DOCSLIB.ORG

Orica Richmond Vale Biodiversity Offset Area Monitoring Report – 2017

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

ORICA RICHMOND VALE BIODIVERSITY OFFSET AREA MONITORING REPORT – 2017 FINAL September 2017 ORICA RICHMOND VALE BIODIVERSITY OFFSET AREA MONITORING REPORT – 2017 FINAL Prepared by Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited on behalf of Orica Mining Services Project Director: Shaun Corry Project Manager: Brooke Weber Report No. 3614/R03/V2/Final Date: September 2017 Newcastle 75 York Street Teralba NSW 2284 Ph. 02 4950 5322 www.umwelt.com.au This report was prepared using Umwelt’s ISO 9001 certified Quality Management System. Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction 1 1.1 Background 1 2.0 Methods 4 2.1 Flora Methods 6 2.1.1 Floristic Surveys 6 2.1.2 Plant Identification and Taxonomic Review 7 2.1.3 Condition Assessment 7 2.1.4 Photo Monitoring 7 2.2 Fauna Methods 7 2.2.1 Diurnal Herpetofauna Survey 7 2.2.2 Diurnal Avifauna Survey 8 2.2.3 Call Playback 8 2.2.4 Nocturnal Survey 8 2.2.5 Micro-bat Echolocation Survey 8 2.3 Ecosystem Function Assessment 9 3.0 Monitoring Results 10 3.1 Flora 10 3.1.1 MP 1 10 3.1.2 MP 2 12 3.1.3 MP 3 14 3.1.4 MP 4 16 3.2 Fauna 18 3.2.1 MP 1 18 3.2.2 MP 4 21 3.3 Ecosystem Function Assessment 22 3.3.1 Native Vegetation Condition Assessment 22 3.3.2 Water Bodies Condition Assessment 22 4.0 Management Issues 24 4.1 Weeds 24 4.2 Pest Species 26 4.3 Erosion 26 4.3.1 Waterways 26 4.3.2 Access Tracks 27 5.0 Summary 28 5.1 Flora 28 5.2 Fauna 28 ORICA RICHMOND VALEBIODIVERSITY OFFSET AREA MONITORING REPORT – 2017 3614_R03_Biodiversity Offset Area_V2 6.0 Conclusions and Recommendations 30 7.0 References 31 Figures Figure 1.1 Locality Plan 2 Figure 2.1 Monitoring Point Locations 5 Figure 3.1 Threatened Fauna Records 20 Figure 4.1 Biodiversity Management Issues 25 Plates Plate 3.1 MP 1 Photo North 10 Plate 3.2 MP 1 Photo East 10 Plate 3.3 MP 1 Photo South 10 Plate 3.4 MP 1 Photo West 10 Plate 3.5 MP 2 Photo North 12 Plate 3.6 MP 2 Photo East 12 Plate 3.7 MP 2 Photo South 12 Plate 3.8 MP 2 Photo West 12 Plate 3.9 MP 3 Photo North 14 Plate 3.10 MP 3 Photo East 14 Plate 3.11 MP 3 Photo South 14 Plate 3.12 MP 3 Photo West 14 Plate 3.13 MP 4 Photo North 16 Plate 3.14 MP 4 Photo East 16 Plate 3.15 MP 4 Photo South 16 Plate 3.16 MP 4 Photo West 16 Plate 4.1 Severe stream bank erosion near MP 2 in 2015 (left) and 2017 (right) showing increased erosion 26 ORICA RICHMOND VALEBIODIVERSITY OFFSET AREA MONITORING REPORT – 2017 3614_R03_Biodiversity Offset Area_V2 Tables Table 2.1 Coordinates of Biodiversity Offset Area Monitoring Points 4 Table 3.1 Summary of Data Collected during Monitoring Surveys at MP1 11 Table 3.2 Summary of Data Collected during Monitoring Surveys at MP2 13 Table 3.3 Summary of Data Collected during M onitoring Surveys at MP3 15 Table 3.4 Summary of Data Collected during Monitoring Surveys at Site MP4 17 Table 3.5 Summary of Data Collected during Monitoring Surveys at Site MP1 18 Table 3.6 Summary of Data Collected during Monitoring Surveys at Site MP4 21 Appendices Appendix 1 Flora List Appendix 2 Fauna List Appendix 3 OEH Data Sheets ORICA RICHMOND VALEBIODIVERSITY OFFSET AREA MONITORING REPORT – 2017 3614_R03_Biodiversity Offset Area_V2 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Background The Orica Technology Centre (the site) is situated on the southern side of George Booth Drive, Richmond Vale, NSW (Figure 1.1). The Technology Centre commenced operation in 1991 as an explosives research and production facility. It comprises 292 hectares of predominantly open forest vegetation, of which 8 hectares is currently occupied by the existing Technology Centre operations. On 26 July 2010, development approval under Part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) was granted for the continuation of the existing operations at the Technology Centre as well as the construction and operation of a proposed Ammonium Nitrate Emulsion (ANE) Production Facility. As a result of the potential impacts associated with the Project, a Biodiversity Offset Area has been developed to offset the impacts of the project on threatened species, endangered ecological communities (EECs) and their habitats. The Biodiversity Offset Area was increased from approximately 17 hectares to 31.7 hectares following consultation with the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) as part of the Response to Submissions process. A Vegetation Management Plan (Umwelt 2012a) was developed in consultation with the OEH – Conservation Partnerships Delivery Unit which outlined the need to undertake annual ecological monitoring of the Biodiversity Offset Area. The Vegetation Management Plan (VMP) was revised in 2015 (Umwelt 2015) and outlined the need to incorporate the annual ecological monitoring with the required annual reporting for the OEH Conservation Agreement to streamline the process and negate the need for multiple surveys. This combined annual ecological monitoring report and OEH Conservation Agreement report will satisfy the regulatory requirements of both the Department of Planning and Infrastructure (DP&I) and OEH. In 2012, four permanent ecological monitoring points were set up within the Biodiversity Offset Area. All four points were assessed for their flora characteristics and ecosystem function and two of the monitoring points were also assessed for their fauna characteristics. The data collected in 2012 provided baseline data for future monitoring to be compared against and enables targeted and adaptive management procedures to be implemented to ensure the biological integrity of the Biodiversity Offset Area is maintained or improved and conserved into the future. ORICA RICHMOND VALEBIODIVERSITY OFFSET AREA MONITORING REPORT – 2017 Introduction 3614_R03_Biodiversity Offset Area_V2 1 Based on the results of the 2016 ecological surveys and the Biodiversity Offset Area Land Management Action Plan (LMAP) 2016-2017 (Hunter Land Management 2017), a number of management issues were identified that, if left un-managed would likely represent a threat to the biodiversity values of the Biodiversity Offset Area. These issues included: • low to moderate density of weed species along the creek lines and vehicle tracks • cattle access • vertebrate pest control • waste and • severe creek bank erosion. This biodiversity monitoring report presents the methods and results of the 2017 biodiversity monitoring program at the Orica Biodiversity Offset Area, including a discussion of the findings and comparisons with the results of the baseline data and subsequent monitoring surveys conducted between 2013 and 2016. Management recommendations that relate to the current monitoring phases are documented in Section 4.0. ORICA RICHMOND VALEBIODIVERSITY OFFSET AREA MONITORING REPORT – 2017 Introduction 3614_R03_Biodiversity Offset Area_V2 3 2.0 Methods The following sections detail the methods employed for the 2017 biodiversity offset area monitoring program. The methods employed as part of this monitoring program are consistent with those outlined in the Vegetation Management Plan (Umwelt 2015) as well as those employed in the 2013 to 2016 biodiversity offset area monitoring programs. The locations of the monitoring points (MP) surveyed as part of the 2017 monitoring are provided in Figure 2.1, and the coordinates for each MP are provided in Table 2.1. Table 2.1 Coordinates of Biodiversity Offset Area Monitoring Points Monitoring Point Name Coordinates (MGA) Easting Northing MP 1 362234.0 6362341.9 MP 2 362087.5 6362271.3 MP 3 361928.5 6362306.8 MP 4 361936.4 6362395.8 The flora and fauna survey for the 2017 ecological monitoring of the Orica Biodiversity Offset Area was undertaken on the 3 and 4 August, 2017. The temperature during this period ranged from approximately 7 °C to 18.7 C and 6.5mm rainfall and light winds on 3 August with winds increasing on 4 August predominantly from the north-west. ORICA RICHMOND VALEBIODIVERSITY OFFSET AREA MONITORING REPORT – 2017 Methods 3614_R03_Biodiversity Offset Area_V2 4 2.1 Flora Methods 2.1.1 Floristic Surveys Flora surveys were undertaken at all four monitoring points. The methods used were in accordance with the BioMetric field methodologies for measuring condition variables for site value and at reference sites documented in Appendix 4 of the Operational Manual for BioMetric 3.1 (DECCW 2011). A 20 metre by 50 metre permanent quadrat was established at each of the four monitoring points. Schematic 1 illustrates the manner in which each 20 metre by 50 metre plot was established. 20m 20x20m plot 50m line transect 20m 20m Schematic 1 Vegetation Monitoring Plot Design The flora surveys, using the methods as outlined in the BioMetric field methodologies, (DECCW 2011) provide information on: • floristic composition (including cover and abundance of species) and structure • general health of vegetation (including weed density and dieback) • evidence of natural recruitment • presence of important habitat features such as tree hollows and nests • evidence of feral animal usage • signs of disturbance • erosion and need for repair • fire management • success of any management programs implemented and • other management issues. ORICA RICHMOND VALEBIODIVERSITY OFFSET AREA MONITORING REPORT – 2017 Methods 3614_R03_Biodiversity Offset Area_V2 6 2.1.2 Plant Identification and Taxonomic Review The flora specimens that were recorded or collected on-site were identified using the nomenclature and keys as described in Harden (1992, 1993, 2000 and 2002) and Wheeler et al. (2002). When the identity of flora specimens could not be otherwise determined, a sample of the specimen was sent to the Royal Botanic Gardens Sydney at the National Herbarium of New South Wales for identification.
Recommended publications
  • 2020 Majura Ainslie Plant List.Xlsx

    2020 Majura Ainslie Plant List.Xlsx

    Plant Species List for Mount Majura and Mount Ainslie, Canberra Base data from Ingwerson, F; O. Evans & B. Griffiths. (1974). Vegetation of the Ainslie-Majura Reserve . Conservation Series No. 2. AGPS Canberra. Re-organised, revised and updated by Michael Doherty, CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences and Waltraud Pix, Friends of Mt. Majura With advice from Isobel Crawford, Australian Botanical Surveys Current version of 01.10.2020 Names: Census of Plants of the Australian Capital Territory, Version 4.1, 2019 Enquiries:Version 3.0 [email protected] (8th June 2012) subsp. = subspecies Form ? = questionable status or identity f = herb, forb sp. aff. = having close affinities with i.e. similar but not quite the sameo = herb, orchid syn. = synonymous with i.e. most recent previous name, or alternativeg = nameherb, grass sens. lat. = in the broad sense of the species concept gl = herb, grass- or sedge-like var. = variety s = shrub (including creeper and climber) sp. = species i.e. identity yet to be finalised st = shrub / small tree spp. = species in the plural i.e. more than one species t = tree MM Mount Majura. Notionally north of “Blue Metal” Road; MA Mount Ainslie. Notionally south of “Blue Metal” Road (VVV) Species occurrence checking; currently focused on Mt. Majura rather than Mt. Ainslie. No ticks next to name = species reported but not yet confirmed for Mt Majura and Mt Ainslie. Status is locally native except for: PE = Planted Exotic PN = Planted Non-local Native WE = Weed Exotic WN = Weed Non-local Native ‘Planted’ status refers to individuals which are planted but not spreading ‘Weed’ status refers to species reproducing in the wild Scientific name Common name MM MA Status Form Family Isolepis sp .
  • Status Review, Disease Risk Analysis and Conservation Action Plan for The

    Status Review, Disease Risk Analysis and Conservation Action Plan for The

    Status Review, Disease Risk Analysis and Conservation Action Plan for the Bellinger River Snapping Turtle (Myuchelys georgesi) December, 2016 1 Workshop participants. Back row (l to r): Ricky Spencer, Bruce Chessman, Kristen Petrov, Caroline Lees, Gerald Kuchling, Jane Hall, Gerry McGilvray, Shane Ruming, Karrie Rose, Larry Vogelnest, Arthur Georges; Front row (l to r) Michael McFadden, Adam Skidmore, Sam Gilchrist, Bruno Ferronato, Richard Jakob-Hoff © Copyright 2017 CBSG IUCN encourages meetings, workshops and other fora for the consideration and analysis of issues related to conservation, and believes that reports of these meetings are most useful when broadly disseminated. The opinions and views expressed by the authors may not necessarily reflect the formal policies of IUCN, its Commissions, its Secretariat or its members. The designation of geographical entities in this book, and the presentation of the material, do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of IUCN concerning the legal status of any country, territory, or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Jakob-Hoff, R. Lees C. M., McGilvray G, Ruming S, Chessman B, Gilchrist S, Rose K, Spencer R, Hall J (Eds) (2017). Status Review, Disease Risk Analysis and Conservation Action Plan for the Bellinger River Snapping Turtle. IUCN SSC Conservation Breeding Specialist Group: Apple Valley, MN. Cover photo: Juvenile Bellinger River Snapping Turtle © 2016 Brett Vercoe This report can be downloaded from the CBSG website: www.cbsg.org. 2 Executive Summary The Bellinger River Snapping Turtle (BRST) (Myuchelys georgesi) is a freshwater turtle endemic to a 60 km stretch of the Bellinger River, and possibly a portion of the nearby Kalang River in coastal north eastern New South Wales (NSW).
  • Predation by Introduced Cats Felis Catus on Australian Frogs: Compilation of Species Records and Estimation of Numbers Killed

    Predation by Introduced Cats Felis Catus on Australian Frogs: Compilation of Species Records and Estimation of Numbers Killed

    Predation by introduced cats Felis catus on Australian frogs: compilation of species records and estimation of numbers killed J. C. Z. WoinarskiA,M, S. M. LeggeB,C, L. A. WoolleyA,L, R. PalmerD, C. R. DickmanE, J. AugusteynF, T. S. DohertyG, G. EdwardsH, H. GeyleA, H. McGregorI, J. RileyJ, J. TurpinK and B. P. MurphyA ANESP Threatened Species Recovery Hub, Research Institute for the Environment and Livelihoods, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, NT 0909, Australia. BNESP Threatened Species Recovery Hub, Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Research, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Qld 4072, Australia. CFenner School of the Environment and Society, Linnaeus Way, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 2602, Australia. DWestern Australian Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions, Bentley, WA 6983, Australia. ENESP Threatened Species Recovery Hub, Desert Ecology Research Group, School of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia. FQueensland Parks and Wildlife Service, Red Hill, Qld 4701, Australia. GCentre for Integrative Ecology, School of Life and Environmental Sciences (Burwood campus), Deakin University, Geelong, Vic. 3216, Australia. HNorthern Territory Department of Land Resource Management, PO Box 1120, Alice Springs, NT 0871, Australia. INESP Threatened Species Recovery Hub, School of Biological Sciences, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tas. 7001, Australia. JSchool of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol, 24 Tyndall Avenue, Bristol BS8 1TQ, United Kingdom. KDepartment of Terrestrial Zoology, Western Australian Museum, 49 Kew Street, Welshpool, WA 6106, Australia. LPresent address: WWF-Australia, 3 Broome Lotteries House, Cable Beach Road, Broome, WA 6276, Australia. MCorresponding author. Email: [email protected] Table S1. Data sources used in compilation of cat predation on frogs.
  • Sydenham to Bankstown Environmental Impact Statement

    Sydenham to Bankstown Environmental Impact Statement

    SYDENHAM TO BANKSTOWN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT > Technical Paper 9 - Biodiversity assessment report Transport for NSW Sydney Metro City & Southwest Sydenham to Bankstown upgrade Environmental Impact Statement Technical Paper 9 – Biodiversity Assessment Report August 2017 Table of contents 1. Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Overview .............................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 The project ........................................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Purpose and scope of this report ....................................................................................... 12 1.4 Secretary’s environmental assessment requirements ....................................................... 13 1.5 Legislation and policy......................................................................................................... 14 2. Methodology ................................................................................................................................. 17 2.1 Approach ............................................................................................................................ 17 2.2 Desktop research ............................................................................................................... 17 2.3 Field survey .......................................................................................................................
  • Vegetation of Imbota and Yina Nature Reserves, Armidale, New South Wales

    Vegetation of Imbota and Yina Nature Reserves, Armidale, New South Wales

    Vegetation of Imbota and Yina Nature Reserves, Armidale, New South Wales John T. Hunter School of Behavioural, Cognative and Social Sciences, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351 AUSTRALIA Email: [email protected] Abstract: The vegetation of Imbota Nature Reserve (30° 35’S, 151° 45’E) (218 ha in area), 10 km south-east of Armidale, and Yina Nature Reserve (30° 29’S, 151° 45’E), (101 ha in area), 10 km east of Armidale, on the Northern Tablelands, NSW, is described. Based on classification analyses, air photo interpretation and ground-truthing, seven vegetation communities are described and mapped : 1. Eucalyptus caliginosa (Broad-leaved Stringybark) Grassy Forest and Woodland on deep soils at Imbota 2. Eucalyptus viminalis (Manna Gum) Grassy Forest and Woodland, Community 3. Eucalyptus caliginosa (Broad-leaved Stringybark) Grassy Forest and Woodland on shallow soils at Imbota 4. Eucalyptus caliginosa (Broad-leaved Stringybark) Grassy Forest and Woodland at Yina 5. Eucalyptus blakelyi (Blakely’s Red Gum) – Eucalyptus melliodora (Yellow Box) Woodland 6. Eucalyptus viminalis (Manna Gum) – Eucalyptus nova-anglica (New England Peppermint) Grassy Forest and Woodland 7. Riparian Herbfields 252 vascular plant taxa (from 59 families) were recorded from the two reserves, 179 species in Imbota NR, the larger reserve and 209 in Yina NR. The lower species richness at Imbota is likely to have resulted human disturbance rather than from overall habitat heterogeneity. Cunninghamia (2007) 10(2): 215–224 Introduction 1030 m. The eastern boundary is marked by Burying Ground Creek, a minor tributary of the Commissioners Waters, Imbota Nature Reserve (30° 35’S, 151° 45’E) and Yina that eventually flows into the Gara River and the eastern Nature Reserve (30° 29’S, 151° 45E’) lie 10 km to the fall of the Divide.
  • Cunninghamia : a Journal of Plant Ecology for Eastern Australia

    Cunninghamia : a Journal of Plant Ecology for Eastern Australia

    Benson & Howell, Cumberland Plain Woodland ecology then and now 631 Cumberland Plain Woodland ecology then and now: interpretations and implications from the work of Robert Brown and others Doug Benson and Jocelyn Howell Benson, Doug & Howell, Jocelyn (Plant Sciences Branch, Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust, Mrs Macquaries Road, Sydney NSW 2000, Australia) 2002. Cumberland Plain Woodland ecology then and now: Interpretations and implications from the work of Robert Brown and others. Cunninghamia 7 (4): 631–650. (Paper presented at Robert Brown 200 conference.) By the time Robert Brown visited western Sydney (1802–1805), its vegetation was already beginning to be affected by settlers’ activities. The Cumberland Plain Woodland that occurred on the clay soils has now been extensively cleared and long-term management of remnants for species conservation is of high priority. Robert Brown’s collections in the area, together with descriptions by Atkinson, Cunningham and other writers, provide us with valuable information on the vegetation and its floristic composition. Supported by recent site monitoring at Mount Annan Botanic Garden at Campbelltown, we interpret this information in the light of current ecological knowledge and conclude that: • Woodland structure is variable in the short term; therefore seeking to conserve structure exactly as described in the historical literature is not necessarily appropriate. • While the historical literature provides evidence of the broad floristic composition of the Cumberland Plain area overall, it does not provide sufficient detail on individual sites; future management of specific sites must therefore be based on current data. • The evidence suggests relatively few species have become extinct overall, possibly because many species appear to be relatively long-lived, and have mechanisms to survive drought, fire and grazing, though not soil alteration.
  • Natural Values of the TWWH 2013 Extension

    Natural Values of the TWWH 2013 Extension

    Natural Values of the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area 2013 Extension - Central North Sector Nature Conservation Report 20/3 DeparNaturalt mentand Cultural of Heritage PrDepartmentimaryNatural Industr of Values Primaryies, PaSurveyrk Industries,s, W• 2013ater TWWHA Parks,and En Water vExtensionironmen And Area, tEnvironment Central North Sector 1 Natural Values of the TWWHA Extension - Central North Sector Edited by Elise Dewar Document design by Land Tasmania Design Unit © Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment This report was prepared under the direction of the Natural and Cultural Heritage Division of the Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Program). Australian Government funds contributed to the project. The views and opinions expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Australian Governments. ISSN: 1838-7403 (electronic) Front cover photograph by Micah Visoiu; overlooking the headwaters of Brumby Creek in the TWWHA Cite as: DPIPWE (2020). Natural values of the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area 2013 Extension – Central North Sector. Nature Conservation Report 20/3, Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment, Hobart Natural Values Survey • 2013 TWWHA Extension Area, Central North Sector 2 KEY FINDINGS In 2013, an area of 172,276 ha was added to the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area (TWWHA). A review of the known natural values for this extension and the threats to those values highlighted significant knowledge gaps (Balmeret al., 2017). To redress these knowedge gaps, at least partially, a multi-disciplinary survey was undertaken in November 2019 to document flora, fauna and geodiversity values in part of the extension area known as the Central North Sector (CNS).
  • Attracting Frogs to Your Garden @Sustainablegardeningaustralia #Sustainablegardeningaustralia

    Attracting Frogs to Your Garden @Sustainablegardeningaustralia #Sustainablegardeningaustralia

    Sustainable Gardening Australia www.sgaonline.org.au [email protected] Attracting Frogs to your Garden @sustainablegardeningaustralia #sustainablegardeningaustralia • Froggy Facts Frogs are carnivorous and will eat anything that fits in their mouths but mainly eating insects; Frogs are the only living native amphibian in Australia; Over 240 species of native frog in Australia; 21 new species have been discovered over the past decade; Undergo metamorphosis from a tadpole to a frog; Each frog species has a unique call; Four ways of breathing 1)Gills (tadpoles); 2) Skin (in water and on land) 3) Lining of the mouth cavity; 4) Lungs As frogs can absorb water and breath through their skin, they are very susceptible to chemicals, including garden chemicals; An abundance and diversity of frogs is an indication of a healthy eco-system / garden • Threats to Frogs Highly sensitive to changes in the environment; Populations in decline around the world and in; Australia ; Contributing factors - Habitat loss; Introduced predator animals; Pollution and chemicals; Salinity; Climate change Chytrid fungus - First detected in Australia in 1978; 43 Australian species have declined; 7 extinctions; 6 species at high risk of extinction • A Gardeners’ Response 1. Stop using harsh garden chemicals 2. Use natural solutions to garden challenges 3. Be a responsible pet owner 4. Build a frog friendly garden 5. Contribute to scientific research via citizen science activities 6. Learn about your local frogs • Stop Using Garden Chemicals Frogs absorb moisture and breath through their skin and can easily absorb herbicides, pesticides and fertilisers; Pesticides kill a frog’s food source; Insects that have been sprayed can be harmful to frogs that eat them; Low levels of nitrates (e.g.
  • EIS 1395 ABO2O1 83 Flora and Rehabilitation

    EIS 1395 ABO2O1 83 Flora and Rehabilitation

    EIS 1395 ABO2O1 83 Flora and rehabilitation assessment report: proposed further clay/shale extraction and waste disposal operation - Kemp Creek Quarry NSW D EPT PRHARy IDUSTR1ES 1hlh1'lif AB0201 83 .EMENTS & ASSOCIATES PTY. LIMITED (A.C.N. 002 564 436) cal Consultants Environmental and Botani Box 1623, North Sydney 2059 Phone: (02) 9955 3362, Facsimile: (02) 9957 4343 October 1995 Flora and rehabilitation assessment report: Proposed further clay/shale extraction and waste disposal operation - Kemp Creek Quarry prepared by: Dr AnneMarie Clements and A.N. Rodd prepared for: Rob Corkery R.W. Corkery & Co. Pty Limited P0 Box 80, ORANGE 2800 '1 Contents - 1 .0 Existing environment - the biological setting 1.1 Climate 1.2 Geology and topography 1.3 Land use 2.0 Flora 2.1 Survey findings 2.2 Status of native vegetation 2.2.1 Species 2.2.2 Plant communities 3.0 Flora conclusions 4.0 Precautions 5.0 Rehabilitation 5.1 Recommendations 5.1.1 Adjoining the electricity easement 5.1.2 Additional planting areas 6.0 Stockpiles References Acknowledgments Tables 1 Full species names as given in Harden (1990, 1991, 1992, 1993 in press) 2 Transect statistics of tree species, classification of areas 3 Structural form classification Appendices 1 Vegetation species present in the transects The flora of the proposed further clay/shale extraction and waste disposal operation at Kemps Creek was surveyed on 23 September 1993 by Dr AnneMarie Clements and A.N. Rodd, and rehabilitation potential assessed on 9 May 1995 by Dr AnneMarie Clements. 1.0 Existing environment - the biological setting 1.1 Climate The study area is located on the Cumberland Plain of Sydney approximately 40 km inland.
  • Supplementary Methods S1

    Supplementary Methods S1

    1 Validation methods for trophic niche models 2 3 To assign links between nodes (species), we used trophic niche-space models (e.g., [1]). 4 Each of these models has two quantile regressions that define the prey-size range a 5 predator of a given size is predicted to consume. Species whose body mass is within the 6 range of a predator’s prey size, as identified by the trophic niche-space model, are predicted 7 to be prey, while those outside the range are predicted not to be eaten. 8 9 The broad taxonomy of a predator helps to predict predation interactions [2]. To optimize 10 our trophic niche-space model, we therefore tested whether including taxonomic class of 11 predators improved the fit of quantile regressions. Using trophic (to identify which species 12 were predators), body mass, and taxonomic data, we fitted and compared five quantile 13 regression models (including a null model) to the GloBI data. In each model, we log10- 14 transformed the dependent variable prey body mass, and included for the independent 15 variables different combinations of log10-transformed predator body mass, predator class, 16 and the interaction between these variables (Supplementary Table S4). We log10- 17 transformed both predator and prey body mass to linearize the relationship between these 18 variables. We fit the five quantile regressions to the upper and lower 5% of prey body mass, 19 and compared model fits using the Bayesian information criterion (BIC). The predator body 20 mass*predator class model fit the 95th quantile data best, whereas the predator body mass 21 + predator class model fit the 5th quantile data marginally better than the aforementioned 22 interaction model (Supplementary Figure S2, Supplementary Table S4).
  • Woinarski J. C. Z., Legge S. M., Woolley L. A., Palmer R., Dickman C

    Woinarski J. C. Z., Legge S. M., Woolley L. A., Palmer R., Dickman C

    Woinarski J. C. Z., Legge S. M., Woolley L. A., Palmer R., Dickman C. R., Augusteyn J., Doherty T. S., Edwards G., Geyle H., McGregor H., Riley J., Turpin J., Murphy B.P. (2020) Predation by introduced cats Felis catus on Australian frogs: compilation of species records and estimation of numbers killed. Wildlife Research, Vol. 47, Iss. 8, Pp 580-588. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1071/WR19182 1 2 3 Predation by introduced cats Felis catus on Australian frogs: compilation of species’ 4 records and estimation of numbers killed. 5 6 7 J.C.Z. Woinarskia*, S.M. Leggeb, L.A. Woolleya,k, R. Palmerc, C.R. Dickmand, J. Augusteyne, T.S. Dohertyf, 8 G. Edwardsg, H. Geylea, H. McGregorh, J. Rileyi, J. Turpinj, and B.P. Murphya 9 10 a NESP Threatened Species Recovery Hub, Research Institute for the Environment and Livelihoods, 11 Charles Darwin University, Darwin, NT 0909, Australia 12 b NESP Threatened Species Recovery Hub, Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Research, 13 University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD 4072, Australia; AND Fenner School of the Environment and 14 Society, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 2602, Australia 15 c Western Australian Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions, Bentley, WA 6983, 16 Australia 17 d NESP Threatened Species Recovery Hub, Desert Ecology Research Group, School of Life and 18 Environmental Sciences, University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia 19 e Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service, Red Hill, QLD 4701, Australia 20 f Centre for Integrative Ecology, School of Life and Environmental Sciences (Burwood campus), Deakin 21 University, Geelong, VIC 3216, Australia 22 g Northern Territory Department of Land Resource Management, PO Box 1120, Alice Springs, NT 0871, 23 Australia 24 h NESP Threatened Species Recovery Hub, School of Biological Sciences, University of Tasmania, 25 Hobart, TAS 7001, Australia i School of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol, 24 Tyndall Ave, Bristol BS8 1TQ, United Kingdom.
  • Do Temperature and Social Environment Interact to Affect Call Rate in Frogs (Crinia Signifera)?

    Do Temperature and Social Environment Interact to Affect Call Rate in Frogs (Crinia Signifera)?

    Austral Ecology (2004) 29, 209–214 Do temperature and social environment interact to affect call rate in frogs (Crinia signifera)? BOB B. M. WONG,1* A. N. N. COWLING,2 ROSS B. CUNNINGHAM,2† CHRISTINE F. DONNELLY2 AND PAUL D. COOPER1 1School of Botany and Zoology, and 2Statistical Consulting Unit of the Graduate School, Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia Abstract Acoustic displays are pervasive and conspicuous forms of sexual advertisement used by animals to attract mates. Evidence suggests that individuals may use environmental cues and/or the presence of other displaying animals to select the best times for display to optimize the chances of mating. Less well-known is how the physical and social environment might interact to affect the actual content of the display itself. We examined the effects of social environment and temperature on calling rate in a frog Crinia signifera. We found that both variables interacted to affect call rate but only among continuous callers. Call rate increased with temperature in individuals calling continuously on their own but no relationship was found in frogs calling continuously in the presence of others, either in a duet or in a group calling situation. We suggest that the temperature sensitivity of calling rate in frogs could depend on the social environment of the caller. As such, we suggest caution in generalizing about the way temperature affects calling rates in frogs and encourage greater consideration of how physical and social environ- ments might interact to influence the signal content of acoustic displays. Key words: male–male competition, Myobatrachidae, social environment, temperature.