually used to discuss the potential of a particular study area to support various species listed in databases), with comments on whether potential habitat is present for the species, and possible reasons why a species was not recorded. Some species not listed on databases but considered by the author to have potential to occur in the survey area are also discussed. Note that the field assessment was not restricted to the species listed in Table E1 but considered any threatened flora with the potential to be present. While the database analysis utilises a nominal buffer of 5000 m, the author’s own experience of the vegetation and flora of Tasmania’s northeast highlands, combined with database interrogation, meant that the specific potential for numerous other species previously recorded from the wider area were taken into account.

Table E1. Priority flora records from within 500 m and 5000 m of boundary of study area Species listed below are listed as rare (r), vulnerable (v), endangered (e), or extinct (x) on the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 (TSPA); vulnerable (VU), endangered (EN), critically endangered (CR) or extinct (EX) on the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBCA). Information below is sourced from the DPIPWE’s Natural Values Atlas (DPIPWE 2015a) and other sources where indicated. Habitat descriptions are taken from TSS (2003+) and TSS (2012), except where otherwise indicated.

Status Species TSPA Observations Comments EPBCA

Records within the study area

No records within study area.

Records within 500 m of study area

Potential habitat is poorly understood but includes wet sclerophyll forest, river margins and poorly-0drained sites, most often (apparently) in upland areas. Potential habitat is present but the species (a perennial Isolepis habra r 2 (duplicate) sedge) was not detected. Note that several Isolepis (wispy clubsedge) - records specimens were collected but were identified as the similar I. subtilissima, a non-threatened species (specimens will be lodged at the Tasmanian Herbarium for future reference as I. habra and I. subtilissima are part of a difficult to identify species-complex).

1 record [R.W. Barnes & C. McCoull, 8. Sep. Juncus amabilis r 2011, 539269mE This species was not detected. For a full analysis of the 5424937mN] likelihood of the species occurring within the study (gentle rush) - [1 additional record area, refer to Appendix G. within 5000 m at 539269mE 5424937mN]

numerous records Pimelea curviflora var. r [all attributed to This species was not detected. For a full analysis of the gracilis R.W. Barnes & likelihood of the species occurring within the study - (slender curved riceflower) C. McCoull, 8. Sep. area, refer to Appendix H. 2011]

Ecological Assessment of Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Camden Dam), Tasmania 48 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Status Species TSPA Observations Comments EPBCA [numerous additional records within 5000 m – same recorders]

Records within 5000 m of study area [and not considered in above sections]

Potential habitat (flood-prone riverbeds and adjacent banks, usually rocky) marginally present along Camden Rivulet. Prior surveys (FPA 2013) established the likely extent of the distribution of the species within Barbarea australis e numerous records and close to the project area. The present additional (riverbed wintercress) EN surveys did not detect the species from the extension survey area. Refer to FPA (2013) for recommendations on this species.

1 record Epilobium pallidiflorum v [R.W. Barnes & This species was not detected. For a full analysis of the C. McCoull, 8. Sep. likelihood of the species occurring within the study (showy willowherb) - 2011, 539809mE area, refer to Appendix I. 5424716mN]

Additional species considered by the author with potential to be present but not shown in databases

Deyeuxia densa r no database This species can occur in virtually any habitat type but (heath bentgrass) - records was not detected.

Deyeuxia minor r no database As above. (small bentgrass) - records

Ranunculus sessiliflorus var. Potential habitat (often rocky outcrops amongst r sessiliflorus no database various forest types, sometimes bare soil patches) - records present. This species was not detected (present for (rockplate buttercup) much of spring-summer period).

Potential habitat (various forest habitats but also Senecio squarrosus r no database poorly-drained grasslands) present. This species was (leafy groundsel) - records not detected (detectable and identifiable for much of the year).

Potential habitat (various forest habitats usually wet Senecio velleioides r no database sclerophyll forest in disturbed situations) present. This (forest groundsel) - records species was not detected (detectable and identifiable for much of the year).

Potential habitat (often rocky outcrops amongst Stellaria multiflora r no database various forest types, sometimes bare soil patches) (rayless starwort) - records present. This species was not detected (present for much of spring-summer period).

EPBCA-listed species listed as potentially present based on Protected Matters Report (CofA 2015)

Barbarea australis e Species or species’ habitat known to See section above. (riverbed wintercress) EN occur within area

The listing of this species in CofA (2015) is erroneous Species or species’ Boronia hemichiton e as the distribution of the species is well mapped habitat may occur (restricted to three small marshes on the slopes of Mt (mt arthur boronia) VU within area Arthur). This species was not detected.

Ecological Assessment of Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Camden Dam), Tasmania 49 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Status Species TSPA Observations Comments EPBCA

Potential habitat (flood-prone, often rocky, river beds Epacris exserta e Species or species’ and margins) absent – the section of Camden Rivulet habitat may occur within the extension survey area is atypical in that it is (south esk heath) EN within area permanent, deep and surrounded by rainforest. The species was not detected.

Potential habitat (lowland grasslands and coastal Pterostylis ziegeleri v Species or species’ dunes and amongst grassy/shrubby rocky headlands) habitat may occur absent (the “grassland” areas near the study area are (grassland greenhood) VU within area highly atypical and the species is not known from such high elevations).

Ecological Assessment of Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Camden Dam), Tasmania 50 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

APPENDIX F. Analysis of database records of threatened fauna

Table F1 provides a listing of priority fauna from within the study area, and from 500 m and 5000 m of the study area (nominal buffer widths usually used to discuss the potential of a particular study area to support various species listed in databases), with comments on whether potential habitat is present for the species, and possible reasons why a species was not recorded.

Table F1. Priority fauna records from within the study area, and from 500 m and 5000 m of boundary of study area Species listed below are listed as rare (r), vulnerable (v), endangered (e), or extinct (x) on the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 (TSPA); vulnerable (VU), endangered (EN), critically endangered (CR) or extinct (EX) on the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBCA). Information below is sourced from the DPIPWE’s Natural Values Atlas (DPIPWE 2015a), Bryant & Jackson (1999) and FPA (2015); marine, wholly pelagic and littoral species such as marine mammals, fish and offshore seabirds are excluded

Status Species TSPA Observations Comments EPBCA

Records from within study area

No records known from within study area

Records within 500 m of study area

No records known from within 500 m of study area

Records and potential habitat within 5000 m of study area

Refer to RESULTS Fauna species Priority fauna species Accipiter novaehollandiae e no database known from study area (or potentially present) for more records (grey goshawk) - information. This species is restricted to river systems flowing into Astacopsis gouldi Bass Strait (and the Arthur River system) but excluding v no database (giant freshwater those flowing into the River Tamar, including the St VU records crayfish) Patricks River (only an introduced population known from this river). Aquila audax subsp. fleayi e Refer to RESULTS Fauna species Priority fauna species 18 records known from study area (or potentially present) for more (Tasmanian wedge-tailed EN information. eagle) Beddomeia minima r no database The study area is outside the predicted range of the (freshwater snail – - records species (FPA 2015). Scottsdale)

Charopidae sp. “Skemps” r no database The study area is outside the predicted range of the (Skemps snail) - records species (FPA 2015). Dasyurus maculatus r Refer to RESULTS Fauna species Priority fauna species subsp. maculatus 3 records known from study area (or potentially present) for more VU (spotted-tailed quoll) information.

Engaeus orramakunna Refer to RESULTS Fauna species Priority fauna species v no database known from study area (or potentially present) and (Mt Arthur burrowing VU records Appendix J for more information. This species was not crayfish) detected.

Ecological Assessment of Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Camden Dam), Tasmania 51 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Status Species TSPA Observations Comments EPBCA

Engaeus spinicaudatus Refer to RESULTS Fauna species Priority fauna species v no database known from study area (or potentially present) and (Scottsdale burrowing VU records Appendix J for more information. This species was not crayfish) detected.

The study area is well outside the predicted range of the Galaxiella pusilla v no database species (FPA 2015) and no areas present as potential (dwarf galaxiid) VU records habitat (lowland slow-flowing to still near-coastal streams and drainage channels).

no known nests Haliaeetus leucogaster v within 1000 m of See comments under wedge-tailed eagle. (white-bellied sea-eagle) - the boundary of study area

Refer to RESULTS Fauna species Priority fauna species Litoria raniformis v no database known from study area (or potentially present) and records (green and golden frog) VU Appendix K for more information.

Potential habitat is “open vegetation types including woodlands and open forests with a grassy understorey, native and exotic grasslands, particularly in landscapes with a mosaic of agricultural land and remnant bushland” Perameles gunnii subsp. (FPA 2015), habitat types marginally absent from the gunnii - study area. 2 records (eastern barred VU Note that SEMF (2012) argued that the broader study bandicoot) area provided potentially significant habitat for the species. I do not concur with this conclusion, recognising that the species is predominantly one of lowland grasslands and grassy woodlands with only scattered records elsewhere. This is a species of the “middle to lower reaches of coastal rivers” (FPA 2015), a habitat type that is absent from the Prototroctes maraena v no database study area. Camden Rivulet is superficially suitable but its records (Australian grayling) VU occurrence at 550+ m elevation makes it an upland drainage system and not suitable for the species. Potential habitat is “grassland and grassy woodland Pseudemoia (including rough pasture with paddock trees), generally v no database pagenstecheri with a greater than 20% cover of native grass species, - records (tussock skink) especially where medium to tall tussocks are present” (FPA 2015), habitat types absent from the study area.

Sarcophilus harrisii e Refer to RESULTS Fauna species Priority fauna species 8 records known from study area (or potentially present) for more (Tasmanian devil) EN information. Thylacinus cynocephalus x 3 records Species is presumed extinct. (thylacine) EX Tyto novaehollandiae e Refer to RESULTS Fauna species Priority fauna species subsp. castanops 1 record known from study area (or potentially present) for more VU (Tasmanian masked owl) information.

EPBCA-listed species listed as potentially present based on Protected Matters Report (CofA 2015) [excluding marine, pelagic and littoral species]

Aquila audax subsp. fleayi e Breeding likely to See section above. (Tasmanian wedge-tailed EN occur within area eagle) Species or Migratory Aerial foraging bird that rarely lands – study area Apus pacificus species’ habitat Marine presents marginal habitat only and any works in the area (fork-tailed swift) likely to occur Species would not have a deleterious impact on the species. within area

Ecological Assessment of Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Camden Dam), Tasmania 52 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Status Species TSPA Observations Comments EPBCA Migratory Species or Ardea alba Wetland/ species’ habitat Potential habitat (natural and artificial wetlands and (great egret) Marine likely to occur swampy habitats) absent. Species within area Migratory Species or Ardea ibis Wetland/ species’ habitat As above. (cattle egret) Marine likely to occur Species within area

Astacopsis gouldi Species or v species’ habitat (giant freshwater See section above. VU may occur within crayfish) area Species or Botaurus poiciloptilus - species’ habitat Potential habitat (natural and artificial wetlands and (Australasian bittern) EN likely to occur swampy habitats) absent. within area Potential habitat (tree-lined major river systems) absent. Ceyx azureus subsp. Species or Upland streams such as the Camden Rivulet appear to be diemenensis e species’ habitat rarely utilised and in particular the species seems toi be may occur within (Tasmanian azure EN restricted to mainly lowland near-coastal sites in the area kingfisher) northeast.

Dasyurus maculatus Species or r species’ habitat subsp. maculatus See section above. VU known to occur (spotted-tailed quoll) within area

Engaeus orramakunna Species or v species’ habitat (Mt Arthur burrowing See section above. VU likely to occur crayfish) within area Species or Galaxiella pusilla v species’ habitat See section above. (dwarf galaxiid) VU likely to occur within area Species or Migratory Gallinago hardwickii species’ habitat Potential habitat (natural and artificial wetlands and Wetland may occur within swampy habitats) absent. (Lathams Snipe) Species area Species or Haliaeetus leucogaster v species’ habitat See section above. (white-bellied sea-eagle) - likely to occur within area

Species or Hirundapus caudacutus Migratory Aerial foraging bird that rarely lands – study area species’ habitat Terrestrial presents marginal habitat only and any works in the area (white-throated may occur within Species would not have a deleterious impact on the species. needletail) area

The study area is well outside the predicted range of the Species or species (FPA 2015) and no areas present as potential Lathamus discolor e species’ habitat habitat (forests dominated by Eucalyptus ovata or may occur within (swift parrot) EN Eucalyptus globulus or extensive areas of hollow-rich area forests).

Species or Litoria raniformis v species’ habitat See section above. (green and golden frog) VU likely to occur within area

Ecological Assessment of Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Camden Dam), Tasmania 53 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Status Species TSPA Observations Comments EPBCA

Perameles gunnii subsp. Species or gunnii - species’ habitat See section above. (eastern barred VU likely to occur bandicoot) within area Potential habitat marginally present (species utilises a wide range of habitats but tends to be most frequent in dry open tall woodlands and forests and associated Species or sheltered slopes/gullies). Migratory Myiagra cyanoleuca species’ habitat Terrestrial The species was not detected by sight or call during the known to occur (satin flycatcher) Species assessment, which was probably undertaken inside the within area species’ residential period in the State. Any works in the area are unlikely to have a deleterious impact on the species but this needs to be considered in the context of the whole project. Species or Prototroctes maraena v species’ habitat See section above. (Australian grayling) VU likely to occur within area Species or Sarcophilus harrisii e species’ habitat See section above. (Tasmanian devil) EN likely to occur within area

Tyto novaehollandiae Species or e species’ habitat subsp. castanops See section above. VU known to occur (Tasmanian masked owl) within area

Ecological Assessment of Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Camden Dam), Tasmania 54 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

APPENDIX G. Notes on Juncus amabilis (gentle rush)

SEMF (2012) identified two locations for Juncus amabilis (gentle rush), a species listed as rare (Schedule 5) on the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995. The species was located in the previously identified “wetland” and “grassland” south of Diddleum Road (Figure G1), as follows: “Two plants were found growing in a wet soak that drained into the freshwater aquatic sedgeland and rushland at the northern end of the Survey Area”. SEMF (2012) does not provide images of the reported specimens nor are the sites supported by voucher specimens held at the Tasmanian Herbarium, making confirmation of any particular individual specimen impossible.

Figure G1. Locations of Juncus amabilis as identified by SEMF (2012) – yellow points (blue points are sites for Pimelea curviflora – see Appendix H)

As part of the present assessment by ECOtas, the composition of the “wetland” and “grassland” was assessed to determine the possible extent of Sphagnum-dominated vegetation and the potential significance of the open area for some species of threatened fauna. As part of that assessment, species of Juncus were collected and identified from throughout the open vegetation, with specific collections made from within a 5 m radius of the GPS points representing the two sites of Juncus amabilis reported by SEMF (2012). The reason for this was that an initial site assessment by ECOtas on 29 January 2015 did not indicate the likely presence of Juncus amabilis (elevation too high, site too waterlogged and subject to frost/snow). Specimens were collected on 4-6 February 2015. Curtis & Morris (1994) provide the most reliable key to Tasmanian species of Juncus, although field workers have been long confused between several taxa (including J. amabilis and J. australis), because of apparent overlaps in morphological characters and possibly extensive hybridisation between taxa as noted by Johnson (1991). However, separating J. amabilis from other taxa is a critical management issue because it is a species listed on the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 as rare, a status that has been questioned by many because of the apparent

Ecological Assessment of Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Camden Dam), Tasmania 55 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting widespread distribution of the species, which includes many heavily disturbed sites such as wet pastures and roadside drains. Records from the Natural Values Atlas (Figure G2 – note that the Diddleum Road site is arrowed) shows the species to be almost wholly one of lowland habitats, predominately the Midlands and near-coastal areas. A record from Lanes Tier (c. 400 m elevation) west of Osterley is not supported by a voucher and would need confirmation. Suspected collections from higher elevation areas in the Skullbone Plains area (Clarence River catchment) at 700+ m elevation are yet to be confirmed (M. de Salas pers. comm.) but highlight the significant identification issues with the species- complex. Curtis & Morris (1994) describe the habitat of J. amabilis as “local, in the Midlands and North East, not in the wettest areas” and that of J. australis as “frequent in the North East, West Coast, Central Highlands, Midlands and the South West, tolerating cold winters, but not in the wettest situations”. On this basis, records from the Diddleum Road site would appear unlikely because it is at or above 570 m elevation, probably permanently waterlogged across much of the open grassy area, and subject to severe frosts and occasional snow lie. That said, range extensions (including extensions to the occupied elevation range) are reported frequently for species.

Figure G2. Natural Values Atlas records of Juncus amabilis from Tasmania (downloaded 3.2.15) – Diddleum sites indicated

Ecological Assessment of Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Camden Dam), Tasmania 56 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

J. amabilis extends to the southeast Australian mainland, where it is described as “a variable species of seasonally damp sites throughout much of Victoria, uncommon in Eastern Highlands and East Gippsland” (Albrecht & Walsh 1994). In a review of Australian Juncus, Johnson (1991) when describing Juncus bassianus (which occurs in Tasmania and Victoria) noted that that J. bassianus has “affinities to J. alexandri, J. laevisuculus [both not present in Tas.] and J. astreptus”. Johnson (1991) also noted that “J. bassianus has at times been confused with J. australis Hook.f. which differs in the hard stems with interrupted pith, the silvery inner surface of the cataphylls and, most definitely, in the deeply sunken stomates”. Albrecht & Walsh (1994) did not include Juncus bassianus in the key in Flora of Victoria) but noted that J. amabilis “closely resembles J. australis, J. gregiflorus and J. usitatus [not present in Tas.]” but that “in most cases, the key characters should enable J. amabilis to be distinguished from these species; however, without the knowledge of fresh culm colour separation from J. gregiflorus may be difficult and require careful examination of anatomical characters”. Curtis & Morris (1994) identify that J. australis can hybridise with J. pallidus, J. pauciflorus, J. filicaulis, J. sarophorus, J. bassianus and J. subsecundus; J. bassianus with J. astreptus; and J. amabilis with J. pallidus, J. gregiflorus, J. sarophorus and J. subsecundus. Examination of the keys and descriptions in Curtis & Morris (1994) and Albrecht & Walsh (1994) allow the key characters separating J. amabilis and J. australis to be identified (Table G1). These two species are selected because differentiation of the two is the most complex, and J. amabilis was reported from the project area.

Table G1. Key morphological features separating J. australis and J. amabilis, based on Curtis & Morris (1994)

Character J. australis J. amabilis

Stems Grey- or bluish-green Blue-green Very loosely sheathing Closely appressed Chestnut-brown below Dark red-purple to black Cataphylls Apices tapered and below sometimes with a small Apices rounded and with a slender mucro long mucro Tepals 2.2-3 mm long 1.5-2.2 mm long Equalling or slightly longer Capsules Capsule longer than tepals than tepals Stomates Sunken in pits Superficial

These characters are confirmed in Albrecht & Walsh (1994), who include line drawings of the species side by side, which clearly shows the relative length of the capsules to the tepals as an important feature. However, the veracity of any of these characters requires review for Tasmanian material (M. de Salas pers. comm.) but in the absence of “better” information, identification must rely on these sources/keys. No material identifiable as J. amabilis was collected from the vicinity of the two GPS locations identified by SEMF (2012). J. australis was widespread and common throughout the open grassy- sedgy area. Additional species of Juncus recorded from the site were: J. falcatus, J. pallidus, J. bassianus, J. pauciflorus, J. gregiflorus, J. sandwithii, J. planifolius, J. acutiflorus and J. bufonius. Collected material is unsuitable for lodgement at the Tasmanian Herbarium (many specimens infertile) but the author will retain the material for future reference. While it is difficult to entirely discount the observations of J. amabilis made by SEMF (2012) from the project area, on the basis of my observations and collections, the presence of J. amabilis at

Ecological Assessment of Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Camden Dam), Tasmania 57 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting c. 570+ m elevation in a seasonally wet (close to permanently waterlogged) frost hollow subject to occasional snow lie seems unlikely. In my opinion, the species should not be further considered in project planning, and should be excluded from any threatened flora permit applications.

References for Appendix G Albrecht, D.E. & Walsh, N.G. (1994). Juncaceae. IN: Flora of Victoria Volume 2: Ferns and Allied Plants, Conifers and Monocotyledons (Eds. N.G. Walsh & T.J. Entwisle). Inkata Press, Melbourne. Curtis, W.M. & Morris, D.I. (1994). The Student’s Flora of Tasmania Part 4B Angiospermae: Alismataceae to Burmanniaceae. St. David’s Park Publishing, Hobart. Johnson, L.A.S. (1991). New Australian taxa in Juncus (Juncaceae). Aspects of Tasmanian Botany – A Tribute to Winifred Curtis: 35−46. SEMF (2012). Camden Rivulet Dam, Camden Plains, Ecological Assessment and Recommendations. Report to Tasmanian Irrigation Pty Ltd.

Ecological Assessment of Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Camden Dam), Tasmania 58 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

APPENDIX H. Notes on Pimelea curviflora var. gracilis (slender curved riceflower)

SEMF (2012) identified numerous locations for Pimelea curviflora var. gracilis (slender curved riceflower), a species listed as rare (Schedule 5) on the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995. The species was located within and on the fringes of the previously identified “wetland” and “grassland” south of Diddleum Road (Figure H1), as follows: “Numerous occurrences in an almost continuous population across the northern section of the Survey Area, with occasional isolated populations in the southeast and south-west of the Survey Area (both associated with disturbed native forest)” (refer Figures H1 & H2). SEMF (2012) does not provide images of the reported specimens nor are the sites supported by voucher specimens held at the Tasmanian Herbarium, making confirmation of any particular individual specimen impossible.

Figure H1. Locations of Pimelea curviflora var. gracilis as identified by SEMF (2012) from the “wetland” and “grassland” area in the north of the project area – blue points (yellow points are sites for Juncus amabilis – see Appendix G)

As part of the present assessment by ECOtas, the composition of the “wetland” and “grassland” was assessed to determine the possible extent of Sphagnum-dominated vegetation and the potential significance of the open area for some species of threatened fauna. An initial site reconnaissance on 29 January 2015 failed to detect Pimelea curviflora from the site, with Pimelea pauciflora (poison riceflower) noted as being a locally dominant species along road verges, within plantations and throughout the open grassy flat. A more detailed assessment of several of the GPS points representing sites reported by SEMF (2012) was made on 4-6 February 2015, with specimens of mature and juvenile plants being collected for microscopic examination. Note that no attempt was made to re-locate the western and southern sites reported by SEMF (2012) because these areas did not require re-assessment for other reasons. Specimens were collected on 4-6 February 2015. All specimens were clearly attributable to P. pauciflora due to their glabrous (hairless) leaves and branchlets. Specimens have been retained

Ecological Assessment of Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Camden Dam), Tasmania 59 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting by the author for future reference but are not suitable for submission to the Tasmanian Herbarium (infertile material only).

Figure H2. Locations of Pimelea curviflora var. gracilis as identified by SEMF (2012) from the whole project area – yellow triangles (no attempt by ECOtas to re-locate the western and southern sites)

Published habitat descriptions of Pimelea curviflora var. gracilis are vague. TSS (2005) described the distribution and habitat of the species as “predominantly occurs in the north of the State in wet sclerophyll forest” and cited Curtis (1967), who actually described the habitat as “widespread and locally frequent especially on the banks of streams in the north and east”. My experience with the species is that it occurs in various forested habitats and on the fringes of forest, often on slopes on deep well-developed fertile soils. Most of the sites I have observed the species are in forest transitional between wet and dry sclerophyll (e.g. Gog Range, Parkham area northeast of Deloraine, Diddleum, Blessington, Strickland, etc.). The species often occurs in highly disturbed situations such as plantation firebreaks (and even along open plantation rows), road verges, and old log landings and snig tracks in wood production forests. I have observed the species on the margin of mid-elevation grasslands and grassy/shrubby woodlands (e.g. Diddleum/Blessington areas), where it usually occurs on the immediate fringes within the forest amongst grass and shrubs. Note that I have an extensive personal herbarium of Pimelea species including P. curviflora and P. pauciflora from many of the aforementioned sites, and have submitted duplicates to the Tasmanian Herbarium.

Ecological Assessment of Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Camden Dam), Tasmania 60 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Most of the records of P. curviflora indicated by SEMF (2012) are from the heart and fringes of the grassland/sedgeland patch, with only a few in the fringing forest (plantation) areas. My surveys indicated that Pimelea pauciflora is widespread and locally common throughout the plantation, native forest (not rainforest) and edges of opening (pasture or more native situations) and along many of the roads and tracks throughout the project area (Plates H1 & H2). Pimelea curviflora is part of a somewhat confusing species-complex. The Census of Vascular Plants of Tasmania (de Salas & Baker 2014), produced by the Tasmanian Herbarium annually, removed reference to infrataxa in Tasmania several years ago. DPIPWE maintains database records of var. gracilis (appears to be restricted to the Tasmanian mainland and mainland Australia) and var. sericea (in Tasmania, restricted to Flinders Island), and both varieties are listed as rare (Schedule 5) on the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995. Pimelea curviflora is probably most closely related (at least morphologically) to P. micrantha (in Tasmania, restricted to Flinders Island but its identification and status require clarification) and P. sp. Tunbridge (A. Moscal 9026) Tas Herbarium (restricted to native grassland verges of Lake Leake Road and Tunbridge Tier Road in the Midlands). All these species are characterised by silky hairs to varying degrees on the leaves and stems giving them a variably grey-green appearance. Pimelea pauciflora is a glabrous (hairless) shrub, much-branched, often to c. 3 m tall, often with reddish stems and branchlets. Even young plants and growing shoots appear hairless. Superficially, P. pauciflora can be confused with P. curviflora but even a cursory examination of material in the field will separate the two. The species can co-occur and both respond positively to disturbance and occur at a range of elevations. Of concern with SEMF (2012) is that in their Appendix B (“dominant or significant flora species in the study site”), six species of Pimelea are listed and does not include P. pauciflora (the species is also not mentioned in any of the vegetation descriptions, even though the species co-dominates the understorey with gorse in plantations and fringes of native forest). P. sericea is also mentioned, which is a species restricted to high elevation rocky subalpine shrubberies, a habitat type absent from the project area. The listing of P. humilis is also somewhat dubious as this is a species mainly of lowland grasslands and grassy woodlands/forests. While it is difficult to entirely discount the observations of P. curviflora var. gracilis made by SEMF (2012) from the project area, on the basis of my observations and collections I do not concur that the species is present (noting the western and southern point locations were not re-located) as it seems most likely they refer to P. pauciflora, a non-threatened species. In my opinion, the species should not be further considered in project planning, and should be excluded from any threatened flora permit applications.

References for Appendix H Curtis, W.M. (1967). The Student’s Flora of Tasmania Part 3 Angiospermae: Plumbaginaceae to Salicaceae. Government Printer, Hobart. de Salas, M.F. & Baker, M.L. (2014). A Census of the Vascular Plants of Tasmania and Index to The Student’s Flora of Tasmania and Flora of Tasmania Online. Tasmanian Herbarium, Hobart. SEMF (2012). Camden Rivulet Dam, Camden Plains, Ecological Assessment and Recommendations. Report to Tasmanian Irrigation Pty Ltd. TSS (Threatened Species Section). (2005). Notesheet for Pimelea curviflora var. gracilis. Threatened Species Section, Hobart.

Ecological Assessment of Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Camden Dam), Tasmania 61 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Plate H1. Pimelea pauciflora (arrowed) amongst eucalypt plantation

Plate H2. Pimelea pauciflora (arrowed) on the edge of plantation and “grassland”

Ecological Assessment of Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Camden Dam), Tasmania 62 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

APPENDIX I. Notes on Epilobium pallidiflorum (showy willowherb)

SEMF (2012) identified one location for Epilobium pallidiflorum (showy willowherb), a species listed as rare (Schedule 5) on the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995. The species was located within the swampy habitat associated with Camden Rivulet, in the west of the project area (Figure I1), as follows: “Five plants of this species were recorded in an open area of Highland Poa grassland at the western side of the Survey Area growing in Carex appressa tussocks” (refer Figure I1). SEMF (2012) does not provide images of the reported specimens nor is the site supported by voucher specimens held at the Tasmanian Herbarium, making confirmation of any particular individual specimen impossible. The mapped location is also from an areas not mapped by SEMF (2012) as “highland Poa grassland” but “Eucalyptus rodwayi forest and woodland” (DRO) and close to “Leptospermum lanigerum-Melaleuca squarrosa swamp forest” (NLM).

Figure I1. Location of Epilobium pallidiflorum (green triangle – arrowed) as identified by SEMF (2012) from the project area – other symbols refer to different threatened flora species

As part of undertaking further assessments of the potential quality of forested habitats within the proposed dam footprint for species of threatened fauna, I had cause to enter the area identified by SEMF (2012) as supporting Epilobium pallidiflorum. I had no intention of attempting to confirm their location because the species is easily identified and not usually difficult to confuse with other species of Epilobium. However, upon entering the sedge-dominated teatree flat (Plate I1),

Ecological Assessment of Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Camden Dam), Tasmania 63 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

I encountered individuals of Epilobium billardierianum and confirmed by hand-held GPS that I was in close proximity to the site reported by SEMF (2012). The specimens encountered (and collected) by me on 6 February 2015 have been confirmed by the Tasmanian Herbarium as Epilobium billardierianum subsp. billardierianum (M. Baker pers. comm.), a widespread and common species. Specimens will be lodged at the Tasmanian Herbarium (as MW2137).

Plate I1. Habitat of Epilobium billardierianum subsp. billardierianum from the project area

“My” specimens, while at the tall end of the stature spectrum of Epilobium billardierianum, have much smaller flowers than typical Epilobium pallidiflorum, the flowerheads were less droopy (a key feature of Epilobium pallidiflorum are the often nodding flowerheads), and of a much darker shade of pink than is usual for Epilobium pallidiflorum. Images of specimens of Epilobium from the project area provide at Plates I2 & I3, with comparisons to “good” Epilobium pallidiflorum from other sites in Tasmania (Plate I4).

Plate I2. Flowers of Epilobium billardierianum subsp. billardierianum from the project area – note the relatively short petals relative to the sepals (only the right hand image has a flower with petals of a length approaching the lower limit described for Epilobium pallidiflorum but even this flower has a seep pink colour and relatively longer sepals) and very erect flowers

Ecological Assessment of Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Camden Dam), Tasmania 64 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Plate I3. Leaves and stems of Epilobium billardierianum subsp. billardierianum from the project area

Plate I4. Flowers of Epilobium pallidiflorum from other sites in Tasmania (left and middle from Nook Swamps on King Island; right from Dans Hill area near Beaconsfield) – note in all cases the paler flowers, much larger flowers, longer petals relative to sepals and the narrow, less denticulate leaves and less erect flowerheads

The notesheet provided by TSS (2003) is out-of-date (see map at Figure I2 below) and since its production there have been numerous additional records of Epilobium pallidiflorum reported from Tasmania (see map at Figure I2 below). Unfortunately, many of the database records are not supported by vouchered herbarium specimens and this was one reason that in a recent review of the conservation status of the species, the Scientific Advisory Committee did not recommend a delisting of the species, despite an apparently much more widespread distribution of many more populations that previously thought. The species is generally of lowland occurrences, although does extend into mid elevations at sites such as Lake Leake, around Waratah and around the slopes of the Western Tiers. Curtis (1963) described the distribution and habitat of Epilobium pallidiflorum as: “Tas., local in wet places especially in the north and north-west of the State”. Jeanes (1996) described the distribution and habitat as: Vic., also SA, NSW, Tas.; New Zealand. Widespread but uncommon across higher rainfall parts of Victoria, mostly growing on banks of slow-flowing watercourses, and in swamps and marshes”. The project area is within the potential range of Epilobium pallidiflorum and habitat in some areas is ideal and typical (poorly-drained sedgy flat with canopy gaps on deep soils).

Ecological Assessment of Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Camden Dam), Tasmania 65 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Figure I2. Change in distribution of Epilobium pallidiflorum: left map is from TSS (2003), right map is created 27 Mar. 2015 from Natural Values Atlas data

Species of Epilobium can co-occur with one another and some populations are probably relatively short-lived and may be geographically transient (herbaceous species with aerially-dispersed seeds that take advantage of canopy gaps and bare ground in swampy habitats), making it difficult to entirely discount the presence of Epilobium pallidiflorum from the project area, as reported by SEMF (2012). It is noted that SEMF (2012) also reported this species from a number of other sites along the proposed pipeline route but also did not provide detailed information. The need for vouchered specimens is highlighted by the recent review of the species by the Threatened Species Section and the Scientific Advisory Committee. In the absence of being able to absolutely discount the presence of Epilobium pallidiflorum from the project area, it is recommended that the information presented by SEMF (2012) is taken “as is” and be used to determine the need for a permit under Section 51 of the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995. In my opinion, however, given the widespread distribution and locally frequent occurrence of the species, and the obvious trend of continuing range extensions and infillings, no special prescriptions should be required to cater for the species (every effort should be made to avoid sites but I do not think this should be a constraint to planning).

References for Appendix I Curtis, W.M. (1967). The Student’s Flora of Tasmania Part 2 Angiospermae: Lythraceae to Epacridaceae. Government Printer, Hobart. Jeanes, J.A. (1996). Onagraceae. IN: Flora of Victoria Volume 3: Dicotyledons – Winteraceae to Myrtaceae (Eds. N.G. Walsh & T.J. Entwisle). Inkata Press, Melbourne. SEMF (2012). Camden Rivulet Dam, Camden Plains, Ecological Assessment and Recommendations. Report to Tasmanian Irrigation Pty Ltd. TSS (Threatened Species Section). (2003). Notesheet for Epilobium pallidiflorum. Threatened Species Section, Hobart.

Ecological Assessment of Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Camden Dam), Tasmania 66 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

APPENDIX J. Identification of Engaeus species from project area

SEMF (2012) indicated that the survey area was “…outside the known and predicted geographic range of this species [Mt Arthur burrowing crayfish, Engaeus orramakunna]” and provided a map (Figure J1 below) supporting this statement. SEMF (2012) did not note any specific evidence of burrowing crayfish species (e.g. burrows) from the study area. SEMF (2013) also assessed the pipeline route and reported burrows of Engaeus species as part of that assessment and report, all from outside the predicted range of threatened species of burrowing crayfish (Figure J2).

Figure J1. Extract of SEMF (2012), which indicates that the proposed dam is outside the predicted range of Engaeus orramakunna

Figure J2. Extract of SEMF (2013), showing the location of burrows of Engaeus relative to the project area and the predicted range of threatened species of Engaeus – the circled sites are the subject of the present statement

Ecological Assessment of Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Camden Dam), Tasmania 67 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Taking a cautionary approach, as part of the present assessments, ECOtas as engaged to formally document the species of Engaeus present immediately downstream of the proposed dam site, at a site where SEMF (2013) identified burrows. On 5 November 2015, excavations of burrows were undertaken by Alastair Richardson, Mark Wapstra and Kathryn Pugh from the margins of the St Patricks River and by Mark Wapstra from the verge of Diddleum Road close to Camden Rivulet. Collected individuals were identified using Horwitz (1990). Table J1 indicates the locations assessed and the findings. All collected individuals were clearly identifiable as Engaeus leptorhynchus, a common and widespread species. Plates J1-J5 provide annotated images of the collection sites and individuals.

Table J1. Locations of excavations of burrows of Engaeus

location easting northing result identification southern verge of Diddleum Road, west of bridge over Camden Rivulet 538693 5425490 1 adult male Engaeus leptorhynchus [roadside drain/culvert] western bank of St Patricks River, 1 adult male; upstream of bridge 538990 5425860 Engaeus leptorhynchus over river 1 sub-adult; 1 juvenile [riparian myrtle forest]

Given that burrows were excavated very close to the proposed dam wall and within a few hundred metres downstream of the proposed dam, and that the whole dam area is outside the predicted range of threatened species of Engaeus, there is no evidence that such species will be affected by the installation of the proposed dam. Note that the potential impact on threatened species of burrowing crayfish within the irrigation areas and along the pipeline beyond areas identified as supporting burrows of Engaeus by SEMF (2013) immediately downstream of the proposed dam wall has not been assessed.

References for Appendix J Horwitz, P.H.J. (1990). A taxonomic revision of species in the freshwater crayfish genus Engaeus Erichson (Decapoda: Parastacidae). Invertebrate Taxonomy 4: 427–614. SEMF (2012). Camden Rivulet Dam, Camden Plains, Ecological Assessment and Recommendations. Report to Tasmanian Irrigation Pty Ltd. SEMF (2013). Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme: Pipeline and Pump Station Installation, Ecological Assessment and Recommendations. Report to Tasmanian Irrigation Pty Ltd.

Ecological Assessment of Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Camden Dam), Tasmania 68 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Plate J1. (LHS) Drain at edge of Diddleum Road from which Engaeus leptorhynchus was excavated Plate J2. (RHS) Adult male Engaeus leptorhynchus excavated from above site

Plate J3. Excavating a burrow adjacent to the St Patricks River from amongst Nothofagus cunninghamii- Leptospermum lanigerum riparian forest

Plate J4. (LHS) Adult male Engaeus leptorhynchus excavated from adjacent to the St Patricks River Plate J5. (RHS) Juvenile Engaeus leptorhynchus excavated from adjacent to the St Patricks River

Ecological Assessment of Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Camden Dam), Tasmania 69 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

APPENDIX K. Commentary on growling grass frog (Litoria raniformis)

SEMF (2012) made the following statements regarding Litoria raniformis (herein the growling grass frog but otherwise known as the green and golden frog in Tasmania): “There are relatively few areas of only potential habitat for this species in the Survey Area (Figure 15). [which was described in their summary as “medium quality breeding and over-wintering habitat associated with wetlands in the Survey Area”] Call-back surveys (using 3 sites within the Survey Area; Figure 15) were conducted during the March survey to determine if the species is present at the site as night-time direct searches failed to locate any animals. No frogs of this species were recorded (either directly or indirectly) in the Survey Area during the survey. Despite the lack of success in identifying green and gold frogs at the site during call- back and targeted searches there remains the slim possibility that this species may inhabit, in low numbers or in periods of extended rainfall, the wetland habitats in the Survey Area. Most of the potential habitat for this species present within the Survey Area will be affected by the dam construction; • 2.7 hectares of potential habitat is present within the Survey Area; • 2.2 hectares of this will be inundated by the dam (cleared and converted); and an additional • 0.3 hectares will be temporarily affected when the dam is at estimated maximum full supply level. Further call-back surveys and searches of suitable habitat should be conducted in October – December (peak calling season during the breeding phase for the species) to determine if this species is present in the Survey Area. If green and gold frog is present in the dam footprint, or surrounding area, the slow filling of the dam should enable the species to relocate. Indeed, the dam itself could have a beneficial impact to the species as it would create a waterbody which would become colonised by rushes and other aquatic vegetation. It is very unlikely that the dam construction and operation would impact on the ability of this species to use (eg. breed, over-winter and/or feed), or migrate through, the general area. Although no frogs of this species were recorded (either directly or indirectly) in the Survey Area during the survey there is potential habitat for this species within the Survey Area. Most of the potential habitat for this species identified in the Survey Area (2.7 hectares) will be affected by dam construction; • • 2.2 hectares of this will be inundated by the dam (cleared and converted); and an additional • • 0.3 hectares will be temporarily affected when the dam is at estimated maximum full supply level. The loss of potential habitat may need to be offset by the development and implementation of a reserve within the region that protects and suitably manages a commensurate amount of habitat for the species. To better inform the decision making process of the need to offset habitat further field work including call-back surveys and searches of suitable habitat should be conducted in October – December (peak calling season during the breeding phase for the species) to determine if this species is present in the Survey Area. If the species is present then

Ecological Assessment of Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Camden Dam), Tasmania 70 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

a more detailed assessment of impact of the project on the species will need to be made”. While some information sources indicate that the project area (Camden Dam area) is within the potential range of the species (e.g. FPA 2015; DPIPWE 2015a, CofA 2015), this takes an extremely conservative approach. Oddly, descriptions of potential habitat also do not include an elevational threshold (e.g. FPA 2015), for example: “Potential habitat for the Green and Gold Frog is permanent and temporary waterbodies, usually with vegetation in or around them. Potential habitat includes features such as natural lagoons, permanently or seasonally inundated swamps and wetlands, farm dams, irrigation channels, artificial water-holding sites such as old quarries, slow-flowing stretches of streams and rivers and drainage features” (FPA 2015). On this basis, the conclusions drawn by SEMF (2012) appear reasonable, although the recognition of the “wetland” associated with the Camden Rivulet is not supported by comparisons of the site to known sites for the species in Tasmania. An analysis of records of Litoria raniformis held in DPIPWE’s Natural Values Atlas database indicate that the species is entirely restricted to lowland areas. Examination of a subset of data from northeast Tasmania indicated the elevation of the records (176) ranges from 10-293 m a.s.l. (excluding two unreliable records) and only seven are between 200-293 m a.s.l. (the latter from the “upper Ringarooma” catchment, where the species appears to extend to slightly higher elevations due to extensive land clearing with a plethora of farm dams). In my opinion, potential habitat of Litoria raniformis does not need to be taken into account as part of further land use planning for the Camden Dam part of the Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme.

Ecological Assessment of Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Camden Dam), Tasmania 71 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

APPENDIX L. Presence of “Alpine Sphagnum Bogs and Associated Fens”

Classification of “moss patches”

SEMF (2012) identified that “Alpine Sphagnum Bogs and Associated Fens”, listed as Threatened Ecological Community under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, occurred in their study area, noting it was “restricted to the oxbows and channel overflows associated with Camden Rivulet at the northern section of the Survey Area”. An extract from SEMF (2012) is provided below (Figure L1), which indicates that their mapping of the EPBCA-listed community (purple hatching) entirely overlaps with their mapping of the TASVEG mapping unit “fresh water aquatic sedgeland and rushland” (ASF) in the northern part of the proposed dam area (Figure L2 indicates that not all areas of ASF were mapped as the EPBCA-listed entity). SEMF (2012) noted that these areas occupied by Alpine Sphagnum Bogs and Associated Fens “have deep peaty soils that are waterlogged for prolonged periods and are dominated by the sedge Carex gaudichaudiana with sub-dominant Baumea acuta and Schoenus fluitans”. The classification of some areas of vegetation as Alpine Sphagnum Bogs and Associated Fens has potentially significant implications under the provisions of the EPBCA. Unfortunately, SEMF (2012) did not provide a detailed description of the areas mapped as this community and equated the TASVEG mapping unit ASF to it, which is not in accordance with published information (e.g. Kitchener & Harris 2013). ECOtas was engaged to investigate the extent of areas mapped as Alpine Sphagnum Bogs and Associated Fens by SEMF (2012) and to discuss potential management implications. The area supporting the so-called EPBCA entity is poorly-drained grassy-sedgy open terrain along the fringes of the Camden Rivulet south of Diddleum Road (Figure L1). This area was assessed on 29 January 2015 and 4 February 2015 by Mark Wapstra, re-examined on 5 February by Mark Wapstra and Kathryn Pugh, and further assessed on 6 February 2015 by Mark Wapstra.

Figure L1. Extract of SEMF (2012), which shows the overlap of the TASVEG ASF mapping (blue) with the mapping of Alpine Sphagnum Bogs and Associated Fens (purple hatching) surrounded by TASVEG GPH

Ecological Assessment of Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Camden Dam), Tasmania 72 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Figure L2. Extract of SEMF (2012), which shows not all areas mapped as ASF were also classified as Alpine Sphagnum Bogs and Associated Fens

By way of background, it is noted that no a priori assumption was made as to the veracity of the classification and mapping by SEMF (2012), the area was simply assessed to ascertain the potential management implications. However, on initial assessment it became clear that the extent of vegetation obviously dominated by species of Sphagnum moss were extremely limited and that the classification of such large areas as Alpine Sphagnum Bogs and Associated Fens may not be justified. The following statements are taken, almost verbatim, from CofA (2009) and may have relevance to the present project area. The "Alpine Sphagnum Bogs and Associated Fens" ecological community occurs in small pockets in Tasmania, Victoria, New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory. It consists of highly fragmented, isolated remnants, and its present geographic extent is restricted. Most (but not all) examples of the listed community are situated within national parks and other conservation related land tenure. The community is typically found in alpine, subalpine and montane environments, often (but not always) above the climatic treeline. It is important to note that the limit of tree vegetation is variable depending on topographic features and localised climatic conditions, such as the degree of cold air drainage at individual sites that may prevent the growth of trees. Consequently, the ecological community also occurs at sites with

Ecological Assessment of Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Camden Dam), Tasmania 73 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

lower elevations, where local conditions and vegetation are equivalent to those of true alpine sites. ‘Frost hollows’ and ‘inverted treelines’ are common. As the name suggests, the Alpine Sphagnum Bogs and Associated Fens ecological community can usually be defined by the presence or absence of sphagnum moss, even though it is not always the dominant genus. However, there are some sites in the listed community where sphagnum moss is only a minor component, and the vegetation is dominated by shrubs or species such as Empodisma minus. There are also sites where sphagnum moss has been depleted or lost due to disturbance. In these cases, the site may still be considered to be part of the listed community if other key species are present, and an underlying layer of peat is evident. The community contains a number of recognised variants, changing in a predictable progression from the hillsides down to the valley floor. Bogs are found in permanently wet areas, such as along streams, valley edges and valley floors. They are also situated on slopes where soils are waterlogged. The key to bog formation is a good supply of groundwater and an impeded drainage system that keeps the water table at or near the surface. Permanently wet areas provide suitable habitat for the growth of Epacris and other shrub species. Along with sphagnum moss, these plants form a slightly domed ‘raised’ bog. A ‘raised’ bog is a dynamic community that oscillates through a cycle of herbs and shrubs on the hummocks and hollows that characterise this landscape. Carex sedges may replace some shrubs at the edges of valleys and on valley floors. In these locations, the vegetation forms a flatter, more concave ‘valley’ bog. Fens are semi-permanent to permanent pools of water, typically found in the wettest areas along watercourses or on valley floors. These conditions generally do not favour the growth of some sphagnum moss species, so in these locations the listed ecological community tends to be dominated by sedges. The Alpine Sphagnum Bogs and Associated Fens ecological community contains many endemic plant species, as well as providing significant habitat for a number of endemic and threatened animals. An indicative list of plant species commonly found in the bog and fen components of the listed ecological community on mainland Australia and in Tasmania is presented at Tables 1 and 2 respectively. (Please note that this list is not comprehensive.) The plants identified are not necessarily found in every occurrence of the ecological community, and other species may also be present. In general, alpine and subalpine regions are found above 1,600 m a.s.l. on mainland Australia, and above 800 m a.s.l. in Tasmania. However, as previously stated, the climatic treeline is variable depending on topographical features and localised climatic conditions such as the degree of cold air drainage at individual sites. For example, this ecological community is known to exist at 1,200 m a.s.l. in Victoria, and as low as 1000 m a.s.l. in parts of NSW and the ACT. On the basis of the above description, obviously intended as a guideline only, the study area would not support Alpine Sphagnum Bogs and Associated Fens because it is well below the “treeline” and at c. 570 m elevation, well below the nominal and arbitrary elevational thresholds. Note that the description of MSP in Kitchener & Harris (2013) indicates that it “generally [occurs] above 600 m”. However, it is recognised that the study site may represent a lower elevation “frost hollow”. CofA (2009) does not provide direct guidance on the classification of the ecological community in Tasmania, especially with respect to the threshold size of patches. However, CofA (2009) does note that the TASVEG equivalent to the EPBCA-listed entity is “Sphagnum peatland” (TAVEG code: MSP). For the record, CofA (2009) does not equate any occurrences of Alpine Sphagnum Bogs and Associated Fens to the TASVEG mapping units “fresh water aquatic sedgeland and rushland” (ASF)

Ecological Assessment of Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Camden Dam), Tasmania 74 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting nor “highland Poa grassland” (GPH), although Sphagnum patches are definitely known from the latter in other parts of the State (e.g. Surrey Hills subalpine grasslands). From Forest to Fjaeldmark: Descriptions of Tasmania’s Vegetation (Kitchener & Harris 2013) does provide some guidance on patch size. They note that the community can “range in size from small patches to > 5 ha” but that “Sphagnum peatlands are generally greater than 0.1 ha where edaphic and hydrologic factors sustain the peatland, thus distinguishing them from moss patches”. For illustrative purposes a 10 x 10 m “moss patch” equates to only 0.01 ha, giving some indication of the size of area intended to meet the concept of MSP (and therefore the EPBCA-listed entity). On this basis alone, the “moss patches” associated with the poorly-drained area along the Camden Rivulet do not qualify as MSP (see Table L1 that indicates the size of each “moss patch”, Figure L3 for the contextual distribution of the patches, which shows they are discontinuous; and Plates L1-L5 for annotated images of each patch). Setting aside the arbitrary areal thresholds under Kitchener & Harris (2013), which are clearly indicated as a guideline only, and returning to the description in CofA (2009), which states: “The Alpine Sphagnum Bogs and Associated Fens ecological community can usually be defined by the presence or absence of sphagnum moss, even though it is not always the dominant genus. However, there are some sites in the listed community where sphagnum moss is only a minor component, and the vegetation is dominated by shrubs or species such as Empodisma minus. There are also sites where sphagnum moss has been depleted or lost due to disturbance. In these cases, the site may still be considered to be part of the listed community if other key species are present, and an underlying layer of peat is evident”. This concept that sites that may be classified as the EPBCA-listed entity may not have Sphagnum species as obviously dominant is supported by the TASVEG description of MSP, which states (Kitchener & Harris 2013): “Sphagnum peatlands can be almost pure moss beds, dominant or co-dominant with the sedges Empodisma minus, Baloskion australe, Gahnia grandis and Gymnoschoenus sphaerocephalus, with Gleichenia alpina and/or the shrubs Richea scoparia, Richea gunnii, Baeckea gunniana, Epacris serpyllifolia and/or E. gunnii” and “Occasional Eucalyptus rodwayi, E. gunnii, E. coccifera, E. subcrenulata, E. urnigera and/or Leptospermum lanigerum may be present”. In some ways, the site within the proposed project area tends to these two descriptions (in that Sphagnum is clearly not obvious but the ground remains poorly-drained, the site is in a “frost hollow” and some of the indicator species are present). However, the absence of most (nearly all) of the Tasmania-specific indicator species from the site (with only Epacris gunnii (but that mainly in the better-drained sites adjacent to the poorly-drained terrain), Gahnia grandis and Leptospermum lanigerum being present) suggests that the community is not present. Support for this comes from the more detailed statement in Kitchener & Harris (2013) that states: “The peatlands include species of Sphagnum…with at least 30% ground cover”. The Forest Practices Authority’s information sheet on MSP uses this 30% threshold to provide on- ground guidance as to whether a site supports this threatened non-forest TASVEG mapping unit (FPA 2011). Apart from at a highly localised scale, no part of the part of the poorly-drained “grassland/sedgeland” flat associated with the Camden Rivulet meets this 30% threshold.

Ecological Assessment of Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Camden Dam), Tasmania 75 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Table L1. Locations of moss patches

patch easting northing area plate

1 539207 5425019 c. 1 x 1 m L1 1 539306 5424914 c. 10 x 4 m L2, L3 2 539321 5424903 c. 5 x 3 m L4 3 539347 5424908 c. 10 x 3 m L5 TOTAL 86 m2 = 0.0086 ha

Figure L3. Location of “moss patches” amongst the sedgeland/grassland (cross-reference to Table L1 for sites)

In my opinion, the project area does not support “Alpine Sphagnum Bogs and Associated Fens”, as intended by the description of this Threatened Ecological Community under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, because the site: (a) is below 600 m elevation (not a deciding factor in its own right); (b) supports “moss patches” rather than extensive areas of vegetation dominated by Sphagnum (or once dominated by Sphagnum or with only sub-surface expression of Sphagnum as peat); (c) does not support key indicator vascular plant species often associated with the concept of MSP; and (d) no areas are directly referrable to the TASVEG mapping unit “Sphagnum peatland” (MSP). In my opinion, no referral to the Commonwealth Department of the Environment is warranted under the Significant Impact Guidelines because the Threatened Ecological Community “Alpine Sphagnum Bogs and Associated Fens” is not present.

Ecological Assessment of Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Camden Dam), Tasmania 76 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Revised classification of the “grassland/sedgeland”

This then leads to the question of the veracity of the vegetation mapping across the flats and associated slopes associated with the Camden Rivulet. SEMF (2012) mapped this area as a combination of “fresh water aquatic sedgeland and rushland” (ASF) and “highland Poa grassland” (GPH). I disagree with the mapping of ASF: I concur that the low-lying poorly-drained areas are dominated by sedge (Carex) species (Plates L6 & L7). SEMF (2012) indicated that the dominant sedge is Carex gaudichaudiana along with Baumea acuta – I argue that Carex divisa is easily the dominant Carex species, with C. gaudichaudii and/or C. polyantha as sub-dominant to occasional, and I did not record any species of Baumea. Kitchener & Harris (2013) clearly indicate that ASF is a “proper” wetland community that is periodically inundated: I do not believe that the site in question gets properly inundated per se and it is lacking in vascular species typical of sites with free-standing water. In my opinion, the sedge-dominated flats are best classified as “highland grassy sedgeland” (MGH). Kitchener & Harris (2013) describe this unit as occurring “on moderately poorly-drained sites, including frost hollows, usually between 600 m and 850 m…” and the “substrate is usually fertile and developed on basalt, dolerite, mudstone, limestone or alluvial sediments…” and that “the open structure may have been created by fire and maintained over time by periodic fire or grazing”. These descriptive phrases are a clear match for the Diddleum Road site. Interestingly, Kitchener & Harris cite Paradise Plains (several kilometres to the east) as a site supporting MGH, a location I visited as part of providing context to the classification of the present area. Kitchener & Harris (2013) also note that “the wet grassy sedgeland facies of MNGH dominated by Carex gaudichaudiana is distinguished from wetlands by the absence of aquatic species”, a situation entirely in accord with my species list for the site, which includes a high diversity of herbs, many of which are listed in the detailed description of MGH by Kitchener & Harris (2013). It is noteworthy that SEMF (2012) did consider the classification of areas they allocated to ASF to MGH, as follows: “This vegetation type has been allocated to the TASVEG ‘Freshwater aquatic sedgeland and rushland’ (ASF) mapping unit due to the presence of aquatic to semi-aquatic species, rather than the TASVEG Highland grassy sedgeland mapping unit (MGH, a threatened native vegetation community). The vegetation type lacks grass and sedge species more typical of a Highland grassy sedgeland community (e.g. Poa labillardierei, Lepidosperma filiforme and Baloskian [sic] australe). The vegetation association present qualifies as Wetlands (Freshwater aquatic sedgeland and rushland, ASF) community based on the Information Sheet issued by the Forest Practices Authority”. The delineation of the sedge-dominated poorly-drained terrain in this area, mapped as ASF by SEMF (2012), appears accurate (note that the extent of the community is likely to vacillate around its margins based on seasonal/annual changes in drainage cause by variation in rainfall/snow lie/temperatures). In my opinion, ASF need only be substituted by MGH in digital files and maps. The conservation implications are not significant as both ASF and MGH are classified as threatened under Schedule 3A of the Tasmanian Nature Conservation Act 2002. The management implications, however, are important because “offsetting” areas of “wetland” (i.e. ASF) is a very different matter to managing MGH. In the first instance, the artificiality of the patch of MGH needs to be considered i.e. it was probably created by forest clearing and then maintained by fire and grazing. On its own, this land use history should not strongly influence the concept of an offset because the patch “is what it is” and is likely to remain as such. Immediately adjacent to Diddleum Road, west of the proposed dam wall and the bridge across the Camden Rivulet is a broad expanse of low-lying poorly-drained ground, which supports, at least from a superficial examination, almost identical vegetation to that within the proposed dam footprint. The site is already fenced and may be ideal as a practical “in situ” offset (dependent on negotiations with the landowner).

Ecological Assessment of Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Camden Dam), Tasmania 77 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

I do not concur that the fringing areas all meet the intent of GPH, although this is very much a matter of interpretation. My reading of the site is that the Poa-dominated areas are so localised and generally restricted to the plantation margins (mainly on old tracks and firebreaks) and to un- planted swales between plantation patches, that they are better subsumed into the “plantations for silviculture” (FPL) mapping unit (Plates L8 & L9). More extensive areas of open grassy terrain clearly not dominated by Carex species (i.e. not mappable as MGH) may be better mapped as “regenerating cleared land” (FRG) or “agricultural land” (FAG), the former being more appropriate with the co-dominance of exotic and native grasses and re-colonisation by low native shrubs, rushes and sedges. There are implications for this classification because GPH is listed as threatened under Schedule 3A of the Tasmanian Nature Conservation Act 2002. Whichever classification is followed, in my opinion the areas dominated by Poa labillardierei within and fringing the Camden Rivulet flat do not warrant specific conservation management. In my opinion, the slight rises associated with the broad flat actually support an additional TASVEG mapping unit, namely “eastern alpine heathland” (HHE). These sites are dominated by Epacris gunnii (browsed low by deer and native mammals) and Acrothamnus montanus, with a high diversity of native grasses and herbs (Plates L10 & L11). The small patches have their strongest affinities to such vegetation on Paradise Plains (several kilometres to the east) and even the Poimena plateau on the Blue Tier but less affinity with typical HHE of the Central Plateau, Mount Wellington and Mount Field areas. HHE is not listed as threatened under Schedule 3A of the Tasmanian Nature Conservation Act 2002. The mosaic of HHE, MGH, “GPH”, “moss patches” and surrounding Leptospermum lanigerum- dominated swamp forest in many ways reflects the mosaic of these vegetation types at Paradise Plains, an extensive area of subalpine “grassland” long recognised for its unique composition in northeast Tasmania (e.g. Ellis 1985). For several decades the Paradise Plains grasslands have been subject to intended conservation management by Forestry Tasmania and ecological burns were planned for the mid 1990s. A University of Tasmania Honours project (Craven 1997) examined the ecology of the grasslands. To the best of my knowledge, ecological burning has not been undertaken as intended and my last site assessment (informally undertaken on 5 February 2015) indicated that the grassland (GPH) is rapidly succeeding to shrubland (HHE) and that the myrtle/teatree patches are encroaching at a measurable rate into the GPH/HHE. While the maintenance of anthropogenic grasslands is a philosophical argument, the conservation significance of Paradise Plains is well-recognised by Tasmanian botanists (F. Duncan pers. comm.). The inundation of the Camden Rivulet dam area will result in the loss of areas of GPH, MGH and other vegetation types. Offsetting using a “like for like” set of areas at a nominal offset ratio may be difficult to achieve in a practical sense. While setting aside the small area of MGH adjacent to Diddleum Road and west of Camden Rivulet may be achievable, this is only a small area. “Thinking outside the box” may provide an alternative offset that will provide a long-term conservation benefit to a range of vegetation types in the broader area. This is centred on Paradise Plains, as an area with a similar mosaic of vegetation types, that is in dire need of ecological management, principally ecological burning. While it is beyond the scope of the present document to “cost out” such a proposal, it is worth noting that the “ground work” is complete i.e. the ecological values of the Paradise Plains “grasslands” have been documented, the techniques for ecological management burns in subalpine grassland/shrubland are well-tested (e.g. Surrey Hills grasslands), and the practical, technical and botanical expertise is available. It is suggested that a consultant ecologist with skills in the management of subalpine native grassland, especially fire ecology, be engaged to prepare a fire/ecological management plan for Paradise Plains and that the plan be implemented by DPIPWE and Forestry Tasmania. In my opinion, this would provide a suitable offset for the loss of non-forest native vegetation (irrespective of their technical classifications and formal conservation statuses) within the Camden Rivulet dam footprint.

Ecological Assessment of Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Camden Dam), Tasmania 78 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

References for Appendix L CofA (Commonwealth of Australia) (2009) Alpine Sphagnum Bogs and Associated Fens: EPBC Act Policy Statement 3.16. Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra. CofA (Commonwealth of Australia) (2013). EPBC Act Policy Statement 1.1: Significant Impact Guidelines – Matters of National Environmental Significance. Department of the Environment, Canberra. Craven, B. (199x). The Subalpine Grasslands of Paradise Plains, Northeast Tasmania: The Influence of the Environment and Disturbance Regimes on Vegetation Patterns. Unpublished Honours thesis, Department of Geography & Environmental Studies, University of Tasmania, Hobart. Ellis, R.C. (1985). The relationships among eucalypt forest, grassland and rainforest in a highland area in north-eastern Tasmania. Australian Journal of Ecology 10: 297−314. Kitchener, A. & Harris, S. (2013). From Forest to Fjaeldmark: Descriptions of Tasmania’s Vegetation. Edition 2. Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water & Environment, Tasmania. SEMF (2012). Camden Rivulet Dam, Camden Plains, Ecological Assessment and Recommendations. Report to Tasmanian Irrigation Pty Ltd.

Plate L1. (LHS) Small moss patch (extent approximately indicated) – no evidence of moss extending into adjacent areas or of peaty ground Plate L2. (RHS) Larger moss patch (extent approximately indicated) – surrounding ground is “spongy” but several excavations indicated that this is due to waterlogging at the bases of Carex tussocks with no evidence of tendrils of Sphagnum present or of underlying deep peaty soils

Plate L3. (LHS) As per Plate L2 Plate L4. (RHS) Small moss patches (extent approximately indicated) adjacent to the dense wall of Leptospermum lanigerum (woolly teatree) – note that the Sphagnum did not appear to extend into the teatree swamp forest

Ecological Assessment of Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Camden Dam), Tasmania 79 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Plate L5. (LHS) This is perhaps the largest moss patch (extent approximately indicated), located adjacent to the wall of Leptospermum lanigerum – note that the adjacent Carex-dominated sward does not appear to support Sphagnum and is merely poorly-drained, any hint of “sponginess” coming from well-develop tussocks of Carex species

Plates L6 & L7. Overview of the Camden Rivulet flats showing the moasic of sedge-, grass- and teatree- dominated vegetation

Plates L8 & L9. These views are areas mapped as GPH by SEMF (2012), which in my opinion are better mapped as “regenerating cleared land” (FRG), “agricultural land” (FAG) or simply subsumed into the concept of the “plantations for silviculture” (FPL) mapping

Ecological Assessment of Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Camden Dam), Tasmania 80 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Plates L10 & L11. Fringe of heath-dominated “grassland” between the plantation and MGH – the area occurs on a slight rise, better-drained than the adjacent flats and the diversity of shrubs, herbs and grasses is significantly higher than in adjacent poorly-drained sedge-dominated terrain

Ecological Assessment of Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Camden Dam), Tasmania 81 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

APPENDIX M. DPIPWE’s Natural Values Atlas report for study area

Appended as pdf file.

APPENDIX N. Forest Practices Authority’s Biodiversity Values Atlas report for study area

Appended as pdf file.

APPENDIX O. CofA’s Protected Matters report for study area

Appended as pdf file.

OTHER ATTACHMENTS  .shp and/or .dwg file of vegetation mapping  .xls file of point locations of wombat burrows  .xls file of point locations of devil scats  .xls file of point locations of Sphagnum patches

Ecological Assessment of Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Camden Dam), Tasmania 82