2019 Rehabilitation Monitoring Report

2019 Rehabilitation

Monitoring Report

Report prepared for Bulga Coal Complex

28th November 2019

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction ...... 1

2.0 Methods...... 1 2.1 Site Layout ...... 3 2.2 BAM Vegetation Sampling ...... 3 2.3 Landscape Function Analysis ...... 4 2.4 Vegetation Community Walkover Assessment ...... 5 2.5 Pest Animal Monitoring ...... 6

3.0 Results and Discussion ...... 6 3.1 Rainfall Data ...... 6 3.2 BAM Vegetation Sampling ...... 7 3.2.1 Grey Box-Ironbark Woodland Sites ...... 8 3.2.2 Vegetation Attributes ...... 8 3.2.3 Vegetation Integrity Scores ...... 9 3.2.4 Floristic Composition ...... 10 3.2.5 Ironbark-Spotted Gum-Grey Box Woodland ...... 12 3.2.6 Vegetation Attributes ...... 12 3.2.7 Vegetation Integrity Scores ...... 13 3.2.8 Floristic Composition ...... 14 3.2.9 Swamp Oak Forest ...... 15 3.3 Landscape Function Analysis ...... 15 3.3.1 Landscape Organisation Index ...... 17 3.3.2 Soil Stability ...... 18 3.3.3 Soil Infiltration ...... 19 3.3.4 Soil Nutrients ...... 20 3.3.5 Sum of LFA ...... 21 3.4 Native/Weed Plant Composition ...... 22 3.4.1 Native Plant Species Diversity ...... 22 3.4.2 Weed Species Diversity ...... 23 3.5 Walkover Inspections ...... 26 3.5.1 EEA1 ...... 26 3.5.2 EEA2 ...... 29 3.5.3 EEA6 ...... 30 3.5.4 NVB1 ...... 31 3.5.5 NVB3 ...... 33 3.5.6 OTD1 ...... 34 3.5.7 OTD5 ...... 36 3.5.8 SE1 ...... 37 3.5.9 Germination of Species from the Seed Mix ...... 39 3.6 Pest Animals ...... 41

4.0 Rehabilitation Progress Towards Closure Criteria ...... 42 4.1 Trigger Action Response Plan ...... 49

5.0 Summary of Recommendations ...... 50 5.1 Weed Control ...... 50 5.2 Erosion and Sediment Control at EEA2 ...... 50 5.3 Pest Animal Management ...... 51

6.0 Conclusion ...... 51

7.0 References ...... 52

FIGURES

Figure 2.1 Location of 2019Rehabilitation Monitoring Sites and Target Vegetation Communities ..... 2 Figure 2.2 BAM Monitoring Plot Layout ...... 3 Figure 3.1 Vegetation Integrity Scores for GBIW Sites (2018-2019) ...... 6 Figure 3.2 Vegetation Integrity Scores for ISGGBW Sites (2018-2019) ...... 7 Figure 3.3 Vegetation Integrity Scores for GBIW Sites (2018-2019) ...... 10 Figure 3.4 Vegetation Integrity Scores for ISGGBW Sites (2018-2019) ...... 13 Figure 3.5 Landscape Organisation Index 2014-2019 ...... 17 Figure 3.6 Soil Stability Values 2014-2019 ...... 18 Figure 3.7 Soil Infiltration Values 2014-2019 ...... 19 Figure 3.8 Soil Nutrient Values 2014-2019...... 20 Figure 3.9 Sum of LFA Values 2019 ...... 21 Figure 3.10 Native Species Diversity 2016-2019 ...... 22 Figure 3.11 Composition of Native, Exotic and High Threat Exotic Weed Species, 2019 ...... 23 Figure 3.12 Composition of Native, Exotic and High Threat Exotic Weed Species, 2016-2019 ...... 24 Figure 3.13 Total % Cover of Weeds (Exotic and High Threat Exotic), 2019 ...... 25

APPENDICES

Appendix 1 Photo Monitoring Results ...... 53 Appendix 2 BAM Attribute Data ...... 63 Appendix 3 Flora Species List ...... 68 Appendix 4 Seed Mixes ...... 82 Appendix 5 Trigger Action Response Plan ...... 87

iii

1.0 Introduction

This document reports on the annual Rehabilitation Monitoring Program at Bulga Coal Complex (BCC). BCC is located approximately 12 kilometres south-west of Singleton in the Upper Hunter Valley of New South Wales. Bulga Coal comprises two coal mining operations, being Bulga Open Cut (BOC) and Bulga Underground Operations (BUO). BOC incorporates the Coal Handling and Preparation Plant and BUO incorporates the Blakefield Mine.

2.0 Methods

Prior to 2018, the monitoring program followed the Biometric methodology. In 2018, the NSW Department of Planning and Environment, Division of Resource and Geoscience recommended that BCC adopt the Biodiversity Assessment Methodology (BAM) to allow a comparison of onsite data to the updated benchmark values defined in the BioNet Vegetation Information System (VIS), managed by the Department of Planning Industry and Environment (DPIE).

Field surveys for the BCC Rehabilitation Monitoring Program were undertaken over three days from the 10 April to 17 April 2019. Eleven sites required monitoring, comprising three reference sites and eight rehabilitation sites, as shown in Table 1.1 and locations provided on Figure 2.1.

Table 1.1 Location of 2019 Monitoring Sites (MGA)

Site Vegetation Monitoring Monitoring Rehab PCT Location (MGA) Name Community Type Established Established BM20 GBIW 1603 325010; 6387103 Reference 2014 N/A BM23 SOF 1731 323021; 6384502 Reference 2014 N/A BM25 ISGBW 1604 322151; 6377683 Reference 2017 N/A EEA1 GBIW 1603 323873; 6384736 Rehabilitation 2017 May 2017 EEA2 GBIW 1603 323612; 6385370 Rehabilitation 2018 Mar 2018 EEA6 GBIW 1603 324679; 6383311 Rehabilitation 2019 Aug 2018 NVB1 GBIW 1603 318315; 6384537 Rehabilitation 2015 Dec 2014 NVB3 GBIW 1603 319342; 6381221 Rehabilitation 2015 Nov 2016 OTD1 ISGBW 1604 322190; 6379313 Rehabilitation 2017 Nov 2016 OTD5 ISGBW 1604 323406; 6379360 Rehabilitation 2015 Dec 2015 SE1* ISGBW 1604 321232; 6380209 Rehabilitation 2007 Dec 2007 * SE1 was not targeted at a particular community, however this community is trending towards an ISGGBW. Vegetation community abbreviations: GBIW: Grey Box-Ironbark Woodland; SOF: Swamp Oak Forest; ISGBW: Ironbark- Spotted Gum-Grey Box Woodland; RGW: Red Gum Woodland.

Ü BM20

EEA2

EEA1 NVB1 BM23

EEA6

NVB3

SE1

OTD1 OTD5

Legend Rehabilitation Monitoring Site

Reference Monitoring Site BM25 Grey Box-Ironbark Woodland Ironbark-Spotted Gum-Grey Box Woodland Swamp Oak FOrest Pasture Void Water Offset Area Approved Disturbance Boundary Public Road

Kilometers 0 0.250.5 1 1.5 2

Figure 2.1. Location of 2019 Rehabilitation Monitoring Sites and Target Vegetation Communities 2.1 Site Layout

A BAM site layout, adopted in 2018, incorporates previous BCC monitoring site locations where possible. The standard plot layout incorporates a 20m by 50m plot, including a nested 20m by 20m plot, 50m central transect and five 1m by 1m litter plots, as shown in Figure 2.2. Monitoring methods undertaken within each plot and transect are outlined in Section 2.2.

The plot/transect starts on the upper slope and runs directly down slope, this is a requirement for LFA monitoring. Permanent markers (such as star pickets) were placed at either end of the 50m transect and at 20m to identify the plots. Figure 2.2 shows the site layout.

20mx20m nested plot 1mx1m sub-plots (5, 15, 25, 35, 45)

Star picket Photo point

LFA transect 20m Star picket

50m

Figure 2.2. BAM Monitoring Plot Layout

2.2 BAM Vegetation Sampling

The BAM Vegetation Sampling method has been adopted to compare the results of the monitoring program to a standard vegetation assessment methodology (OEH 2018a). The BAM allows a direct comparison of survey results to the BioNet Vegetation Information System (VIS) database. The VIS database provides detailed information on hundreds of Plant Community Types (PCT) throughout NSW and is updated and managed by DPIE. BAM determines scores based on entering the data collected for Compositional, Structural and Functional attributes of each site into the BAM Calculator (OEH 2018b). This generates a score referenced against the target PCT for each attribute. An Integrity Score is generated which indicates the difference between the attribute scores combined with those of the target PCT. A score of 100 for an attribute or integrity score indicates that a site has achieved the benchmark conditions determined for the target PCT. A score of 50 indicates a site provides 50 percent of the benchmark attributes, or difference from the benchmark, determined for the target PCT.

The BAM was undertaken at each of the 11 plot sites (Figure 2.1). BAM involves assessing vegetation condition based on the Compositional, Structural and Functional attributes of a site (OEH 2018a).

These attributes are measured by:

Composition: the number of native plant species (richness) observed within a 20m x 20m plot. Each

3 species must be allocated to a growth form group (tree/shrub/grass/forb/fern) and determined as native, exotic, or high threat exotic;

Structure: an estimate of the foliage cover for each native and exotic species present within the 20m x 20m plot;

Function: the number of large stems, stem size class, tree regeneration, length of logs and litter cover. Methods for each feature is described below. • No. of large stems is a count of all living trees in the stem size classes <5, 5–9 cm, 10–19 cm, 20–29 cm and 30–49 cm, 50-79, and 80+ DBH, within a 20mx50m plot, and include all species in the tree growth form group. Stem size diversity is based on the presence or absence of living tree stems within size classes that fall between regenerating stems (<5cm DBH) and the large tree benchmark DBH sizes. • Tree regeneration is based on the presence or absence of living trees with stems <5 cm DBH, within the 20m x 50m plot. • Length of fallen logs is the total length in metres of all woody material greater than 10cm in diameter that is dead and entirely or in part on the ground within the 20m x 50m plot. • Litter cover is assessed as the average percentage ground cover of litter recorded from five 1m x 1m plots evenly located along the central transect within the 20m x 50m plot. • No. tree hollows is estimated by counting the number of trees with hollows visible from the ground in the 20m x 50m plot. The number of trees with hollows includes both living and dead trees.

2.3 Landscape Function Analysis

Landscape Function Analysis (LFA) is a technique used to monitor the health of landscapes, particularly in areas of disturbance. LFA uses simple visual assessment of both physical and biological landscape components (mostly in relation to surface hydrology), that can be readily replicated in order to determine changes to the landscape within a site and develop value limits, over time, for specific landscape components. The LFA methodology has been developed in accordance with Tongway and Hindley (2004).

Landscape Function Analysis (LFA) was undertaken at each of the 11 monitoring sites. LFA methodology involves collecting data, along a 50m transect on a decline slope, at a coarse scale (landscape organisation) and fine scale (soil surface assessment). Ground cover types (patches and inter-patches) are identified along each transect.

The landscape organisation index (LOI) is the proportion of the length of patch (i.e. stable structures such as vegetation) to the total length of the transect. For example, if the transect is an entire patch (i.e. a continuous grassland), the index would score 100. In comparison, a totally bare (interpatch) transect would score a value of 0 (zero). A landscape with high functionality has high retention of vital resources such as water, topsoil and organic matter, whereas low functionality implies that some of these resources are vulnerable to loss from the system.

To determine the soil surface assessment, approximately five replicates of each ground cover type along the transect (patch and interpatch) are recorded using the eleven key soil surface assessment indicators, being:

1. Rain splash protection; 2. perennial vegetation cover; 3. litter cover, origin and degree of decomposition; 4. cryptogam cover; 5. crust brokenness; 6. erosion features; 7. deposited materials; 8. micro topography; 9. surface resistance to erosion; 10. soil texture, and 11. slaking characteristics.

The data collected from the above soil surface assessment indicators were entered into the LFA Excel spreadsheet template. The spreadsheet calculates values for stability, infiltration and nutrient functions (critical measures) of each site. Values are presented as percentages of the maximum available score of each critical measure with 100 representing the highest possible score.

It should be noted that LFA does not automatically classify a site as being in either good, moderate or poor condition. The significance of the numerical values comes from comparing disturbed sites with reference sites and developing a value range for each critical measure at each site. Values generated do not provide the functional state, this is dependent upon the ecosystem being assessed (i.e. a stability value less than 20 may represent a dysfunctional grassland however may represent a functional woodland).

At each LFA site, the following information was also recorded in order to be measured against the Closure Criteria:

• one permanent photo monitoring point. Photos were taken from the start of the transect, facing along the length of the transect; • slope angle and aspect; • number of rills/gullies greater than one metre width or depth along the 50m transect; • general erosion at the site; • drainage structures are functioning appropriately and are in accordance with the final landform plan; and • the location of bare areas greater than 400m2, including at risk areas, where soil testing may be required.

2.4 Vegetation Community Walkover Assessment

A walkover assessment was undertaken at each of the eight rehabilitation sites, covering an area of approximately two hectares directly around each monitoring site. The assessments aimed to

5 determine the likely vegetation community establishing and to provide management recommendations for assisting the establishing vegetation progress towards the target PCT.

Information was gathered on dominant species in each structural layer, density of vegetation in each structural layer, barriers to the area progressing towards the target PCT and likely outcome if no action is taken.

2.5 Pest Animal Monitoring

Pest animal monitoring was undertaken at each of the 11 monitoring sites. A search for evidence of pest animals was undertaken throughout the 20m by 50m monitoring plot, targeting scats, tracks, diggings, prey carcass and/or bones. The likely species and an estimate of abundance and impact was recorded.

3.0 Results and Discussion

The results of the field surveys, and relevant discussion points are provided in the following sections. The results of the photo monitoring are provided in Appendix 1.

3.1 Rainfall Data

Rainfall patterns can have a marked influence on the results of vegetation monitoring, and therefore it is important to consider the influence of rainfall when interpreting the observed results. Rainfall data recorded at the BCC meteorological station (2018-2019) is provided in Figure 3.1. This data shows that the average monthly rainfall recorded for the three months prior to undertaking the 2019 rehabilitation monitoring (Jan-March) was 46.53mm, while in 2018 this was slightly lower at 37.87mm.

Figure 3.1. Total Monthly Rainfaill, 2018-2019

Figure 3.2 provides the total annual rainfall recorded at the Bulga weather station (station number 061143), sourced from the Bureau of Meteorology (2019). This data indicates that there is a clear declining trend in rainfall from 2017. Note that the total November and December data is not currently available for 2019.

Figure 3.2 Total Annual Rainfall 2013-2019

3.2 BAM Vegetation Sampling

The BAM attribute data for each site is provided in Appendix 2, while the full flora list from the monitoring is provided in Appendix 3. The key results of the BAM vegetation sampling for each PCT are summarised and discussed in the following sections.

Under the BAM, benchmark values for attributes are available for each PCT. These benchmarks are the reference state of best available examples of that PCT and can be used to compare the relative condition of the vegetation at a subject site.

The Closure Criteria for BCC currently states that the rehabilitation is required to achieve a Biometric Score of 2, which is equivalent to 50-100 percent of the benchmark value for attributes of a PCT under the new BAM approach. Therefore, the minimum target value for the rehabilitation sites has been set at 50 per cent of the BAM benchmark values. Table 3.1 defines the colour coding used to display the results of the BAM assessment against the Closure Criteria target, where green indicates achieving the benchmark value (≥50 percent), orange achieving between 25-49 percent of the benchmark value and red 0-24 percent of the benchmark value. Reference site BAM scores have also been included to allow comparison of the condition of the remnant vegetation in the surrounding area to that of the rehabilitation.

Table 3.1. Colour Code Against BAM Benchmark Values

Table Key Recorded value is ≥50% of the BAM benchmark value (target has been met) value is 25-49% of the BAM benchmark value (tracking towards, but not yet achieved target) value is 0-24% of the BAM benchmark value (target not yet achieved)

3.2.1 Grey Box-Ironbark Woodland Sites 3.2.2 Vegetation Attributes

A total of six sites targeted at a Grey Box-Ironbark Woodland were monitored in 2019, including one reference site (BM20) and five rehabilitation sites (EEA1, EEA2, EEA6, NVB1 and NVB3). The Target PCT for these sites is PCT1603: Narrow-leaved Ironbark - Bull Oak - Grey Box shrub - grass open forest of the central and lower Hunter. This PCT conforms to threatened ecological community (TEC) Central Hunter Grey Box-Ironbark Woodland in the NSW North Coast and Sydney Basin Bioregions Endangered Ecological Community (EEC), listed under the NSW Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (BC Act). Table 3.2 provides the BAM assessment results for each site. Note: HTE is High Threat Exotic, refers to invasive or significant weed species from the BAM.

Table 3.2. Monitoring Sites’ performance against BAM Benchmark Values for Grey Box – Ironbark Woodland (PCT1603)

Bulga Reference Rehabilitation Attribute Benchmark Target (50% Value BM20 EEA1 EEA2 EEA6 NVB1 NVB3 BAM) Tree 5 2.5 3 7 5 6 5 7 Richness Tree Cover 53 26.5 40.1 34.5 22.1 11.1 27.3 18.2 Shrub 8 4 4 7 14 11 5 9 Richness Shrub Cover 16 8 2.4 15.5 29 8.1 24 11.6 Grass 12 6 13 7 13 10 7 5 Richness Grass Cover 58 29 25.7 34.7 69.6 89.8 18.2 47.2 Forb 14 7 22 4 7 4 5 8 Richness Forb Cover 9 4.5 7.4 7.2 14.3 0.4 0.7 2.8 Fern 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 Richness Fern Cover 1 0.5 0.3 0 0 0 0 0.1 Other 5 2.5 2 3 2 2 0 0 Richness Other Cover 4 2 0.2 0.3 1.1 0.2 0 0 Total length of fallen logs 40 20 24 3 3 4 0 0 (m) Litter Cover 40 20 40 4.6 6.4 7 5.4 7 % No. of Large 3 1.5 2 0 1 0 0 1

Trees Number of trees with - - 1 0 1 0 0 1 hollows HTE - - 4 3 5 2 5 4 Richness HTE Cover - <33% 2.4 0.3 7.2 0.2 26.2 0.8

The results presented in Table 3.2 indicate that the rehabilitation is performing well overall considering the relatively early stage of establishment for most sites. The current data for the rehabilitation sites indicates they all achieved the target for tree richness, shrub richness and cover and grass richness in 2019. However, all five rehabilitation sites have not yet achieved the target values for other cover, fern cover, fallen logs or leaf litter cover. Leaf litter cover was low (<10 percent) at all rehabilitation sites. Fallen timber was not recorded at NVB1 or NVB3 however small amounts of fallen timber were recorded in the surrounding area as part of the walkover inspections. Lower values for these understorey attributes are not unusual in early stage rehabilitation and should improve as the rehabilitation matures. Sites EEA2, EEA6 and NVB3 provide a good diversity of canopy species however at this early stage of rehabilitation the canopy trees are not providing adequate cover. This should improve at these sites as the trees mature.

As discussed in Section 3.1, total annual rainfall has been in decline since 2017 (compared with previous years), and the low results for cover in the grass, other and fern growth form categories at reference site BM20 reflects this. The photo monitoring photos for BM20 (Appendix 1) provide visual evidence of a decline in understorey. The rehabilitation sites don’t appear to be as strongly influenced by the dry conditions, particularly when looking at the photo monitoring evidence.

Continued management of weed species should be maintained throughout the rehabilitation area. No further management actions are recommended at this stage. Future management actions such as direct seeding/planting and addition of woody debris may be required at some sites if the values for other cover, fern cover, fallen logs or leaf litter cover remain low.

3.2.3 Vegetation Integrity Scores

The BAM composition, structure and function scores for all Grey Box – Ironbark Woodland sites are provided in Appendix 2. Figure 3.3 displays the overall Vegetation Integrity (VI) scores against the target benchmark value of 50 percent, along with the 2018 scores where available.

Figure 3.3. Vegetation Integrity Scores for GBIW Sites (2018-2019)

The VI score for the reference site (BM20) is 75.2, which exceeds the target benchmark value. Rehabilitation site EEA2 slightly exceeds the benchmark score, despite having only been established in 2018. Sites EEA1, EEA6 (established 2017 and 2019 respectively), NVB1 and NVB3 (established 2015) all have a score of below 50 percent. The low understory diversity (in the forb, fern and other categories) and limited cover of leaf litter and fallen timber contributed to the lower VI score for the sites. Further monitoring is required to ensure the understorey component of the ecosystem develops over time. From Appendix 2, these four sites also have a very low Function Score, which relates to attributes such as hollows, leaf litter and coarse woody debris. As the rehabilitation areas mature, the functional attributes are likely to increase and improve the VI score. Despite not yet meeting the benchmark for VI, taking into account the early stage of establishment, these sites are considered to be generally trending towards the target PCT.

3.2.4 Floristic Composition

The BAM method collects floristic data, however the BAM scores do not allow comparison of species composition between the rehabilitation sites and the target PCT. The scores only determine diversity and cover of native species in each growth form group. As such, composition of native species at each site needs to be considered separately to ensure the community is trending towards the target PCT.

All rehabilitation sites (EEA1, EEA2, EEA6, NVB1 and NVB3) have a 5-10 percent cover of Spotted Gum (Corymbia maculata) indicating a closer resemblance to an Ironbark-Spotted Gum-Grey Box Woodland. Spotted Gum does not occur in or around the Grey Box-Ironbark Woodland reference site (BM20). Management actions are not currently required to progress the areas to a Grey Box- Ironbark Woodland, however if the canopy layer develops a dense cover and thinning is required then Spotted Gum (Corymbia maculata) should be targeted for thinning, or the target PCT for the area may need to change. Thinning of Spotted Gum (Corymbia maculata) should not be undertaken

10 where low numbers of canopy trees occur. Table 3.3 shows a summary of the composition of the structural layers forming at each monitoring site.

Table 3.3. Structural Composition at Each Monitoring Site

Vegetation Stratum Site Upper Mid Ground Reference Cover: 25% Cover: 20% Cover: <0.4m BM20 Height: 14m Height: 3-7m Height: 50% Species: Eucalyptus crebra, Species: E. crebra Species: Bothriochloa E. moluccana macra, Chloris ventricosa, Rehabilitation Cover: 10% Cover: 40% Cover: 50% Height: 1.5m Height: 0.5-1.2m Height: <0.4m Species: Acacia falcata, Species: Acacia decora, A. Species: Calotis EEA1 Corymbia maculata decurrens, A. falcata, lappulacea, Cynodon Corymbia maculata, E. dactylon, Panicum simile, blakelyi, E. crebra Setaria pumila, Vittidinia pustulata Cover: 30% Cover: 60% Height: 0.5-1.2m Height: <0.5m Species: Acacia decora, A. Species: Cynodon dactylon, EEA2 decurrens, Acacia Dichanthium sericeum, parvipinnula, Corymbia Digitaria divaricatissima, maculata, E. crebra Vittadinia pustulata, *Sida rhombifolia Cover: 80% Height: 0.3-0.8m Species: Cynodon dactylon, Acacia decora, EEA6 Bothriochloa macra, Corymbia maculata,

Cover: 30% Cover: 20% Cover: 60% Height: 2-3m Height: 1-1.5m Height: <1m Species: Acacia salicina, Species: Acacia Species: *Cenchrus Corymbia maculata, E. amblygona, A. decora, clandestinus, *Chloris NVB1 moluccana, Dodonaea viscosa gayana, Cynodon dactylon, *Megathyrsus maximus, *Setaria sphacelata Cover: 35% Cover: 70% Height: 0.8-2.5m Height: <0.8m Species: Acacia implexa, A. Species: Cydondon NVB3 salicina, A. decurrens, dactylon, Eriochloa

Vegetation Stratum Site Upper Mid Ground Corymbia maculata pseudoacrotricha, *Setaria pumila * indicates an introduced species

3.2.5 Ironbark-Spotted Gum-Grey Box Woodland 3.2.6 Vegetation Attributes

A total of four sites targeted at Ironbark-Spotted Gum-Grey Box Woodland were monitored in 2019, including one reference sites (BM25) and three rehabilitation sites (OTD1, OTD5 and SE1). The Target PCT for these sites is PCT1604: Narrow-leaved Ironbark - Grey Box - Spotted Gum shrub - grass woodland of the central and lower Hunter. This PCT conforms to the TEC Lower Hunter Spotted Gum—Ironbark Forest in the Sydney Basin Bioregion EEC, listed under the BC Act. Table 3.4 provides the BAM assessment results for each site.

Table 3.4. Monitoring Sites’ performance against BAM Benchmark Values for Ironbark – Spotted Gum - Grey Box Woodland (PCT1604)

Benchmark Bulga Target Reference Rehabilitation Attribute Value (50% BAM) BM25 OTD1 OTD5 SE1 Tree Richness 5 2.5 3 5 7 3 Tree Cover 53 26.5 45.1 17.6 50.2 40 Shrub Richness 8 4 11 9 5 1 Shrub Cover 16 8 39.1 15.5 15.6 1 Grass Richness 12 6 9 3 3 7 Grass Cover 58 29 6.9 50.1 50.2 2.6 Forb Richness 14 7 12 5 4 5 Forb Cover 9 4.5 12 1.4 0.8 2.8 Fern Richness 2 1 2 0 0 0 Fern Cover 1 0.5 0.2 0 0 0 Other Richness 5 2.5 3 2 2 2 Other Cover 4 2 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 Litter Cover % 40 20 82 1.2 20 57 Total length of 40 20 6 0 0 0 fallen logs (m) No. of Large 3 1.5 1 0 0 0 Trees Number of trees - - 0 0 0 0 with hollows HTE Richness - - 2 4 1 1 HTE Cover - <33% 0.2 2.3 0.2 0.1 Note: HTE is High Threat Exotic, refers to invasive or significant weed species from the BAM.

Table 3.4 indicates that the rehabilitation sites are generally progressing towards the target PCT, considering the early stage of establishment for most sites. These rehabilitation sites are within closure targets for tree richness and weed cover however they all scored low for forb, fern and other richness and cover, total length of fallen logs and number of large trees. Forb, ferns and other

12 species typically establish in later phases of rehabilitation and can be seeded or translocated in the future to increase the rate of establishment. Further monitoring will determine if and when forbs, ferns and other species require direct management. Action to establish these species is not required at this stage. Fallen timber was not recorded at the rehabilitation sites, however small amounts of fallen timber were recorded in the surrounding area as part of the walkover inspections.

OTD5 and SE1 provided moderate to good values for shrub richness/cover and good diversity of grass species was recorded at OTD1. Sites OTD1 and SE1 achieved the target values for leaf litter, which will assist in the development of the soil profile. Although OTD5 provided a low value for leaf litter, the density of shrubs and trees should increase the litter cover over time. OTD1 provided a low diversity and cover of shrubs.

As discussed in Section 3.1, total annual rainfall has been in decline since 2017 (compared with previous years), and the low results for cover in the grass, other and fern growth form categories at reference site BM25 reflects this. The photo monitoring photos for BM20 (Appendix 1) provide visual evidence of a decline in understorey. The rehabilitation sites don’t appear to be as strongly influenced by the dry conditions, particularly when looking at the photo monitoring evidence.

All sites recorded High Threat Exotic (HTE) species, discussed further in Section 3.3.2. Evidence of weed control was observed at the rehabilitation sites. Continued management of weed species should be maintained throughout the rehabilitation area. No further management actions are recommended at this stage.

3.2.7 Vegetation Integrity Scores

The BAM composition, structure and function scores for all Ironbark-Spotted Gum-Grey Box Woodland sites are provided in Appendix 2. Figure 3.4 displays the overall Vegetation Integrity (VI) scores against the target benchmark value of 50 percent, along with the 2018 scores where available.

Figure 3.4. Vegetation Integrity Scores for ISGGBW Sites (2018-2019)

The VI score for the reference site (BM25) exceeds the target benchmark value, however the rehabilitation sites have a score below 50 percent. Of the rehabilitation sites, OTD5 (established in 2015) provided the highest score for Composition and Structure and SE1 (established in 2007) provided the highest score for Function. OTD1 (established in 2017) had a higher Compositional and Structural score than SE1 however had a low Functional score, which relates to attributes such as hollows, leaf litter and coarse woody debris. Functional attributes of a site will improve as the rehabilitation matures. Despite not yet meeting the benchmark for VI, taking into account the early stage of establishment, these sites are considered to be generally trending towards the target PCT.

3.2.8 Floristic Composition

All rehabilitation sites are trending towards the target PCT for canopy and shrub species. The ground cover provides a number of species that conform to the target PCT however the diversity is low to absent for forbs, ferns and other species, as previously mentioned. Appropriate management of HTE weed species will greatly assist in the development of ground cover species. Evidence of weed control was observed at the rehabilitation sites. Table 3.5 shows a summary of the composition of the structural layers forming at each monitoring sites.

Table 3.5. Structural Composition at Each Monitoring Site

Vegetation Stratum Site Upper Mid Ground Reference Cover: 50% Cover: 50% Cover: 30% Height: 16m Height: 1-3m Height: <0.5m BM25 Species: Corymbia Species: Acacia Species: Aristida ramosa, maculata, Eucalyptus amblygona, Acacia Cymbopogon refractus, crebra implexa, Bursaria spinosa, Laxmannia gracilis Lissanthe strigosa. Lomandra filiformis. Rehabilitation Cover: 40% Cover: 60% Height: 1.5-4m Height: <0.6m Species: Acacia decurrens, Species: Acacia A. falcata, A. implexa, A. amblygona, Cynodon OTD1 parvipinnula, A. salicina, dactylon, Eriochloa Corymbia maculata pseudoacrotrica, Sckhuria pinnata, *Setaria sphacelata, *Sida rhombifolia.

Vegetation Stratum Site Upper Mid Ground Reference Cover: 60% Cover: 40% Height: 1.5-2.5 Height: <0.6m Species: Acacia decurrens, Species: Cynodon OTD5 A. falcata, A. salicina, dactylon, Eriochloa Corymbia maculata, pseudoacrotricha, Eucalyptus blakelyi *Galenoa pubescens, *Sida rhombifolia Cover: 40% Cover: 20% Height: 8-10m Height: 0-0.5m Species: Corymbia Species: Cymbopogon SE1 maculata, Eucalyptus refractus, *Setaria crebra, E. moluccana parviflora, Vittadinia pustulata * indicates an introduced species

3.2.9 Swamp Oak Forest

One site monitored in 2019 is targeted at Swamp Oak Forest, being reference site BM23. This site occurs in regenerating Swamp Oak Forest along Nine Mile Creek. The Target PCT for this site was identified as PCT1731: Swamp Oak - Weeping Grass grassy riparian forest of the Hunter Valley.

The Integrity score of BM23 in 2019 was 51.9 and in 2018 is was 48.4. Identifying the range in scores for remnant vegetation will assist in determining if changes in rehabilitation are significant or part of a natural trend that is occurring across the landscape. BM23 provided a moderate Composition and Function score, being 61.2 and 50.6 respectively, however had a low Structural score of 45.1. BM23 provided moderate species diversity and large trees with hollows however provided low cover in the shrub and ground cover layer.

This area has previously been heavily grazed resulting in cleared vegetation and compact topsoil. The density of the canopy as a result of a regenerating forest and compact soils would contribute to the low cover of the shrub and groundcover layers. BM23 is located approximately 500 metres from the operation. No impact to vegetation at BM23 was recorded as a direct result of mining activities.

3.3 Landscape Function Analysis

A summary of the landscape and soil characteristics at each of the reference and rehabilitation monitoring sites is provided in Table 3.6.

Table 3.6. LFA Monitoring Site Characteristics

Site Monitoring Type Position in Slope Aspect Rills/ Soil Type Name (target PCT) Landscape (Degrees) (Bearing) Gullies >1m BM20 Reference (GBIW) Mid Slope 4 S Sandy Loam No BM23 Reference (SOF) Riparian 3 SW Sandy Loam No Reference BM25 Upper Slope 6 W Sandy Clay No (ISGBW) Rehabilitation EEA1 Lower Slope 10 NE Sandy Clay No (GBIW) Rehabilitation EEA2 Mid Slope 10 N Sandy Clay No (GBIW) Rehabilitation EEA6 Lower Slope 10 S Sandy Clay No (GBIW) Rehabilitation NVB1 Mid Slope 10 W Sandy Clay No (GBIW) Rehabilitation Sandy Clay NVB3 Lower Slope 9 SW No (GBIW) Loam Rehabilitation OTD1 Mid Slope 10 SW Sandy Clay No (ISGBW) Rehabilitation OTD5 Lower Slope 12 NE Sandy Loam No (ISGBW) Rehabilitation SE1 Upper Slope 0 N Sandy Clay No (ISGBW) Notes: GBIW: Grey Box – Ironbark Woodland; ISGBW: Ironbark – Spotted Gum – Grey Box Woodland; SOF: Swamp Oak Forest

The reference sites occur on gentle slopes which support established ecosystems with good ground cover and development of organic matter (leaf litter). The soil is moderately compact, which may be the result of past grazing practices. Erosion at sites BM20 and BM25 was negligible, however some creekbank erosion (resulting from past high-flow rainfall events) was observed at BM23. A moderate abundance of micro-habitats such as rocks and fallen timber was observed at the reference sites.

The rehabilitation sites have less developed vegetation strata, fewer microhabitats and less organic matter (leaf litter) build up, which is expected given that most are in the early stage of ecosystem establishment. The rehabilitation sites have a slightly higher abundance of bare areas compared to the reference sites, and the landscape is more open to erosion, has less stability and generally has poorer infiltration and nutrient cycling than the reference sites. The steeper slopes at rehabilitation sites compared with reference sites may also contribute to instability. Minor erosion (<200mm) was recorded at some rehabilitation sites, however sediment and erosion control work are not currently required at any site. The existing drainage structures are in accordance with the final landform plan at all monitoring sites. Contour drains at EEA2 where shallow however were still functioning as required. Bare areas greater than 400m2 were not recorded at any rehabilitation sites. All sites had a lower ground cover (and therefore more bare patches) than previous years.

The results of the LFA monitoring at each site are discussed in the following sections.

3.3.1 Landscape Organisation Index

Landscape organisation indices (LOI) are calculated by the length of the patch along the transect, divided by the length of that transect to provide a percentage (or indices) which is occupied by the functional patch areas (Tongway and Hindley 2004). A patch is an area where valuable resources such as soil and leaf litter tend to accumulate (such as grass, herbs and shrubs) whereas an interpatch is where resources are transported away (such as bare ground).

The LOI values at each monitoring site from 2014-2019 (where available) are provided in Figure 3.5 to demonstrate trends in the values over time.

Figure 3.5. Landscape Organisation Index 2014 - 2019

The 2014-2019 reference sites indicate high LOI values, due to moderate to high component of perennial vegetation with small areas of potential runoff and little evidence of erosion. Reference sites have consistently had an LOI score above 80 since 2014. These sites occur within established ecosystems with well-developed ground cover and organic matter (leaf litter). The Closure Criteria for Composition, Structure and Function states the rehabilitation sites should be trending towards local remnant vegetation (i.e. reference sites).

Rehabilitation sites EEA6 and NVB3 commenced relatively recently (2019 and 2015 respectively), however both sites had the highest LOI value at 84. These sites currently support a good cover of grasses and forbs in the understorey, in particular common couch (Cynodon dactylon). Organic material in the topsoil is evident and the soil profile is developing well in areas of dense grass, however there are bare areas where soil development is poor, particularly at NVB3.

Low LOI values less than 60 were recorded at NVB1 and SEI (being 59 and 24 respectively). The LOI value was considerably lower at SEI than any other reference or rehabilitation site in 2019 due to thinning of canopy species earlier in the year to address low understorey cover resulting from

17 shading. The thinning activity has resulted in some bare soil areas due to the ground disturbance, contributing to the lower LOI values. If shrub and groundcover species do not germinate, re-seeding translocation may be required. The low LOI at NVB1 may be owing to an abundance of small bare areas, particularly on contour banks. The groundcover was observed to be appropriately establishing during the walkover inspection.

Scores between 60 and 80, occurring at sites EEA1, EEA2, OTD1 and OTD5 provide a moderate LOI value which indicates the sites are currently trending towards the reference sites. These sites are all in early stages of rehabilitation. They had moderate to low groundcover and moderate surface crusting.

3.3.2 Soil Stability

The indices (or score) for soil stability are collated from several attributes recorded in the Soil Stability Assessment. These include soil cover, litter cover, cryptogram cover, crust broken-ness, erosion type and severity, deposited materials, surface resistance to disturbance and the slake test.

The Soil Stability values at each monitoring site from 2014-2019 (where available) are provided in Figure 3.6 to demonstrate trends in the values over time. The 2019 soil stability values for the reference sites were all within the range 70-76, showing a slight declining trend from previous years. The 2019 soil stability values for the rehabilitation sites were within the range 57-70, and the values have remained relatively stable since 2014. The stability values for both NVB1 and SEI have declined from 2018, while values for EEA1, NVB1, OTD1 and OTD5 slightly increased. Sites EEA2 and EEA6 are new sites and therefore have no past data for comparison. As discussed above, the lower values at SE1 may be related to the dense canopy supressing the understorey, along with the ground disturbance from the canopy thinning activities implemented to address this. The decline at NVB1 is likely due to changes in ground cover density associated with rehabilitation successional stages. Continued monitoring is required to determine if the site starts to trend toward reference site values over time.

Figure 3.6. Soil Stability Values 2014 – 2019

Following each LFA monitoring event, a benchmark range of values can be developed from the reference sites and compared to the progress of the rehabilitation. The Stability value range for the reference sites from 2014-2019 is 70 to 85, the results of the 2019 rehabilitation monitoring sites for Stability are provided in Table 3.7. The colour-coding relates to green achieving the reference site value, blue within 20 percent of the reference value, orange between 21-50 percent of the reference value and red below 50 percent of the reference value.

Table 3.7. Results of the Stability Value on Rehabilitation Sites from the 2018 LFA Survey

Rehabilitation Site EEA1 EEA2 EEA6 NVB1 NVB3 OTD1 OTD5 SE1 63 57 59 61 71 70 68 65

Sites NVB3 and OTD1 provide values within range of the 2014-2019 reference sites and all other rehabilitation sites provide values within 20 percent of the reference sites range. This indicates that the rehabilitation sites are trending towards the reference sites. A slightly lower value is expected from rehabilitation that is in early stages of establishment and is typically characterised by low ground cover, poor leaf litter development, crust formation and low level of deposited materials collected at patches (such as grass tussocks, shrubs and trees). These attributes should improve over time as the rehabilitation matures.

3.3.3 Soil Infiltration

Soil infiltration assesses the basal grass/canopy cover, litter cover, soil surface roughness, slake test and soil texture, to account for the ability of these factors to contribute to infiltration of water into the soil. The soil infiltration values at each monitoring site from 2014-2019 (where available) are provided in Figure 3.7 to demonstrate trends in the values over time.

Figure 3.7. Soil Infiltration Values 2014-2019

The 2019 Infiltration values for reference sites BM20 and BM25 were in range of previous years (48- 61), while BM23 was slightly lower at 47 points.

Following each LFA monitoring event, a benchmark range of values can be developed from the reference sites and compared to the progress of the rehabilitation. The Infiltration value range for the reference sites from 2014-2019 is 47 to 61, the results of the 2019 rehabilitation monitoring sites for Stability are provided in Table 3.8. The colour-coding relates to green achieving the reference site value, blue within 20 percent of the reference value, orange between 21-50 percent of the reference value and red below 50 percent of the reference value.

Table 3.8 Infiltration Values at Rehabilitation Sites from the 2019 LFA Survey

Rehabilitation Site EEA1 EEA2 EEA6 NVB1 NVB3 OTD1 OTD5 SE1 42 53 63 38 55 49 45 39

Sites EEA2, EEA6, NVB3 and OTD1 provide values within range of the 2014-2019 reference sites and all other rehabilitation sites provide values within 20 percent of the reference sites range. This indicates that the rehabilitation sites are trending towards the reference sites. As the vegetation at these sites matures the leaf litter will assist in developing the soil profile and reducing the surface crust allowing greater water infiltration assisting in germination of groundcover plant species.

3.3.4 Soil Nutrients

Soil Nutrients, or the cycling of nutrients within the soil system, is assessed by basal cover of perennials, litter cover, cryptogram cover and soil surface roughness. The Nutrient values results from 2014-2019 (where available) are provided in Figure 3.8 to demonstrate trends in the values over time. The Nutrient at each monitoring site for 2019 are provided in Table 3.9. The colour- coding relates to green achieving the reference site value, blue within 20 percent of the reference value, orange between 21-50 percent of the reference value and red below 50 percent of the reference value.

Figure 3.8. Soil Nutrient Values 2014 – 2019

Table 3.9 Nutrient Values at Rehabilitation Sites from the 2019 LFA Survey

Rehabilitation Site EEA1 EEA2 EEA6 NVB1 NVB3 OTD1 OTD5 SE1 58 58 66 49 72 71 65 41

The soil nutrient value range for the reference sites from 2014-2019 is broad, ranging from 47 to 76. In 2019, soil nutrient values at all rehabilitation sites except SE1 were above 47, indicating they are achieving similar results to the reference sites for this indicator. The soil nutrient value for SE1 was within seven percent of the reference site benchmark value and therefore is considered to be trending towards the reference site condition. The canopy thinning work being undertaken in the area of SE1 is anticipated to encourage understorey development and leaf litter development which over time should see an improvement in the LFA values.

3.3.5 Sum of LFA

The sum of the 2019 LFA Stability, Infiltration and Soil Nutrient values provide an indicator of the most functional to least functional monitoring site in 2019 (refer to Figure 3.9). The sum of LFA results for 2019 indicate that NVB3 (rehabilitation site) is the most functional site, which is likely to be based on good ground cover and minimal erosion.

Rehabilitation sites NVB3, OTD1, EEA6 and OTD5 had a higher Sum of LFA than the reference site BM23. The high values for these sites are likely owing to good establishment of ground cover and limited erosion. Canopy thinning in the area of SE1 has been undertaken to address understorey shading and will continue to be monitored to determine if LFA values are improving over time. For all rehabilitation sites except NVB1 and SE1, sum of LFA values were within 20 percent of BM20 (the most functional site) and indicating that the rehabilitation sites are trending towards the reference sites. Continued monitoring of NVB1 and SE1 are required and over time management actions may be recommended if the LFA values do not trend towards the reference site benchmark values.

Figure 3.9. Sum of LFA Values 2019

3.4 Native/Weed Plant Composition

A total of 167 plant species were recorded across all monitoring sites in 2019, including 124 native species and 41 weed species. The following section discusses the native and weed species composition at the monitoring sites. A complete flora list is provided in Appendix 3.

3.4.1 Native Plant Species Diversity

Figure 3.10 shows the number of native plant species recorded at the monitoring sites in 2019 and previous years from 2016 where available. This shows a trend of increasing native plant diversity at sites where past data is available. There has been a slight decline in native plant diversity at SEI, where rehabilitation was established in 2007. Canopy thinning recently undertaken at SEI is anticipated to improve understorey species diversity over time.

The vegetation at BM23 is targeted at a Swamp Oak Forest which is not the target community of the rehabilitation sites monitored in 2019 and is therefore not used to compare results. The native plant species results for reference sites BM20 and BM25 provide a local benchmark for woodland vegetation types of 40-45 native species. From this, only one site, EEA2 has reached the reference site benchmark for overall native species diversity, with 41 species. This site was only established in 2018, indicating a high success rate of the seed mix used and potentially recruitment of species from the topsoil. Site EEA6, established in 2018, is within 20 percent of the target benchmark for native species diversity, however all other sites are well below the benchmark for native species diversity. These results are indicating that the change in seed mix from January 2018 onwards is greatly adding to the species diversity in rehabilitation areas.

Overtime, additional species are likely to disperse into the rehabilitation sites and improve native species diversity. Furthermore, reduction in weed cover through development of the canopy and weed management activities will provide opportunity for establishment of native groundcover species. Additional management may be required at these sites to ensure that species diversity over time trends towards the reference site benchmark values.

Figure 3.10. Native Species Diversity, 2016 to 2019

3.4.2 Weed Species Diversity

Weed species provide a significant barrier to achieving the establishment of locally occurring vegetation communities. The Closure Criteria states that weed species should be within range of the reference sites and not present a risk to the rehabilitation areas. Through the BAM assessment, weed species can be categorised as;

• High Threat Exotic (HTE): pose a threat to the integrity of a vegetation community and requires active control; or

• Exotic: generally require minimal to no active control and do not pose a significant threat to the development of rehabilitation

Note: The Golden Wreath Wattle (Acacia saligna) is currently categorised as Exotic in the BAM. This species poses a significant threat to the establishment of native vegetation communities in mine rehabilitation and has therefore been included here as a HTE.

Figure 3.11 indicates the total number of native and weed species recorded at all monitoring sites in 2019. Native species are shown in green, Exotic species (such as scarlet pimpernel, Paddy’s lucerrne and stinkwort) are shown in orange and HTE species (such as tiger pear, galenia, Rhodes grass and kikuyu) are shown in red.

This figure has been developed for management purposes to provide an indication of the abundance of priority weeds at each site. It should be acknowledged that weeds will occur in any newly created ecosystem and therefore priorities need to be developed to control the risks to the establishment of the target ecosystem.

Figure 3.11. Composition of Native, Exotic and High Threat Exotic Weed Species, 2019

Rehabilitation site NVB1 has the highest diversity of High Threat Exotic weed species (six species), while sites BM23 (reference), EEA2 and NVB3 each had five HTEs.

All sites except EEA6 have a high abundance of Exotic weed species which can be typical of early stage rehabilitation. Exotic species were higher at most of the rehabilitation sites compared with the reference sites. Exotic weed species can contribute to the soil development, microclimate for target species establishment and provide alternate grazing material for pest animal species. It is anticipated that Exotic species will be shaded out and decline as native vegetation becomes established and provides a canopy. However, Exotic species need to be monitored to ensure they do not outcompete the establishment of target native species. Evidence of weed control was observed throughout the rehabilitation areas.

The change in composition of Native, Exotic and High Threat Exotic from 2016-2019 (where data is available) is provided in Figure 3.12. This data shows that the diversity of Exotic and HTE species have declined over time at most sites. As discussed above in Section 3.3.1, the diversity of native plant species has increased over time at all sites except SE1. The number of HTE species increased by 1 at reference site BM20 and rehabilitation site NVB3. This is not a substantial increase however should continue to be monitored over time to ensure that HTEs do not dominate the rehabilitation areas and suppress native species diversity.

Figure 3.12. Composition of Exotic and High Threat Exotic Weed Species, 2016 – 2019

In relation to weeds, the BCC Closure Criteria specifies a Biometric score of 2 as a benchmark for rehabilitation sites. The BAM does not have an equivalent benchmark and therefore the Biometric value has been used. The Biometric score of 2 for weed cover is less than 33 percent within a 20m x 20m plot. The recorded percent foliage cover of exotic and HTE species at all sites in 2019 is displayed in Figure 3.13 and compares against the benchmark of 33 percent cover.

Figure 3.13. Total % Cover of Weeds (exotic and high threat exotic), 2019

Evidence of weed control was observed at the rehabilitation sites. Figure 3.11 demonstrates that all sites besides NVB1 and NVB3 achieved the benchmark of less than 33 percent cover of weed species in 2019. The weed species contributing to high cover at those sites are perennial grasses common in early stage rehabilitation including kikuyu, South African pigeon grass, guinea grass and pale pigeon grass.

The recorded per cent foliage cover of all HTE species recorded during the 2019 survey effort are provided in Table 3.10. This table has been developed to assist in management of target weed species at the reference and rehabilitation sites. Weed species occurring at 10 percent cover or greater are highlighted in bold.

Table 3.10 Per Cent Cover of High Threat Exotic Species, 2019

Scientific Name Common Name A2

M23

SE1

EEA1 EE EEA6

NVB1 NVB3 OTD1 OTD5

BM20 B BM25

golden wreath Acacia saligna 0.1 2 0.1 wattle Acetosella sheep sorrel 0.1 vulgaris Bidens pilosa cobblers pegs 0.1 1 Bidens greater beggars 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.2 subalternans ticks Carthamus nodding thistle 0.1 0.1 lanatus Cenchrus kikuyu 10 0.1 clandestinus Chloris gayana Rhodes grass 1 1 0.1 5 0.1

Scientific Name Common Name A2

M23

SE1

EEA1 EE EEA6

NVB1 NVB3 OTD1 OTD5

BM20 B BM25

Galenia galenia 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.5 pubescens Lantana camara lantana* 2 5 0.1 0.1 0.1 Megathyrsus guinea grass 20 5 10 0.1 maximus Opuntia tiger pear* 0.2 0.5 aurantiaca Riccinus castor oil plant 1 communis Senecio fireweed* 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 madagascariensis Total HTE Cover 2.4 26.6 0.2 0.3 7.2 0.4 26.3 0.9 2.4 0.7 0.2 *Indicates additional listing as Priority Weeds for the Hunter Region in NSW WeedWise (DPI 2018a).

From Table 3.10, the majority of HTEs are occurring at low cover, apart from some of the perennial grasses. NVB1 has a relatively high cover of perennial grasses kikuyu and guinea grass, and to a lesser extent Rhodes grass, which has potential to impact the establishment of native species in the area. Active control of these grass species is required to ensure they do not impact the development of a native vegetation community. Targeted selective spraying of the species should be undertaken, using a herbicide such as Glyphosate. Care should be taken not to impact native vegetation.

Although evidence of weed spraying was observed at all monitoring sites during the walkover inspection, HTE weed species are persistent and require continued control to ensure a locally occurring vegetation community persist. Treatment of all weed species should be undertaken in accordance with the NSW Weed Control Handbook (DPI 2018b).

3.5 Walkover Inspections

The following sections outlines the findings from the Annual Walkover Inspection which covers approximately two hectares surrounding each of the eight rehabilitation monitoring sites.

3.5.1 EEA1

The area surrounding EEA1 (Plate 1 2018 and Plate 2 2019) was established in 2017 and is progressing well for Ecosystem and Land Use Establishment phase. Topsoil has been spread appropriately throughout the area, with a general cover between 5cm and 15cm, and evidence of decomposition of organic material from vegetation was observed. A good diversity and cover of native canopy, shrub and ground cover species are establishing throughout the area, indicating early stage trending towards the target vegetation community. The tallest establishing tree and shrub species were at 1.5 metres height. The area currently lacks habitat features such as rock piles however stag trees (many with hollows) have been installed at a rate of 0.4/ha and there is an abundance of woody material on the ground.

Plate 1. EEA1, 2018

Plate 2. Rehabilitation near EEA1, 2019

The vegetation community is targeted at a Grey Box-Ironbark Woodland. The canopy trees establishing in the area include Grey Box (Eucalyptus moluccana), Narrow-leaved Ironbark (Eucalyptus crebra), Spotted Gum (Corymbia maculata) and Blakely’s Red Gum (Eucalyptus blakelyi).

Shrub species include Sickle Wattle (Acacia falcata), Kangaroo Thorn (Acacia paradoxa), Sticky Hop Bush (Dodonaea viscosa), Western Silver Wattle (Acacia decora), Fan Wattle (Acacia amblygona) and Black Wattle (Acacia decurrens). Native groundcovers include Common Couch (Cynodon dactylon), Two-colour Panic (Panicum simile), Yellow Burr Daisy (Calotis lappulacea), Vittadinia pustulata and False Sarsparilla (Hardenbergia violacea).

A cover of 10% spotted gum (Corymbia maculata) was recorded throughout the area which indicates the area may be trending towards an Ironbark-Spotted Gum-Grey Box Woodland rather than the target Grey Box-Ironbark Woodland. Due to the early phase of establishment, no management actions are required to reduce the cover of Spotted Gum.

Drainage structures are performing well and have been constructed in accordance with the Mining Operation Plan. Rip-lines are filling in with sediment, however the groundcover is adequately stabilising. Aerial photo interpretation and ground truthing indicates minor rill erosion (<200mm) occurring throughout the area (Plate 3) however these rills appear to have formed during the Landform Development phase and no new rills were observed. Groundcover is developing well in and around the rills, therefore no action is currently required. Bare areas >400m2 were not recorded.

Plate 3. Example of Minor Rilling

The introduced species Lantana (Lantana camara), Galenia (Galenia pubescens) and undesirable pasture species were recorded on contour banks. These species will require targeted control to reduce their spread into the woodland rehabilitation.

3.5.2 EEA2

The area surrounding EEA2 (Plate 4) was established in 2018 on a north facing slope. Ground preparation was undertaken in accordance with the MOP, with an abundance of organic material in the topsoil. A good diversity and cover of native canopy, shrub and ground cover species are establishing throughout the area, indicating early stage trending towards the target vegetation community. The tallest establishing tree and shrub species were at 1.2 metres height. The area currently lacks habitat features such as rock piles however stag trees (many with hollows) have been installed at a rate of 0.4/ha and there is an abundance of woody material on the ground.

Plate 4. EEA2, 2019

The vegetation community is targeted at a Grey Box-Ironbark Woodland (using the new seed mix). The canopy trees establishing in the area include Narrow-leaved Ironbark (Eucalyptus crebra), Spotted Gum (Corymbia maculata), Blakely’s Red Gum (Eucalyptus blakelyi) and Grey Box (Eucalyptus moluccana). Shrub species include Fan Wattle (Acacia amblygona), Western Silver Wattle (Acacia decora), Black Wattle (Acacia decurrens), Silver-stemmed Wattle (Acacia parvipinnula), Sickle Wattle (Acacia falcata), Sticky Hop Bush (Dodonaea viscosa) and Smooth Darling-pea (Swainsona galegifolia). Native groundcovers include Common Couch (Cynodon dactylon), Slender Chloris (Chloris divaricata), Queensland Bluegrass (Dichanthium sericeum), Yellow Burr Daisy (Calotis lappulacea), Vittadinia pustulata and Tall Chloris (Chloris ventricosa).

A cover of 5% Spotted Gum (Corymbia maculata) and composition of shrub species indicates the area may be trending towards an Ironbark-Spotted Gum-Grey Box Woodland rather than the target Grey

Box-Ironbark Woodland. Due to the early phase of establishment, no management actions are required to reduce the cover of Spotted Gum.

Contour drains were generally constructed to specification however some depths of contour banks were recorded at less than 900mm. Monitoring following high rainfall events is required to determine if action is required. No action is currently required to increase the height of the contour banks due to no evidence of failure. Aerial photo interpretation and ground truthing indicates minor rill erosion (<100mm) occurring throughout the area however groundcover species are establishing in the rills. Minor erosion along the norther access road through the rehabilitation area was observed (Plate 5), including a minor breach of a contour drain. The contour drain and water diversion mount on the track will require management to minimise impact to the rehabilitation area. Bare areas >400m2 were not recorded.

Plate 5. Erosion Along Northern Access Track Through the Rehabilitation area, 2019.

Introduced species were recorded throughout the rehabilitation area in low abundance, such as Lantana (Lantana camara) and Caster Oil Plant (Ricinus communis), and undesirable pasture species were recorded on contour banks. Although these species occur in low abundance, active management will ensure they do not dominate the rehabilitation area.

3.5.3 EEA6

The area surrounding EEA6 (Plate 6) was established in 2018 on a south facing slope. Topsoil has been spread appropriately throughout the area, with a general cover between 5cm and 15cm, and an abundance of organic material and woody debris was observed. A good diversity of native canopy,

30 shrub and ground cover species are establishing throughout the area, however the cover is low due being seeded within 12 months. The tallest establishing tree and shrub species were at 0.8 metres height. Stag trees (many with hollows) have been installed at a rate of 0.3/ha and there is an abundance of woody material on the ground.

Plate 6. Rehabilitation at EEA6, 2019

Drainage structures are performing well however most were constructed less than 900mm. Minor erosion (<200mm) was recorded in the contour drains (refer to Plate 6), however groundcover species are establishing well and may stabilise the drains. No actions are currently required to manage the contour drains due to no evidence of failure. Cross-contour rip-lines are providing appropriate erosion control throughout the rehabilitation area. Bare areas >400m2 were not recorded.

A low cover of introduced species was recorded throughout the area, including Rhodes Grass (Chloris gayana), Galenia (Galenia pubescens) and Lantana (Lantana camara). Although these species occur in low abundance, active management will ensure they do not dominate in the rehabilitation area.

3.5.4 NVB1

The area surrounding NVB1 (Plate 7) was established on a west facing slope in 2014. A good diversity and cover of native canopy and shrub species are establishing throughout the area, indicating early stage trending towards the target vegetation community. The tallest establishing tree and shrub species were at three metres height. Evidence of decomposition of organic material from vegetation was observed. Stag trees (many with hollows) have been installed at a rate of

0.65/ha and there is an abundance of woody material on the ground. Rock material in the drop structures provide appropriate habitat for reptile and amphibian species.

The vegetation community is targeted at a Grey Box-Ironbark Woodland. The canopy trees establishing in the area include Spotted Gum (Corymbia maculata), Grey Box (Eucalyptus moluccana), Narrow-leaved Ironbark (Eucalyptus crebra), and Blakely’s Red Gum (Eucalyptus blakelyi). Shrub species include Cooba (Acacia salicina), Fan Wattle (Acacia amblygona) Sticky Hop Bush (Dodonaea viscosa) and Western Silver Wattle (Acacia decora). Native groundcovers include Common Couch (Cynodon dactylon), Queensland Bluegrass (Dichanthium sericeum), Slender Chloris (Chloris divaricata), Red Grass (Bothriochloa macra), Early Spring Grass (Eriochloa pseudoacrotricha) and Slender Rat’s Tail (Sporobolus creber).

A cover of 5% Spotted Gum (Corymbia maculata) and composition of shrub species indicates the area may be trending towards an Ironbark-Spotted Gum-Grey Box Woodland rather than the target Grey Box-Ironbark Woodland. Due to the early phase of establishment, no management actions are required to reduce the cover of Spotted Gum.

Plate 7. Rehabilitation at NVB1, 2019

Drainage structures are performing well and have been constructed in accordance with the Mining Operation Plan. Aerial photo interpretation and ground truthing indicates minor rill erosion (<100mm) occurring throughout the area however groundcover species are establishing in the rills. No action is currently required. Bare areas >400m2 were not recorded.

A moderate cover of introduced grass species were recorded throughout the area, including Rhodes Grass (Chloris gayana), Kikuyu (Cenchrus clandestinus) and Guinea Grass (Megathyrsus maximus). The developing shrub and canopy layer are likely to suppress these species in the long-term however active management will assist in establishing a native groundcover.

3.5.5 NVB3

The area surrounding NVB3 was established in 2016 on a south-west facing slope (Plate 6). The vegetation community is targeted at a Grey Box – Ironbark Woodland. Photo monitoring (Appendix 1) demonstrates good vegetation growth since 2018. There is a good cover and diversity of native shrub species however, tree cover and diversity of native ground cover were slightly low relative to the reference site in Grey Box – Ironbark Woodland (BM23). The tallest establishing tree and shrub species were at 2-3 metres height. Overall, early stage indicators suggest the rehabilitation should trend towards the target vegetation community. Stag trees (many with hollows) have been installed at a rate of 0.2/ha and there is an abundance of woody material on the ground. Rock drop structures provide appropriate habitat for some reptile and amphibian species.

Plate 6. Rehabilitation near NVB3, 2019

Canopy trees establishing in the area include spotted gum (Corymbia maculata), narrow-leaved ironbark (Eucalyptus crebra), Blakely’s red gum (Eucalyptus blakelyi) and Grey Box (Eucalyptus moluccana). Shrub species include Hickory Wattle (Acacia implexa), cooba (Acacia salicina), narrow- leaved wattle (Acacia lineariifolia), Gorse Bitter Pea (Daviesia ulicifolia) and Black Wattle (Acacia decurrens). Groundcovers include Common Couch (Cynodon dactylon), Yellow Burr Daisy (Calotis

33 lappulacea), Berry Saltbush (Einadia hastata), Slender Chloris (Chloris divaricata), Queensland Bluegrass (Dichanthium sericeum), and Vittadinia pustulata.

A cover of 5% spotted gum (Corymbia maculata) and composition of shrub species indicates the area may be trending towards an Ironbark-Spotted Gum-Grey Box Woodland rather than the target Grey Box-Ironbark Woodland. Due to the early phase of establishment, no management actions are required to reduce the cover of Spotted Gum.

Drainage structures are performing well and have been constructed in accordance with the Mining Operation Plan. Aerial photo interpretation and ground truthing indicates minor rill erosion (<100mm) occurring throughout the area with groundcover species establishing in the rills. Ground cover is generally developing well throughout and no action is currently required. Bare areas >400m2 were not recorded.

Galenia (Galenia pubescens) was recorded at a low rate throughout the area. This species has the potential to threaten the development of the vegetation community if not controlled. Weed control should continue to target this species.

3.5.6 OTD1

The area surrounding OTD1 was established in 2016 on a south-west facing slope. This rehabilitation area is progressing well for Ecosystem and Land Use Establishment phase, refer to Plate 7 (2018) and Plate 8 (2019). The vegetation community is targeted at an Ironbark-Spotted Gum-Grey Box Woodland. The species diversity and cover in all strata are adequate for the age of this rehabilitation area and is generally trending towards the target vegetation community. The tallest establishing tree species were at 4 metres height. The area currently lacks habitat features such as rock piles, stag trees and fallen timber.

Plate 7. OTD1, 2018

Plate 8. OTD5, 2019

Canopy trees establishing in the area include Spotted Gum (Corymbia maculata), Narrow-leaved Ironbark (Eucalyptus crebra) and Grey Box (Eucalyptus moluccana). Shrub species include Black Wattle (Acacia decurrens), Silver-stemmed Wattle (Acacia parvipinnula), Coastal Myall (Acacia binervia), Cooba (Acacia salicina) Broom Bitter Pea (Daviesia genistifolia) and Fan Wattle (Acacia amblygona). Groundcovers include Common Couch (Cynodon dactylon), Kidney Weed (Dichonrda repens), Umbrella Grass (Digitaria divaricatissima), Early Spring Grass (Eriochloa pseudoacrotricha), False Sarsparilla (Hardenbergia violacea) and Love Creeper (Glycine tabacina).

Drainage structures are performing well and have been constructed in accordance with the Mining Operation Plan. Aerial photo interpretation and ground truthing indicates minor rill erosion (<100mm) occurring throughout the area (Plate 5) however the ground cover is developing well throughout and is establishing in the rills. No action is currently required. Bare areas >400m2 were not recorded.

The introduced species Golden Wreath Wattle (Acacia saligna), Galenia (Galenia pubescens) and Guinea Grass (Megathyrsus maximus) were recorded at a low rate throughout the area. These species have the potential to threaten the development of the vegetation community if not controlled. Weed control should continue to target these species.

3.5.7 OTD5

The area around OTD5 was established in 2015 on a north-east facing slope, refer to Plate 9. The vegetation community is targeted at an Ironbark-Spotted Gum-Grey Box Woodland. A good diversity and cover of native canopy, shrub and ground cover species are establishing throughout the area, indicating early stage trending towards the target vegetation community. The tallest establishing tree and shrub species were at 3 metres height. The area currently lacks habitat features such as rock piles, stag trees and fallen timber. A active finch nest was observed in the rehabilitation during the survey effort.

Plate 9. OTD5 Rehabilitation Area

Canopy trees establishing in the area include Spotted Gum (Corymbia maculata), Narrow-leaved Ironbark (Eucalyptus crebra) and Blakely’s Red Gum (Eucalyptus blakelyi). Shrub species include Black Wattle (Acacia decurrens), Cooba (Acacia salicina), Silver-stemmed Wattle (Acacia parvipinnula), Australian Indigo (Indigofera australis), Sticky Hop Bush (Dodonaea viscosa) and Fan Wattle (Acacia amblygona). Groundcovers include Common Couch (Cynodon dactylon), Fuzzweed (Vittadinia spp.), Early Spring Grass (Eriochloa pseudoacrotricha), Slender Tick Trefoil (Pullenia gunnii), False Sarsparilla (Hardenbergia violacea),

Drainage structures were not installed in this area however cross-contour rip-lines and groundcover are providing adequate stabilisation. Aerial photo interpretation and ground truthing indicates minor rill erosion (<100mm) occurring throughout the area however no action is currently required. Bare areas >400m2 were not recorded.

Golden Wreath Wattle (Acacia saligna) and Galenia (Galenia pubescens) were recorded at a low rate throughout the area. These species have the potential to threaten the development of the vegetation community if not controlled. Weed control should continue to target these species.

3.5.8 SE1

The area surrounding SE1 was established in 2007 on the upper slope of the rehabilitation. This area was established as a generic native woodland community however the dominance of Spotted Gum (Corymbia maculata) and understory species indicates the area is trending towards an Ironbark- Spotted Gum-Grey Box Woodland. Based on recommendation from 2018, approximately 15

37 hectares of the rehabilitation area was selectively thinned to open the dense canopy to allow shrub and groundcover species to persist. Three metre width mulch lines were established, approximately four metres apart, as shown in Plate 10. This resulted in a reduction of the canopy from 80 percent in 2018 to 50 percent in 2019. Shrub species were planted along the mulch corridors.

Plate 10. Mulch Effort at SE1, 2019

The canopy density remains high (50 percent) despite the mulching completed in 2019. Therefore if further mulching occurs where the canopy is 80 percent, the mulch lines should be increased to four metre widths separated by three metres.

Shrub species establishing in the area include Hickory Wattle (Acacia implexa), Sticky Hop Bush (Dodonaea viscosa), Sickle Wattle (Acacia falcata) and Fan Wattle (Acacia amblygona). Groundcovers include Kidney Weed (Dichonrda repens), Berry Saltbush (Einadia hastata), ruby saltbush (Enchylaena tomentosa) and native grass such as Red Grass (Bothriochloa decipens), Queensland Bluegrass (Dichanthium sericium) and Couch (Cynodon dactylon).

Nest boxes have been installed throughout the rehabilitation area at a rate of 1 box/ha. This rate is within the BAM benchmark limit (Score of 2) for hollow resources. Several Sugar Glider leaf nests, Rosella nests and one individual Sugar Glider were observed in the nest boxes installed around SE1.

Drainage structures are performing well and have been constructed in accordance with the Mining Operation Plan. Photo interpretation and ground truthing did not indicate any bare areas >400m2 and minor rill erosion was observed (<100mm).

The introduced species Golden Wreath Wattle (Acacia saligna) and Rhodes Grass (Chloris gayana) were recorded in low density throughout the area. These species will require targeted control to reduce their spread into the woodland rehabilitation.

3.5.9 Germination of Species from the Seed Mix

This section identifies the germination success of species from the seed mixes used for all sites monitored in 2019. Pre-2018 rehabilitation used the 2017 seed mix for the target community, while rehabilitation sown in 2018 or 2019 used the 2018 mix for the target community. All four seed mixes are provided in Appendix 4. Table 3.11 shows the monitoring site, target vegetation community, year of establishment and number of species from the seed mix that were recorded in the plot.

Table 3.11. Germination Success on Seed Mix and Natural Recruitment.

No. of No. of Native Total Target Year Topsoil Species Species Not in Native Total Species Site PCT Established Source in Seed Recorded Seed Species Weeds Total Mix from Mix Mix Recorded EEA1 GBIW 2017 Direct 25 10 18 28 11 39 EEA2 GBIW 2018 Direct 56 24 18 41 17 58 EEA6 GBIW 2018 Direct 56 23 11 33 7 40 NVB1 GBIW 2015 Stockpile 25 7 15 22 19 41 NVB3 GBIW 2016 Stockpile 25 13 17 30 15 45 OTD1 ISGBW 2017 Stockpile 22 9 12 21 8 29 OTD5 ISGGBW 2015 Stockpile 22 10 8 18 9 27 SE1 ISGGBW 2007 Stockpile - - 20 24 20 44 *GBIW=Grey Box-Ironbark Woodland, ISGGBW = Ironbark-Spotted Gum-Grey Box Woodland.

A total of 25 native plant species are used in the 2017 Box-Ironbark Woodland seed mix. Three sites monitored in 2019 were seeded with this mix, being EEA1, NVB1 and NVB3. Of these sites, the highest diversity of species recorded from the target seed mix was NVB3 (13 species) while SE1 had the lowest (seven species). Species from the seed mix that were recorded at both sites were wattles (such as A. decora, A. salicina, A. decurrens and A. paradoxa), eucalypts (such as C. maculata, E. blakelyi, E. crebra and E. molucanna) and Hardenbergia violacea. Table 3.12 shows that 11 species from the seed mix were not recorded at any of the three monitoring sites in 2019.

Table 3.12. Species from Seed Mixes that were Not Recorded at the 2019 Monitoring Sites

2017 ISGGBW Seed 2017 GBIW Seed Mix 2018 GBIW Seed Mix Mix Allocasuarina littoralis Acacia implexa Eremophila deserti Allocasuarina luehmannii Allocasuarina Atriplex semibaccata Eucalyptus blakelyi Bursaria spinosa luehmannii Angophora floribunda Austrodanthonia spp. Eucalyptus glaucina Daviesia ulicifolia

2017 ISGGBW Seed 2017 GBIW Seed Mix 2018 GBIW Seed Mix Mix Bothriochloa decipiens Austrostipa scabra Eucalyptus tereticornis Dianella caerulea Brachychiton Austrostipa verticillata Imperata cylindrica Eucalyptus fibrosa populneus Bursaria spinosa Bothriochloa decipiens Indigofera australis Eucalyptus tereticornis Einadia hastata Brachychiton Melaleuca decora Lomandra filiformis or populneus multiflora Eremophila debilis Bursaria spinosa Microlaena stipoides Microlaena stipoides Eucalyptus tereticornis Calocephalus critreus Ozothamnus Pultenaea spinosa diosmifolius Lomandra filiformis or Calotis cuneifolia Pomax umbellata Themeda australis multiflora Microlaena stipoides Cassinia arcuata Senna artemesioides Chrysocephalum Solanum cinereum apiculatum Daviesia ulicifolia Sporobolus creber Einadia trigonos Themeda triandra

A total of 56 native plant species are used in the 2018 Box-Ironbark Woodland seed mix. Two sites monitored in 2019 were seeded with this mix, being EEA2 and EEA6. The diversity of species from the seed mix that have germinated at this site are 24 and 23 respectively (approximately 42% of species from the mix). Species from the seed mix that were recorded at both sites included wattles (such as A. amblygona, A. decora, A. decurrens, A. falcata, A. parvipinnula and A. salicina), Corymbia maculata, Aristida sp., Bothriochloa biloba, B. macra, Daviesia genistifolia, Digitaria sp., Dodonaea viscosa, Enchylaena tomentosa, Eragrostis sp., Hardenbergia violacea, Paspalidium distans and Vittadinia sp. Table 3.12 shows that 27 species (~50%) from the seed mix were not recorded at either of the monitoring sites in 2019. Due to the early stage of rehabilitation it is possible that these species will establish over time. Further monitoring will assist in determining the most effective species in the seed mix and if species should be removed from the seed mix due to a low success rate (therefore not cost effective). Some of these species are less successful when applied in broad-acre seed application, such as Bursaria spinosa, Brachychiton populneus, Lomandra filiformis & multiflora, Dianella caerulea and Allocasuarina spp. If these species do not show evidence of germination within five years of application it is recommended that they be reduced or removed from the seed mix. These species can be planted, direct seeded or translocated when the vegetation matures.

Table 3.12 also highlights the value of native species germinating from the topsoil, and potentially wind and fauna. Many of the total native species recorded at each site were from species that were not included in the seed mix and therefore must have been present in the topsoil or dispersed by wind or fauna. Appropriate topsoil management can increase the occurrence of native species in rehabilitation areas. Direct placement of topsoil, low compaction, minimal rehandling and short time periods in storage will increase the likelihood of cryptic native species germinating and therefore increase the native species richness score, and potentially reduce the cost of seeding. Appropriate

40 weed management will contribute to the success of all native species germinating, particularly from the topsoil.

BCC modified the seed mix in 2018 to greatly increase the total species composition in both communities, from 25 species to 59 species in Grey Box-Ironbark Woodland and from 22 species to 56 species in Spotted Gum-Ironbark-Grey Box Woodland, shown in Appendix 4. The seeding rates for growth forms is the same in both vegetation communities, refer to Table 3.13.

Table 3.13. Species Composition Rates in the 2018

Species Growth Form Sowing Rate (kg/ha) Species Count (GBIW) Species Count (ISGGBW) Total Tree 2.8 (17%) 6 7 Total Shrub 3.3 (20%) 23 19 Total Forbs 0.5 (3%) 11 11 Total Native Grass 1.5 (9%) 16 16 Total Cover Crop 8 (50%) 3 3 Total 16.1 59 56

As suggested in the 2018 monitoring report (Emergent Ecology 2018), the sowing rate of tree species is high and could be reduced to less than 2kg/ha. SE1 has shown that a dominance of canopy trees can be detrimental to the progress of rehabilitation areas by shading out shrub and ground cover species. No further recommendations are provided for improving the seed mix due to the significant improvement in composition from 2017 to 2018.

3.6 Pest Animals

Evidence of pest animals continue to be recorded at low levels at selected sites throughout the area, as shown in Table 3.14. There was no evidence of pest species activity being detrimental to the development of the rehabilitation or integrity of the reference sites. Annual pest management programs should continue in reference and rehabilitation areas to maintain populations of pest species at low levels to ensure pest species do not cause detrimental damage.

Potential impacts of pest species on the rehabilitation areas includes:

• grazing of ground cover and shrubs from rabbits and kangaroos; and • erosion and loss of ground cover from kangaroos creating dust bowls and bedding sites.

Table 3.14 Evidence of Pest Animals Recorded at Each Monitoring Site

Monitoring Site

Common Control

3 5 1

Species 6

Name 20 Mechanism

SE1

EEA1 EEA2 EEA

N NVB3 OTD1 OTD5

BM BM2 BM2

Rabbit Oryctolagus 1080/pindone X cuniculus baiting Feb/March Kangaroo Macropus Culling program X X X giganteus

Pest species will continue to be monitored to assess any potential impacts to reference or rehabilitation sites.

4.0 Rehabilitation Progress Towards Closure Criteria

Table 4.1 provides a colour-coded guide to how the rehabilitation is progressing towards the closure criteria. The colour-coding relates to green achieving the benchmark value, blue is 80 percent of the benchmark value, orange between 50-81 percent of the benchmark value and red less than 50 percent of the benchmark value.

As shown in Table 4.1, the rehabilitation is progressing well towards the closure criteria with ten of the 15 completion indicators achieving the closure criteria benchmark for at least half the sites and only three completion indicators having the lowest score (of zero) for at least half the sites. The three lowest scoring completion indicators include:

1. Salvaged hollows, nest boxes, stag trees or rock piles are included in the rehabilitated areas; 2. Native ground cover (other) achieves a biometric score of two for the relevant PCT; and 3. The number of trees with hollows achieves a biometric score of two for the relevant PCT (no./1000m2)

It is recognised that habitat features and herbaceous groundcover species are commonly low in abundance in early stage rehabilitation. Bulga Coal has a program to gradually increase habitat features, such as nest boxes, as rehabilitation matures to achieve the closure criteria. Herbaceous groundcover species will continue to be monitored and if numbers remain low, translocation or seeding may be required.

Table 4.1. Rehabilitation Progress Towards the Closure Criteria.

Monitoring Site

Monitoring

Completion Criteria Completion

1 Phase Objective Domain Method 2

Criteria Aspect Indicator 1 EA6

Used SE

EEA1 EEA E

OTD1 OTD5

NVB NVB3

Drainage structures have been Landform constructed in The constructed slope, LFA accordance with final landform is gradient the final landform stable and Provide a All plan complies with the sustainable final The number of approved final Landform landform and use gullies or rills landform Establishment that can co-exist Active erosion (>1.0m width or LFA with surrounding depth) occurring in land uses a 50m transect The final landform Salvaged hollows, includes features nest boxes, stag

Native Habitat

which provide trees or rock piles BAM Woodland Features habitat for native are included in the fauna species rehabilitated areas Bare areas of soil >400m2 are tested Soil chemistry does Soil chemical, for pH, EC, ESP, not affect the physical Soil properties are Macro nutrients All ongoing health of properties LFA n/a - no bare areas >400m2 suitable for the and trace Growth desired vegetation and establishment and elements, and Medium species amelioration maintenance of ameliorants Development selected vegetation applied as required species Soil properties do LFA stability index Native not affect the Landform is comparable to or LFA Woodland ongoing health of Function trending towards desired vegetation that of the local

Monitoring Site

Monitoring

Completion Criteria Completion

1 Phase Objective Domain Method 2

Criteria Aspect Indicator 1 EA6

Used SE

EEA1 EEA E

OTD1 OTD5

NVB NVB3

species remnant vegetation LFA infiltration index is comparable to or trending towards LFA that of the local remnant vegetation LFA nutrient recycling index is comparable to or trending towards LFA that of the local remnant vegetation LFA stability index is comparable to or trending towards LFA n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a that of the Soil properties do reference pasture not affect the sites Landform Pasture ongoing health of LFA infiltration Function desired vegetation index is species comparable to or trending towards LFA n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a that of the reference pasture sites

Monitoring Site

Monitoring

Completion Criteria Completion

1 Phase Objective Domain Method 2

Criteria Aspect Indicator 1 EA6

Used SE

EEA1 EEA E

OTD1 OTD5

NVB NVB3

LFA nutrient recycling index is comparable to or trending towards LFA n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a that of the reference pasture sites Indigenous plant species richness Native species Vegetation achieves a BAM Establish similar diversity is Diversity biometric score of native woodland consistent with 2 for the relevant communities to Native benchmark values PCT those that will be Woodland published by NSW The density of impacted by the Government shrubs or juvenile operations and/or collected at Vegetation trees is comparable BAM reference sites Diversity to that of the local reference sites Ecosystem and (no./400m2) Land Use Pasture grass and Establishment legumes diversity is Pasture consistent with composition Vegetation ranges provided by Pasture comprises n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Establish areas Diversity the agricultural Assessment palatable grasses suitable for industry or the Pasture and legumes agriculture local reference appropriate to the (grazing) purposes sites district and Weed presence is suitable for cattle within ranges grazing. Weed Species BAM n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a found at reference sites and does not

Monitoring Site

Monitoring

Completion Criteria Completion

1 Phase Objective Domain Method 2

Criteria Aspect Indicator 1 EA6

Used SE

EEA1 EEA E

OTD1 OTD5

NVB NVB3

present a risk to rehabilitation areas Ground cover provided by Ground cover is Protective perennial BAM n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a greater than 70% Ground Cover vegetation species is greater than 70% Monitoring reports Pest animals do do not indicate not pose a risk to that pest animals Pest All the ongoing health Pest Animals are impacting upon Animals of rehabilitation health of areas rehabilitation areas Native over-storey Establish self- cover achieves a sustaining native biometric score of BAM woodland The rehabilitated 2 for the relevant Ecosystem and communities vegetation Ecosystem PCT Land Use consistent with the community is Structure Native mid-storey Sustainability final land use, and consistent with the cover achieves a that require no on- Native desired EEC biometric score of BAM going care and Woodland required by the 2 for the relevant maintenance Project Approval PCT (according to NSW Native ground Government cover (grasses) benchmarks) achieves a Ground Cover BAM biometric score of 2 for the relevant PCT

Monitoring Site

Monitoring

Completion Criteria Completion

1 Phase Objective Domain Method 2

Criteria Aspect Indicator 1 EA6

Used SE

EEA1 EEA E

OTD1 OTD5

NVB NVB3

Native ground cover (shrubs) achieves a BAM n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a biometric score of 2 for the relevant PCT Native ground cover (other) achieves a BAM biometric score of 2 for the relevant PCT The proportion of over-storey species occurring as Ecosystem regeneration BAM n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Health achieves a biometric score of The rehabilitated 2 for the relevant vegetation PCT community is self- The exotic species sustaining richness achieves a biometric score of 2 for the relevant Weed Species BAM PCT (if available) or is comparable to the local reference sites (no./400m2)

Monitoring Site

Monitoring

Completion Criteria Completion

1 Phase Objective Domain Method 2

Criteria Aspect Indicator 1 EA6

Used SE

EEA1 EEA E

OTD1 OTD5

NVB NVB3

The rehabilitated The number of vegetation trees with hollows community achieves a Fauna Habitat BAM provides suitable biometric score of habitat for native 2 for the relevant fauna PCT (no./1000m2) Combination of Grazing areas are slope, erosion and assessed to have a Land vegetation Rural Land Reporting n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Establish self- Capability conditions indicate Capability Class of sustaining land capability is VI or better agricultural areas Class VI or better Pasture that are capable of Pasture biomass is achieving required Grazing areas have consistent with production comparable Carrying agricultural Pasture n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a productivity to Capacity industry guidelines Assessment district averages and/or local reference sites

4.1 Trigger Action Response Plan

The following section outlines the results of the 2019 monitoring surveys compared to the Trigger Action Response Plan (TARP). The Trigger and Response indicators are provided in Appendix 5. Table 4.2 presents the trigger colour code, being Condition Green – no response required, Condition Orange – minor action required, Condition Red – priority action required.

Table 4.2. Trigger Action Response Plan Results

Rehabilitation sites

Aspect/ Key Element Trigger

Category SE1

EEA1 EEA2 EEA6

OTD1 OTD5

NVB1 NVB3 Slope gradient Trigger Landform stability Erosion control Trigger Drainage Condition Trigger Water Quality Monitoring Trigger Not monitored as part of this program. Soil/spoil Quality Monitoring Trigger Surface cover Trigger Vegetation Weed presence Trigger Species composition Trigger

Landform stability at the sites monitored was in accordance with the MOP design. Minor erosion was recorded at all sites, being rill lines between 100mm and 300mm width and depth. Further monitoring will determine if action is required. Currently, the impact from remediating the minor rill lines will be greater than the impact from the rill lines, considering groundcover species are establishing. No response is required.

Reduced contour bank height at EEA2 and EEA6 was observed. The specifications in the MOP are 900mm however the contour banks at these sites was approximately 700mm. The contour drains appear to be functioning as designed and therefore no response is currently required.

Surface vegetation cover of less than 60 percent was recorded at EEA1, OTD5 and SE1. These sites had minor erosion and moderate diversity of groundcover species and therefore potential to increase surface cover. SE1 has recently had canopy species mulched to allow growth of understory species. No response is currently required. Further monitoring will determine if action is required.

The cover of weed at most sites was within range of the TARP, however NVB1 and NVB3 provided weed cover of 40 percent and 57 percent respectively. NVB3 has a high cover of non-invasive weed species and low cover of High Threat Exotic species, therefore these species are likely to reduce as the shrub and canopy layers develop. NVB1 has a high cover of the High Threat Exotic species Kikuyu (Cenchrus clandestinus), Guinea Grass (Megathyrsus maximus) and Rhodes Grass (Chloris gayana), totalling 25 percent cover. These species will require targeted weed control to allow native ground cover species to persist.

Species composition at NVB1, OTD5 and SE1 were slightly lower than the reference sites, being 71 percent, 68 percent and 58 percent respectively. NVB1 and OTD5 do not currently require a response due to the value being in early phase Ecosystem Establishment and only slightly lower. In 2019, SE1 has had management actions, such as mulching the dense canopy and infill planting, to increase the species composition in the area. Further monitoring will determine the success of the action and if further action is required.

5.0 Summary of Recommendations

The following section provides a summary of recommendations from the 2019 monitoring program in order of priority.

5.1 Weed Control

Table 5.1 provides a list of high priority weeds at each site which requires control as a result of the 2019 survey effort.

Table 5.1. High Priority Weeds at Monitoring Sites Requiring Active Control

Scientific Name Common Name B1

SE1

EEA1 EEA2 EEA6

NV NVB3 OTD1 OTD5

BM20 BM23 BM25

golden wreath Acacia saligna X X X wattle Cenchrus kikuyu X X clandestinus Chloris gayana Rhodes grass X X X X X Galenia galenia X X X X pubescens Lantana camara lantana X X X X X Megathyrsus guinea grass X X X X maximus Opuntia tiger pear X X aurantiaca

Treatment of all weed species should be undertaken in accordance with the NSW Weed Control Handbook (DPI 2018b).

5.2 Erosion and Sediment Control at EEA2

Currently, minor erosion occurs along the edge of the track through the EEA2 rehabilitation area and a minor blow-out occurs on a contour drain on the edge of the road. The contour drain and water diversion mount on the track will require management to minimise impact to the rehabilitation area and provide appropriate access for maintenance.

5.3 Pest Animal Management

Annual pest management programs should continue in reference and rehabilitation areas to ensure pest species do not cause detrimental damage. Damage from pest species will continue to be monitored to assess any potential impacts to reference or rehabilitation sites.

6.0 Conclusion

The 2019 rehabilitation monitoring identified that sites are generally trending towards the target PCT in many aspects however still require active management and further monitoring to ensure the sites remain on target. Management recommendations include ongoing weed/pest control at all sites, and minor erosion and sediment control work at EEA2.

Remaining on target for a PCT is an ongoing process that will require many years of management before an area could be considered sustainable. If no management action is taken at these sites, they will not achieve the target benchmark values for relinquishment.

7.0 References

Bureau of Meteorology (2019). Bureau of Meteorology Climate Data Online. Accessed November 2019, http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/index.shtml.

DPI (2018a). NSW WeedWise: Priority Weeds for the Hunter. Department of Primary Industries web site. Accessed 20 August 2018, http://weeds.dpi.nsw.gov.au/WeedBiosecurities?AreaId=4

DPI (2018b). NSW Weed Control Handbook: 7th Edition. Department of Primary Industries, Sydney.

Emergent Ecology (2018). 2018 Rehabilitation Monitoring Report. Prepared for Bulga Coal Complex.

OEH (2018a). Biodiversity Assessment Method Operation Manual – Stage 1. NSW Office of Environment and Heritage, Sydney.

OEH (2018b). Biodiversity Assessment Calculator. NSW Office of Environment and Heritage web site. Accessed 6 August 2018, https://www.lmbc.nsw.gov.au/bamcalc

Tongway, D. J. and Hindley, N. L. (2004). Landscape Function Analysis: Methods for monitoring and assessing landscapes, with special reference to mine sites and rangelands. CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems, Canberra.

APPENDIX 1

Photo Monitoring Results

Appendix 1 – Photo Monitoring Results The results of the 2019 photo monitoring are provided in this appendix, with previous years’ photos provided where available.

BM20 2014 2015

2016 2017

2019

BM23 2014 2015

2016 2017

2019

BM25 2019 LFA Start 2019 LFA End

EEA1 2018 LFA Start 2018 LFA End

2019 LFA Start 2019 LFA End

EEA2 2019 LFA Start 2019 LFA End

EEA6 2019 LFA Start 2019 LFA End

NVB1 2015 2016

2017 2019

NVB3 2018 LFA Start 2018 LFA End

2019 LFA Start 2019 LFA End

OTD1 2017 LFA Start 2017 LFA End

2018 LFA Start 2018 LFA End

2019 LFA Start 2019 LFA End

OTD5 2018 LFA Start 2018 LFA End

2019 LFA Start 2019 LFA End

SE1 2016 2018 – Change Site Location

2019 Start 2019 End

APPENDIX 2 BAM Data

Appendix 2 – Biodiversity Assessment Method (BAM) Data Table 1 of this appendix provides the BAM data for attributes at each monitoring site. Figures 1 – 6 provide a summary of the scores for Composition, Structure and Function for each vegetation community.

Table 1. Biodiversity Assessment Method raw data Reference Sites Rehabilitation Sites (GBIW) Rehabilitation Sites (ISGBW)

BM20 BM23 BM25 EEA1 EEA2 EEA6 NVB1 NVB3 SE1 OTD1 OTD5 COMPOSITION SCORE 84.1 61.2 91.1 59.4 74.3 61.9 51.6 62 40.3 38 53.2 STRUCTURE SCORE 60.5 45.1 53.7 77.2 76.8 51.1 43.8 60.9 34.4 3.2 87.1 FUNCTION SCORE 83.5 50.6 55.5 15.6 25.9 16.6 17.9 11 38.9 15 25.7 VEGETATION INTEGRITY SCORE 75.2 51.9 64.8 41.5 52.8 37.5 34.3 34.6 37.8 12.2 49.2 Coastal Coastal Coastal Coastal Coastal Coastal Coastal Coastal Coastal Coastal Valley Coastal Valley Valley Valley Valley Valley Valley Valley Valley Valley grassy Swamp grassy Grassy grassy grassy grassy grassy grassy grassy grassy Veg Class Woodlands Forests Woodlands Woodlands Woodlands Woodlands Woodlands Woodlands Woodlands Woodlands Woodlands PCT 1603 1731 1604 1603 1603 1603 1603 1603 1604 1604 1604 Tree Richness 3 2 3 7 5 6 5 7 3 5 7 Shrub Richness 4 4 11 7 14 11 5 9 1 9 5 Grass Richness 13 8 9 7 13 10 7 5 7 3 3 Forb Richness 22 14 12 4 7 4 5 8 5 5 4 Fern Richness 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Other Richness 2 1 3 3 2 2 0 0 2 2 2 Tree Cover 40.1 60.1 45.1 34.5 22.1 11.1 27.3 18.2 40 17.6 50.2 Shrub Cover 2.4 2.3 39.1 15.5 29 8.1 24 11.6 1 15.5 15.6 Grass Cover 25.7 21 1.9 34.7 69.6 89.8 18.2 47.2 2.6 50.1 50.2 Forb Cover 7.4 13.1 12 7.2 14.3 0.4 0.7 2.8 2.8 1.4 0.8 Fern Cover 0.3 1.1 0.2 0 0 0 0 0.1 0 0 0

Reference Sites Rehabilitation Sites (GBIW) Rehabilitation Sites (ISGBW)

BM20 BM23 BM25 EEA1 EEA2 EEA6 NVB1 NVB3 SE1 OTD1 OTD5 Other Cover 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.3 1.1 0.2 0 0 0.2 2 0.2 Litter Cover (%) 40 34 82 4.6 6.4 7 5.4 7 57 1.2 20 Total Length fallen logs (m) 24 16 6 3 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 No. Large Trees 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 Number of trees with hollows 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 Stem classes present <5m y Y y y y y y - y y y 5-9cm y y y - - - y - y - - 10-19cm y y y - - - - - y - - 20-29cm y y y ------30-49cm y y ------50-79cm y - y - - - - y - - - 80+cm - - - - y ------Total Species 54 40 42 39 58 39 40 44 26 44 28 Total Weeds (Non HTE) 5 4 0 8 12 4 13 10 7 16 6 Total Natives 45 31 40 28 41 33 22 30 18 24 21 HTE 4 5 2 3 5 2 5 4 1 4 1 HTE Cover 2.4 26.6 0.2 0.3 7.2 0.2 26.2 0.8 0.1 2.3 0.2

Figure 1. 2019 Composition Scores for Grey Box-Ironbark Woodland Sites

Figure 2. 2019 Structure Scores for Grey Box-Ironbark Woodland Sites

Figure 3. 2019 Function Scores for Grey Box-Ironbark Woodland Sites

Figure 4. 2019 Composition Scores for Ironbark-Spotted Gum-Grey Box Woodland Sites

Figure 5. 2019 Structure Scores for Ironbark-Spotted Gum-Grey Box Woodland Sites

Figure 6. 2019 Function Scores for Ironbark-Spotted Gum-Grey Box Woodland Sites

APPENDIX 3 Flora Species List

Appendix 3 – Flora Species List The following table provides a list all flora species recorded during the 2019 monitoring program at each site.

Notes: N = Native E = Exotic HTE = High Threat Exotic C = % foliage cover A = abundance (number of individuals) (for species with <5% cover) ? = confirmation of identification requires reproductive material

BM20 BM23 BM25 EEA1 EEA2 EEA6 NVB1 NVB3 OTD1 OTD5 SE1

Growth N, E, Family Scientific Name Common Name C A C A C A C A C A C A C A C A C A C A C A Form HTE Brunoniella Forb Acanthaceae blue trumpet N 2 100 0.1 5 australis (FG) Galenia Aiozaceae galenia HTE 0.2 1 0.1 1 0.1 2 0.5 10 pubescens Forb Anthericaceae Caesia parviflora pale grass lily N 0.1 20 (FG) Laxmannia Forb Anthericaceae slender wire lily N 0.1 10 10 gracilis (FG) Hydrocotyle stinking Forb Apiaceae N 0.1 30 laxiflora pennywort (FG) Gomphocarpus narrow-leaved Apocynaceae E 0.1 1 0.1 1 0.1 2 0.1 30 1 50 0.1 5 fruticosus cotton-bush Asteraceae Aster subulatus wild aster E 0.1 5 Asteraceae Bidens pilosa Cobbler’s pegs HTE 0.1 2 1 20 Bidens greater Asteraceae HTE 0.1 5 0.1 1 0.5 10 0.1 2 0.2 20 subalternans beggar’s ticks Asteraceae Calotis cuneifolia purple burr Forb N 5 100 0.1 10

BM20 BM23 BM25 EEA1 EEA2 EEA6 NVB1 NVB3 OTD1 OTD5 SE1

Growth N, E, Family Scientific Name Common Name C A C A C A C A C A C A C A C A C A C A C A Form HTE daisy (FG) Calotis yellow burr Forb Asteraceae N 0.1 5 0.1 3 2 50 2 40 2 30 0.1 2 lappulacea daisy (FG) Carthamus Asteraceae nodding thistle HTE 0.1 3 0.1 1 lanatus Cassinia Shrub Asteraceae - N 0.1 1 quinquefaria (SG) Chrysocephalum Forb Asteraceae yellow buttons N 0.1 1 apiculatum (FG) Conyza Asteraceae fleabane E 0.1 2 0.1 10 0.2 50 0.1 3 0.5 50 bonariensis Cyanthillium Forb Asteraceae cinereum var. - E 2 40 (FG) cinereum Dittrichia Asteraceae stinkwort E 0.1 1 2 0.1 40 5 0.1 5 graveolens Glossocardia Forb Asteraceae Cobbler’s tack N 0.1 5 bidens (FG) Lagenophora blue bottle- Forb Asteraceae N 0.1 10 stipitata daisy (FG) Olearia elliptica sticky daisy Shrub Asteraceae N 0.1 2 0.1 1 subsp. elliptica bush (SG) Schkuhria Asteraceae curious weed E 0.1 10 1 100 10 pinnata Senecio Asteraceae fireweed HTE 0.1 5 0.1 4 0.1 10 0.2 10 0.1 5 0.1 10 madagascariensis Sonchus common Asteraceae E 0.1 1 5 0.1 4 oleraceus sowthistle Vittadinia Forb Asteraceae fuzzweed N 0.1 10 0.1 2 cuneata var. (FG)

BM20 BM23 BM25 EEA1 EEA2 EEA6 NVB1 NVB3 OTD1 OTD5 SE1

Growth N, E, Family Scientific Name Common Name C A C A C A C A C A C A C A C A C A C A C A Form HTE hirsuta

Vittadinia Forb Asteraceae - N 5 10 0.1 1 0.2 50 0.5 50 pustulata (FG) Lepidium Brassicaceae - E 0.1 1 africanum Opuntia Cactaceae tiger pear HTE 0.2 30 0.5 aurantiaca Wahlenbergia sprawling Forb Campanulaceae N 0.1 5 gracilis bluebell (FG) Allocasuarina Tree Casuarinaceae bulloak N 0.1 1 0.1 1 luehmannii (TG) Tree Casuarinaceae Casuarina glauca swamp oak N 60 (TG) Atriplex creeping Shrub Chenopodiaceae N 0.1 1 0.1 1 semibaccata saltbush (SG) Forb Chenopodiaceae Einadia hastata berry saltbush N 0.1 1 0.1 5 0.1 1 (FG) Einadia nutans Forb Chenopodiaceae saltbush N 0.1 2 0.1 2 0.1 30 0.1 2 subsp. linifolia (FG) Enchylaena Shrub Chenopodiaceae ruby saltbush N 0.1 1 5 0.1 2 0.2 6 tomentosa (SG) Hypericum Small St John’s Forb Clusiaceae N 0.1 1 gramineum wort (FG) Commelina Forb Commelinaceae scurvy weed N 1 30 0.1 5 cyanea (FG) Convolvulus blushing Other Convolvulaceae N 0.1 2 0.1 1 erubescens bindweed (OG) Forb Convolvulaceae Dichondra repens kidney weed N 0.5 100 5 1 30 0.1 10 1 10 0.1 5 0.1 3 0.1 10 2 30 (FG)

BM20 BM23 BM25 EEA1 EEA2 EEA6 NVB1 NVB3 OTD1 OTD5 SE1

Growth N, E, Family Scientific Name Common Name C A C A C A C A C A C A C A C A C A C A C A Form HTE Grass & Cyperaceae Carex inversa - grasslike N 0.1 10 (GG) Grass & slender flat Cyperaceae Cyperus gracilis grasslike N 0.1 20 0.1 20 sedge (GG) Grass & Fimbristylis common Cyperaceae grasslike N 0.1 5 0.1 1 dichotoma fringe-sedge (GG) Grass & rough saw- Cyperaceae Gahnia aspera grasslike N 0.1 2 sedge (GG) Hibbertia hoary guinea Shrub Dilleniaceae N 0.1 2 obtusifolia flower (SG) Shrub Ericaceae Lissanthe strigosa peach heath N 5 (SG) Euphorbia Forb Euphorbiaceae mat spurge N 0.1 2 0.1 2 0.1 10 0.2 20 0.1 2 1 40 dallachyana (FG) Riccinus Euphorbiaceae castor oil plant HTE 1 4 communis Senna Fabaceae Shrub artemisioides silver cassia N 0.1 1 (Caesalpinioideae) (SG) subsp. zygophylla Fabaceae Bossiaea Shrub - N 0.1 4 (Faboideae) rhombifolia (SG) Fabaceae Daviesia Shrub gorse bitter pea N 0.2 6 0.1 1 0.1 1 2 10 0.1 5 (Faboideae) genistifolia (SG) Desmodium Fabaceae large tick- Forb brachypodum N 0.1 5 (Faboideae) (Name change to trefoil (FG) Oxyetes brachypoda)

BM20 BM23 BM25 EEA1 EEA2 EEA6 NVB1 NVB3 OTD1 OTD5 SE1

Growth N, E, Family Scientific Name Common Name C A C A C A C A C A C A C A C A C A C A C A Form HTE Desmodium Fabaceae Forb gunnii - N 0.1 2 0.1 1 0.1 30 (Faboideae) (Name change to (FG) Pullenia gunnii) Fabaceae Desmodium Forb - N 0.1 2 (Faboideae) rhytidophyllum (FG) Fabaceae Desmodium slender tick- Other N 0.1 10 (Faboideae) varians trefoil (OG) Fabaceae Glycine Other - N 0.1 1 (Faboideae) clandestina (OG) Fabaceae Other Glycine latifolia - N 0.1 4 (Faboideae) (OG) Fabaceae Other Glycine tabacina - N 0.1 10 0.1 10 0.1 1 0.1 2 0.1 20 0.1 10 0.1 20 (Faboideae) (OG) Fabaceae Hardenbergia Other false sarsparilla N 0.1 3 1 5 0.1 1 0.1 1 0.1 2 0.1 1 (Faboideae) violacea (OG) Fabaceae Macoptilium siratro E 0.1 1 (Faboideae) atropurpureum Fabaceae Medicago sativa lucerne E 0.1 1 (Faboideae) Fabaceae Swainsona smooth darling- Forb N 1 10 0.1 2 0.5 2 (Faboideae) galegifolia pea (FG) Fabaceae western silver Shrub Acacia ?decora N 2 10 (Mimosoideae) wattle (SG) Fabaceae Tree Acacia ?elongata swamp wattle N 2 5 1 5 0.1 1 0.1 2 (Mimosoideae) (TG) Fabaceae Acacia Shrub fan wattle N 0.1 1 0.1 2 2 20 2 20 5 5 5 (Mimosoideae) amblygona (SG) Fabaceae Acacia knife-leaf Shrub N 0.5 (Mimosoideae) cultriformis wattle (SG)

BM20 BM23 BM25 EEA1 EEA2 EEA6 NVB1 NVB3 OTD1 OTD5 SE1

Growth N, E, Family Scientific Name Common Name C A C A C A C A C A C A C A C A C A C A C A Form HTE Fabaceae western silver Shrub Acacia decora N 5 2 30 5 1 5 (Mimosoideae) wattle (SG) Fabaceae Tree Acacia decurrens black wattle N 10 10 1 5 5 4 2 6 5 (Mimosoideae) (TG) Fabaceae Shrub 5- Acacia falcata sickle wattle N 10 2 2 20 1 4 1 5 5 (Mimosoideae) (SG) 10. Fabaceae ploughshare Shrub Acacia gunnii N 0.1 1 (Mimosoideae) wattle (SG) Fabaceae Shrub Acacia implexa hickory wattle N 2 10 2 5 2 6 2 10 0.1 2 (Mimosoideae) (SG) Fabaceae narrow-leaved Tree Acacia linearifolia N 2 10 2 10 0.2 1 2 5 0.1 1 (Mimosoideae) wattle (TG)

Fabaceae blunt-leaf Shrub Acacia ?obtusata N 5 15 (Mimosoideae) wattle (SG)

Fabaceae Shrub Acacia paradoxa kangaroo thorn N 0.1 1 0.1 3 0.1 1 (Mimosoideae) (SG) Fabaceae Acacia silver-stemmed Shrub N 0.1 2 10 0.5 5 2 5 5 0.5 3 (Mimosoideae) parvipinnula wattle (SG) Fabaceae Acacia Queensland E 2 6 (Mimosoideae) podalyriifolia silver wattle Fabaceae Tree Acacia salicina cooba N 0.5 4 0.1 2 0.1 2 20 5 5 20 (Mimosoideae) (TG) Fabaceae golden wreath Acacia saligna HTE 0.1 1 2 3 0.1 1 (Mimosoideae) wattle Forb Geraniaceae Erodium crinitum blue storksbill N 0.1 1 (FG) Geranium native Forb Geraniaceae N 0.1 1 solanderi geranium (FG) Hypoxidaceae Hypoxis golden Forb N 0.1 1

BM20 BM23 BM25 EEA1 EEA2 EEA6 NVB1 NVB3 OTD1 OTD5 SE1

Growth N, E, Family Scientific Name Common Name C A C A C A C A C A C A C A C A C A C A C A Form HTE hygrometrica weather-grass (FG) Forb Lamiaceae Ajuga australis Austral bugle N 0.1 5 (FG) Mentha Forb Lamiaceae slender mint N 0.2 100 0.1 5 diemenica (FG) Forb Lobeliaceae Pratia concolor poison pratia N 0.1 10 (FG) Pratia Forb Lobeliaceae white root N 0.1 10 purpurascens (FG) Grass & Lomandra wattle mat- Lomandraceae grasslike N 0.1 20 0.2 20 filiformis rush (GG) Lomandra Grass & many-flowered Lomandraceae multiflora subsp. grasslike N 0.1 5 0.1 2 mat-rush multiflora (GG) Modiola red-flowered Malvaceae E 0.1 10 0.1 10 0.1 10 caroliana mallow Malvaceae Pavonia hastata - E 0.1 1 0.1 2 Forb Malvaceae Sida corrugata corrugated sida N 0.1 20 2 100 0.1 1 0.1 2 0.1 5 (FG) Forb Malvaceae Sida hackettiana golden rod N 0.1 2 0.1 3 (FG) Malvaceae Sida rhombifolia Paddys lucerne E 0.1 2 0.2 10 0.1 10 10 0.1 1 1 30 5 10 5 Malvaceae Sida spinosa - E 0.1 2 Eremophila Shrub Myoporaceae winter apple N 2 40 2 50 0.1 1 0.1 1 1 20 debilis (SG) Myoporum western Shrub Myoporaceae N 0.1 2 0.1 1 montanum boobialla (SG) Corymbia Tree Myrtaceae spotted gum N 40 10 5 5 5 5 10 10 30 maculata (TG)

BM20 BM23 BM25 EEA1 EEA2 EEA6 NVB1 NVB3 OTD1 OTD5 SE1

Growth N, E, Family Scientific Name Common Name C A C A C A C A C A C A C A C A C A C A C A Form HTE Eucalyptus Blakely's red Tree Myrtaceae N 5 0.1 1 10 blakelyi gum (TG) narrow-leaved Tree Myrtaceae Eucalyptus crebra N 20 0.1 1 5 5 5 1 6 0.5 5 5 5 ironbark (TG) Eucalyptus Tree Myrtaceae grey box N 20 2 2 2 10 2 3 0.1 1 5 moluccana (TG) Eucalyptus sp. Tree Myrtaceae - N 0.1 1 (juvenile) (TG) Jasminum Other Oleaceae stiff jasmine N 0.2 6 volubile (OG) Forb Oxalidaceae Oxalis perennans - N 0.1 10 0.1 20 0.1 1 0.1 20 0.2 20 0.1 5 (FG) Forb Phormiaceae Dianella caerulea blue flax-lily N 0.1 10 (FG) Breynia Shrub Phyllanthaceae coffee bush N 0.2 4 oblongifolia (SG) Phyllanthus Shrub Phyllanthaceae thyme spurge N 0.2 50 0.1 1 hirtellus (SG) Bursaria spinosa Shrub Pittosporaceae blackthorn N 30 subsp. spinosa (SG) Plantago Plantaginaceae plantain E 0.1 2 0.1 1 0.1 10 0.1 20 0.1 1 0.2 40 0.1 2 lanceolata Grass & purple Poaceae Aristida ramosa grasslike N 10 5 2 40 2 30 wiregrass (GG) Grass & Austrostipa Poaceae speargrass grasslike N 0.2 40 0.1 5 scabra (GG)

BM20 BM23 BM25 EEA1 EEA2 EEA6 NVB1 NVB3 OTD1 OTD5 SE1

Growth N, E, Family Scientific Name Common Name C A C A C A C A C A C A C A C A C A C A C A Form HTE Grass & Austrostipa slender Poaceae grasslike N 5 verticillata bamboo grass (GG) Grass & Bothriochloa Poaceae - grasslike N 5 0.5 10 biloba (GG) Bothriochloa Grass & Poaceae decipiens var. red grass grasslike N 0.2 10 decipiens (GG) Grass & Bothriochloa Poaceae red grass grasslike N 5 1 10 5 0.1 5 0.1 1 macra (GG) Cenchrus Poaceae kikuyu HTE 10 0.1 4 clandestinus Grass & Chloris divaricata Poaceae slender chloris grasslike N 0.1 5 2 30 1 5 5 0.1 4 var. divaricata (GG) Poaceae Chloris gayana Rhodes grass HTE 1 30 1 10 0.1 2 5 0.1 1 Grass & plump windmill Poaceae Chloris ventricosa grasslike N 5 0.5 20 1 10 0.1 5 0.1 1 0.1 1 grass (GG) Grass & Cymbopogon barbed wire Poaceae grasslike N 2 0.1 20 1 10 0.5 5 1 20 0.5 30 2 30 refractus grass (GG) Grass & Poaceae Cynodon dactylon common couch grasslike N 30 30 70 10 40 40 30 0.1 1 (GG) Dichanthium Grass & Queensland Poaceae sericeum subsp. grasslike N 10 2 30 bluegrass sericeum (GG)

BM20 BM23 BM25 EEA1 EEA2 EEA6 NVB1 NVB3 OTD1 OTD5 SE1

Growth N, E, Family Scientific Name Common Name C A C A C A C A C A C A C A C A C A C A C A Form HTE Grass & open summer- Poaceae Digitaria diffusa grasslike N 1 40 0.2 20 grass (GG) Grass & Digitaria Poaceae umbrella grass grasslike N 1 30 10 10 0.1 5 0.1 3 divaricatissima (GG) Echinochloa Poaceae Japanese millet E 1 20 esculenta Grass & Entolasia Poaceae bordered panic grasslike N 0.1 2 marginata (GG) Grass & Eragrostis Brown's Poaceae grasslike N 1 40 brownii lovegrass (GG) Grass & Eragrostis clustered Poaceae grasslike N 0.1 2 0.1 5 elongata lovegrass (GG) Grass & Eragrostis paddock Poaceae grasslike N 0.1 5 1 30 1 20 leptostachya lovegrass (GG) Grass & Eriochloa early spring Poaceae grasslike N 5 50 0.5 30 5 10 20 pseudoacrotricha grass (GG) perennial Poaceae Lolium perenne E 0.1 2 0.2 10 ryegrass Megathyrsus Poaceae guinea grass HTE 20 5 10 0.1 2 maximus Poaceae Melinis repens red natal grass E 0.1 1

BM20 BM23 BM25 EEA1 EEA2 EEA6 NVB1 NVB3 OTD1 OTD5 SE1

Growth N, E, Family Scientific Name Common Name C A C A C A C A C A C A C A C A C A C A C A Form HTE Microlaena Grass & Poaceae stipoides var. weeping grass grasslike N 5 stipoides (GG) Grass & Panicum Poaceae native millet grasslike N 2 40 decompositum (GG) Grass & two-colour Poaceae Panicum simile grasslike N 0.1 5 2 30 0.5 5 0.2 20 0.1 2 panic (GG) Grass & Paspalidium Poaceae - grasslike N 10 2 30 0.1 5 distans (GG) Grass & Poaceae Rytidosperma sp. a wallaby grass grasslike N 1 30 (GG) Poaceae Setaria parviflora - E 0.2 10 5 pale pigeon Poaceae Setaria pumila E 5 0.1 5 2 40 40 0.1 20 0.2 10 grass Setaria South African Poaceae E 0.1 2 10 0.1 1 2 30 0.1 1 sphacelata pigeon grass Grass & Sporobolus slender rat's Poaceae grasslike N 0.1 3 0.1 10 creber tail grass (GG) Acetosella Polygonaceae sheep sorrel HTE 0.1 1 vulgaris Portulaca Forb Portulacaceae pigweed N 0.1 5 oleracea (FG) Lysimachia scarlet Primulaceae E 0.5 20 0.1 30 0.1 10 arvensis pimpernel Proteaceae Persoonia linearis narrow-leaved Shrub N 0.2 1

BM20 BM23 BM25 EEA1 EEA2 EEA6 NVB1 NVB3 OTD1 OTD5 SE1

Growth N, E, Family Scientific Name Common Name C A C A C A C A C A C A C A C A C A C A C A Form HTE geebung (SG) Cheilanthes bristly cloak Fern Pteridaceae N 0.2 30 0.1 20 0.1 10 distans fern (EG) Cheilanthes poison rock Fern Pteridaceae sieberi subsp. N 0.1 10 1 50 0.1 50 fern (EG) sieberi Clematis old man's Other Ranunculaceae N 0.2 10 glycinoides beard (OG) common Forb Rubiaceae Asperula conferta N 0.1 10 0.1 1 woodruff (FG) Opercularia Forb Rubiaceae - N 0.1 1 diphylla (FG) Rubiaceae Richardia stellaris - E 0.1 5 Choretrum sp. Shrub Santalaceae - N 1 4 Coxs Gap (SG) Dodonaea common hop Shrub Sapindaceae N 10 triquetra bush (SG) Dodonaea Shrub Sapindaceae sticky hop bush N 0.1 1 0.2 5 5 viscosa (SG) Dodonaea Shrub Sapindaceae viscosa subsp. sticky hop bush N 5 0.1 1 (SG) angustifolia Dodonaea wedge-leaf Shrub Sapindaceae viscosa subsp. N 1 4 1 5 hop-bush (SG) cuneata Dodonaea Shrub Sapindaceae viscosa subsp. - N 0.2 3 (SG) spatulata Physalis cape Solanaceae E 0.2 1 peruviana gooseberry

BM20 BM23 BM25 EEA1 EEA2 EEA6 NVB1 NVB3 OTD1 OTD5 SE1

Growth N, E, Family Scientific Name Common Name C A C A C A C A C A C A C A C A C A C A C A Form HTE Solanum Shrub Solanaceae Narrawa burr N 0.1 1 0.1 1 1 5 cinereum (SG) black Solanaceae Solanum nigrum E 0.1 10 2 10 0.1 nightshade Solanum forest Forb Solanaceae N 0.1 5 0.1 2 prinophyllum nightshade (FG) Stackhousia western Forb Stackhousiaceae N 0.1 10 muricata stackhousia (FG) Stackhousia slender Forb Stackhousiaceae N 0.1 2 0.1 10 viminea stackhousia (FG) Pimelea latifolia Shrub Thymelaeaceae - N 0.2 50 subsp. elliptifolia (SG) Glandularia Verbenaceae Mayne's pest E 5 aristigera Verbenaceae Lantana camara lantana HTE 2 20 5 0.1 1 0.1 2 0.1 2 Verbena Verbenaceae purple top E 0.1 2 0.2 20 0.1 20 0.1 5 bonariensis

APPENDIX 4 Seed Mixes

Appendix 4 – Seed Mixes The seed mixes used in the 2017 rehabilitation is provided in Table 1 and 2 and the modified 2018 seed mix is provided in Table 3 and 4.

Table 1. 2017 Seed Mix for Grey Box-Ironbark Woodland

Grey Box – Ironbark Woodland Species Common Name Rate Form Acacia amblygona fan wattle 0.3kg/ha Shrub Acacia decora western silver wattle 0.4kg/ha Shrub Acacia decurrens black wattle 0.5kg/ha Shrub Acacia falcata sickle wattle 0.4kg/ha Shrub Acacia implexa hickory wattle 0.3kg/ha Low tree Acacia paradoxa kangaroo thorn 0.1kg/ha Shrub Acacia salicina cooba 0.3kg/ha Low tree Allocasuarina littoralis black she-oak 0.1kg/ha Low tree Allocasuarina luehmannii bulloak 0.1kg/ha Low tree Angophora floribunda rough-barked apple 0.2kg/ha Tree Bothriochloa decipiens red grass 0.1kg/ha Grass Brachychiton populneus kurrajong 0.2kg/ha Tree Bursaria spinosa blackthorn 0.1kg/ha Shrub Chloris ventricosa windmill grass 0.1kg/ha Grass Corymbia maculata spotted gum 0.4kg/ha Tree Dodonaea viscosa sticky hop-bush 0.3kg/ha Shrub Einadia hastata saltbush 0.1kg/ha Groundcover Eremophila debilis amulla 0.1kg/ha Groundcover Eucalyptus blakelyi Blakely’s red gum 0.4kg/ha Tree narrow-leaved Eucalyptus crebra 1.2kg/ha Tree ironbark Eucalyptus moluccana grey box 1.2kg/ha Tree Eucalyptus tereticornis forest red gum 0.2kg/ha Tree Hardenbergia violacea false sarsaparilla 0.1kg/ha Groundcover many-flowered mat- Lomandra filiformis or multiflora 0.1kg/ha Rush rush Microlaena stipoides weeping grass 0.1kg/ha Grass Total 7.4kg/ha

Table 2. 2017 Seed Mix for Ironbark-Spotted Gum-Grey Box Woodland

Ironbark– Spotted Gum – Grey Box Woodland Species Common Name Rate Type Acacia decurrens green wattle 0.5kg/ha Low tree Acacia falcata sickle wattle 0.5kg/ha Shrub Acacia implexa hickory wattle 0.2kg/ha Low tree Acacia parvipinnula silver-stemmed wattle 0.3kg/ha Shrub Acacia salicina cooba 0.3kg/ha Shrub Allocasuarina luehmannii bulloak 0.1 kg/ha Low tree Dodonaea viscosa sticky hop-bush 0.1 kg/ha Shrub Bursaria spinosa blackthorn 0.2 kg/ha Shrub Corymbia maculata spotted gum 1.3 kg/ha Tree Daviesia ulicifolia gorse bitter pea 0.1 kg/ha Shrub Dianella caerulea blue flax-lily 0.1 kg/ha Groundcover Eremophila debilis amulla 0.1 kg/ha Groundcover Eucalyptus blakelyi Blakely’s red gum 0.4 kg/ha Tree narrow-leaved Eucalyptus crebra 1.0 kg/ha Tree ironbark Eucalyptus fibrosa red ironbark 0.5 kg/ha Tree Eucalyptus moluccana) grey box 0.8 kg/ha Tree Eucalyptus tereticornis forest red gum 0.3 kg/ha Tree Hardenbergia violacea false sarsaparilla 0.1 kg/ha Groundcover many-flowered mat- Lomandra filiformis or multiflora 0.1 kg/ha Rush rush Microlaena stipoides weeping grass 0.1 kg/ha Native grass Pultenaea spinosa grey bush-pea 0.1 kg/ha Shrub Themeda australis kangaroo grass 0.1 kg/ha Native grass Total 7.4kg/ha

Table 3. 2018 Seed Mix for Grey Box-Ironbark Woodland

Sowing Sowing % of % of Species Rate Species Rate category category (kg/ha) (kg/ha) Tree Species Forbs Cont. Chrysocephalum Corymbia maculata 7% 0.2 12% 0.06 apiculatum Eucalyptus blakelyi 11% 0.3 Einadia nutans 16% 0.08 Eucalyptus crebra 39% 1.1 Einadia trigonos 8% 0.04 Eucalyptus glaucina 7% 0.2 Enchylaena tomentosa 8% 0.04 Eucalyptus moluccana 25% 0.7 Pomax umbellata 4% 0.02 Eucalyptus tereticornis 11% 0.3 Solanum cinereum 8% 0.04 Total Trees 100% 2.8 Vittadinia spp. 12% 0.06 Shrub Species Total Forbs 100% 0.5 Acacia decurrens 9% 0.3 Grass Species Acacia implexa 6% 0.2 Aristida spp. 13% 0.2 Acacia parvipinnula 3% 0.1 Austrodanthonia spp. 3% 0.04 Acacia salicina 6% 0.2 Austrostipa scabra 3% 0.04 Brachychiton populneus 6% 0.2 Austrostipa verticillata 3% 0.04 Bursaria spinosa 3% 0.1 Bothriochloa biloba 3% 0.04 Acacia amblygona 6% 0.2 Bothriochloa decipiens 7% 0.1 Acacia cultriformis 3% 0.1 Bothriochloa macra 7% 0.1 Acacia decora 9% 0.3 Cymbopogon refractus 7% 0.1 Acacia falcata 15% 0.5 Dicanthium sericeum 7% 0.1 Acacia paradoxa 6% 0.2 Digitaria spp. 11% 0.16 Daviesia genistifolia 3% 0.1 Eragrostis spp. 3% 0.04 Daviesia ulicifolia 1% 0.04 Imperata cylindrica 3% 0.04 Daviesia ulicifolia subsp. 2% 0.06 Microleana stipoides 11% 0.16 Stenophylla Hardenbergia violacea 3% 0.1 Paspalidium distans 3% 0.04 Indigofera australis 3% 0.1 Sporobolus creber 7% 0.1 Cassinia arcuata 2% 0.06 Themeda triandra 13% 0.2 Dodonaea viscosa subsp 5% 0.16 Total Native Grass 100% 1.5 cuneata Eremophila deserti 2% 0.06 Cover Crop Millet (summer)/ Melaleuca decora 1% 0.02 5 Oats (Winter) Olearia elliptica 2% 0.08 Couch 2 Ozothamnus diosmifolius 2% 0.06 Rye 1 Senna artemesioides 2% 0.06 Total All Categories 16.1 subsp. zygophylla Total Shrubs 100% 3.3 Forb Species Atriplex semibaccata 4% 0.02

Calocephalus critreus 4% 0.02 Calotis cuneifolia 4% 0.02 Calotis lappulacea 20% 0.1

Table 4. 2018 Seed Mix for Ironbark-Spotted Gum-Grey Box Woodland

Sowing Sowing % of % of Species Rate Species Rate category category (kg/ha) (kg/ha) Tree Species Forbs Cont. Corymbia maculata 29% 0.8 Enchylaena tomentosa 8% 0.04 Eucalyptus blakelyi 7% 0.2 Solanum cinereum 8% 0.04 Eucalyptus crebra 29% 0.8 Swainsona galegifolia 12% 0.06 Eucalyptus fibrosa 4% 0.1 Vittadinia spp. 8% 0.04 Eucalyptus moluccana 21% 0.6 Total 100% 0.5 Eucalyptus punctata 4% 0.1 Grass Species Eucalyptus tereticornis 7% 0.2 Aristida spp. 13% 0.2 Total 100% 2.8 Austrodanthonia spp. 3% 0.04 Shrub Species Austrostipa scabra 3% 0.04 Acacia decurrens 9% 0.3 Austrostipa verticillata 3% 0.04 Acacia implexa 6% 0.2 Bothriochloa biloba 3% 0.04 Acacia parvipinnula 9% 0.3 Bothriochloa decipiens 7% 0.1 Acacia salicina 6% 0.2 Bothriochloa macra 7% 0.1 Bursaria spinosa 3% 0.1 Cymbopogon refractus 7% 0.1 Acacia amblygona 6% 0.2 Dicanthium sericeum 7% 0.1 Acacia decora 9% 0.3 Digitaria spp. 11% 0.16 Acacia falcata 15% 0.5 Eragrostis spp. 3% 0.04 Acacia paradoxa 6% 0.2 Imperata cylindrica 3% 0.04 Daviesia ulicifolia 6% 0.2 Microleana stipoides 11% 0.16 Hardenbergia violacea 3% 0.1 Paspalidium distans 3% 0.04 Indigofera australis 3% 0.1 Sporobolus creber 7% 0.1 Jacksonia scoparia 3% 0.1 Themeda triandra 13% 0.2 Cassinia quinquefaria 3% 0.1 Total 100% 1.5 Dodonaea viscosa 3% 0.1 Cover Crop subsp cuneata Millet (summer)/ Melaleuca nodosa 1% 0.04 5 Oats (Winter) Myoporum montanum 2% 0.06 Couch 2 Olearia elliptica 3% 0.1 Rye 1 Ozothamnus 3% 0.1 TOTAL ALL CATEGORIES 16.1 diosmifolius Total 100% 3.3 Forb Species Ajuga australis 8% 0.04 Atriplex semibaccata 8% 0.04

Calotis cuneifolia 4% 0.02 Calotis lappulacea 12% 0.06 Chrysocephalum 12% 0.06 apiculatum Einadia nutans 12% 0.06 Einadia trigonos 8% 0.04

APPENDIX 5

Trigger Action Response Plan

Appendix 5 – Trigger Action Response Plan

Aspect/ Trigger Key Element Condition Green Condition Amber Condition Red Category Response

Rehabilitation Rehabilitation areas areas have slopes (with the exception of that are <10˚, or some areas of the Rehabilitation areas Trigger <14° for some Noise and Visual have slopes >15°. areas of the Noise Bund) have slopes and Visual Bund. >10° but <14˚. Slope gradient Undertake a review of No response Undertake regrading the landform design, required. and revegetation of including survey if Response Continue the area, if it is not required. Undertake monitoring designed to be >10° regrading and program. <14˚. revegetation of the area, if required.

Minor gully or tunnel Significant gully or No gully or tunnel erosion present tunnel erosion Trigger erosion. No rilling and/or rilling <300 present and/or rilling present. mm deep. >300 mm deep. Landform stability An inspection of the site will be undertaken by a Undertake a review of Erosion suitably trained the drainage of the No response control person. Investigate area and provide required. opportunities to recommendations to Response Continue install water appropriately monitoring management remediate the program. infrastructure to erosion. Remediate as address erosion. soon as practicable. Remediate as appropriate.

Drainage Landforms exhibiting Landforms exhibiting condition is in minor drainage issues significant drainage Drainage accordance with Trigger but does not threaten issues, threatening or Condition the design criteria to cause causing rehabilitation established within rehabilitation failure. failure. this document.

Aspect/ Trigger Key Element Condition Green Condition Amber Condition Red Category Response

An inspection of the Undertake a review of site will be the drainage design No response undertaken by a and provide required. suitably trained recommendations to Response Continue person. Investigate appropriately monitoring opportunities to remediate the area. program. address issues. Remediate as soon as Remediate as practicable. appropriate.

Surface water quality of runoff from Water quality rehabilitation exceeds EPL or Water quality areas is within EPL performance criteria exceeds criteria, Trigger criteria and but does not indicate indicating a long term rehabilitation a long-term rehabilitation liability. performance rehabilitation issue. criteria established within this document.

Water Monitoring Reporting as per Quality parameters PIRMP and all statutory reporting Review and requirements. investigation of water Implement relevant No response quality monitoring responses and required. and management undertake immediate Response Continue where appropriate. review to determine monitoring Implement relevant source of issues and program. remedial measures implement where required. remediation measures identified as soon as practicable.

Some small batches Large areas (>400 m2) No bare patches of bare ground, or of bare ground, or Soil/spoil Monitoring of rehabilitation poor vegetation poor vegetation Trigger Quality parameters indicating poor growth indicating a growth indicating a soil/spoil quality. potential issue with potential issue with soil/spoil quality. soil/spoil quality.

Aspect/ Trigger Key Element Condition Green Condition Amber Condition Red Category Response

Engage a consultant Conduct investigation to assist with No response and take samples of recommendations to required. soil/spoil to appropriately Response Continue determine the need remediate soil/spoil monitoring for ameliorants or quality and depth. program. other management Remediate as soon as options. practicable.

Twelve months following Twelve months Twelve months revegetation following following works, a minimum revegetation works, a revegetation works, a Trigger of 70% total minimum of 60% minimum of 50% ground cover is total ground cover is total ground cover is present within present within present within rehabilitation rehabilitation areas. rehabilitation areas. areas. Surface cover An inspection of the site will be undertaken by a No response Vegetation Review procedures suitably trained required. where required to person. Investigate Response Continue increase vegetation use of appropriate monitoring cover. management options program. to remediate. Remediate as appropriate.

Twelve months Twelve months Twelve months following following following Weed revegetation, no revegetation, >25% Trigger revegetation, >50% presence significant weed but <50% cover of cover of undesirable infestations undesirable species species present. present. present.

Aspect/ Trigger Key Element Condition Green Condition Amber Condition Red Category Response

Engage a weed management Review monitoring contractor to remove report to identify the noxious and nature of the weeds problematic weeds present and from the site as soon No response recommendations as practicable. required. from monitoring Investigate Response Continue report. Engage a management monitoring weed management measures to assist program. contractor to remove native plant noxious and establishment problematic weeds if including use of required. ameliorants and implement as appropriate.

Two years following Five years following Five years following revegetation, revegetation, native revegetation, native species tree and shrub tree and shrub composition Trigger species composition species composition comprises native comprises <75% comprises <50% tree and shrub consistent with consistent with species consistent analogue site. analogue site. Species with analogue composition site. Review native seed An inspection of the mix and amend site will be No response accordingly. Consider undertaken by a required. remedial actions such suitably trained Response Continue as tube stock planting person. Investigate monitoring or re-seeding to remedial options to program. achieve required achieve required species composition. species composition