APPENDIX 8 Ecological Assessment

Williamtown Sand Syndicate Pty Ltd

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

Proposed Sand Quarry, Cabbage Tree Road, Williamtown

FINAL

November 2015

Williamtown Sand Syndicate Pty Ltd

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

Proposed Sand Quarry, Cabbage Tree Road, Williamtown

FINAL

Prepared by Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited on behalf of Williamtown Sand Syndicate Pty Ltd

Project Director: Peter Jamieson Project Manager: Peter Jamieson Technical Director: Allison Riley Report No. 3251/R05/FINAL Date: November 2015

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 Overview 1 1.1.1 Background to the project 1 1.1.2 Location of the project 2 1.1.3 Overview of the project 5 1.2 Objectives of ecological assessment 5 1.3 Relevant legislation and guidelines 6 1.3.1 Relevant guidelines, frameworks and policies 7 2.0 Regional setting 8 2.1 Physiography, geology and soils 8 2.2 Vegetation types and plant species 8 2.3 Fauna habitats and species 8 2.4 Conservation area and connectivity 9 3.0 Methods 11 3.1 Literature review 11 3.1.1 Ecological Constraints and Opportunities Report, 398 Cabbage Tree Road, Williamtown (RPS 2011) 11 3.1.2 Vegetation of the Tomago and Tomaree Sandbeds, Port Stephens NSW (Driscoll and Bell 2006) 12 3.1.3 Lower Hunter and Central Coast Regional Environmental Management Strategy Vegetation Mapping 12 3.1.4 Ecology Report for the Airport/Defence Related Employment Zone (Williamtown) (GHD 2007) 12 3.1.5 Port Stephens Council Comprehensive Koala Plan of Management (2002) 13 3.2 Database searches 15 3.3 Flora survey methods 15 3.3.1 Digital Aerial Photograph Interpretation (DAPI) 15 3.3.2 Field survey site selection and stratification 16 3.3.3 Flora field survey 16 3.3.4 Targeted threatened flora surveys 20 3.3.5 Field survey timing 22 3.3.6 Threatened ecological community assessment techniques 23 3.3.7 Summary and adequacy of flora field survey effort 24 3.4 Terrestrial fauna survey 26 3.4.1 RPS fauna surveys 2011 26 3.4.2 Umwelt fauna surveys 2013, 2014 and 2015 27 3.4.3 Habitat and condition assessments 31

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 3251_R05_Ecological Assessment _FINAL.docx

3.4.4 Terrestrial fauna survey timing and effort 32 4.0 Survey results 39 4.1 Flora survey results 39 4.1.1 Flora species 39 4.1.2 Vegetation communities in the proposed disturbance area 39 4.1.3 Threatened flora species, endangered flora populations and threatened ecological communities 52 4.2 Fauna survey results 61 4.2.1 Fauna habitat 61 4.2.2 Fauna species recorded 62 4.2.3 Threatened fauna species and endangered fauna populations 66 4.2.4 Migratory species listed under international conventions 73 4.3 Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems 74 5.0 Impact assessment 75 5.1 Project changes to avoid and minimise impacts 75 5.2 Impact of the project on ecological values 76 5.2.1 Summary of ecological values 76 5.3 Impact of the project on flora species 76 5.4 Impact of the project on vegetation communities 77 5.4.1 Impact on forest and woodland communities 78 5.4.2 Impact on heath communities 78 5.5 Impact of the project on fauna habitat and fauna species 78 5.5.1 Woodland and Forest Habitat 78 5.5.2 Wet heath habitat 79 5.6 Impact of the project on threatened species, populations and ecological communities 79 5.6.1 Threatened species assessed under the Environmental Planning and Assessment (EP&A) Act 1979 83 5.6.2 Threatened Species Assessed Under the Fisheries Management (FM) Act 1994 83 5.6.3 Threatened Species Assessed under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act 1999 83 5.6.4 Migratory species assessed under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act 1999 85 5.6.5 Assessment of impacts on koala habitat against the Port Stephens Comprehensive Koala Plan of Management (CKPoM) 2002 85 5.7 Impact on groundwater dependent ecosystems 86 5.8 Impacts of the Project on adjacent conservation areas 86 5.9 Impacts on corridors and connectivity 87 6.0 Impact mitigation strategy 88 6.1 General impact mitigation measures 88

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 3251_R05_Ecological Assessment _FINAL.docx

6.1.1 Weed control 88 6.1.2 Sediment and erosion control 88 6.2 Protection and management or arboreal species and habitat 88 6.2.1 Nest box establishment 89 6.3 Specific mitigation measures for koala 90 6.4 Conservation area protection measures 90 6.5 Rehabilitation 91 7.0 Biodiversity Offset Strategy 92 7.1 The relevance of biodiversity offsetting 92 7.2 Relevant biodiversity offsetting policies 92 7.2.1 Background 92 7.2.2 NSW offsetting principles and policies 93 7.2.3 Commonwealth environmental offsets policy 93 7.3 Biodiversity offset objectives 95 7.4 Biodiversity offsetting pathways to be considered 95 8.0 References 97

Figures

Figure 1.1 Locality Plan 3 Figure 1.2 Proposed Quarry Operations 4 Figure 2.1 Regional Setting 10 Figure 3.1 Koala Habitat within the Project Area (Port Stephens CKPoM) 14 Figure 3.2 Flora Survey Effort 17 Figure 3.3 Fauna Survey Effort 30 Figure 4.1 Vegetation Communities 41 Figure 4.2 Threatened Flora Species within the Project Area 53 Figure 4.3 Areas disturbed during Heavy Mineral Sand Mining 56 Figure 4.4 Threatened Fauna Species within the Project Area 65 Figure 4.5 Koala Habitat within the Project Area (Mapped by Umwelt) 70 Figure 5.1 Application of the Precautionary Principle to the Impact Assessment and Development of Mitigation and Offset Strategies 80

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 3251_R05_Ecological Assessment _FINAL.docx

Appendices

Appendix A Constraints and Opportunities Report RPS (2011) Appendix B Threatened Species Assessment Appendix C Flora Species List Appendix D Fauna Species List Appendix E TSC Act Assessment of Significance Appendix F EPBC Act Assessment of Significance Appendix G Assessment of Impact on Koala Habitat under the Port Stephens Comprehensive Koala Plan of Management

Appendix H Site-specific Koala Plan of Management

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 3251_R05_Ecological Assessment _FINAL.docx

1.0 Introduction

Williamtown Sand Syndicate Pty Ltd proposes to develop a sand quarry at Cabbage Tree Road, Williamtown, approximately three kilometres south-west of Newcastle Airport (refer to Figure 1.1). The land is owned by Port Stephens Council (PSC) and the extraction of sand on site will be undertaken under a lease agreement with PSC.

An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has been prepared for the Project to accompany a Project Application following Department of Planning and Environment (DP&E) issuing Director-General’s Requirements (DGRs) for the Project in October 2013. The following Ecological Assessment was prepared to meet the Director-General’s Environmental Impact Statement requirements in relation to ecological issues for the Project.

1.1 Overview

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited (Umwelt) has been engaged by Williamtown Sand Syndicate to prepare an EIS as part of the development application for the proposed Cabbage Tree Road Quarry (the Project). Williamtown Sand Syndicate is seeking development consent to extract a total of up to approximately 3.32 million tonnes (Mt) of sand from the site at an extraction rate of up to 600,000 tonnes per annum (tpa). The proposed quarry operations would include extraction from Lot 1 in DP 224587, Lot 121 in DP 556403, Lot 11 in DP 629503, and Lot 1012 in DP 814078; referred to collectively as the ‘Project Area’.

PSC has estimated there is approximately 4.6 Mt of dune sand (including the organic layer) accessible within the Project Area. Under the agreement, sand extraction is only available above the 4 metres Australian Height Datum (m AHD) contour and outside of the area reserved for a wildlife corridor. PSC identified three areas within the Project Area containing the sand resource as shown in Figure 1.2.

The Project would involve the extraction of up to 600,000 tpa of sand and therefore meets the criteria listed in Schedule 1 clause 7(1)(a) of State Environmental Planning Policy (State and Regional Development) 2011 for assessment as ‘state significant development’ under Section 89C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act). The Minister for Planning and Environment will be the determining authority for this development application.

1.1.1 Background to the project

In March 2002 PSC purchased the four allotments comprising the Project Area from Rutile and Zircon Mines. Several approaches were made to PSC by interested parties in relation to undertaking sand extraction from the site. Under a ‘Permit to Enter’ PSC provided site access for some of the interested parties to take core samples to enable analysis of the sand resource. Laboratory testing identified that the sand is of high grade silica sand (white sand) that is particularly suitable for glass manufacturing.

PSC engaged a consultant to undertake site investigations to identify constraints and opportunities with regard to ecology and heritage. Based on the constraints identified, PSC determined that extraction could occur within three main areas (refer Figure 1.2) above 4 m AHD. Extraction would not be permitted within an area set aside for a wildlife corridor between the two extraction areas.

PSC’s Facilities and Services section provided an estimate of the amount of sand that may be contained within the identified areas on site. The extraction volumes were estimated utilising a

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Introduction 3251_R05_Ecological Assessment _FINAL.docx 1

computer software package based on contour levels throughout the site. With concessions for wildlife buffer elements and the provision of a wildlife corridor between the two extraction areas, the total volume of sand available for extraction was estimated at approximately 4.6 Mt.

1.1.2 Location of the project

The land comprising the Project Area consists of four adjoining separately titled allotments having a total land area of 176.2 hectares. The land is situated on the northern side of Cabbage Tree Road at Williamtown approximately mid-way between Nelson Bay Road and Masonite Road (refer to Figure 1.1). It is situated within the NSW North Coast IBRA Bioregion.

The Project Area is bound to the south by Cabbage Tree Road and rural residential land holdings; to the north by Tilligerry State Conservation Area and land owned by the Hunter Water Corporation (HWC); on the east by rural residential land holdings; and on the west by Tilligerry State Conservation Area, HWC land and rural residential land holdings.

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Introduction 3251_R05_Ecological Assessment _FINAL.docx 2

1.1.3 Overview of the project

The Project involves the construction and operation of a sand quarry to service the local and Sydney market for fill sand, concrete sand and washed sand products. The Project is presented in more detail in Section 2.0 of the EIS, along with detailed discussion regarding the justification and alternatives considered as part of the development of the Project.

The Project involves the extraction of approximately 3.32 Mt of sand from three sections of the Project Area representing 53.9 hectares of the total 176.2 hectare site (refer Figure 1.2). Extraction would be limited to 4 m AHD. The quarry would operate for 10 to 15 years with annual extraction likely to be in the order of 300,000 tpa up to a maximum of 600,000 tpa. The quarry would operate during standard work hours with some deliveries to occur outside these times to facilitate transport to market.

The quarry infrastructure would include site access/haul roads, office/amenity buildings, weighbridge, staff and visitor parking and a maintenance shed. It is proposed to utilise mobile screening and wash plant, with stockpiles to be located at the extraction face which would move as extraction progresses across the site in accordance with the mine plan. The extraction process would involve stripping vegetation, removal and stockpiling of the topsoil/organic layer, pushing up sand to a stockpile using an excavator, loading sand to screen/wash plant or direct to truck using a front end loader, then transportation to market.

The quarry would be progressively rehabilitated as extraction proceeds across the site. Details of rehabilitation are provided in Section 4.14 of the EIS.

1.2 Objectives of ecological assessment

This Ecological Assessment has been prepared to assess the potential impact of the Project on native flora and fauna species, threatened and migratory species, endangered populations, threatened ecological communities and their habitats occurring in the Project Area and on adjoining lands. As described in Section 1.3, this assessment has been prepared in accordance with the NSW DP&E Director General’s Requirements for the EIS, issued in October 2013.

The objectives of the Ecological Assessment were to:

• identify the flora and fauna species recorded within the Project Area from current and previous studies in the Project Area, local studies and/or ecological databases

• undertake targeted surveys to further identify any threatened flora or fauna species, migratory fauna species, endangered populations (EPs), threatened ecological communities (TECs), or their habitats within the Project Area, particularly those listed under the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act), NSW Fisheries Management Act 1994 (FM Act), and the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act)

• assess the potential impact of the Project on any threatened flora and fauna species, migratory fauna species, EPs, TECs, or their habitats recorded (or with potential to occur) in the Project Area

• assess the potential impact of the Project on any threatened flora and fauna species, migratory fauna species, EPs, TECs, or their habitats recorded (or with potential to occur) on lands adjoining the Project Area or with potential to be affected by the Project

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Introduction 3251_R05_Ecological Assessment _FINAL.docx 5

 develop appropriate impact mitigation and management options to minimise ecological impacts associated with the Project

 prepare an outline of the steps to be undertaken to develop a comprehensive biodiversity offset strategy.

1.3 Relevant legislation and guidelines

The ecological assessment completed as part of this Project was prepared in accordance with the relevant DGRs for the Project, dated 16 October 2013 as detailed in Table 1.1, with the OEH submission to the DGRs dated 30 September 2013.

Table 1.1 Matters specified in the DGRs and where they are addressed in this report

DGRs for biodiversity Where addressed in report

The ecological assessment must include: measures taken to avoid, reduce or mitigate impacts Sections 5.1 and 6.0 on biodiversity accurate estimates of proposed vegetation clearing Section 5.2 a detailed assessment of potential impacts of the development on any:  terrestrial or aquatic threatened species or Section 5.6 populations and their habitats, endangered Appendix E and F ecological communities and groundwater dependent ecosystems  migratory bird species listed under CAMBA, Section 5.6.3 JAMBA and/or ROKAMBA Appendix F  regionally significant remnant vegetation, or Section 5.9 vegetation corridors a comprehensive offset strategy to ensure the An indicative strategy is provided in development maintains or improves the terrestrial Section 8.0 and aquatic biodiversity values of the region in the medium to long term

In addition to the DGRs, submissions from other relevant government agencies, including OEH, were received. The OEH submission outlined the requirements of the Ecological Assessment with particular reference to conducting targeted field surveys (refer to Section 3.0) and assessing the Project using either the BioBanking Assessment Methodology (Scenario 1) or a detailed biodiversity assessment (Scenario 2) (refer to Section 7.0).

The ecological survey and assessment completed as part of the Project was undertaken in accordance with Part 4 of the EP&A Act and the following legislation and licences, where relevant:

 TSC Act

 FM Act

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Introduction 3251_R05_Ecological Assessment _FINAL.docx 6

• EPBC Act

• National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) Scientific Research Licence

• Animal Research Authority as provided by the NSW Department of Primary Industries.

1.3.1 Relevant guidelines, frameworks and policies

The ecological survey and assessment completed as part of the Project took into account the following guidelines, frameworks and policies.

Table 1.2 Relevant guidelines, frameworks and policies considered in the ecological assessment

Specified in the Project DGRs

• Threatened Species Survey and Assessment Guidelines: Field Survey Methods for Fauna – Amphibians (DECCW 2009) • Threatened Biodiversity Survey and Assessment: Guidelines for Developments and Activities – Working Draft (DEC 2004) • Guidelines for Threatened Species Assessment (DoP 2005) • Department of Environment, Climate Change (DECC) (2008) BioBanking Assessment Methodology and Credit Calculator Operational Manual • Threatened Species Assessment Guidelines: the Assessment of Significance (DECC 2007) • NSW State Groundwater Dependent Ecosystem Policy (DLWC 2002) • Aquatic Habitat Management and Fish Conservation (NSW Fisheries) • SEPP 44 • Principles for the Use of Biodiversity Offsets in NSW (OEH)

Other Relevant Guidelines

• DECC (2008). Hygiene Protocol for the Control of Disease in Frogs • Department of the Environment (2013). Significant Impact Guidelines 1.1 – Matters of National Environmental Significance • DPI (2008). Threatened Species Assessment Guidelines – The Assessment of Significance. February 2008 • Environmental Offsets Policy (DSEWPC 2012) • NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) Interim Policy on Assessing and offsetting Biodiversity Impacts of Part 3A, State Significant Development (SSD) and State Significant Infrastructure (SSI) Projects, June 2011 • Guidelines for developments on adjoining land and water managed by the Department of Climate Change and Water’ (DECCW 2010) • Framework for Biodiversity Assessment (OEH 2014).

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Introduction 3251_R05_Ecological Assessment _FINAL.docx 7

2.0 Regional setting

2.1 Physiography, geology and soils

The Tomago sandbeds are identified as being on Quaternary Sands however, with elements of low volcanic hills of the Carboniferous Nerong Volcanic scattered throughout (Engel, 1962; Rose, Jones and Kennedy 1966). The soils of the Tomago sandbeds are dominated by white-to-grey and well drained sands while weathered clays occur around the volcanic hills. Driscoll and Bell (2006) reference a study by Thom et al. (1992) who examined the geomorphology of the region and discovered the Inner Barrier of Newcastle Bight embayment and surrounding areas were formed by a rise in sea level. Consequently as the sea levels dropped, sands were deposited forming what is now the Tomago and Tomaree Sandbeds. Recent dune formation along the coast line has resulted in both mobile and stationary dune systems of sandy material (Driscoll and Bell, 2006).

2.2 Vegetation types and plant species

The Lower Hunter region is dominated by valley floors which are fringed in the south-west and north- east by the ranges of Cessnock and Maitland local government areas (LGAs). The coast contains the expansive lake system of Lake Macquarie, the mouth of the Hunter River at Newcastle and the extensive dune systems and estuary of Port Stephens. The region covers approximately 430,000 hectares of which roughly 60% (or 264,000 hectares), is covered with native vegetation (DECCW 2009).

The region is of biogeographic and scientific significance as it supports a transition between northern and southern ecological communities. The Lower Hunter, via the Liverpool Ranges and the extensive Wollemi National Park also provides a link to the drier fauna habitats of the western slopes. The area also forms an east-west migratory pathway and a drought refuge for inland species (DECCW 2009). As a consequence, the vegetation is unique when compared to the neighbouring regions. The flora of the Hunter Valley floor is remarkably diverse, with approximately 2000 species of vascular plants (DECCW 2009).

A 2006 vegetation survey and mapping program to identify and map the locations of Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems (GDEs) across the Tomago and Tomaree sandbeds identified a total of 43 vegetation communities and more than 400 flora taxa, of which over 20 were considered of significance within the region and seven which were listed on the EPBC Act and TSC Act. A full diversity of vegetation communities were identified across the two sandbeds, ranging from simple sedgelands to open forest as well as including swamps to swamp forests. Additionally, three Endangered Ecological Communities (EECs) listed under the TSC Act were identified (Driscoll and Bell, 2006).

2.3 Fauna habitats and species

The Lower Hunter contains fauna habitats of national and international significance. The Hunter Valley marks a transition zone for many fauna species between the sub-tropical influences of the north and the cooler, less fertile conditions to the south. There is a wide array of fauna habitats in the lower Hunter that are known, or are likely, to support 80 threatened species, including 17 endangered species (DECCW 2009).

The broad fauna habitat types of forest, swamp forest and wallum woodland and heath habitat found within the Project Area are representative of most of the broad habitat types within the surrounding region. Woodland and forests of the lower Hunter Valley support a range of fauna

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Regional setting 3251_R05_Ecological Assessment _FINAL.docx 8

species. Drier habitats in the western portion of the region support species that are adapted to a dry environment with little or no standing water. Important habitat for threatened woodland dependent species occurs in these dry woodland forests; habitat is provided by a moderately open canopy and sclerophyllous understorey that ranges from very dense to sparse, and a ground cover that is generally sparse and dominated by grasses and forbs.

2.4 Conservation area and connectivity

The Project Area occurs on the southern edge of extensive areas of forested habitat occurring within the Tilligerry State Conservation Area (SCA) and adjacent vegetated areas around Tomago and Williamtown that provide connectivity and movement corridors for a wide range of flora and fauna species from Port Stephens and Karuah in the north to Hunter Wetlands National Park in the south. Tilligerry SCA is mainly comprised of dry sclerophyll forests and freshwater wetlands containing important habitat for a range of threatened species and ecological communities such as brush-tailed phascogale (Phascogale tapoatafa) and Swamp Oak Floodplain Forest EEC. The SCA has also been identified as significant koala (Phascolarctos cinereus) breeding habitat in NSW in the National Koala Conservation and Management Strategy 2009-2014.

The Project Area is also part of the conceptual Lower Hunter Biodiversity Conservation Corridor (the ‘Green Corridor’) that connects remaining areas of vegetation from the Watagans National Park in the south through to Hexham Swamp and into Port Stephens in the north (DECCW 2009). Landscape connections are important to ensure the exchange of genetic material and ensure adequate feeding areas, breeding grounds and to allow for migration for species.

The portion of the Tomago Sandbeds that occur within the Hunter Water Corporation (HWC) lands to the north of the Project Area have been mapped as high priority conservation lands by the Lower Hunter Regional Conservation Plan (DECC 2009) and these lands form part of an important wildlife corridor that is shown on Figure 2.1.

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Regional setting 3251_R05_Ecological Assessment _FINAL.docx 9

3.0 Methods

3.1 Literature review

A review of previous documents and reports relevant to the Project was undertaken to inform the field survey methodology, results and impact assessment component of this report. This included regional and sub-regional vegetation mapping reports, site-specific ecological surveys undertaken in the vicinity of the Project Area and also relevant ecological database searches. The information obtained was used to inform survey design, and was also used to assist in the assessment of potentially occurring threatened and migratory species, EPs and TECs. Relevant documents are discussed below; focusing on the key findings of each assessment.

3.1.1 Ecological Constraints and Opportunities Report, 398 Cabbage Tree Road, Williamtown (RPS 2011)

RPS Australia East (RPS) was engaged by Port Stephens Council to undertake an Ecological Constraints and Opportunities Assessment at Williamtown, NSW for land earmarked for sand extraction.

This study aimed to document the flora, fauna and habitat characteristics of the site and to provide baseline data relating to the general ecological characteristics identified. This information was then able to be used to identify ecological constraints, which in turn facilitated the identification of areas suitable for future sand extraction.

The report considered the ecological values of the site, particularly having regard to any threatened species, populations or EECs listed under the TSC Act 1995 and EPBC Act 1999. Key ecological values identified in the assessment included:

• Swamp Mahogany – Paperbark Forest EEC

• Eucalyptus camfieldii

• Eucalyptus parramattensis subsp. decadens

• Grevillea parviflora subsp. parviflora

• grey-headed flying-fox (Pteropus poliocephalus)

• koala (Phascolarctos cinereus)

• eastern osprey (Pandion cristatus)

• wallum froglet (Crinia tinnula)

• eastern bentwing-bat (Miniopterus schreibersii oceanensis)

• little bentwing-bat (Miniopterus australis).

A range of additional threatened flora and fauna species were identified as potentially or likely to occur based on the habitat identified in the study area.

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Methods 3251_R05_Ecological Assessment _FINAL.docx 11

Further discussion of the survey methods and results from the study are detailed in Sections 3.0 and 4.0 and the Ecological Constraints and Opportunities Report (RPS, 2011) is provided in Appendix A.

3.1.2 Vegetation of the Tomago and Tomaree Sandbeds, Port Stephens NSW (Driscoll and Bell 2006)

Vegetation mapping of the Tomago and Tomaree Sandbeds, Port Stephens, New South Wales (Driscoll and Bell 2006) was commissioned by the Hunter Water Corporation to identify and map GDEs on the Tomago and Tomaree Sandbeds to assist in the management of water extraction from aquifers.

Driscoll and Bell, 2006 provides the most comprehensive vegetation mapping in the local area. The Project Area is located immediately to the south of Driscoll and Bell (2006) study area, which only mapped Hunter Water Corporation land holdings. The characteristics of the vegetation communities in the Project Area were compared to vegetation community descriptions from Driscoll and Bell (2006). Based on this, the most widespread vegetation communities occurring in proximity to the Project Area are Peppermint – Apple – Bloodwood Forest, Clay Wallum Scrub and Rehabilitation Mining Lands.

3.1.3 Lower Hunter and Central Coast Regional Environmental Management Strategy Vegetation Mapping

Lower Hunter and Central Coast Regional Environmental Management Strategy (LHCCREMS) Vegetation Mapping (NPWS 2000 and House 2003) is a broad-based vegetation mapping system for the Lower Hunter and Central Coast regions incorporating seven local government areas (LGAs), from Port Stephens to Gosford and west to Cessnock. The aim of this report was to provide cross tenure maps of the distribution of vascular plant communities in the Lower Hunter and Central Coast regions.

Characteristics of the vegetation communities along the alternate haul route were compared to the LHCCREMS vegetation map units. Vegetation mapping of the Project Area by RPS (2011) utilised the vegetation community naming conventions as the LHCCREMS vegetation mapping, where appropriate.

3.1.4 Ecology Report for the Airport/Defence Related Employment Zone (Williamtown) (GHD 2007)

GHD Pty Ltd (GHD) were engaged by the then Department of Planning to undertake a preliminary assessment in Williamtown to assess the ecological values within the land identified for an aviation industry employment zone. The surveys and assessment were used to identify areas of high ecological value, opportunities for minimising impacts on biodiversity and opportunities for offsetting.

The area assessed is located approximately 1 km east of the Project Area on lands bounded by Cabbage Tree Road and Nelson Bay Road. The ecological surveys undertaken recorded threatened species known to occur in the locality including wallum froglet (Crinia tinnula) and koala (Phascolarctos cinereus). Preferred koala habitat as per the Port Stephens Council Comprehensive Koala Plan of Management koala habitat mapping was also identified. The assessment also found that the Melaleuca quinquenervia Swamp Forest occurring on the site potentially conformed to Swamp Sclerophyll Forest on Coastal Floodplains EEC. Habitat for these species and communities were identified as being of high conservation value.

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Methods 3251_R05_Ecological Assessment _FINAL.docx 12

3.1.5 Port Stephens Council Comprehensive Koala Plan of Management (2002)

The Port Stephens Council Comprehensive Koala Plan of Management (CKPoM) was prepared by Port Stephens Council and the Australia Koala Foundation to encourage the proper conservation and management of areas of natural vegetation that provide habitat for koalas, to ensure permanent free-living populations over their present range and to reverse the current trend of population decline in the Port Stephens LGA.

The report provides guidelines for koala habitat assessments, habitat conservation measures and performance criteria to facilitate targeted koala conservation and management across the Port Stephens koala population. Broad-scale mapping of preferred, supplementary and marginal koala habitat is outlined for the Port Stephens LGA. According to this habitat mapping, the Project Area contains preferred and supplementary habitat as well as buffer and linking vegetation for the koala. The CKPoM mapping is reproduced as Figure 3.1 for context.

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Methods 3251_R05_Ecological Assessment _FINAL.docx 13

3.2 Database searches

In order to identify threatened species, migratory species, EPs and TECs with the potential to occur in the Project Area relevant ecological databases were searched.

The databases searched were:

• a 10 kilometre radius search from the centre of the Project Area of the OEH Atlas of NSW Wildlife (October 2015)

• a 10 kilometre radius search from the centre of the Project Area of the Department of Environment Protected Matters Database (October 2015)

• PlantNET (Royal Botanic Gardens Sydney) database search for Rare or Threatened Australian Plants (ROTAP) species within the Port Stephens LGA (October 2015)

• DPI Threatened and Protected Species Records Viewer search (October 2015).

Records from these database searches were combined with records derived through literature reviews and professional opinion to identify the range of potentially occurring threatened and migratory species. The identification of potentially occurring threatened and migratory species was then used to assist in the development of appropriate survey methods.

Current lists of threatened species and key threatening processes listed under the FM Act were sourced from the Department of Primary Industries (NSW Fisheries) and Department of Environment websites.

3.3 Flora survey methods

Vegetation survey and mapping was carried out to sample and describe flora and vegetation communities present in the Project Area. Literature review and vegetation survey aimed to identify threatened species, EPs, TECs and species of local or regional significance present or potentially occurring within these areas. Key steps involved in the vegetation survey and mapping included:

• digital aerial photograph interpretation (DAPI)

• field survey site selection using remote and field-based stratification techniques

• full-floristic quadrat and meandering survey and associated plant identification

• vegetation community description and delineation.

The flora survey involved consideration of data collected as part of the RPS (2011) Ecological Constraints and Opportunities Report with additional quadrat data collected as part of the current project.

3.3.1 Digital Aerial Photograph Interpretation (DAPI)

Digital imagery (aerial photographs) of the broader Project Area were viewed prior to and after vegetation survey to identify spatial patterns in vegetation, land use and landscape features. These informed field survey design and implementation, ecological assessment and vegetation community mapping in the Project Area.

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Methods 3251_R05_Ecological Assessment _FINAL.docx 15

The Manifold System 8.0 Enterprise Edition geographical information system (GIS) was used to view these aerial photos on-screen, using a 32 bit mode. Use of GIS allowed zooming to a relatively large scale. Using this method, mapping was carried out at a scale of up to approximately 1:700, since at higher magnification than this the gain in scale was outweighed by the loss in resolution.

3.3.2 Field survey site selection and stratification

Designing an appropriate flora survey requires consideration of both survey methods and effort. Surveys should be undertaken during periods of optimal climatic and seasonal conditions and the use of stratification should be employed to ensure that the full range of potential habitats present are assessed and adequately surveyed. Reference was made to the relevant OEH flora survey guidelines (DEC, 2004 and DECC, 2008) when designing the field survey, with appropriate survey methods selected that maximised the opportunities of identifying the full suite of flora species (and vegetation communities) that occur within the Project Area.

3.3.3 Flora field survey

The flora field survey was carried out by Umwelt over multiple seasons and years including: 28 and 29 August 2013; 25 and 26 August 2014; 10 and 12 February 2015, 24 April and 28 September 2015. The field survey involved ground-truthing of existing vegetation community mapping (RPS 2011) that included quadrat-based sampling of vegetation and field reconnaissance to identify spatial vegetation patterns. Survey methods included:

• Full flora quadrats (plots): quantitative sampling of flora within 400 m2 (20 x 20 metre) quadrats placed within distinctive vegetation units.

• Rapid flora quadrats (plots): semi-quantitative sampling of flora within 100 m2 (10 x 10 metre) quadrats placed within distinctive vegetation units.

• Flora transects: non-quantitative flora sampling between two points located within specific vegetation units.

• Flora point samples: non-quantitative point sampling within distinct vegetation units to assist field reconnaissance of the spatial arrangement of vegetation communities across the Project Area.

• Meandering transects (field reconnaissance): observations of vegetation spatial patterns occurring along meandering transects that extended throughout the Project Area.

• Meandering transects (targeted threatened flora searches): searches for threatened flora species along meandering transects that extended throughout the Project Area. Opportunistic records of other flora species were also made along these meandering transects.

In addition to the Umwelt surveys undertaken between 2013 and 2015, RPS undertook flora surveys within the Project Area in 2008 and 2011 including full-floristic quadrat surveys and targeted threatened species searches (RPS 2011). As such Umwelt surveys focused on reconfirming the RPS vegetation mapping by undertaking a number of rapid vegetation assessments and some quadrat sampling where required. A discussion on these methods is provided in the sections below.

Flora survey effort is shown in Figure 3.2 including survey undertaken by Umwelt and RPS.

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Methods 3251_R05_Ecological Assessment _FINAL.docx 16

3.3.3.1 Full flora quadrats (Plots)

Quadrat survey of flora was undertaken using methods that are relatively standard in most NSW government vegetation management agencies and elsewhere. This ensured that data collected by other relevant surveys could be compared to the current survey results, and that the data from the Project could be analysed in an equivalent way to that collected during previous surveys (RPS 2011).

Quadrat survey involved semi-quantitative sampling of all vascular flora in systematic 400 metre2 (20 metre x 20 metre) quadrats (plots). When undertaking systematic sampling to facilitate vegetation community mapping and description, quadrat surveys have several distinct advantages over non-quantitative transects, including:

• providing a semi-quantitative examination of species cover and abundance on a quadrat level

• increasing the likelihood of detecting inconspicuous or rare species within the given sampling area, as while covering a smaller area, the search is more concentrated

• where appropriately marked, providing a basis for any subsequent monitoring required.

Two flora quadrats were sampled by Umwelt, and 16 by RPS (2011).

At each quadrat sampled by Umwelt, about 45 to 60 minutes were spent searching for all vascular flora species present within the 400 metre2 area. These were recorded on a proforma with a cover- abundance value to reflect their percentage cover in the quadrat. A modified Braun-Blanquet 6-point scale was used to estimate cover-abundances of all plant species within each quadrat (Braun- Blanquet, 1927), with selected modifications sourced from Poore (1955) and Austin et al. (2000). Table 3.1 shows the cover-abundance categories used. Voucher specimens were collected of species that could not be identified in the field for later identification.

Table 3.1 Modified Braun-Blanquet Crown Cover-abundance Scale

Class Cover-abundance* Notes

1 Few individuals Herbs, sedges and grasses: <5 individuals (less than 5% cover) Shrubs and small trees: <5 individuals

2 Many individuals Herbs, sedges and grasses: 5 or more individuals (less than 5% cover) Shrubs and small trees: 5 or more individuals Medium-large overhanging tree

3 5 – less than 20% cover Applies to all species.

4 20 – less than 50% cover

5 50 – less than 75% cover

6 75 – 100% cover

Note: * Modified Braun-Blanquet scale (Poore 1955; Austin et al. 2000)

Additional details were also recorded in each quadrat, including soil texture, drainage and depth; site disturbances; physiography (position in the landscape); and vegetation structure (strata percentage covers, heights and dominant species). Photographic records were also taken at each site.

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Methods 3251_R05_Ecological Assessment _FINAL.docx 18

Section 2.3 of the Ecological Constraints and Opportunities Report (RPS 2011) describes the quadrat sampling technique utilised as part of the vegetation mapping prepared as part of that study. The results of this survey have been considered in the current Project.

The location of the 16 vegetation quadrats completed by RPS and the two quadrats sampled by Umwelt is provided on Figure 3.2.

3.3.3.2 Rapid flora quadrats (plots)

Rapid quadrat survey involved semi-quantitative sampling of all vascular flora in systematic 100 metre2 (10 metre x 10 metre) quadrats (plots). The method used follows that carried out for full flora quadrat sampling, as described in Section 3.3.3.1, except within a smaller area. This allows a higher number of sites to be sampled within the constraints of available time and resources. Rapid plots are designed to augment full plot sampling and field reconnaissance.

A total of nine rapid flora plots were sampled by Umwelt in 2014 and 2015. The locations of these are shown in Figure 3.2.

3.3.3.3 Flora transects

Umwelt sampled vegetation non-quantitatively along four transects in the Project Area, which are shown in Figure 3.2. Transects were positioned to sample specific vegetation communities. Dominant and/or common flora species occurring along these transects were recorded as present, that is, without the record of a cover abundance score.

Additional details were also recorded along each transect, including soil texture, drainage and depth; site disturbances; physiography (position in the landscape); and vegetation structure (strata percentage covers, heights and dominant species). Photographic records were also taken along each transect.

Flora transects provide supplemental information about vegetation communities and flora species, which contributes to knowledge about vegetation across the Project Area. Searches for threatened flora species was also undertaken along flora transects.

3.3.3.4 Flora point samples

Point-based sampling of flora was undertaken at 15 locations within the Project Area, which are shown in Figure 3.2. Point samples are not area-based; therefore, provide non-quantitative information about vegetation. At each point, the dominant flora species are recorded with general information about the vegetation community present.

Point samples assist in the delineation and refinement of vegetation mapping. Points were located within distinct vegetation community units (rather than within ecotones) to allow data collection for each community without confounding effects from adjacent communities.

3.3.3.5 Meandering transects (field reconnaissance)

Meandering transects in the Project Area were used for both field reconnaissance and targeted threatened flora searches (see Section 3.3.3.6)

Field reconnaissance of vegetation communities that were mapped by RPS (2011) was undertaken along numerous meandering transects across the Project Area. The use of meandering transects for field reconnaissance (ground-truthing of vegetation mapping), enabled the observation and

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Methods 3251_R05_Ecological Assessment _FINAL.docx 19

recording of floristic variation across a much larger area than that provided by the systematic quadrat-based sampling.

Where meandering transects revealed significant variation from vegetation mapping by RPS (2011), such as a potential new vegetation community, additional quadrat survey was undertaken.

The locations of meandering transect sampled within the study area are shown on Figure 3.2. Meandering transects undertaken by RPS are described in Section 2.3 of the Ecological Constraints and Opportunities Report (RPS 2011).

3.3.3.6 Meandering transects (targeted threatened flora searches)

Targeted searches were undertaken along meandering transects for threatened flora, other significant species, EPs and TECs that were known or likely to occur in the Project Area. Meandering transects were positioned systematically to cross the diversity of landform elements and vegetation communities that occur in the Project Area, and were located within suitable habitat for the target species.

More detail about targeted threatened flora searches is provided in Section 3.3.4.

3.3.4 Targeted threatened flora surveys

Throughout flora surveys of the Project Area, targeted searches were carried out for threatened flora species that are known to occur in or near to the Project Area or were considered likely to occur based on the species’ known distribution and the presence of suitable habitat. Searches for these species were undertaken in suitable habitat along numerous walking meandering transects and quadrats (refer to Figure 3.2).

Where a threatened flora species, population or community was found, the location was recorded using a GPS and where relevant, important details were recorded such as the habit, height and plant numbers. Additionally, voucher specimens were collected for each threatened flora species for formal identification and preservation. Voucher specimens were also lodged with the National Herbarium of Australia, Royal Botanic Gardens Sydney.

The list of threatened species that were targeted during threatened flora surveys was compiled through database searches and literature reviews (refer to Section 3.1). The species included in Table 3.2 were targeted during surveys as they have the potential to occur in the Project Area due the presence of suitable habitat. Appendix B provides further detail on these species, including habitat preferences. Species which are included in Appendix B and were not targeted during surveys were considered unlikely to occur in the Project Area due to the absence of suitable habitat.

Table 3.2 Threatened flora species survey effort table

Species Optimal Survey Period* Project Survey Timing

dwarf heath casuarina All year 23 May – 3 June 2011 Allocasuarina defungens 28 – 29 August 2013 25 – 26 August 2014 10 and 12 February 2015 24 April 2015 28 September 2015

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Methods 3251_R05_Ecological Assessment _FINAL.docx 20

Species Optimal Survey Period* Project Survey Timing

Charmhaven apple All year 23 May – 3 June 2011 Angophora inopina 28 – 29 August 2013 25 – 26 August 2014 10 and 12 February 2015 24 April 2015 28 September 2015

netted bottle brush September – March 10 and 12 February 2015 Callistemon linearifolius 28 September 2015

red helmet orchid June – August 28 - 29 August 2013 Corybas dowlingii 25 – 26 August 2014

leafless tongue orchid December – February 10 and 12 February 2015 Cryptostylis hunteriana

sand doubletail August – September 28 - 29 August 2013 Diuris arenaria 25 – 26 August 2014 28 September 2015

rough doubletail July – August 28 – 29 August 2013 Diuris praecox 25 – 26 August 2014

Earp’s gum All year 23 May – 3 June 2011 Eucalyptus parramattensis 28 – 29 August 2013 subsp. decadens 25 – 26 August 2014 10 and 12 February 2015 24 April 2015 28 September 2015

Camfield’s stringybark All year 23 May – 3 June 2011 Eucalyptus camfieldii 28 – 29 August 2013 25 – 26 August 2014 10 and 12 February 2015 28 September 2015

Maundia triglochinoides November – March 10 and 12 February 2015

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Methods 3251_R05_Ecological Assessment _FINAL.docx 21

Species Optimal Survey Period* Project Survey Timing

biconvex paperbark All year 23 May – 3 June 2011 Melaleuca biconvexa 28 – 29 August 2013 25 – 26 August 2014 10 and 12 February 2015 24 April 2015 28 September 2015

Groves paperbark All year 23 May – 3 June 2011 Melaleuca groveana 28 – 29 August 2013 25 – 26 August 2014 10 and 12 February 2015 24 April 2015 28 September 2015

Pterostylis chaetophora September – November 28 – 29 August 2013 25 – 26 August 2014 28 September 2015

Persicaria elatior December – May 10 and 12 February 2015 tall knotweed

dwarf kerrawang All year 23 May – 3 June 2011 Commersonia prostrata 28 – 29 August 2013 25 – 26 August 2014 10 and 12 February 2015 24 April 2015 28 September 2015

black-eyed Susan July – December 28 – 29 August 2013 Tetratheca juncea 25 – 26 August 2014 28 September 2015

Optimal survey periods were determined from the Flora of NSW (Harden: 1992; 1993; 2000; and 2002), BioNet and threatened species profiles available from OEH (http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/threatenedspeciesapp).

3.3.5 Field survey timing

Table 3.3 provides details of flora surveys and the survey locations are shown in Figure 3.2.

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Methods 3251_R05_Ecological Assessment _FINAL.docx 22

Table 3.3 Flora field survey timing and locations

Undertaken By Date of Surveys Survey Type

RPS May 2008 Quadrat survey (4)

RPS 23 May – 3 June 2011 Quadrat survey (12) Meandering Transects (Targeted threatened flora survey)

Umwelt 28 – 29 August 2013 Targeted threatened flora survey

Umwelt 25 – 26 August 2014 Flora Point Sample (15) Rapid Flora Plot (5) Meandering Transects (Targeted threatened flora survey and Field Reconnaissance)

Umwelt 10 and 12 February 2015 Quadrat survey (2) Rapid Flora Plot (4) Flora Transect (4) Meandering Transects (Targeted threatened flora survey and Field Reconnaissance)

Umwelt 24 April 2015 Meandering Transects (Targeted threatened flora survey)

Umwelt 28 September 2015 Meandering Transects (Targeted threatened flora survey)

3.3.6 Threatened ecological community assessment techniques

Vegetation communities identified in the Project Area were compared to TECs listed under the Commonwealth EPBC Act and NSW TSC Act and an assessment of similarity with TEC scientific committee listing advice. The following approach was used:

• full-floristic quadrat assessment, and meandering survey to determine floristic composition and structure of each ecological community

• comparison with published species lists, including lists of ‘important species’ as identified on the listing advice provided by the OEH and Department of Environment scientific committees

• comparison with habitat descriptions and distributions for listed TECs

• assessment using guidelines and recovery plans published by the Commonwealth Department of Environment and the NSW OEH

• comparison with other assessments of TECs in the region.

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Methods 3251_R05_Ecological Assessment _FINAL.docx 23

3.3.7 Summary and adequacy of flora field survey effort

Table 3.4 summarises the suggested minimum effort required to undertake adequate surveys of flora species in accordance with DEC (2004), including threatened species and mapping and describing vegetation communities. DEC (2004) recommends a stratified sampling approach be adopted to ensure that the range of potential habitats and vegetation types present in an area are adequately sampled.

Table 3.4 Recommended flora survey effort with respect to OEH draft guidelines

Survey Technique Suggested Minimum Effort per Stratification Unit

Transects At least: • 1 x 100 m traverse per stratification unit <2 hectares • 2 x 100 m traverses per 2-50 hectares of stratification unit • 3 x 100 m traverses per 51-250 hectares of stratification unit • 5 x 100 m traverses per 251-500 hectares of stratification unit • 10 x 100 m traverses per 501-1,000 hectares of stratification unit, plus one additional 100 m traverse for each extra 100 hectares thereof

Random Meander 30 minutes for each quadrat sampled within the same stratification unit as the quadrat

Quadrat At least: • 1 quadrat per stratification unit <2 hectares • 2 quadrats per 2-50 hectares of stratification unit • 3 quadrats per 51-250 hectares of stratification unit • 5 quadrats per 251-500 hectares of stratification unit • 10 quadrats per 501-1,000 hectares of stratification unit, • plus one additional quadrat for each extra 100 hectares thereof.

* Number of quadrats recommended in accordance with Draft Threatened Species Survey and Assessment: Guidelines for Developments and Activities (DEC 2004)

Vegetation community mapping carried out by RPS (2011), was verified and updated as necessary by Umwelt (reported on herein) through field reconnaissance and DAPI. Due to the low relief present in the Project Area and relatively low variation in soil types and landform elements, vegetation communities were adopted directly as stratification units.

Mapping of vegetation communities in the Project Area reflects floristic variation present as well as important habitat attributes including landform, elevation and slope. Aspect was not found to be an important determinant of floristic spatial patterns, most likely related to the low relief of the site. For instance, Swamp Mahogany Paperbark Forest consistently occurs in low-lying, level landforms in the Project Area below 3 m AHD and was found to occur on an homogenous soil type. Similarly, Coastal Sand Wallum Woodland consistently occurs in sandy low hills and rises in the Project Area in locations at and above 3 m AHD.

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Methods 3251_R05_Ecological Assessment _FINAL.docx 24

Table 3.5 summarises flora survey effort that has been carried out in the Project Area by Umwelt and RPS (2008 and 2011). Comparison of this survey effort to the OEH draft guidelines (DEC 2004) is also made in Table 3.5.

Table 3.5 Flora survey effort and comparison to survey guidelines (DEC 2004)

Number of Sites Surveyed in Project Area for each Survey Method1 2 3 Stratification Units – Area Quadrats Rapid Transects Random Point Vegetation (hectares) 400sq m Plots Meanders Samples Communities in Project 10x10m (Meanderin Area g Transects)

Coastal Sand Apple – 30.7 3 (2) 2 1x160 m >2 hrs 2 Blackbutt Forest (2x100 m) (1 hr)

Coastal Sand Apple – 19.1 2 (2) Nil >2 hrs Blackbutt Forest (2x100 m) (1 hr) (Blackbutt Scribbly Gum variant)

Coastal Sand Wallum 18.1 2 (2) Nil >2 hrs Heath (2x100 m) (1 hr)

Coastal Sand Wallum 42.7 5 (2) 3 1x50 m >5 hrs 6 Woodland (2x100 m) (1 hr)

Coastal Wet Cyperoid 10.4 1 (2) Nil >1hr Heath (2x100 m) (1 hr)

Swamp Mahogany - 25.0 2 (2) 2 1x54 m >2 hrs 3 Paperbark Forest (2x100 m) (1 hr)

Swamp Mahogany 9.8 2 (2) 1x100 m >2 hrs 1 Paperbark Forest – (2x100 m) (1 hr) Freshwater Wetland Mosaic (Regenerating)

Earp’s Gum Sedge 0.9 1 (1) 1 1x100 m >2hrs Woodland (1x100 m) (1hr)

Regenerating Forest (not 12.3 0 (2) 1x120 m >2 hrs 3 assigned to a vegetation (2x100 m) (1 hr) community)

Pine Forest 1.2 0 (1) Nil Nil (1x100 m) (0.5 hr)

Cleared/Disturbed 6.1 0 (2) 1 1x20 m >1 hr Land/Old (2x100 m) (1 hr) Quarry/Minimal Regeneration

Notes:

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Methods 3251_R05_Ecological Assessment _FINAL.docx 25

1. Includes survey by RPS (2011) and Umwelt between 2013-2015. 2. Shown in brackets = number of quadrats, transects (100 m traverses) and Random Meanders recommended by DEC (2004) – see Table 3.5 3. Bold indicates that guidelines (DEC, 2004) have not been met for quadrat sampling.

Generally, the survey effort meets or exceeds the suggested minimum sampling effort for all stratification units, except for Coastal Wet Cyperoid Heath, Regenerating Forest, Pine Forest and Cleared/Disturbed Land.

Within Coastal Wet Cyperoid Heath, one additional quadrat is required to satisfy the recommended flora survey effort; however as a meandering transect was undertaken across much of the unit a good understanding of this unit within the Project Area was achieved.

In all units, the number of recommended random meanders has been well exceeded. Additionally, quadrat- and transect-based surveys were supplemented by rapid plot-based samples within 100 sq m quadrats and point-based samples. As such, the results of the flora assessment and vegetation mapping can be viewed with a high degree of confidence.

3.4 Terrestrial fauna survey

Fauna surveys were carried out to identify the fauna species and their habitats occurring, or considered to have the potential to occur in the Project Area, including threatened species, migratory species, EPs, and species of local or regional significance.

3.4.1 RPS fauna surveys 2011

RPS previously conducted detailed fauna surveys of the Project Area as part of the Ecological Constraints and Opportunities Report (RPS 2011). The fauna survey methodology initially consisted of the production of an Expected Fauna Species List for the area and an assessment of the potential use of the site by threatened fauna species identified in the vicinity of the site. This was achieved by undertaking literature and database reviews followed by confirmation through field surveys with additional threatened species observed during surveys noted.

Fauna surveys were undertaken between 23 May 2011 and 3 June 2011 and included the following survey techniques:

• arboreal and terrestrial mammal trapping using Elliot A and B traps

• hair funnel surveys

• harp trapping and micro-bat echolocation call recording

• diurnal avifauna surveys

• herpetofauna surveys

• spotlighting surveys

• call playback surveys

• opportunistic observations.

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Methods 3251_R05_Ecological Assessment _FINAL.docx 26

The location and effort of each survey methodology was determined based on the fauna habitat described within the site (RPS 2011) and is shown on Figure 3.3. Details relating to the specific methodology employed as part of each fauna survey technique is provided in Section 2.4 of the Ecological Constraints and Opportunities Report (RPS 2011) (refer to Appendix A).

3.4.2 Umwelt fauna surveys 2013, 2014 and 2015

A range of targeted threatened species surveys and seasonally dependent surveys were undertaken by Umwelt as part of the current assessment to ensure adequate coverage of the Project Area and appropriate consideration of the potential seasonal utilisation of the site by threatened fauna species. These survey methods are described in detail below.

3.4.2.1 Diurnal bird surveys

Diurnal bird surveys, each of one person-hour and repeated over two days, were undertaken within the Project Area. Bird surveys were undertaken at various times of the day, primarily in the mid to late afternoon. Each survey consisted of a slow walking transect within a 2 hectare area of the survey site. Bird species were identified from characteristic calls and by observation using binoculars with magnification up to 10 x. Opportunistic observations were recorded during all other aspects of the field survey.

A total of eight person hours of diurnal bird surveys were undertaken by Umwelt across four locations within the Project Area. The locations of the diurnal bird surveys are shown in Figure 3.3.

3.4.2.2 Diurnal herpetological surveys

Targeted diurnal herpetological (reptile and amphibian) surveys, each of one person-hour repeated over two days, were undertaken within the Project Area. The locations of the diurnal herpetological surveys are shown in Figure 3.3. Herpetological surveys were generally undertaken during the warmest parts of the day. During the search likely micro-habitats were examined including around waterbodies, beneath rocks and logs, in tree bark and in ground litter. Targeted wallum froglet (Crinia tinnula) surveys were also conducted during August 2013 and 2014, with additional surveys undertaken in February 2015.

Amphibians not identifiable from their calls and non-venomous reptiles were captured for visual identification. All amphibians were handled according to the Hygiene Protocol for the Control of Disease in Frogs (DECC 2008).

A total of eight person hours of herpetological surveys were undertaken by Umwelt across four locations within the Project Area. The locations of the herpetological surveys are shown in Figure 3.3.

3.4.2.3 Spotlighting surveys

Walking nocturnal spotlighting surveys, each of one person-hour repeated over two nights, was undertaken within the Project Area. Spotlighting surveys targeted nocturnal birds, mammals and herpetofauna. Spotlighting was conducted on foot along transects of the Project Area using 30 watt Lightforce hand-held spotlights and head torch. Spotlighting was undertaken generally between 8.00 pm and 12.00 midnight, commencing one hour after dusk. In addition, opportunistic spotlighting was undertaken from a slow-moving vehicle while travelling between fauna survey sites at night.

The locations of the nocturnal spotlighting transects are shown in Figure 3.3.

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Methods 3251_R05_Ecological Assessment _FINAL.docx 27

3.4.2.4 Nocturnal call-playback

Nocturnal call-playback sessions were undertaken at two locations within the Project Area each over two consecutive nights. Call-playback sessions commenced with a quiet listening period of approximately five minutes. Each species’ call was played on a 15 watt directional loud hailer for a minimum of 4 minutes followed by a listening period of 2 minutes before the beginning of the next species’ call. Call-playback sessions included the calls of:

• squirrel glider (Petaurus norfolcensis)

• yellow-bellied glider (Petaurus australis)

• koala (Phascolarctos cinereus)

• sooty owl (Tyto tenebricosa)

• barking owl (Ninox connivens)

• powerful owl (Ninox strenua)

• masked owl (Tyto novaehollandiae).

The location of nocturnal call-playback sessions is shown in Figure 3.3.

3.4.2.5 Targeted winter bird surveys

Targeted swift parrot and regent honeyeater surveys were undertaken across two days in August 2013 and again in August 2014. The bird surveys targeted areas of flowering eucalypt species, including swamp mahogany (Eucalyptus robusta), and considered the presence of other nectarivorous species such as lorikeets and honeyeaters.

A total of eight targeted winter bird locations were surveyed within the Project Area. Each survey consisting of a 5 minute period of call playback for both species followed by 15 minutes of searching which consisted of a slow walking transect within a 2 hectare area. Bird species were identified from characteristic calls and by observation using binoculars with magnification up to 10 x. Opportunistic observations were recorded during all other aspects of the field survey.

The location of the surveys is shown in Figure 3.3.

3.4.2.6 Remote cameras

Threatened mammal species were targeted using remote camera surveys in 10 locations within the Project Area during the February 2015 survey period. Bushnell Trophy Cam HDs were used for the remote camera surveys. At 10 sites, the remote camera was mounted approximately 1 metre above the ground on a tree trunk and positioned towards a bait station containing oats and honey to increase the likelihood of detecting target species.

The cameras were set to take three photos in quick succession when movement was detected. The remote cameras were programmed to record movement on an ongoing basis until removed from the site. The cameras were installed for 16 nights, totalling 160 nights of remote camera survey.

The locations of the remote camera surveys are shown on Figure 3.3.

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Methods 3251_R05_Ecological Assessment _FINAL.docx 28

3.4.2.7 Targeted micro-bat surveys

Recordings of micro-bat echolocation calls were conducted over two nights at six locations within the Project Area. Calls were recorded using an Anabat SD1 device (hereafter referred to as an Anabat). At each site, the Anabat was positioned at an approximate 30 degree angle 1 metre above the ground in waterproof housing. Each detector was positioned towards potential micro-bat flight paths or over waterbodies to increase the likelihood of detecting micro-bat species. The Anabat detector was programmed to start recording from one hour before sunset to one hour after sunrise.

Recordings of bat calls were analysed by Anna McConville of Echo Ecology (a recognised expert in the identification of micro-bat calls). The echolocation calls of species were identified to one of three levels of confidence:

• confident

• probable

• possible.

‘Confident’ and ‘probable’ identification confidences were treated as positive identifications for the purposes of the ecological assessment.

The locations of the micro-bat echolocation recordings are shown on Figure 3.3.

Koala SAT surveys

Searches for signs of the presence of koalas were undertaken at 10 locations within the Project Area in September 2015 using the Spot Assessment Technique (SAT). Searches were undertaken on and around the base of 30 trees per location. These searches focused on signs of occupancy including scats left at the base of trees or characteristic scratches on the trunk. The locations of the SAT searches are shown on Figure 3.3.

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Methods 3251_R05_Ecological Assessment _FINAL.docx 29

3.4.3 Habitat and condition assessments

Habitat assessment surveys were undertaken in four locations across the Project Area. Figure 3.3 shows the location of each of the habitat and condition assessments sites within the Project Area. At each quadrat the following habitat data was collected:

Physical site characteristics

• aspect

• slope

Disturbance level

• evidence of fire

• cut stump density

• grazing pressure level

• erosion severity and type

• weed infestation level and dominant species

• level of rubbish dumping

• signs of feral animals

Foliage health

• number and size of stags

• dieback level

• mistletoe infestation level

• level of foliage insect attack

Ground cover

• number and types of ground logs

• number and types of stumps

• per cent rock cover

• per cent boulder and solid rock cover

• per cent soil and lichen cover

• ground vegetation cover percentage, dominant growth form, number of species and dominant species

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Methods 3251_R05_Ecological Assessment _FINAL.docx 31

• understorey layer cover percentage, dominant growth form, number of species and dominant species

Tree cover

• mid-understorey layer cover percentage, dominant growth form, number of species and dominant species

• canopy cover percentage, dominant growth form, number of species and dominant species

• diameter of up to 15 trees greater than 100 millimetres diameter at breast height (DBH)

• number and age of eucalypt trees

Target species habitat features

• amount of horizontal perch sites

• number of trees with loose bark

• number of trees with bark/litter mound at base

Many of the habitat parameters measured at each quadrat were scored into categories or ranges, while the remainder were derived from direct measurements.

3.4.3.1 SEPP 44 (Koala Habitat) assessment

Port Stephens Council has developed a Comprehensive Koala Plan of Management (CKPoM) for the Port Stephens LGA. As such the provisions of the State Environmental Planning Policy No 44 – Koala Habitat Protection (SEPP 44) are superseded by the CKPoM.

The CKPoM (Port Stephens Council 2002) provides recommended performance criteria for development applications in order to protect and effectively manage koala habitat in the Port Stephens LGA.

Field surveys were undertaken such that sufficient information was collected, including koala SAT surveys, to satisfactorily assess the development against the CKPoM criteria.

3.4.4 Terrestrial fauna survey timing and effort

Fauna surveys have been conducted over several seasons in order to optimise the likelihood of identifying the full range of species that could occur in the Project Area. Fauna surveys were conducted in summer, spring and winter to account for the known seasonal requirements and detectability period for most of the targeted species. Surveys across the Project Area also focused on providing high levels of survey effort for a number of key species which were considered to be difficult to detect and this was carried out within predicted seasonal times of highest detectability. This effort was also matched to habitat areas considered likely to be of importance for target species.

3.4.4.1 Summary and adequacy of terrestrial fauna survey effort

Table 3.6 outlines the fauna survey effort completed within the Project Area. The locations of these survey methods are provided in Figure 3.3.

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Methods 3251_R05_Ecological Assessment _FINAL.docx 32

Table 3.6 Adequacy of terrestrial fauna survey effort with respect to OEH guidelines (DEC, 2004)

Survey Target Survey Method Survey Requirement (DEC Survey Effort Employed for Ecology Habitat Stratification Adequacy of Survey 2004) Assessment Units Surveyed Effort With Respect to OEH Guidelines

Amphibians Diurnal One hour per stratification Eight person hours of diurnal Woodland/Forest Adequate herpetological unit searches were undertaken across Swamp Forest searches four sites during one survey period (February 2015). Heath Eight person hours of opportunistic wallum froglet (Crinia tinnula) surveys were undertaken in August 2013 and 2014.

Opportunistic Opportunistic observations were Throughout the Adequate observations made throughout all surveys (May Project Area 2011, August 2013, August 2014, February 2015).

Reptiles Diurnal 30 minute search on two Eight person hours of diurnal Woodland/Forest Adequate herpetological separate days targeting searches were undertaken across Swamp Forest searches specific habitat per four sites during one survey period stratification unit (February 2015). Heath

Spotlighting 30 minute search on two Two nights of spotlighting transects, Woodland/Forest Adequate surveys separate nights targeting each of 2 person-hours was Swamp Forest specific habitat undertaken throughout the Project Area (February 2015). Heath Eight person hours of spotlighting surveys was undertaken over two nights across the Project Area (May 2011).

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Methods 3251_R05_Ecological Assessment _FINAL.docx 33

Survey Target Survey Method Survey Requirement (DEC Survey Effort Employed for Ecology Habitat Stratification Adequacy of Survey 2004) Assessment Units Surveyed Effort With Respect to OEH Guidelines

Opportunistic - Opportunistic observations were Throughout the Adequate observations made throughout all surveys (May Project Area 2011, August 2013, August 2014, February 2015).

Diurnal Birds Area search Per stratification unit Two diurnal bird surveys, each of 1 Woodland/Forest Adequate person-hour, were undertaken at Swamp Forest four locations across the Project Area. In addition to this, targeted winter bird surveys, each of 0.6 person hour in duration, were undertaken at 18 locations in and around the Project Area over two survey seasons (August 2013 and August 2014).

Opportunistic - Opportunistic observations were Throughout the Adequate observations made throughout all surveys (May Project Area 2011, August 2013, August 2014, February 2015).

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Methods 3251_R05_Ecological Assessment _FINAL.docx 34

Survey Target Survey Method Survey Requirement (DEC Survey Effort Employed for Ecology Habitat Stratification Adequacy of Survey 2004) Assessment Units Surveyed Effort With Respect to OEH Guidelines

Nocturnal Birds Call playback Sites should be separated by Two sessions of call playback were Woodland/Forest Adequate surveys 800 metres – 1 km, and each undertaken at two locations over Swamp Forest site must have the playback two nights within the Project Area session repeated as follows: for powerful owl, sooty owl, masked owl and barking owl (February • at least 5 visits per site, 2015). on different nights are required for the Powerful Two sessions of call playback were Owl, Barking Owl and the undertaken at one location over two Grass Owl; nights for powerful owl, masked owl, barking owl and bush stone-curlew • at least 6 visits per site (May 2011). for the Sooty Owl, and 8 visits per site for the Masked Owl are required.

Spotlighting Spotlighting for plains Two nights of spotlighting transects, Woodland/Forest Adequate surveys wanderer and bush stone- each of 2 person-hours was Swamp Forest curlew by foot or from a undertaken throughout the Project vehicle driven in first gear. Area (February 2015). Heath Eight person hours of spotlighting surveys was undertaken over two nights across the Project Area (May 2011).

Opportunistic - Opportunistic observations were Throughout the Adequate observations made throughout all surveys (May Project Area 2011, August 2013, August 2014, February 2015).

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Methods 3251_R05_Ecological Assessment _FINAL.docx 35

Survey Target Survey Method Survey Requirement (DEC Survey Effort Employed for Ecology Habitat Stratification Adequacy of Survey 2004) Assessment Units Surveyed Effort With Respect to OEH Guidelines

Mammals Small Elliot traps 100 trap nights over Terrestrial trapping was undertaken Woodland/Forest Adequate (excluding bats) 3-4 consecutive nights using 10 Elliott A at 6 trapping Swamp Forest transects for four nights, resulting in 240 trap nights (May 2011). Heath

Large Elliot traps 100 trap nights over Terrestrial trapping was undertaken Woodland/Forest Adequate 3-4 consecutive nights using 10 Elliott B at 6 trapping Swamp Forest transects for four nights, resulting in 240 trap nights (May 2011). Heath

Wire Cage traps 24 trap nights over Terrestrial trapping was undertaken Woodland/Forest Adequate 3-4 consecutive nights using 2 cage traps at 6 trapping Swamp Forest transects for four nights, resulting in 48 trap nights (May 2011). Heath

Arboreal Elliot 24 trap nights over Arboreal trapping was undertaken Woodland/Forest Adequate traps 3-4 consecutive nights using 10 Elliott B size traps per Swamp Forest trapping transect set for four nights. Heath A total of six trapping transects were undertaken within the site, resulting in 240 arboreal trap nights (May 2011).

Hair tubes 10 large and 10 small tubes Hair funnel surveys were undertaken Woodland/Forest Adequate in pairs for at least 4 days using 20 Faunatech hair funnels and Swamp Forest and 4 nights wafers over four nights at four trapping transects, resulting in 160 Heath arboreal and 160 terrestrial trap nights (May 2011).

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Methods 3251_R05_Ecological Assessment _FINAL.docx 36

Survey Target Survey Method Survey Requirement (DEC Survey Effort Employed for Ecology Habitat Stratification Adequacy of Survey 2004) Assessment Units Surveyed Effort With Respect to OEH Guidelines

Spotlighting 2 x one hour and 1 km of Two nights of spotlighting transects, Woodland/Forest Adequate surveys spotlighting up to each of 2 person-hours was Swamp Forest 200 hectares of stratification undertaken throughout the Project unit, walking at Area (February 2015). Heath approximately 1 km per hour Eight person hours of spotlighting on 2 separate nights surveys was undertaken over two nights across the Project Area (May 2011).

Remote camera - Remote camera surveys were Woodland/Forest Adequate surveys undertaken in 10 locations across Swamp Forest the Project Area. The cameras were installed for 16 nights, totalling 160 Heath nights of remote camera survey.

Opportunistic - Opportunistic observations were Throughout the Adequate observations made throughout all surveys (May Project Area 2011, August 2013, August 2014, February 2015).

Koala SAT surveys - 10 SAT surveys sampled across the Throughout the Adequate Project Area Project Area

Bats Ultrasonic call Two sound activated A total of two full nights of Woodland/Forest Adequate recording (Anabat) recording devices utilised for ultrasonic call recording was Swamp Forest the entire night (a minimum undertaken at six survey locations of four hours), starting at within the Project Area (February Heath dusk for two nights 2015).

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Methods 3251_R05_Ecological Assessment _FINAL.docx 37

Survey Target Survey Method Survey Requirement (DEC Survey Effort Employed for Ecology Habitat Stratification Adequacy of Survey 2004) Assessment Units Surveyed Effort With Respect to OEH Guidelines A total of four full nights of ultrasonic call recording was undertaken at two survey locations within the Project Area (May 2011).

Harp trapping Four trap nights over two A total of two harp traps were Woodland/Forest Adequate consecutive nights (with one placed along a track within the open Swamp Forest trap placed outside the forest habitats within the site for a flyways for one night) total of four consecutive nights, Heath resulting in eight trap nights (May 2011).

Spotlighting 2 x one hour spotlighting on Two nights of spotlighting transects, Woodland/Forest Adequate surveys two separate nights each of 2 person-hours was Swamp Forest undertaken throughout the Project Area (February 2015). Heath Eight person hours of spotlighting surveys was undertaken over two nights across the Project Area (May 2011).

Opportunistic - Opportunistic observations were Throughout the Adequate observations made throughout all surveys (May Project Area 2011, August 2013, August 2014, February 2015).

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Methods 3251_R05_Ecological Assessment _FINAL.docx 38

4.0 Survey results

4.1 Flora survey results

The results of the flora survey, including field survey, vegetation description and mapping and desktop components are detailed in the following sections.

4.1.1 Flora species

A total of 150 plant species, of which 146 are native and four are exotic, were identified during surveys undertaken by RPS (2011) and Umwelt between 2013 and 2015. The floristic data from 12 quadrats completed by RPS in 2008 is provided in Appendix 1 of the Ecological Constraints and Opportunities Report (RPS 2011) (refer to Appendix A). A total of 126 flora species were recorded on site during surveys undertaken by RPS (2011), during the quadrats and random meander surveys.

The majority of plants were recorded from two major vascular plant classes, being flowering plants (Magnoliopsida) and ferns (Filicopsida) and included trees, shrubs, forbs, grasses, sedges, rushes, reeds, ferns, and mistletoes. The full list of flora species recorded during flora surveys is provided in Appendix C.

4.1.2 Vegetation communities in the proposed disturbance area

Surveys of the Project Area undertaken by RPS (2011) and Umwelt have identified eight vegetation communities (including variants) as well as a regenerating forest type and a small area dominated by exotic pine trees. The vegetation profiles below have been adapted from the Ecological Constraints and Opportunities Report (RPS 2011). These vegetation communities have been aligned with types described as part of the Vegetation of the Tomago and Tomaree Sandbeds, Port Stephens, New South Wales (Driscoll and Bell 2006) and LHCCREMS (2003). An additional 6.1 hectares of the Project Area comprises cleared or disturbed land with minimal native regeneration.

The vegetation communities mapped in the Project Area are shown on Figure 4.1. Of these, Swamp Mahogany Paperbark Forest and Freshwater Wetland are considered to be EECs listed under the TSC Act. The area of these vegetation communities within the Project Area is shown in Table 4.1.

Table 4.1 Vegetation communities of the Project Area and proposed disturbance area

Vegetation Community Name Project Area Area to be (hectares) Disturbed (hectares)

Coastal Sand Apple-Blackbutt Forest - Blackbutt Scribbly 19.1 18.0 Gum variant

Coastal Sand Apple-Blackbutt Forest 30.7 18.7

Coastal Sand Wallum Heath 18.1 0.04

Coastal Sand Wallum Woodland 42.7 11.1

Coastal Wet Sand Cyperoid Heath 10.4 0.0

Swamp Mahogany – Paperbark Forest 24.9 0.3

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Survey results 3251_R05_Ecological Assessment _FINAL.docx 39

Vegetation Community Name Project Area Area to be (hectares) Disturbed (hectares)

Swamp Mahogany Paperbark Forest – Freshwater 9.8 0.0 Wetland Mosaic (Regenerating)

Earp’s Gum Sedge Woodland 0.9 0.0

Regenerating Forest (Not assigned to veg comm.) 12.3 4.2

Pine Forest 1.2 0

Cleared/Disturbed Land/Old Quarry/Minimal 6.1 1.6 Regeneration

Total 176.2 53.9

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Survey results 3251_R05_Ecological Assessment _FINAL.docx 40

Descriptions of each of the vegetation communities recorded in the Project Area are provided below.

4.1.2.1 Coastal Sand Apple-Blackbutt Forest – Blackbutt Scribbly Gum Variant

Name(s) Coastal Sand Apple-Blackbutt Forest – Blackbutt Scribbly Gum variant (19.1 hectares)

Equivalent Driscoll and Bell (2006): Scribbly Gum Apple Bloodwood Open Forest Vegetation LHCCREMS (2003): MU 33 Coastal Sand Apple Blackbutt Forest Types

Description An open forest to approximately 20 m with 20%-30% PFC. Canopy dominants included red bloodwood (Corymbia gummifera), blackbutt (Eucalyptus pilularis) and scribbly gum (E. signata). Tree broom heath (Monotoca eliptica), Earp’s gum (E. parramattensis subsp. decadens), old man banksia (Banksia serrata) and tantoon (Leptospermum polygalifolium) dominate the upper mid-stratum to approximately 5 m. Commonly recorded shrub species include beared heath (Leucopogon ericoides), prickly Moses (Acacia ulicifolia), sunshine wattle (Acacia terminalis subsp. augustifolia) and egg and bacon peas (Dillwynia retorta). The ground layer was dominated by a range of grasses, herbs and forbs including Hibbertia fasciculata, Astroloma pinifolium, Browns lovegrass (Eragrostis brownii), Bossiaea rhombifolia subsp. rhombifolia, Variable bossiaea (Bossiaea heterophylla), bracken (Pteridium esculentum) and Pomax (Pomax umbellata).

Legislative Not listed as a TEC. Importance

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Survey results 3251_R05_Ecological Assessment _FINAL.docx 42

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Survey results 3251_R05_Ecological Assessment _FINAL.docx 43

4.1.2.2 Coastal Sand Apple-Blackbutt Forest

Name Coastal Sand Apple-Blackbutt Forest (30.7 hectares)

Equivalent Driscoll and Bell (2006): Tomago Blackbutt Apple Bloodwood Open Forest Vegetation LHCCREMS (2003): MU 33 Coastal Sand Apple Blackbutt Forest Types

Description An open forest to 20 m with a PFC of approximately 40–50%. Canopy dominants included red bloodwood (Corymbia gummifera), smooth- barked apple (Angophora costata) and old man banksia (Banksia serrata). The mid stratum was dominated by tree broom heath (Monotoca elliptica), prickly Moses (Acacia ulicifolia), and bracken (Pteridium esculentum) to a height of approximately 5 m. The ground layer, to 1m comprised spikey mat-rush (Lomandra longifolia), blady grass (Imperata cylindrica var. major), wiry panic (Entolasia stricta), pomax (Pomax umbellata), Xanthorrhoea latifolia subsp. latifolia, blue-flax lily (Dianella caerulea var. producta), wonga wonga vine (Pandorea pandorana) and burrawang (Macrozamia reducta).

Legislative Not listed as a TEC. importance

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Survey results 3251_R05_Ecological Assessment _FINAL.docx 44

4.1.2.3 Coastal Sand Wallum Heath

Name Coastal Sand Wallum Heath (18.1 hectares);

Equivalent Driscoll and Bell (2006): Sand Wallum Scrub Vegetation LHCCREMS (2003): MU 34a Coastal Sand Wallum Woodland-Heath Types

Description A low heathland 2 m – 5 m with scattered emergents to 10 m including red bloodwood (Corymbia gummifera), brown stringybark (Eucalyptus capitellata) and scribbly gum (Eucalyptus signata). The heathland is dominated by wallum banksia (Banksia aemula), mountain devil (Lambertia formosa), Banksia oblongifolia, Sydney golden wattle (Acacia longifolia var. sophorae), egg and bacon peas (Dillwynia retorta), wedding bush (Ricinocarpos pinifolius), drumsticks (Isopogon anemonifolius), wax flower (Eriostemon australasius), tantoon (Leptospermum polygalifolium), prickly tea- tree (Leptospermum juniperinum), tree broom-heath (Monotoca elliptica), flaky-barked tea-tree (Leptospermum trinervium) and prickly Moses (Acacia ulicifolia). The ground layer, to 1 m, comprised variable bossiaea (Bossiaea heterophylla), Caustis recurvata var. recurvata, Astroloma pinifolium, bracken (Pteridium esculatum), Leucopogon ericoides and blady grass (Imperata cylindrica var. major).

Legislative Not listed as a TEC. importance

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Survey results 3251_R05_Ecological Assessment _FINAL.docx 45

4.1.2.4 Coastal Sand Wallum Woodland

Name Coastal Sand Wallum Woodland (42.7 hectares);

Equivalent Driscoll and Bell (2006): Scribbly Gum-Bloodwood Wallum Woodland Vegetation LHCCREMS (House 2003): MU34 Coastal Sand Wallum Woodland Types

Description An open forest to 20 m. With a PFC of 30% to 40%. Canopy dominants include red bloodwood (Corymbia gummifera), smooth- barked apple (Angophora costata), Sydney peppermint (Eucalyptus piperita), scribbly gum (Eucalyptus signata) and occasional white stringybark (Eucalyptus globoidea). The mid and lower strata are floristically similar to that recorded in the Coastal Sand Wallum Heath. The mid-stratum is dominated by wallum banksia (Banksia aemula), egg and bacon peas (Dillwynia retorta), wax flower (Eriostemon australasius), tantoon (Leptospermum polygalifolium), prickly Moses (Acacia ulicifolia) and Leucopogon ericoides. The ground layer, to 1 m, comprised pale mat-rush (Lomandra glauca), bracken (Pteridium esculentum), Leucopogon ericoides, blady grass (Imperata cylindrica var. major), pomax (Pomax umbellata), blue-flax lily (Dianella caerulea var. producta) and Hibberita fasciculata.

Legislative Not listed as a TEC. importance

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Survey results 3251_R05_Ecological Assessment _FINAL.docx 46

4.1.2.5 Coastal Wet Sand Cyperoid Heath

Name Coastal Wet Sand Cyperoid Heath (10.4 hectares)

Equivalent Driscoll and Bell (2006): Callistemon pachyphyllus-Lepidosperma Shrub Swamp Vegetation (Closest match) Types LHCCREMS (2003): MU44 Coastal Sand Wet Cyperoid Heath

Description A variable structure from a closed heath to graminoid heath with 40% to 80% PFC. Scattered juvenile swamp mahogany (Eucalyptus robusta) and broad-leaved paperbark (Melaleuca quinquenervia) to 10 m were recorded. A dense mid stratum to 2 m was recorded, dominated by swamp paperbark (Melaleuca ericifolia), Acacia elongata, Callistemon citrinus, Callistemon pachyphyllus, native broom (Viminaria juncea), Hakea teretifolia, and prickly tea-tree (Leptospermum juniperinum). The lowest stratum, to 1 m, comprised tall saw-sedge (Gahnia clarkei), branching rush (Juncus prismatocarpus), Blechnum indicum, Leptocarpus tenax, Schoenus brevifolius, Juncus continuus, Lepyrodia scariosa, straw tree-fern (Cyathea cooperi), Cyperus polystachyos and twig rush (Baumea rubiginosa).

Legislative Not listed as a TEC. importance

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Survey results 3251_R05_Ecological Assessment _FINAL.docx 47

4.1.2.6 Swamp Mahogany – Paperbark Forest

Name Swamp Mahogany – Paperbark Forest (24.9 hectares)

Equivalent Driscoll and Bell (2006): Paperbark Swamp Forest Vegetation LHCCREMS (2003): MU37 Swamp Mahogany Paperbark Forest Types

Description An open forest to 20 m with approximately 40–60% PFC. The northern and southern portions of the community are dominated by Swamp Mahogany (Eucalyptus robusta), with broad-leaved paperbark (Melaleuca quinquenervia) being co-dominant. In the south-eastern portion of the community a small stand of Eucalyptus tereticornis trees were identified along with hybrids of Eucalyptus robusta X tereticornis. The south-western portion of the community is characterised by a riparian influence and flax- leaved paperbark (Melaleuca linearifolia) was identified as a co-dominant species in the upper mid stratum. The mapped patches of the community were found to vary in canopy composition however the understorey consistently comprised sedges and ferns. Shrub and mid stratum species included flax-leaved paperbark (Melaleuca linariifolia), swamp paperbark (Melaleuca ericifolia), Sydney golden wattle (Acacia longifolia var. sophorae), willow bottlebrush (Callistemon salignus), stiff bottlebrush (Callistemon rigidus), bleeding heart (Omalanthus populifolius) and tantoon (Leptospermum polygalifolium). The ground layer is characterised by tall sedge (Carex appressa), Gahnia clarkei, common rush (Juncus usitatus), plume rush (Baloskion tetraphyllus subsp. meiostachyum), Leptocarpus tenax, bracken (Pteridium esculentum), pouched coral fern (Gleichenia dicarpa) and batswing fern (Histiopteris incisa). There are also distinct areas of Swamp Mahogany – Paperbark Forest regeneration which form a mosaic with the Freshwater Wetland. These areas of regeneration were too small to map separately from the Freshwater Wetlands.

Legislative Swamp Sclerophyll Forest on Coastal Floodplains on the NSW North Coast importance Sydney Basin and South East Corner bioregions. Refer to Section 4.1.3.3 for further information.

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Survey results 3251_R05_Ecological Assessment _FINAL.docx 48

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Survey results 3251_R05_Ecological Assessment _FINAL.docx 49

4.1.2.7 Freshwater Wetland

Name Freshwater Wetland (9.8 hectares, forming a mosaic with regenerating Swamp Mahogany Paperbark Forest)

Equivalent Driscoll and Bell (2006): Lepironia Swamp Vegetation LHCCREMS (2003): MU45 Lepironia Swamps (closest match) Types

Description A sedgeland 0.5 to 1.5 m in height with a dense ground layer between 90-95% PFC. Characteristic ground layer species include common rush (Juncus usitatus), grey rush (Lepironia articulata), common couch (Cynodon dactylon), broadleaf cumbungi (Typha orientalis), yellow marsh flower (Villarsia exaltata), Eleocharis sp., water primrose (Ludwigia peploides) and matgrass (Hemarthria uncinata). Shrubs occur at low abundance, including prickly tea-tree (Leptospermum juniperinum), swamp paperbark (Melaleuca ericifolia) and pale knotweed (Persicaria lapathifolia). There are also distinct areas of Swamp Mahogany-Paperbark Forest regeneration which form a mosaic with the Freshwater Wetland. These areas of regeneration were too small to map separately from the Freshwater Wetlands. These areas of regeneration include patches of young broad-leaved paperbark (Melaleuca quinquenervia).

Legislative Freshwater Wetlands on Coastal Floodplains in the NSW North Coast, Sydney importance Basin and Southeast Corner Bioregions. Refer to Section 4.1.3.3 for further information.

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Survey results 3251_R05_Ecological Assessment _FINAL.docx 50

4.1.2.8 Earp’s Gum Sedge Woodland

Name Earp’s Gum Sedge Woodland (0.9 hectares)

Equivalent Driscoll and Bell (2006): Earp’s Gum Sedge Woodland Vegetation LHCCREMS (2003): MU36 Tomago Sand Swamp Woodland Types

Description A woodland to 10 m with 10% to 20% PFC. The canopy is dominated exclusively by Earp’s gum (Eucalyptus parramattensis subsp. decadens) with a mid-stratum to 2 m dominated by Banksia oblongifolia, Petrophile pulchella, Drumsticks (Isopogon anemonifolius), tantoon (Leptospermum polygalifolium) and thyme honey-myrtle (Melaleuca thymifolia). The ground layer is dominated by grasses and sedges including Trachymene incisa var. incisa, blue flax lily (Dianella caerulea var. producta), Browns lovegrass (Eragrostis brownii), Lepidosperma laterale, Leptocarpus tenax and Lepyrodia scariosa.

Legislative Not listed as a TEC. importance

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Survey results 3251_R05_Ecological Assessment _FINAL.docx 51

4.1.2.9 Cleared/disturbed areas

A total of 6.1 hectares of the Project Area has been mapped as cleared/disturbed land with minimal native regeneration. There is also 1.2 hectares of exotic Pine Forest in the Project Area which is not a native vegetation community.

4.1.3 Threatened flora species, endangered flora populations and threatened ecological communities

A detailed table of all recorded and potentially occurring threatened flora species, EPs and TECs is provided in Appendix B. The extent of each of the recorded threatened flora species and EEC is shown on Figures 4.2 and Table 4.2.

No endangered flora populations are known to occur in the Project Area.

Table 4.2 Threatened flora species and threatened ecological communities recorded in the Project Area or likely to occur

Species/Population/Community Name Recorded Recorded Status in the in the Common name Project Locality? TSC EPBC Scientific name Area? Act Act 1995 1999

Earp’s gum   V V Eucalyptus parramattensis subsp. decadens

small-flowered grevillea   V V Grevillea parviflora subsp. parviflora

Camfield’s stringybark   V V Eucalyptus camfieldii

dwarf kerrawang ˟  E E Commersonia prostrata

Swamp Sclerophyl Forest on Coastal   EEC - Floodplains EEC

Freshwater Wetland on Coastal   EEC - Floodplains EEC

Notes: EEC = endangered ecological community E = endangered V = Vulnerable

The following threatened flora species and EEC (as listed under the TSC Act and EPBC Act) were recorded within the Project Area either as part of the current survey, or from other sources such as previous surveys, databases searches or literature reviews. A summary of ecological requirements for each species and EEC is provided, sourced from the OEH Threatened Species website http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/threatenedspecies unless indicated otherwise.

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Survey results 3251_R05_Ecological Assessment _FINAL.docx 52

4.1.3.1 Threatened Flora Species Recorded in the Project Area or Likely to Occur

Earp’s gum (Eucalyptus parramattensis subsp. decadens)

Earp’s gum is listed as vulnerable under the TSC and EPBC Acts. The species generally occupies deep, low-nutrient sands, often those subject to periodic inundation or where water tables are relatively high. It occurs in dry sclerophyll woodland with dry heath understorey. It also occurs as an emergent in dry or wet heathland. Often where this species occurs, it is a community dominant. There are two separate meta-populations of Earp’s gum (E. parramattensis subsp. decadens). The Kurri Kurri meta- population is bordered by Cessnock-Kurri Kurri in the north and Mulbring-Aberdare in the south. Large aggregations of the sub-species are located in the Tomalpin area. The Tomago Sandbeds meta- population is bounded by Salt Ash and Tanilba Bay in the north and Williamtown and Tomago in the south.

A total of 524 trees were mapped by RPS (2011) during the constraints analysis phase of the Project, with additional threatened species searches undertaken by Umwelt (see Section 3.3.3) identifying an additional 346 Earp’s gum individuals. The species occurs within Coastal Sand Apple-Blackbutt Forest – Blackbutt Scribbly Gum variant, Coastal Sand Wallum Woodland, Coastal Sand Wallum Heath, Earp’s Gum Sedge Woodland and Swamp Mahogany Paperbark Forest. It should be noted that it is possible that a small number of trees recorded by Umwelt in the non-extraction areas within the central northern part of the Project Area are included in the total count provided by RPS (2011), given that as part of the RPS surveys in some instances a single point was used to mark multiple individuals.

The extent of Earp’s gum (Eucalyptus parramattensis subsp. decadens) that has been identified by field survey carried out by Umwelt and RPS is shown on Figure 4.2. The species is a common canopy or sub-canopy dominant in Earp’s Gum Sedge Woodland and Coastal Sand Apple-Blackbutt Forest – Blackbutt – Scribbly Gum variant.

The majority of Earp’s gum in the Coastal Sand Apple-Blackbutt Forest – Blackbutt –1 Scribbly Gum variant appear to be older regeneration, probably planted or seeded onto the low, sandy hills at that location following past heavy mineral sand extraction activities (refer to Figure 4.3). Individuals of this species in that area exhibit a somewhat stunted growth form that may reflect the lower suitability of the habitat to the species, which prefers areas that are subject to periodic inundation or relatively high water tables. This supposition is supported by the healthier, taller growth habits of individuals found at lower elevations in that area that may be closer to the water table. A review of historical aerial photography reveals that the occurrences of the Earp’s gum (Eucalyptus parramattensis subsp. decadens) in the Proposed Extraction Area have been planted as part of rehabilitation works for past sand mining activities. Figure 4.3 shows the area that has been previously cleared and rehabilitated.

Table 4.3 summarises the counts of Earp’s gum (Eucalyptus parramattensis subsp. decadens) in the Project Area.

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Survey results 3251_R05_Ecological Assessment _FINAL.docx 54

Table 4.3 Eucalyptus parramattensis subsp. decadens tree counts in Project Area

Source Total Tree Counts E. parramattensis subsp. Sub totals decadens

Proposed Non-Extraction Area Extraction Area

RPS (2008 and 48 476 524 2011)

Umwelt (2013- 236 110 346 2015)

Totals 284 586 870 Notes: Trees within approximately 5 to 10 m of the proposed extraction area have been included as occurring within the extraction area to allow for inherent inaccuracies in the field survey method (use of GPS way-pointing) and mapping of the extraction area.

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Survey results 3251_R05_Ecological Assessment _FINAL.docx 55

Camfield’s stringybark (Eucalyptus camfieldii)

Camfield’s stringybark is listed as vulnerable under the TSC and EPBC Acts. The species occurs in poor coastal country in shallow sandy soils overlying Hawkesbury sandstone and coastal heath mostly on exposed sandy ridges. The species generally occurs in small scattered stands near the boundary of tall coastal heaths and low open woodland of the slightly more fertile inland areas. Associated species frequently include stunted species of narrow-leaved stringybark (E. oblonga), brown stringybark (E. capitellata) and scribbly gum (E. haemastoma). The species has a restricted distribution in a narrow band with the most northerly records in the Raymond Terrace area south to Waterfall. The localised and scattered distribution includes sites at Norah Head (Tuggerah Lakes), Peats Ridge, Mt Colah, Elvina Bay Trail (West Head), Terrey Hills, Killara, North Head, Menai, Wattamolla and a few other sites in Royal NP.

One Camfield’s stringybark (Eucalyptus camfieldii) was recorded on the edge of an access track within a previously sand mined portion of the Project Area (RPS 2011) (refer to Figure 4.2). Two records also occur in the Project Area from the OEH BioNet Atlas (OEH 2015) with a relatively low location accuracy of 50-100 metres. These locations in the Project Area were checked by Umwelt and no Camfield’s stringybark were found in this location. A number of other potential Camfield’s stringybark samples were forwarded to the Royal Botanic Gardens Sydney (RBGS) from the Umwelt 2014 survey period, however, all were positively identified as the common stringybark species brown stringybark (Eucalyptus capitellata). No additional records of this species were made during targeted surveys for the species undertaken by Umwelt in 2015.

The species has been identified on the Tomago sandbeds (East Coast Flora Survey 2006), however taxonomic confusion of this species has occurred for its coastal form as the species is normally associated with Hawkesbury sandstone geology and previous positive identifications of the species by the RBGS have been later questioned and re-determined as Eucalyptus capitellata (East Coast Flora Survey, 2006). Potential taxonomic revisions for the coastal form of these species have been raised for further research.

Small-flowered grevillea (Grevillea parviflora subsp. parviflora)

Small-flowered grevillea is listed as vulnerable under the TSC and EPBC Acts. The species is known to occur in sporadic populations throughout the Sydney Basin on ridge crests, upper slopes and flat plains, growing as scattered plants on in multi-stemmed patches. Disjunct populations of the species occur in the Putty area the Lower Hunter and Picton areas. The species inhabits a range of vegetation types from heath and shrubby woodland to open forest. Plants are known to regenerate and sucker after fire (LMCC 2013).

Small-flower grevillea has been recorded in the central-north of the Project Area within the proposed non-extraction area. A total of 102 individuals were recorded in this location, including 8 by RPS (2011) and 94 by Umwelt in 2015. The locations of these records are shown in Figure 4.2.

Dwarf kerrawang (Commersonia prostrata syn. Rulingia prostrata)

Dwarf kerrawang is listed as endangered under the TSC and EPBC Acts. The species is known to occur on the Southern Highlands and Southern Tablelands, a larger population in the Thirlmere Lakes area and a small population on the Tomago Sandbeds. In Tomago, it is known to occur in scribbly gum (E. haemostoma), swamp mahogany (E. robusta) ecotonal forests.

Dwarf kerrawang was not recorded during targeted surveys undertaken for this assessment, but is known to occur in the land north of the Project Area in Tilligerry SCA. The species is known to respond favourably to disturbance, including disturbance as a result of sand mining.

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Survey results 3251_R05_Ecological Assessment _FINAL.docx 57

4.1.3.2 Endangered flora populations

No endangered flora populations listed under the TSC Act or EPBC Act were recorded in the Project Area.

4.1.3.3 Threatened Ecological Communities

Two vegetation communities recorded in the Project Area conform to NSW Scientific Committee final determinations of EECs listed under the TSC Act. Table 4.4 lists these communities.

Table 4.4 EECs in the Project Area

Vegetation Community Name in EEC Name Project Area

Swamp Mahogany Paperbark Forest Swamp Sclerophyll Forest on Coastal Floodplains of the NSW North Coast, Sydney Basin and South Bioregion EEC

Freshwater Wetland Freshwater Wetlands on Coastal Floodplains of the NSW North Coast, Sydney Basin and South Bioregion EEC

Assessment of the consistency of these communities in the Project Area to the EECs was undertaken by comparison of descriptions of each in RPS (2011) and field survey data collected by RPS and Umwelt for the current work. Analysis of consistency to the scientific determinations for each EEC was undertaken, with consideration of the advice provided by the NSW Scientific Committee guidelines for interpreting listings for species, populations and ecological communities under the TSC Act (NSW Scientific Committee 2014). In particular, the following three core requirements are adopted from Preston and Adam (2004a):

• the constituents of a community must be species

• the species need to be brought together into an assemblage

• the assemblage of species must occupy a particular area.

Supplementary descriptors, such as abiotic factors (climate, landforms, substrates, etc) and biotic features (interactions between species, etc) may assist in interpretation but

...cannot be used as a substitute for a description of the assemblage of species and the particular area in which the community is located. Rather they should be seen as a valuable adjunct (Preston and Adam 2004b).

Assessments for the two EECs in the Project Area are provided in the following sections.

Swamp Sclerophyll Forest on Coastal Floodplains of the NSW North Coast, Sydney Basin and South Bioregion EEC

Swamp Mahogany Paperbark Forest is considered to conform to the NSW Scientific Committee determination for the EEC Swamp Sclerophyll Forest on Coastal Floodplains of the NSW North Coast, Sydney Basin and South East Corner Bioregion. Swamp Mahogany Paperbark Forest is mapped in the Project Area by two units:

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Survey results 3251_R05_Ecological Assessment _FINAL.docx 58

(i) Swamp Mahogany Paperbark Forest (24.95 hectares); and

(ii) The complex (mosaic) Swamp Mahogany Paperbark Forest – Freshwater Wetland Mosaic (9.85 hectares) that could not be mapped separately due to the complexity of the mosaic and mapping limitations.

The Swamp Mahogany Paperbark Forest covers approximately 29.85 hectares of the Project Area. This is calculated based on the assumption that the mosaic unit includes an even representation of the Swamp Mahogany Paperbark Forest and Freshwater Wetland, that is about 4.9 hectares of each unit.

Swamp Mahogany Paperbark Forest is consistent with the scientific determination (NSW Scientific Committee 2004a) and identification guidelines (DECC 2007b) with regard to the three core factors identified by Preston and Adam (2004a). The compliance of Swamp Mahogany Paperbark Forest to these three core factors are listed below.

• The dominant tree species are listed as characteristic and key indicator species of this EEC, including broad-leaved paperbark (Melaleuca quinquenervia) and swamp mahogany (Eucalyptus robusta).

• The community supports a high proportion of species that are in the list of characteristic species for the EEC

o 13 out of 30 (43 per cent) native species recorded in this unit are in the EEC listing

o 13 out of 59 (22 per cent) of species in the characteristic species list for the EEC were recorded in this unit.

• The community occurs within the NSW North Coast bioregion and within the Port Stephens Council area, which is listed as one of the LGAs known to support this EEC.

In addition to these core factors, the following attributes of Swamp Mahogany Paperbark Forest in the Project Area are consistent with several supplementary factors described in the Scientific Determination for the EEC:

• occurs on waterlogged or periodically inundated drainage lines associated with coastal floodplains. Although the Project Area does not appear to occur on a coastal floodplain, it does occur in association with a coastal floodplain and the scientific determination states that the EEC ‘often occurs where the larger floodplains adjoin lithic substrates or coastal sand plains’. The Project Area is associated hydrologically and spatially with the Hunter River floodplain

• occurs at less than 20 metres elevation. In the Project Area Swamp Mahogany Paperbark Forest generally occurs below 3 m AHD

• typically comprises an open forest structure, although partial clearing may have reduced the canopy to scattered trees. In the Project Area Swamp Mahogany Paperbark Forest comprises open forest in less disturbed sites, and as woodland to open woodlands in disturbed sites where the community is regenerating

• forms a mosaic with other floodplain treeless wetlands. In the Project Area Swamp Mahogany Paperbark Forest forms a mosaic with Freshwater Wetlands, particularly in disturbed sites including cleared and drained wetland areas.

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Survey results 3251_R05_Ecological Assessment _FINAL.docx 59

Freshwater Wetlands on Coastal Floodplains of the NSW North Coast, Sydney Basin and South East Corner Bioregion EEC

Freshwater Wetland is considered to conform to the NSW Scientific Committee determination for the EEC Freshwater Wetlands on Coastal Floodplains of the NSW North Coast, Sydney Basin and South Bioregion. Freshwater Wetland is mapped in the Project Area as part of a complex (mosaic) with Swamp Mahogany Paperbark Forest. In the mapped locations, Freshwater Wetland could not be mapped separately due to the complexity of the mosaic and mapping limitations. The total mapped area of this mosaic unit is 9.85 hectares.

Based on the assumption that the mapped mosaic unit includes an even representation of the Swamp Mahogany Paperbark Forest and Freshwater Wetland, Freshwater Wetland in the Project Area covers approximately 4.9 hectares.

Freshwater Wetland is consistent with the scientific determination (NSW Scientific Committee 2004b) with regard to the three core factors identified by Preston and Adam (2004a). The compliance of Swamp Mahogany Paperbark Forest to these three core factors are listed below.

• The community supports a high proportion of species that are in the list of characteristic species for the EEC:

o 9 out of 22 (41 per cent) native species recorded in this unit are in the EEC listing

o 9 out of 66 (14 per cent) of species in the characteristic species list for the EEC were recorded in this unit. This is a reasonably high proportion considering that the EEC list of characteristic species includes species that occur from a large geographical are (including the NSW North Coast, Sydney Basin and South East Corner bioregions). Also considering the limited sample of 1 quadrat and 1 transect.

• The community occurs within the NSW North Coast bioregion and within the Port Stephens Council area, which is listed as one of the LGAs known to support this EEC.

In addition to these core factors, the following attributes of Freshwater Wetland in the Project Area are consistent with several supplementary factors described in the Scientific Determination for the EEC:

• occurs in depressions, flats and drainage lines associated with coastal floodplains. Although the Project Area does not appear to occur a coastal floodplain, it does occur in association with a coastal floodplain, in particular, it is associated hydrologically and spatially with the Hunter River floodplain

• occurs at less than 20 metres elevation. In the Project Area Freshwater Wetland generally occurs below 3 m AHD

• typically comprises of a sedgeland, reedland or herbfield with scare woody species. In the Project Area Freshwater Wetland comprises sedgelands and reedlands with few woody emergents. In a number of disturbed sites regeneration of wooded vegetation is occurring, which is considered to primarily be equivalent to Swamp Mahogany Paperbark Forest

• forms a mosaic with other floodplain communities, and adjoins or integrades with several other EECs. In the Project Area Freshwater Wetland forms a mosaic with Swamp Mahogany Paperbark Forest, particularly in disturbed sites including cleared and drained wetland areas.

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Survey results 3251_R05_Ecological Assessment _FINAL.docx 60

4.2 Fauna survey results

The results of the fauna field surveys are detailed in the following sections. The summary below draws on the results of targeted Umwelt surveys conducted between 2013 and 2015 and also the detailed fauna surveys undertaken by RPS (2011). Appendix D contains a list of all fauna species recorded during surveys of the Project Area.

4.2.1 Fauna habitat

The assessment of terrestrial fauna habitat identified a range of habitat characteristics which contribute to the distribution, abundance and diversity of terrestrial fauna within the Project Area.

Five general fauna habitat types were identified during surveys within the Project Area. Each of these broad habitat types has a range of characteristics which influence the habitat value, and the range of fauna species that are likely to be identified within each type. The broad habitat types recorded within the Project Area consist of forest and woodland; swamp forest, heath and freshwater wetland.

4.2.1.1 Forest and woodland habitat

Approximately 84 hectares of forest and woodland habitat occurs within the Project Area (refer to Figure 4.1). The structure of the forest and woodland habitats comprises a canopy cover ranging from 15 to 20 metres with less than 30 per cent canopy cover, generally with an open understorey and dense ground cover. The understorey in the Wallum Woodlands contains more heath species however the habitat structures are considered to be equivalent to the forest habitats. The canopy trees provide flowering resources for honeyeaters, parrots and arboreal mammals during most of the year. Known koala food tree species listed on Schedule Two of SEPP 44 and within the CKPoM were recorded at a total of >15% of the canopy cover.

The open shrub layer ranged between 0.2 m and 4.0 m in height and contained a high level of species and structural diversity. Banksia species and other proteceae species in the mid storey providing year round nectar resources for nectarivorous birds and small arboreal mammals. Ground cover was dominated by litter and variable grassy and herb/forb cover.

The open understorey provides potential foraging habitat for micro-bats, macropods, birds and some limited nesting potential in protected areas for small woodland birds. The ground cover is dense with several fallen hollow branches and trees providing foraging and refuge resources for reptiles and small terrestrial mammals. Water resources are limited within this habitat type.

Tree hollows were recorded in middle-aged trees (refer to Figure 3.3 of the RPS Constraints and Opportunities Report in Appendix A) providing potential nesting resources for large arboreal mammal, owls, micro-bats and other hollow-dependent fauna.

The open forest habitat identified in the Project Area has been subject to historic disturbance associated with mineral sands mining (refer to Figure 4.3) and bushfire affected the site during October 2013. The forest habitat has regenerated to comprise high quality fauna habitat for a wide range of fauna species from each of the four major fauna groups.

4.2.1.2 Swamp forest habitat

Swamp forest habitat was identified in areas of impeded drainage. Comprising forest structure, this broad habitat type provides important habitat for a wide range of fauna species, including the threatened wallum froglet and koala.

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Survey results 3251_R05_Ecological Assessment _FINAL.docx 61

A highly scattered shrub layer ranged between 1.0 m and 4.0 m in height and contained a low level of species and structural diversity. Ground cover was dominated by sedge cover comprising 100% cover.

No species specific habitat areas of rock on rock, rock overhangs, caves, litter at the base of trees, loose tree bark, terrestrial or arboreal termite nests or log cover were recorded. Known koala food tree species listed on Schedule Two of SEPP 44 and within the CKPoM were recorded at a total of >15% of the canopy cover.

The structure of the swamp forest habitat comprises an open canopy cover, 10m to 20 metres, with a dense sub-canopy stratum. The canopy and sub-canopy stratums provide flowering and fruiting resources for honeyeaters, and arboreal mammals during most of the year. Hollow-bearing trees are not as common however occasional large eucalypt species provide valuable hollow resources for hollow-dependent fauna.

The understorey and ground cover are generally open providing valuable foraging and nesting resources for small rainforest birds and small mammals. The ground cover provides some fallen timber providing valuable foraging and refuge resources for small terrestrial mammal, reptile and amphibian species. The swamp forest habitat contains areas of standing water, providing water resources in medium to high rainfall events.

4.2.1.3 Heath habitat

The extensive heathlands of the Lower Hunter (such as the heaths on the Tomago Sandbeds and around Port Stephens) are among the most significant heath habitats in NSW. These heaths offer an important habitat resource, in particular, a very significant nectar resource, that is important for a wide range of nectarivorous species, including the threatened grey-headed flying-fox and squirrel glider (in heathy woodlands), as well as a significant number of avian honeyeaters. They also supply dense cover that is utilised by a wide range of species.

Areas of wet heath habitat contain standing water which provides known habitat for the threatened wallum froglet. These areas also provide a valuable drinking water resource for a range of bird and mammal species and refuge habitats for many reptile species.

4.2.1.4 Freshwater wetland

The freshwater wetland habitats consisted of inundated sedgelands with occasional juvenile broad- leaved paperbark (Melaleuca quinquenervia). These areas provide breeding and foraging habitat for a range of amphibians, including the threatened wallum froglet.

During dry periods, the dense sedges provides valuable refuge habitat for small terrestrial mammals. During prolonged periods of rain, these areas will hold standing water and provide foraging habitats for a range of bird species and a water resource for terrestrial mammals.

4.2.2 Fauna species recorded

A total of 97 fauna species have been recorded in the Project Area, including eight threatened species under the TSC and/or EPBC Acts. A full list of fauna species recorded by Umwelt is provided in Appendix D. An outline and discussion of the species recorded within each of the four major fauna groups is presented in the following sections.

Records of fauna species should be interpreted carefully, since a record of a species within a particular area does not suggest it only occurs within that specific part of the Project Area, and not within other parts. The high levels of mobility of many fauna species (particularly many birds and

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Survey results 3251_R05_Ecological Assessment _FINAL.docx 62

mammals) mean that those species could readily occur in areas other than where they were recorded.

The discussions below include the total numbers of each of the fauna groups, based on project specific surveys undertaken by Umwelt and RPS (2011).

4.2.2.1 Birds

Fifty-seven bird species were recorded during the surveys undertaken in the Project Area. Twenty- seven families are represented with Meliphagidae (honeyeaters) being the most speciose with seven species; followed by Artamidae (magpies) with three species and Accipitridae (raptors) and Maluridae (fairy-wrens and emu-wrens) recording two species each.

Some of the more frequently observed bird species recorded in woodland communities included the white-cheeked honeyeater (Phylidonyris niger), mistletoebird (Dicaeum hirundinaceum), yellow- tailed black-cockatoo (Calyptrohynchus funereus), laughing kookaburra (Dacelo novaeguineae), eastern whipbird (Psophodes olivaceus), golden whistler (Pachycephala pectoralis), Australian raven (Corvus coronoides) and grey fantail (Rhipidura albiscapa).

Two nocturnal bird species were recorded being the tawny frogmouth (Podargus strigoides) and southern boobook owl (Ninox novaeseelandiae).

Two threatened bird species were recorded during targeted surveys, namely the eastern osprey (Pandion cristatus) and the varied sittella (Daphoenositta chrysoptera). The location of where threatened bird species were recorded is shown on Figure 4.4.

One of the bird species recorded during surveys is listed on international migratory species conventions, being the rufous fantail (Rhipidura rufifrons). This species is protected under the schedules of the EPBC Act which have been formulated to protect migratory and marine species listed under international conventions. Further consideration of migratory species is provided in Section 5.6.4 and Appendix F.

A list of all of the bird species recorded by RPS (2011) and Umwelt during targeted threatened species surveys are presented in Appendix D.

4.2.2.2 Reptiles

Eight reptile species have been recorded in the Project Area during surveys. The red-bellied black snake (Pseudechis porphyriacus), marsh snake (Hemiaspis signata) and the eastern brown snake (Pseudonaja textilis) were recorded in open forest habitat, along with jacky lizards (Amphibolurus muricatus) and the lace monitor (Varanus varius). The striped skink (Ctenotus robustus) and garden skink (Lampropholis delicata) were also commonly recorded. One record of punctate worm-skink (Anomalopus swansoni) was also made within open forest habitat.

No threatened reptile species were recorded or are expected to occur in the Project Area.

4.2.2.3 Amphibians

A total of seven amphibian species were recorded in areas of suitable habitat within the Project Area. The striped marsh frog (Limnodynastes peronii), Haswell’s frog (Paracrinia haswelli), common eastern froglet (Crinia signifera) and the threatened wallum froglet (Crinia tinnula) were recorded calling across the site in suitable habitat.

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Survey results 3251_R05_Ecological Assessment _FINAL.docx 63

The wallum froglet (Crinia tinnula) has been recorded at 11 locations (refer to Figure 4.4) within the Project Area, within Swamp Mahogany Paperbark Forest and Coastal Sand Wallum Woodland.

4.2.2.4 Mammals

Twenty-five mammal species were recorded in the Project Area during the surveys undertaken for this assessment with the most common family Vespertilionidae (micro-bats) recording seven species.

Three arboreal mammal species were recorded during surveys, including the common brush-tailed possum (Trichosurus vulpecula), common ringtail possum (Pseudocheirus peregrinus), and the threatened koala (Phascolarctos cinereus).

Commonly detected micro-bat species included white-striped freetail-bat (Tadarida australis), Gould’s wattled bat (Chalinolobus gouldii) and large forest bat (Vespadelus darlingtoni).

Native ground-dwelling mammals were represented by three species with the most commonly recorded being the brown antechinus (Antechinus stuartii). Macropod scats and diggings were also recorded and the eastern grey kangaroo (macropus giganteus) was recorded via remote camera.

Six introduced mammal species were recorded including the red fox (Vulpes vulpes), dogs (Canis familiaris), house mouse (Mus musculus), black rat (Rattus rattus), European rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus) and domestic horse (Equus caballus).

Five threatened mammal species were recorded in the Project Area including the little bent-wing bat (Miniopterus australis); eastern bentwing-bat (Miniopterus schreibersii oceanensis); eastern freetail bat (Mormopterus norfolkensis); grey-headed flying-fox (Pteropus poliocephalus); and koala (Phascolarctos cinereus). The location of threatened mammal species is shown on Figure 4.4.

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Survey results 3251_R05_Ecological Assessment _FINAL.docx 64

4.2.3 Threatened fauna species and endangered fauna populations

Those threatened fauna species that have been recorded or have the potential to occur in the Project Area are listed in Table 4.5 and shown on Figure 4.4.

Table 4.5 Threatened fauna species recorded in the Project Area or likely to occur

Common name Status Recorded Recorded Scientific name in the in the TSC Act EPBC Project locality? 1995 Act Area? 1999 wallum froglet V -   Crinia tinnula eastern osprey V -   Pandion cristatus varied sittella V -   Daphoenositta chrysoptera koala V V   Phascolarctos cinereus long-nosed potoroo V V ˟  Potorous tridactylus New Holland mouse - V ˟  Pseudomys novaehollandiae grey-headed flying-fox V V   Pteropus poliocephalus east coast freetail-bat V -   Mormopterus norfolkensis eastern bentwing-bat V -   Miniopterus schreibersii oceanensis little bentwing-bat V -   Miniopterus australis greater broad-nosed bat V - ˟  Scoteanax rueppellii Notes: V = vulnerable

4.2.3.1 Threatened fauna species recorded in the Project Area or likely to occur

The following threatened fauna species were recorded within the Project Area either as part of the current survey, or from other sources such as previous surveys, databases searches or literature reviews. A summary of ecological requirements for each species is provided, sourced from the OEH Threatened Species website:

• http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/threatenedspecies unless indicated otherwise.

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Survey results 3251_R05_Ecological Assessment _FINAL.docx 66

Koala

The koala is listed as vulnerable under the TSC and EPBC Acts. The species is known to occur in eucalypt woodlands and forests of the central and north coasts of NSW with few populations occurring west of the Great Dividing Range. The species primarily feeds on the foliage of eucalypt species and spends the majority of their time in trees, occasionally descending to the ground to transverse habitats. Home ranges vary depending on habitat quality and often include a dominant male with a territory overlapping with several females. This species is likely to make use of the woodland habitats of the Project Area as foraging and dispersing habitat.

The koala has been recorded on numerous occasions in the Project Area and the locality. The species was recorded on 10 occasions across the Project Area with records from the NSW Atlas of NSW Wildlife records (OEH 2015) and Project-specific surveys conducted by RPS (2011). Other previous records of the species occur immediately around the Project Area with the Tomago Sandbeds being a known important area for koalas in the Port Stephens region (PSC 2002). The Project Area contains known koala feed trees such as swamp mahogany (Eucalyptus robusta), grey gum (Eucalyptus punctata) and scribbly gum (Eucalyptus signata) and Earp’s gum (Eucalyptus parramattensis subsp. decadens), listed as important for koalas in the Port Stephens LGA (PSC 2002) or SEPP 44 feed species. The Project Area also contains habitat critical to the survival of the species in accordance with EPBC Act Referral Guidelines for the Vulnerable Koala (DoE 2014).

A map of the extent and quality of the habitat in the Project Area for the koala is provided as Figure 4.4. This map has been prepared in accordance with the Port Stephens CKPoM and Lunney et al. (1998) and defines the area of preferred, supplementary and marginal habitat, and also the relevant buffer and linking areas.

Three communities recorded in the Project Area have been identified as marginal habitat, being Wallum Heath, Wet Cyperoid Heath and the Swamp Mahogany Paperbark Forest – Freshwater Wetland Mosaic (Regenerating). According to Lunney et al. (1998), these communities meet the description of ‘excluded vegetation types’ based on the vegetation association definitions in Table 1 of Lunney et al. 1998, and as a result these vegetation communities have been identified as ‘other vegetation’ according to the Port Stephens CKPoM.

Table 4.6 outlines the area of each koala habitat type mapped in the Project Area according to the Port Stephens CKPOM with a justification of the koala habitat categories.

Table 4.6 Extent of Koala Habitat Identified in the Project Area and Proposed Disturbance Area

Vegetation Habitat Justification Area Area (ha) in Community Category (ha) in Proposed (using Lunney Project Disturbance et al. 1998) Area Boundary Coastal Sand Apple- Preferred Meets category A 19.1 18.0 Blackbutt Forest - vegetation (refer to Blackbutt Scribbly Gum Lunney et al. 1998) variant Coastal Sand Apple- Preferred Meets category A 30.7 18.7 Blackbutt Forest vegetation (refer to Lunney et al. 1998)

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Survey results 3251_R05_Ecological Assessment _FINAL.docx 67

Vegetation Habitat Justification Area Area (ha) in Community Category (ha) in Proposed (using Lunney Project Disturbance et al. 1998) Area Boundary Coastal Sand Wallum Other Considered to be 18.1 0.04 Heath Vegetation excluded vegetation as per table 1 of Lunney et al. 1998 Coastal Sand Wallum Preferred Meets category A 42.7 11.1 Woodland vegetation (refer to Lunney et al. 1998) Coastal Wet Sand Other Considered to be 10.4 0.0 Cyperoid Heath Vegetation excluded vegetation as per table 1 of Lunney et al. 1998 Swamp Mahogany – Preferred Meets category A 24.9 0.3 Paperbark Forest vegetation (refer to Lunney et al. 1998) Swamp Mahogany Other Considered to be 9.8 0.0 Paperbark Forest - Vegetation excluded Freshwater Wetland vegetation as per Mosaic (Regenerating) Table 1 of Lunney et al. 1998 Earp’s Gum Sedge Preferred Considered to be 0.9 0.0 Woodland category D supplementary habitat according to Lunney et al. 1998, however classified as preferred based on Earp’s Gum being a preferred koala feed tree according to Port Stephens CKPOM Regenerating Forest Mainly Cleared 12.3 4.2 (Not assigned to veg Cleared comm.) Pine Forest Mainly Cleared 1.2 0.0 Cleared Cleared/Disturbed Mainly Cleared 6.1 1.6 Land/Old Cleared Quarry/Minimal Regeneration Total 176.2 53.9 Total ‘Preferred’ Koala Habitat 118.3 48.1 Total ‘Other Vegetation’ Habitat 38.3 0.04

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Survey results 3251_R05_Ecological Assessment _FINAL.docx 68

Table 4.7 outlines the koala habitat taking into account buffer and linking areas and summarises the impacts of the Project on koala habitat which has been classified using the Umwelt vegetation map and the definitions of koala habitat within the Port Stephens Council Koala Habitat Planning Map (PSC 2002) (refer to Figure 4.5).

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Survey results 3251_R05_Ecological Assessment _FINAL.docx 69

Table 4.7 Koala habitat mapping within the Project Area and proposed disturbance area

Habitat type (PSC 2002) Area in Project Area (hectares) Area in proposed disturbance area (hectares)

Preferred Habitat 118.4 48.1

50 m Buffer over Other 16.6 0.1

50 m Buffer over Cleared 14.9 5.5

Link over Other 14.1 -

Link over Cleared 3.5 0.3

Other Vegetation 7.6 -

Mainly Cleared 1.2 -

Eastern osprey

The eastern osprey is listed as vulnerable under the TSC Act. Eastern ospreys are found around the Australian coast line, except for Victoria and Tasmania. They are common around the northern coast, especially on rocky shorelines, islands and reefs. The species is uncommon to rare or absent from closely settled parts of south-eastern Australia. There are a handful of records from inland areas. The species favours coastal areas, especially the mouths of large rivers, lagoons and lakes.

The eastern osprey was recorded during fauna surveys conducted by RPS (2011) with an additional Atlas of NSW wildlife record also occurring in the Project Area. The osprey requires extensive areas of open fresh, brackish or saline water for foraging (Marchant and Higgins 1993) and mainly feed on fish, especially mullet where available, and rarely takes molluscs, crustaceans, insects, reptiles, birds and mammals (DoE 2015). Therefore, the Project Area is not likely to comprise an important area of habitat for this species.

Threatened micro-bats

The following micro-bat species were recorded foraging over the Project Area via Anabat analysis and harp trapping:

• eastern bentwing-bat (Miniopterus schreibersii oceanensis)

• little bent-wing-bat (Miniopterus australis)

• east-coast freetail-bat (Mormopterus norfolkensis).

The Project Area provides an intact area of foraging habitat, along with roosting/breeding habitat for the tree roosting east-coast freetail-bat (Mormopterus norfolkensis). The eastern and little bent- wing bats are cave roosting species and are therefore likely to be restricted to foraging within the Project Area. Potential habitat for a range of other micro-bats was also recorded in the Project Area. These potentially occurring species are listed in Table 4.3.

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Survey results 3251_R05_Ecological Assessment _FINAL.docx 71

Wallum froglet

The wallum froglet is listed as vulnerable under the TSC Act. Wallum froglets are found in a wide range of habitats, usually associated with acidic swamps on coastal sand plains. They typically occur in sedgelands and wet heathlands. They can also be found along drainage lines within other vegetation communities and disturbed areas, and occasionally in swamp sclerophyll forests.

The species breeds in swamps with permanent water as well as shallow ephemeral pools and drainage ditches. Breeding is thought to peak in the colder months, but can occur throughout the year following rain. Eggs of 1.1-1.2mm are deposited in water with a pH of <6 and tadpoles take 2-6 months to develop into frogs.

Wallum froglets (Crinia tinnula) shelter under leaf litter, vegetation, other debris or in burrows of other species. Shelter sites are wet or very damp and often located near the water's edge. Males may call throughout the year and at any time of day, peaking following rain.

The wallum froglet (Crinia tinnula) was recorded at 11 locations within the Project Area in suitable habitat that includes Swamp Mahogany Paperbark Forest, Coastal Sand Wallum Woodland, Wallum Heath, Earp’s Gum Woodland, Freshwater Wetland and Coastal Wet Cyperoid Heath. A total of 106.8 hectares of suitable habitat for the species has been identified in the Project Area. The species is also expected to occur within suitable drainage depressions within disturbed land within the Project Area.

Varied sittella

The varied sittella is listed as vulnerable under the TSC Act. Distribution of the species in NSW is nearly continuous from the coast to the far west. This species inhabits eucalypt forests and woodlands, especially those containing rough-barked species and mature smooth-barked gums with dead branches, mallee and Acacia woodland. The species is known to feed on arthropods gleaned from crevices in rough or decorticating bark, dead branches, standing dead trees and small branches and twigs in the tree canopy. They build a cup-shaped nest of plant fibres and cobwebs in an upright tree fork high in the living tree canopy. It is likely that the species utilises the Project area as foraging and potential nesting habitat, although no nests have been recorded.

The varied sittella (Daphoenositta chrysoptera) was recorded at one location within the Project Area (refer to Figure 4.3), however all woodland and open forest communities are expected to provide habitat for this species.

New Holland mouse

The New Holland mouse is listed as vulnerable under the EPBC Act. The species has a fragmented distribution across Tasmania, Victoria, NSW and Queensland.

This species has been recorded in proximate habitat to the Project Area and is expected to occur in the Project Area. The species selectively prefers habitats which have been disturbed by events. It rapidly colonises these disturbed habitats following the event. Habitat requirements for the species includes open heathland, open woodland with a heathland understorey and is usually found to peak in abundance during the early to mid-stages of vegetation succession three to five years after fire or other disturbances. It is considered likely that this successional species will utilise habitats within the disturbance area when conditions are optimal, followed by the decline of the species once vegetation communities improve in habitat complexity, thereby reducing the area of habitat that can be successfully occupied by the species.

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Survey results 3251_R05_Ecological Assessment _FINAL.docx 72

Grey-headed flying fox

The grey-headed flying-fox is listed as vulnerable under the TSC and EPBC Acts. This species has generally been recorded within 200 kilometres of the eastern coast, from Bundaberg in Queensland, through NSW and south to eastern Victoria.

The species has been recorded in the Project Area on three occasions and is expected to occur on site when eucalypt species are flowering. All woodland vegetation within the Project Area is expected to provide potential foraging habitat for this species. Camp sites (breeding habitat) were not identified.

Review of the National Flying-fox Monitoring Programme (DoE 2015) did not identify any camps in proximity to the Project Area. The two nearest roost/camp sites of the grey-headed flying-fox to the Project Area are at Carrington Mangroves, where the most recent (February 2015) population estimate is between 10,000 and 15,990 individuals and Raymond Terrace, approximately 9 km to the north-west of the Project Area, with the 2015 monitoring results indicating a camp size of also between 10,000 and 15,990 individuals.

Former roosting sites at Fullerton Cove, Bob’s Farm and Anna Bay are considered to be currently inactive (DoE 2015) with no evidence of use since the national monitoring programme began in 2012.

As the Project Area is not located within 50 kilometres of a population of the grey-headed flying-fox that supports more than 30,000 individuals it is not considered likely the Project Area provides habitat critical or essential to the survival of this species, in accordance with the national recovery plan for the species.

4.2.3.2 Endangered fauna populations

The Emu is known to occur in the region in the New South Wales North Coast Bioregion and Port Stephens local government area, however this species has not been recorded within the Project Area. Historic records of the population occur to the north-east of the Project Area.

No endangered fauna populations listed under the TSC Act or EPBC Act were recorded in the Project Area and none are expected to occur.

4.2.4 Migratory species listed under international conventions

One migratory species listed under the Bonn Convention (Bonn), China-Australia Migratory Bird Agreement (CAMBA), Japan-Australia Migratory Bird Agreement (JAMBA) and/or the Republic of Korea-Australia Migratory Bird Agreement (ROKAMBA) has been recorded within the Project Area and a further two listed migratory species are expected to occur. These are outlined in Table 4.8 below.

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Survey results 3251_R05_Ecological Assessment _FINAL.docx 73

Table 4.8 Migratory Species Recorded in the Project Area or Likely to Occur

Species Status Recorded in the Recorded in the Project Area? Locality?

rainbow bee-eater JAMBA   Merops ornatus

black-faced monarch Bonn   Monarcha melanopsis

rufous fantail Bonn   Rhipidura rufifrons

4.3 Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

Groundwater dependent ecosystems (GDEs) are described in the NSW GDE Policy (DLWC 2002) and can include terrestrial vegetation, base flow in streams, aquifer and cave ecosystems and wetlands.

A review of the Groundwater Assessment (refer to Section 4.10 and Appendix 7 of the EIS) and the Bell and Driscoll (2006) mapping of GDEs in the adjacent Hunter Water Corporation landholdings was undertaken to determine the extent and potential location of groundwater resources in the Project area to inform the identification of GDEs. According to the work by Bell and Driscoll (2006), all vegetation communities on the Tomago Sandbeds were found to show some degree of groundwater dependency. Four classes of dependency were defined as part of this study, comprising obligate wetland or seasonal inundation, obligate, intermediate obligate/facultative and facultative. An obligate GDE is defined by Bell and Driscoll (2006) as vegetation communities made up of species that depend entirely on the groundwater and are capable of living with their roots permanently wet or at least seasonal periods of inundation. Facultative GDEs contain species that access the groundwater via the capillary fringe and also take up water from the soil matrix above this area, and cannot survive with their roots being continually wet.

The corresponding GDE class according to Bell and Driscoll (2006) for each of the vegetation communities mapped within the Project Area are detailed below:

• Coastal Sand Apple-Blackbutt Forest – Blackbutt Scribbly Gum variant – Facultative GDE

• Coastal Sand Apple-Blackbutt Forest – Facultative GDE

• Coastal Sand Wallum Heath – Facultative and/or Obligate GDE

• Coastal Sand Wallum Woodland – Facultative GDE

• Coastal Wet Cyperoid Heath – Obligate GDE

• Swamp Mahogany Paperbark Forest – Obligate GDE

• Swamp Mahogany Paperbark Forest – Freshwater Wetland Mosaic (Regenerating) – Obligate GDE

• Earp’s Gum Sedge Woodland – Obligate GDE.

The impact of the project on Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems is presented in Section 5.7.

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Survey results 3251_R05_Ecological Assessment _FINAL.docx 74

5.0 Impact assessment

The Project will result in the clearing of approximately 53.9 hectares of land which includes areas of native vegetation and disturbed areas. Approximately 52.3 hectares of native vegetation occurs in the Project Area providing known habitat for eight threatened fauna species, two threatened flora species and one EEC (refer to Sections 4.2 and 4.3).

The clearing associated with the Project and assessed as part of this Ecological Assessment includes approximately 52.3 hectares of native forest (including regeneration), woodland and heath areas.

In addition to actions undertaken by Williamtown Sand Syndicate to avoid and minimise impacts on ecological values (refer to Section 5.1), substantial impact mitigation measures and a Biodiversity Offset Strategy are proposed to ameliorate the impact of the Project on ecological values.

5.1 Project changes to avoid and minimise impacts

In 2011, RPS were engaged by Port Stephens Council to undertake a constraints and opportunities assessment of the Project Area in order to document the flora, fauna and habitat characteristics of the site and to provide baseline data relating to the general ecological characteristics identified (RPS 2011). The information from this report was then used to identify ecologically sensitive areas.

In reviewing the RPS (2011) report, Williamtown Sand Syndicate has sought to minimise the environmental impacts associated with the Project whilst maximising the economic resource recovery. Key factors in Project design have been to ameliorate the impacts of the proposed Project on significant ecological features, such as threatened species and their habitats and native vegetation. The primary approach has been initially to avoid ecological impact, if possible, including maximising use of existing disturbed areas as much as possible for the Project.

A key finding from the RPS report was the presence of Swamp Sclerophyll Forest on Coastal Floodplains, an EEC listed under the TSC Act, preferred koala habitat as per the Port Stephens Council CKPoM (2002) and areas dominated by Earp’s gum (Eucalyptus parramentensis subsp. decadens), listed as vulnerable under the TSC and EPBC Acts. These areas primarily occur in the southern, eastern and northern portions of the Project Area. The location and extent of the final extraction footprint has been refined by taking into consideration the location of the EEC, the Earp’s Gum Sedge Woodland and the preferred koala habitat across the site thereby avoiding these areas of high ecological value where possible.

In addition to avoiding areas of high conservation value, the Project includes provision for a wildlife corridor to allow continued connectivity in an east/west direction across the site during quarry operations. This was considered to provide an important mechanism particularly for the movement of the koala, which is known to occur widely within and surrounding the site, and also allows for the preservation of Earp’s gum (Eucalyptus parramettensis subsp. decadens) and Swamp Sclerophyll Forest on Coastal Floodplains. The corridor ranges from between 70 metres and 200 metres in width and will be managed in accordance with the impact avoidance, mitigation measures and biodiversity offset strategy outcomes described in Sections 6.0 and 7.0 respectively.

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Impact assessment 3251_R05_Ecological Assessment _FINAL.docx 75

5.2 Impact of the project on ecological values

5.2.1 Summary of ecological values

The ecological values identified in the Project Area that were considered in determining the impact of the Project and the development of impact mitigation and biodiversity offsetting requirements include:

• the loss of native vegetation communities and fauna habitats

• known threatened species habitat, including

o core habitat for the koala (Phascolarctos cinereus), as described by SEPP 44 Koala Habitat Protection

o identified heath habitat for the wallum froglet (Crinia tinnula), listed as Vulnerable on the TSC Act

o identified habitat for one bird of prey species, being eastern osprey (Pandion cristatus) listed as Vulnerable on the TSC Act

o a large population of the TSC Act and EPBC Act listed Earp’s gum (Eucalyptus parramentensis subsp. decadens) with approximately 870 plants recorded during surveys

o small populations of other threatened flora species including small-flowered grevillea (Grevillea parviflora subsp. parviflora) and Camfield’s stringybark (Eucalyptus camfieldii)

o an area of woodland and forest habitat for threatened woodland birds and bats including the varied sittella (Daphoenositta chrysoptera), grey-headed flying-fox (Pteropus poliocephalus), east coast freetail-bat (Mormopterus norfolkensis) and little bentwing-bat (Miniopterus australis) and eastern bentwing-bat (Miniopterus schreibersii oceanensis)

• the presence of Swamp Sclerophyll Forest on Coastal Floodplains EEC under the TSC Act

• the presence of Freshwater Wetlands on Coastal Floodplains EEC under the TSC Act

• potential woodland foraging habitat for a range of threatened bird species including swift parrot (Lathamus discolor), regent honeyeater (Anthochaera phrygia) and glossy black-cockatoo (Calyptorhynchus lathami).

5.3 Impact of the project on flora species

A total of 150 flora species were recorded during flora surveys, of which approximately 3 per cent were not native to the area. The diversity of species recorded in the proposed disturbance area and Project Area is considered likely to be of lower quality to the surrounding conserved areas due to the disturbed and rehabilitated nature of vegetation communities in the Project Area despite the contiguousness of the vegetation communities with the adjacent Tilligerry State Conservation Area.

The Project is not likely to result in a substantial impact on species diversity in the locality as the high quality, in-tact communities in Tilligerry State Conservation Area will not be impacted as a result of the Project.

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Impact assessment 3251_R05_Ecological Assessment _FINAL.docx 76

Three threatened flora species listed under the TSC Act and/or EPBC Act are known to occur in the Project Area and within the proposed disturbance area. Impacts of the Project on this species are discussed further in Section 5.8.

5.4 Impact of the project on vegetation communities

Table 5.1 summarises the area of each vegetation community to be removed as a result of the Project. A range of impact mitigation measures have been formulated to minimise the impact of vegetation loss, as discussed in Section 6.0.

Table 5.1 Area of each vegetation community to be impacted as a result of the project

Formation Vegetation Community Area within the Area within the Project Area Proposed (hectares) Disturbance Area (hectares)

Forest and Coastal Sand Apple-Blackbutt Forest 19.1 18.0 Woodland (Blackbutt Scribbly Gum variant)

Coastal Sand Apple-Blackbutt Forest 30.7 18.7

Coastal Sand Wallum Woodland 42.7 11.1

Swamp Mahogany – Paperbark Forest 24.9 0.3

Earp’s Gum Sedge Woodland 0.9 0.0

Heath Coastal Sand Wallum Heath 18.1 0.04

Coastal Wet Cyperoid Heath 10.4 0.0

Swamp Forest Swamp Mahogany Paperbark Forest - 9.8 0.0 Regeneration/ Freshwater Wetland Mosaic Freshwater (Regenerating) Wetlands

Forest Regenerating Forest (Not assigned to veg 12.3 4.2 Regeneration comm.)

Exotic Pine Forest 1.2 0.0 Dominated Forest

Disturbed Land Cleared/Disturbed Land/Old 6.1 1.6 Quarry/Minimal Regeneration

Total 176.2 53.9

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Impact assessment 3251_R05_Ecological Assessment _FINAL.docx 77

5.4.1 Impact on forest and woodland communities

The Project will result in the removal of approximately 48.1 hectares of woodland and forest communities (refer to Table 5.1). The Project Area contains approximately 118.3 hectares of woodland and forest communities, of which the Project will remove approximately 41 per cent. The removal of 48.1 hectares of woodland and forest vegetation as part of the Project is considered unlikely to be significant from a local or regional perspective.

The Project will also remove approximately 4.2 hectares of forest regeneration, out of a total area of 12.3 hectares within the Project Area.

Swamp Mahogany – Paperbark Forest within the Project Area conforms to Swamp Sclerophyll Forest on Coastal Floodplains, listed as an EEC under the TSC Act. The Project will remove approximately 0.3 hectares of this EEC. At a regional scale this represents a small impact on the community remaining in the Lower Hunter-Central Coast district, which was estimated to be 5264 hectares in 2003 (House 2003).

5.4.2 Impact on heath communities

The Project will result in the removal of approximately 0.04 hectares of heath vegetation. The Project Area contains approximately 28.5 hectares of heath vegetation, which represents a very small loss. A total of 1521 hectares of the equivalent heath community (Sand Wallum Scrub) is known to occur on the Tomago sandbeds (East Coast Flora Survey 2006) and therefore the impact of the Project represents a small loss of the local occurrence of this vegetation type. The removal of 0.04 hectares of high quality heath vegetation as part of the Project is considered unlikely to be significant from a local or regional perspective.

None of the heathland vegetation communities recorded in the Project Area conforms to any EECs listed on the TSC Act or EPBC Act.

5.5 Impact of the project on fauna habitat and fauna species

The Project will result in the loss of up to approximately 48.1 hectares of native fauna species habitat within the proposed disturbance area. This comprises approximately 48.1 hectares of woodland and forest habitat and 0.04 hectares of wet heath habitat. Native vegetation communities occurring in the Project Area, including the proposed disturbance area, provide a substantial and important area of habitat for native fauna species.

5.5.1 Woodland and Forest Habitat

The removal of approximately 48.1 hectares of woodland and forest habitat within the proposed disturbance area represents a moderate loss of fauna habitat and represents a decrease of the area of remnant vegetation in the Project Area. The majority of this habitat constitutes foraging habitat in the form of canopy vegetation, tree trunks and large branches and bark sub-surfaces. Associated with the extensive tree canopies of this habitat are moderate levels of leaf litter coverage, as well as fallen timber. Such features form important foraging and shelter resources for fauna species, including threatened species recorded in the proposed disturbance area and Project Area.

The woodland and forest habitats within the Project Area provides likely abundant foraging habitat for a range of woodland bird species including specific eucalypt winter foraging habitat for species such as swift parrot (Lathamus discolor) and regent honeyeater (Anthochaera phrygia) in the form of flowering swamp mahogany (Eucalyptus robusta). The abundance of hollow-bearing trees in the woodland and forest habitat

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Impact assessment 3251_R05_Ecological Assessment _FINAL.docx 78

within the Project Area is likely to be utilised as roosting and nesting habitat for hollow-dependent micro- bat species such as the east-coast freetail-bat (Mormopterus norfolkensis).

Swamp and sedge variants of woodland and forest habitat are important in the landscape as this habitat would be most valuable for species dependent on wet areas such as the wallum froglet (Crinia tinnula).

The loss of approximately 48.1 hectares of woodland and forest habitat is not likely to result in a significant impact on native fauna species assemblages and in particular the range of woodland and forest-dependent threatened fauna species recorded in the proposed disturbance area or Project Area.

5.5.2 Wet heath habitat

The loss of approximately 0.04 hectares of wet heath habitat relates to the removal of Coastal Sand Wallum Heath within the proposed disturbance area. Coastal Wet Cyperoid Heath will not be impacted as a result of the Project.

Areas of wet heath habitat are important in the landscape as this habitat would be valuable for amphibian species including the threatened wallum froglet (Crinia tinnula). The loss of approximately 0.04 hectares of this habitat is not expected to be significant due to the small area of impact and the availability of similar habitats in the non-impacted areas of the Project Area and wider locality including within Tilligerry State Conservation Area.

5.6 Impact of the project on threatened species, populations and ecological communities

The basic principles of reducing impacts on threatened species are to:

1. avoid direct impacts and retain habitat

2. minimise impacts where ever possible

3. mitigate or ameliorate impacts; and as a final step

4. compensate or offset for any unavoidable impacts.

Section 5.1 describes the impact avoidance measures implemented during project planning. The following sections provide a detailed assessment of the significance of impacts related to the Project on threatened species using the relevant tests of significance under State (EP&A Act) and Commonwealth (EPBC Act) legislation. The following assessments do not take into account the mitigation measures documented in Section 6.0 or the Biodiversity Offset Strategy described in Section 7.0.

The precautionary principle has been consistently applied when assessing the potential impacts of the Project on threatened and migratory species and communities. The EP&A Regulation defines the precautionary principle as:

Where there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation.

In the application of the precautionary principle, public and private decisions should be guided by:

(i) careful evaluation to avoid, wherever practicable, serious or irreversible damage to the environment, and

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Impact assessment 3251_R05_Ecological Assessment _FINAL.docx 79

(ii) an assessment of the risk-weighted consequences of various options.

Further, the EPBC Act Significant Impact Guidelines 1.1 states the following:

When deciding whether or not a proposed action is likely to have a significant impact on a matter of national environmental significance, the precautionary principle is relevant. Accordingly, where there is a risk of serious or irreversible damage, a lack of scientific certainty about the potential impacts of an action will not itself justify a decision that the action is not likely to have a significant impact on a matter of national environmental significance.

In light of the above, where there was a lack of scientific certainty, the maximum reasonable potential impact was assumed. The development of mitigation and offset strategies were based on the outcomes of the impact assessment. The precautionary principle was also applied in the development of the mitigation and offset strategies to ensure that uncertainties were compensated for with more robust mitigation or more substantial offset outcomes.

The application of the precautionary principle described above is illustrated in Figure 5.1 below.

Figure 5.1 Application of the Precautionary Principle to the Impact Assessment and Development of Mitigation and Offset Strategies

The potential level of impact on threatened species was assessed using the ‘seven part test’ as detailed in Section 5A of the EP&A Act and an ‘Assessment of Significance’ under the EPBC Act. The assessments of significance were undertaken following an initial screening process to identify species that may be potentially affected by the Project (refer to Appendix B), with a consequential full assessment of the likely significance of impacts being completed for these species (refer to Appendix E and Appendix F).

The assessments of significance do not take into account the full range of impact mitigation strategies and biodiversity offsets proposed for the Project, rather they consider the impacts of the Project without any mitigation or offsetting, consistent with the requirements of both state and Commonwealth significant impact assessment guidelines (DECC 2007a, DEHWA 2009a). The Assessment of Significance was completed

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Impact assessment 3251_R05_Ecological Assessment _FINAL.docx 80

for the threatened species and TECs listed in Table 5.2, either due to their recorded presence or the presence of potential habitat in the proposed disturbance area, and the potential for the species to be affected.

Table 5.2 Threatened Species and Communities for which an Assessment of Significance was undertaken under the EP&A Act or EPBC Act

Species/Community name Species listed under the Species listed under the EPBC TSC Act Act

Status Significant Status Significant impact? impact?

Threatened Ecological Communities

Swamp Sclerophyll Forest on EEC  - - Coastal Floodplains

Freshwater Wetland on Coastal EEC  - - Floodplains

Threatened flora dwarf kerrawang E  E  Commersonia prostrata

Camfield’s stringybark V  V  Eucalyptus camfieldii

Earp’s gum V  V  Eucalyptus parramattensis subsp. decadens small-flower grevillea V  V  Grevillea parviflora subsp. parviflora

Threatened fauna wallum froglet V Potential - - Crinia tinnula eastern osprey V  - - Pandion cristatus glossy black-cockatoo V  - - Calyptorhynchus lathami gang-gang cockatoo V  - - Callocephalon fimbriatum little lorikeet V  - - Glossopsitta pusilla

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Impact assessment 3251_R05_Ecological Assessment _FINAL.docx 81

Species/Community name Species listed under the Species listed under the EPBC TSC Act Act

Status Significant Status Significant impact? impact? swift parrot E  E  Lathamus discolor masked owl V  - - Tyto novaehollandiae powerful owl V  - - Ninox strenua regent honeyeater CE  CE  Anthochaera phrygia varied sittella V  - - Daphoenositta chrysoptera spotted-tailed quoll V  E  Dasyurus maculatus brush-tailed phascogale V  - - Phascogale tapoatafa

Koala V  V  Phascolarctos cinereus squirrel glider V  - - Petaurus norfolcensis long-nosed potoroo V  V  Potorous tridactylus

New Holland mouse - - V  Pseudomys novaehollandiae grey-headed flying-fox V  V  Pteropus poliocephalus east coast freetail-bat V  - - Mormopterus norfolkensis eastern bentwing-bat V  - - Miniopterus schreibersii oceanensis little bentwing-bat V  - - Miniopterus australis

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Impact assessment 3251_R05_Ecological Assessment _FINAL.docx 82

Species/Community name Species listed under the Species listed under the EPBC TSC Act Act

Status Significant Status Significant impact? impact? southern myotis V  - - Myotis macropus greater broad-nosed bat V  - - Scoteanax rueppellii

5.6.1 Threatened species assessed under the Environmental Planning and Assessment (EP&A) Act 1979

The Project will result in the loss of a moderate area of habitat for a range of threatened flora and fauna species and EECs recorded in the proposed disturbance area and wider Project Area.

The loss of 48.1 hectares of woodland and forest habitat and 0.04 hectares of heath habitat is considered likely to result in the reduction in the extent of the local population of the koala and Earp’s gum (Eucalyptus parramattensis subsp. decadens) and potentially the wallum froglet (Crinia tinnula).

The loss of the small areas of EEC that are proposed to be directly impacted by the Project are not expected to result in an adverse effect on the extent or composition of the communities such that they would be placed at risk of extinction.

Detailed assessment of the direct and indirect impacts of the Project on species and communities listed under the TSC Act is provided in Appendix D.

5.6.2 Threatened Species Assessed Under the Fisheries Management (FM) Act 1994

No FM Act listed threatened aquatic flora or fauna species were recorded within the proposed disturbance area and none are expected to occur.

This assessment concludes that no threatened aquatic species, populations or EECs have potential to occur within the proposed disturbance area. The Project Area does not provide known habitat for any threatened species listed under the FM Act.

5.6.3 Threatened Species Assessed under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act 1999

Under the Commonwealth EPBC Act, the approval of the Commonwealth Minister for the Environment is required for any action that may have a significant impact on matters of national environmental significance (MNES). These matters are:

• listed threatened species and communities

• migratory species protected under international agreements

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Impact assessment 3251_R05_Ecological Assessment _FINAL.docx 83

• Ramsar wetlands of international importance

• the Commonwealth marine environment

• the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park

• World Heritage properties

• National Heritage places

• nuclear actions

• a water resource, in relation to coal seam gas development and large coal mining development.

The EPBC Act lists criteria which are used to determine whether an action is likely to have a significant impact on MNES. These criteria are addressed in the Assessment of Significance provided in Appendix F and included the EPBC Act listed species identified in Table 5.2.

No EPBC Act-listed EECs were recorded in the proposed disturbance area or Project Area. The outcome of the EPBC Act Assessment of Significance (refer to Appendix E), in relation to the threatened species listed recorded or potentially occurring in the proposed disturbance area in Table 5.2, indicates that the Project is likely to result in a significant impact on the following MNES:

• Earp’s gum (Eucalyptus parramattensis subsp. decadens)

• koala (Phascolarctos cinereus).

5.6.3.1 Assessment of impacts on koala

The koala has been recorded on 10 occasions across the Project Area from Project specific surveys conducted by RPS (2011) and NSW Atlas of NSW Wildlife records. Other previous records of the species occur immediately around the Project Area with the Tomago Sandbeds being a known important area for koalas in the Port Stephens region (PSC 2002). The koala population of the Port Stephens area is a high profile population which is known to have declined by at least 75% since European settlement (Knott et al. 1998). Recent population studies have suggested a population size of around 800 individuals within the Port Stephens LGA (Lunney et al. 2007).

The Project Area contains known koala feed trees such as swamp mahogany (Eucalyptus robusta), grey gum (Eucalyptus punctata) and scribbly gum (Eucalyptus signata) and Earp’s gum (Eucalyptus parramattensis subsp. decadens), listed as important for koalas in the Port Stephens LGA (PSC 2002) or SEPP 44 feed species. Swamp Mahogany Paperbark Forest, Earp’s Gum Woodland and Coastal Sand Wallum Heath each have greater than 15 per cent of the total number of trees in the upper or lower strata of the tree component comprising listed SEPP 44 species, indicating the presence of likely koala habitat. According to Lunney et al. (1998) the Project Area contains preferred, supplementary and marginal habitat, and also the relevant buffer and linking areas.

The Project has sought to avoid the high quality koala habitat associated with the Swamp Mahogany – Paperbark Forest, Coastal Sand Wallum Heath and Earp’s Gum Sedge Woodland, however it is likely that the construction and operation of the Project will impact the local population of the koala and result in fragmentation of the existing habitat linkages in the locality.

The koala has been assessed under the EPBC Act using Assessments of Significance including the use of the EPBC Act Referral Guidelines for the Vulnerable Koala (DoE, 2014) to determine whether the Project Area

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Impact assessment 3251_R05_Ecological Assessment _FINAL.docx 84

contained habitat critical for the survival of the species (refer to Appendix F). The assessments concluded that the Project may potentially result in a significant impact on this species.

A range of mitigation measures specifically designed to minimise the impacts of the Project on the koala are outlined in Section 6.3.

5.6.3.2 Assessment of impacts on Earp’s gum

Earp’s Gum (Eucalyptus parramattensis subsp. decadens) was recorded in the Project Area within Coastal Sand Apple-Blackbutt Forest – Blackbutt Scribbly Gum variant, Coastal Sand Wallum Woodland, Coastal Sand Wallum Heath, Earp’s Gum Sedge Woodland and Swamp Mahogany Paperbark Forest. An estimated 870 trees were recorded in the Project Area. This number includes approximately 284 trees in the proposed sand extraction area that will be cleared as a result of the proposed development.

Earp’s gum has been assessed under the EPBC Act using the Assessments of Significance and it was determined that the Project is likely to result in a significant impact on this species (refer to Appendix F).

5.6.3.3 Assessment of impacts on New Holland mouse

The New Holland mouse has not been recorded in the Project Area, however the species has been recorded extensively across the Tomago and Tomaree Sandbeds within Tilligerry SCA immediately adjacent to the Project Area and in similar habitat (OEH 2015). The species selectively prefers habitats which have been disturbed by events in which it rapidly colonises following the event. The Project Area was subject to a fire event in October 2013, and it is likely that this species has colonised the site as a result.

It is considered likely that this successional species will utilise the habitats within the Project Area when conditions are optimal, followed by the decline of the species once habitats improve in habitat complexity, thereby reducing the area of habitat that can be successfully occupied by the species. The recent fire that impacted the site is considered likely to have created the conditions in which the New Holland mouse is known to occur.

The New Holland mouse has been assessed under the EPBC Act using the Assessments of Significance (refer to Appendix F) and it was determined that the Project is unlikely to result in a significant impact on this species.

5.6.4 Migratory species assessed under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act 1999

One migratory species listed under international migratory species conventions was recorded during surveys within the Project Area and a further two were expected to occur (refer to Section 4.2.4). The habitats of the disturbance footprint were not considered to be suitable for an important population of any migratory species, as defined by the EPBC Act impact assessment guidelines, and a significant impact on migratory species is not expected to occur as a result of the Project (refer to Appendix F).

5.6.5 Assessment of impacts on koala habitat against the Port Stephens Comprehensive Koala Plan of Management (CKPoM) 2002

The vegetation communities within the proposed disturbance area were assessed according to the Port Stephens Comprehensive Koala Plan of Management (CKPoM) (refer to Figure 4.5). Two tree species listed as a core koala feed tree in the CKPoM, swamp mahogany (Eucalyptus robusta) and Earp’s gum (Eucalyptus parramattensis subsp. decadens), were found to occur in the proposed disturbance area. The swamp mahogany was recorded in the Swamp Mahogany – Paperbark Forest (refer to Figure 4.1) and the

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Impact assessment 3251_R05_Ecological Assessment _FINAL.docx 85

Earp’s gum was recorded primarily in the Coastal Sand Apple – Blackbutt Forest (Scribbly Gum Variant) (refer to Figure 4.2).

An assessment of potential impacts on the koala under the Port Stephens CKPoM has been undertaken and is included in Appendix G. The loss of 48.1 hectares of Preferred Koala Habitat and 0.04 hectares of other habitat types represents a substantial loss of habitat for the Koala in the local area, as detailed in Section 4.2.3.1.

A range of mitigation measures specifically designed to minimise the impacts of the Project on the koala are outlined in Section 6.3 and a site-specific Koala Plan of Management has been prepared to minimise and mitigate the impacts of the Project on the koala (refer to Appendix H).

5.7 Impact on groundwater dependent ecosystems

The proposed disturbance area will directly impact the following vegetation communities which have varying degrees of groundwater dependency:

• Coastal Sand Apple-Blackbutt Forest - Blackbutt Scribbly Gum variant – Facultative GDE

• Coastal Sand Apple-Blackbutt Forest – Facultative GDE

• Coastal Sand Wallum Heath – Facultative and/or Obligate GDE

• Coastal Sand Wallum Woodland – Facultative GDE

• Swamp Mahogany Paperbark Forest – Obligate GDE.

The majority of the proposed disturbance area comprises facultative GDEs, with a total area of 47.8 hectares. Direct impacts on obligate GDE total 0.34 hectares. It is noted that the proposed depth of extraction will be confined to a depth of 1 metre above maximum predicted groundwater level and 2 metres above average groundwater level and therefore does not penetrate or interfere with the aquifer. Therefore, there will be no indirect impacts to GDEs surrounding the proposed disturbance area, either within or outside the Project Area, as the extraction of sand will not create any drawdown effects on the aquifer. For further information on the impact of the Project on groundwater, refer to Section 4.10 and Appendix 7 of the EIS.

5.8 Impacts of the Project on adjacent conservation areas

The Project will not result in direct impacts to Tilligerry SCA which occurs adjacent to the Project Area on the north-west boundary. The Project will be managed appropriately in order to limit the potential for in- direct impacts.

Williamtown Sand Syndicate has incorporated a minimum 20 metre buffer zone between the Project components and Tilligerry State Conservation Area boundaries in order to minimise the potential for indirect impacts to the conservation value of the State Conservation Area. Williamtown Sand Syndicate will manage sediment and erosion within the site’s closed water management system and will incorporate a weed and feral animal monitoring schedule to minimise the potential for weed ingress from the site into the State Conservation Area.

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Impact assessment 3251_R05_Ecological Assessment _FINAL.docx 86

5.9 Impacts on corridors and connectivity

The Project Area occurs on the southern edge of extensive areas of forested habitat within the Tilligerry State Conservation Area and adjacent vegetated areas around Tomago and Williamtown that provide connectivity and movement corridors for a wide range of flora and fauna species from Port Stephens and Karuah in the north to Hunter Wetlands National Pak in the south. The protection of landscape connections are important to ensure the exchange of genetic material and ensure adequate feeding areas, breeding grounds and to allow for migration for species.

Despite this, a range of human disturbances in the wider area has fragmented this habitat, particularly to the south of Cabbage Tree Road where large areas have been cleared for residential and agricultural purposes. Existing tracks and easements also occur north of the Project Area within Tilligerry State Conservation Area with the expanse of the Williamtown RAAF base fragmenting habitats to the east of the Project Area.

The Project will result in the loss of approximately 53.9 hectares of native woodland, forest and heath habitat south of Tilligerry State Conservation Area which will result in the loss of habitat edges in an area of generally continuous habitat between Port Stephens and Newcastle that is currently part of the Lower Hunter Biodiversity Corridor (the ‘Green Corridor). It is considered unlikely that the Project will restrict ecological vectors from moving from one habitat to another throughout the wider area or have substantial adverse impacts on the movement corridors and connectivity for species.

As part of the impact avoidance measures incorporated into the Project design, a wildlife corridor has been included that allows for continued east/west movement across the Project Area (refer to Figure 1.2 and Section 5.1) thereby reducing the impact of the Project on corridors and connectivity.

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Impact assessment 3251_R05_Ecological Assessment _FINAL.docx 87

6.0 Impact mitigation strategy

Williamtown Sand Syndicate has sought to avoid and minimise potential impacts on the ecological values of the Project Area throughout the project planning process. This has included avoidance and minimisation of disturbance of key vegetation communities and fauna habitats. These avoidance measures are described in detail in Section 5.1.

Williamtown Sand Syndicate has committed to the design and implementation of a comprehensive strategy to mitigate the adverse impacts of the Project. Further to this, a comprehensive biodiversity offset strategy will be developed, which will include the protection and enhancement of native vegetation and threatened species habitat, to develop a positive long-term outcome for the threatened species and key ecological features affected by the Project. The proposed biodiversity offset strategy is documented in Section 7.0.

This section details the mitigation strategies that are designed to minimise impacts on significant ecological features known to occur in the areas to be disturbed as part of the Project.

6.1 General impact mitigation measures

6.1.1 Weed control

Weed species could be inadvertently brought into the Project Area on vehicles, or could invade naturally through removal of native vegetation. The presence of weed species within the Project Area has the potential to significantly decrease the value of extant vegetation to native species, particularly threatened species and could adversely impact adjacent high conservation value lands.

Williamtown Sand Syndicate will prepare a site Environmental Management Plan to incorporate details of the design and implementation of a robust weed management program. Noxious and other undesirable weed species within the Project Area will be controlled to an acceptable level, and where possible eliminated, through an integrated approach involving a combination of chemical and physical control methods, and careful land management.

6.1.2 Sediment and erosion control

Surface water management procedures will be developed as part of the construction and operational Environmental Management Plan. This will involve ensuring the clear flow of surface water around the quarry site and the containment of existing water within a closed quarry water management system. Proposed sediment and erosion control measures are detailed in Section 4.10 of the EIS.

6.2 Protection and management or arboreal species and habitat

A robust tree felling procedure will be implemented at the quarry to minimise the potential for impacts on native fauna species (including threatened species) as a result of the clearing of hollow-bearing trees. The tree felling procedure is designed to minimise impacts to hollow-dependent fauna, particularly the threatened squirrel glider, tree-roosting hollow-dependent micro-bats, koala and threatened owls. The procedure includes the following:

• Comprehensive pre-clearing surveys by a suitably experienced and licensed ecologist, no more than two weeks prior to felling. This will include marking of hollow-bearing trees, as well as any other notable features such as fallen timber, hollow logs or boulders suitable for salvage; active nests, dreys

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Impact mitigation strategy 3251_R05_Ecological Assessment _FINAL.docx 88

or dens requiring consideration; and seed-bearing trees for salvage. Surveys will include detailed searches for threatened flora and fauna species, including micro-bats.

• Removal of non-hollow-bearing trees/vegetation as close to the hollow-bearing tree felling date as possible (in order to discourage fauna usage of the area).

• Visual canopy inspection of all trees to be removed by suitably experienced and licensed ecologist to ensure that the koala is not injured during tree felling operations.

• Detailed hollow-bearing tree felling procedures, including (but not limited to)

o supervision of all hollow-bearing tree felling works by a suitably experienced and licensed ecologist. If an ecological issue is encountered, this person is to advise on the most appropriate measures to ensure minimal impact on fauna species, particularly threatened species

o visual canopy inspection on the day of the felling of hollow-bearing trees for fauna species and active nests

o shaking of hollow-bearing tree (with heavy machinery) for at least 30 seconds to encourage resident fauna to abandon tree, prior to felling

o lowering of hollow-bearing trees as gently as possible with heavy machinery

o inspection of all hollows in felled trees

o capture of any displaced/injured fauna

o release of unharmed fauna into nearby secure habitats

o injured fauna to be assessed and taken to wildlife carer, if necessary

o felled trees to be rolled so that the number of hollows blocked against the ground are minimised

o all felled trees to remain in place overnight to allow any unidentified fauna to escape

o salvage of suitable hollows for treatment and installation within rehabilitation and revegetation areas as compensatory habitat, where practicable.

All personnel who will capture/handle/house and/or transport native fauna species (injured or uninjured) will be appropriately licensed under the requirements of the NSW Animal Ethics Committee.

Where trees are to be removed as part of quarrying activities an assessment of the density of tree hollows in surrounding woodland should be undertaken by a suitably qualified ecologist. The ecologist will determine the need for supplementation of tree hollows (using salvaged tree hollows or nest boxes) based on the number of hollows lost during felling and the extent of natural hollows in adjacent vegetation communities.

6.2.1 Nest box establishment

Nest boxes will be established in retained vegetation in proximity to areas impacted as a result of the Project to mitigate the loss of hollow-bearing trees. An assessment of the number of tree hollows lost during clearing will be made as part of the tree felling activities and nest boxes will be established to

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Impact mitigation strategy 3251_R05_Ecological Assessment _FINAL.docx 89

compensate for this loss, where appropriate. Suitably designed nest boxes will be established for the range of hollow-dependent species that are known to occur in the Project Area.

6.3 Specific mitigation measures for koala

Williamtown Sand Syndicate has substantially reduced the development footprint, avoiding large areas of high quality koala habitat across the Project Area. A site specific koala plan of management has been prepared (refer to Appendix H) to guide the implementation of impact mitigation and management measures specific to the koala. The following measures are proposed to minimise the impacts on the local koala population as a result of the Project:

• Traffic control measures/20 km/h speed limits/signage within the site to minimise fauna injury/road kills, as much as possible.

• Fencing to be used along the perimeter of the site will allow for dispersal and safe koala movement in and out of retained high quality koala habitat.

• Detailed pre-clearing surveys, including pre-clearing nocturnal spotlighting and call playback surveys to be completed to specifically assess potential presence of the koala at the site prior to clearing activities.

• Detailed tree-felling procedures, including the use of adequately qualified and experienced ecologists and on-call wildlife rescue group to assist with any injured koalas, to minimise potential impact on koalas.

6.4 Conservation area protection measures

The Project Area adjoins Tilligerry SCA which is jointly managed by NPWS and HWC. The ‘Guidelines for developments on adjoining land and water managed by the Department of Climate Change and Water’ (DECCW 2010) has been prepared to help avoid and minimise any direct or indirect adverse impacts on the National Parks estate.

The following issues need to be considered for developments adjoining reserve land and, in particular, their impacts:

• erosion and sediment control

• stormwater runoff

• wastewater

• management implications relating to pests, weeds and edge effects

• fire and the location of asset protection zones

• boundary encroachments and access through OEH lands

• visual, odour, noise, vibration, air quality and amenity impacts

• threats to ecological connectivity and groundwater dependent ecosystems

• cultural heritage.

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Impact mitigation strategy 3251_R05_Ecological Assessment _FINAL.docx 90

In order to address the issues that are relevant to the Project, a range of measures have been proposed including the:

• use of a minimum 20 metre buffer zone between Tilligerry SCA and the Project Area to minimise the potential for adverse impact to NPWS estate

• implementation of weed control protocols within the buffer zone to prevent weed species spreading into Tilligerry SCA

• implementation of appropriate sediment and erosion control measures to ensure that there are no off- site impacts associated with the Project.

6.5 Rehabilitation

The aim of the rehabilitation of the proposed disturbance area will be to establish native vegetation communities and fauna habitats currently recorded in the project area and local area. A range of criteria relating to biodiversity issues has been developed to direct the rehabilitation activities. Rehabilitation biodiversity objectives will be used in rehabilitation planning, and will:

• comprise a sustainable final landform and land use that can co-exist with surrounding land uses

• re-establish vegetation consistent with extant vegetation communities of the Project Area within the post-mining landform

• re-establish fauna habitats consistent with extant fauna habitats of the proposed disturbance area within the post-mining landform.

Rehabilitation will consist of stabilising and returning the quarried ecological landscape to a condition similar to, or better than, its current state. To do so, two interrelated measures are proposed; the rehabilitation of the quarried landform, and a biodiversity offset package. The final quarried landform has been designed to create a free-draining landform.

Rehabilitation will be conducted progressively over the life of the quarry, as an integral component of quarry operations. All rehabilitation works will be scheduled to commence as soon as practicable after disturbance and reformation of the landscape. This approach will minimise the disturbed area at any point in time and hence reduce the ecological impact of the Project.

The post-mining areas will be progressively rehabilitated to self-sustaining native vegetation communities, in accordance with a rehabilitation strategy. Rehabilitation works will use local provenance endemic species (for native communities), where practicable, including consideration of seed availability.

The establishment of habitat for Earp’s gum (Eucalyptus parramattensis subsp. decadens) will be a key objective of the rehabilitation strategy. The final landform will consider the habitat requirements of the species, specifically proximity to the water table, and will seek to connect the proposed habitat corridor with native rehabilitation areas and proposed on-site biodiversity offset areas.

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Impact mitigation strategy 3251_R05_Ecological Assessment _FINAL.docx 91

7.0 Biodiversity Offset Strategy

7.1 The relevance of biodiversity offsetting

Williamtown Sand Syndicate has, where possible, modified the Project to avoid and minimise ecological impacts (refer to Section 5.1), and a range of impact mitigation strategies have been included in the Project to mitigate the impact on ecological values (refer to Section 6.0). Impact avoidance, minimisation and mitigation strategies have resulted in the reduction of impacts on threatened species known or considered likely to occur in the proposed disturbance area.

It is expected that biodiversity offsetting will be required, and this section identifies the pathway that will be taken to develop a comprehensive biodiversity offset strategy to compensate for residual significant impacts on threatened species, populations and communities. A comprehensive biodiversity offset strategy will be prepared in accordance with the DGRs for the Project to ensure the development maintains or improves the terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity values of the region in the medium to long term. The Strategy will be prepared in accordance with Scenario 2 Mitigated Net Loss (Tier 3) as described in OEH’s submission to inform the DGRs on 10 September 2013 and in correspondence provided by OEH in relation to revised DGRs in March 2015.

A referral to the Commonwealth will be prepared to address likely impacts on matters of national environmental significance (MNES). It is anticipated that biodiversity offsets could be required to compensate for potential significant impacts on certain MNES.

As stated in Section 5.0, the precautionary principle has been considered in the development of the mitigation and offsetting strategies, due to uncertainty and data deficiencies for some threatened species. The precautionary principle assumes the maximum reasonable potential impact is applied to these species in the impact assessment and therefore helps ensure robust requirements for mitigation and offsetting.

7.2 Relevant biodiversity offsetting policies

7.2.1 Background

Over the course of the last 10-15 years, biodiversity offsets have been used in NSW as an effective measure to compensate for developmental impacts on biodiversity. Biodiversity offsets are often used where there will be a residual impact on biodiversity once impact avoidance, minimisation and mitigation have all been implemented to reduce impacts. While there have been no consistent, universally applied guidelines, it has generally been accepted that, in principle, biodiversity offsets should be:

• located as close as possible to the areas subject to impact, depending on the availability and suitability of such areas

• appropriately monitored and managed for biodiversity outcomes

• appropriately protected

• at least as large as the area impacted

• designed to lead to a net gain in biodiversity values in the medium to long term.

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Biodiversity Offset Strategy 3251_R05_Ecological Assessment _FINAL.docx 92

Although these principles are not universally employed, it is recognised that they form an appropriate approach around which individual development offsets are assessed, even if it is not always possible to achieve all elements. In the past, biodiversity offsetting has taken the form of:

• developers managing land that is set aside for biodiversity conservation

• developers donating appropriate land to OEH or other similar bodies for biodiversity conservation

• financial contributions to the government to fund land purchases for biodiversity conservation, or to fund biodiversity land enhancement projects, or funding to other organisations to implement threatened species recovery actions, and to undertake research and monitoring.

7.2.2 NSW offsetting principles and policies

The NSW Government has recently developed a new approach to guide how biodiversity offsets are used for major projects (state significant development and state significant infrastructure). The NSW Biodiversity Offsets Policy for Major Projects commenced on 1 October 2014. While it is preceded by the original DGRs for this project, and therefore does not necessarily apply, the policy’s components will be considered in the development of the offset strategy.

The following six principles form a core part of the policy:

1. Before offsets are considered, impacts must first be avoided and unavoidable impacts minimised through mitigation measures. Only then should offsets be considered for the remaining impacts.

2. Offset requirements should be based on a reliable and transparent assessment of losses and gains.

3. Offsets must be targeted to the biodiversity values being lost or to higher conservation priorities.

4. Offsets must be additional to other legal requirements.

5. Offsets must be enduring, enforceable and auditable.

6. Supplementary measures can be used in lieu of offsets.

7.2.3 Commonwealth environmental offsets policy

In October 2012 the Australian Government released the EPBC Act Environmental Offsets Policy (DSEWPC, 2012a). The policy relates to all protected matters under the EPBC Act including adversely impacted heritage values, and applies to offsetting requirements in terrestrial and aquatic (including marine) environments.

The Policy has five key aims:

• to ensure the efficient, effective, timely, transparent, proportionate, scientifically robust and reasonable use of offsets under the EPBC Act

• to provide proponents, the community and other stakeholders with greater certainty and guidance on how offsets are determined and when they may be considered under the EPBC Act

• to deliver improved environmental outcomes by consistently applying the policy

• to outline the appropriate nature and scale of offsets and how they are determined

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Biodiversity Offset Strategy 3251_R05_Ecological Assessment _FINAL.docx 93

• to provide guidance on acceptable delivery mechanisms for offsets.

According to the policy, direct offsets must constitute a minimum of 90% of the total offset requirement. The remaining offset requirement (up to a maximum of 10%) may be made up by ‘other compensatory measures’ to complete the 100% offset requirement. Deviation from the 90% direct offset requirement will only be considered in limited circumstances.

While this reinforces the move to direct offsets, the concept of ‘advanced offsets’ has been introduced. These are a supply of offsets for potential future use, transfer or sale, established before any impact is undertaken. While an advanced offset can reduce an overall future offset requirement, it does not influence whether or not an action referred under the EPBC Act will be determined as acceptable.

The policy requires that the ‘conservation gain’ for the impacted protected matter, which is delivered by the offset, is to be new or additional to what is already required by a duty of care or to any environmental planning laws at any level of government.

Importantly, the policy makes use of an impact and offsets calculator which is designed to determine the ecological costs of a development, termed ‘impact points’, together with the likely ecological benefit of offset sites, termed ‘offset points’ in order to assess the relative value of proposed offset packages. The policy also includes the provision that at least 90% of offset points must be earned from direct (i.e. land- based) offsets, while the remainder can be earned through indirect measures (e.g. funding or relevant recovery actions). The EPBC Act Offset Calculator Assessment will be applied to the impacts and proposed offsets for the Earp’s Gum (Eucalyptus parramattensis subsp. decadens), the grey-headed flying-fox (Pteropus policephalus), New Holland mouse (Pseudomys novaehollandiae) and the koala (Phascolarctos cinereus) which will be directly impacted as a result of the Project.

As with the NSW Biodiversity Offset Policy, the Commonwealth DoE prepared a suite of principles against which proposed biodiversity offsets should be measured. The principles will be considered during the development of the Biodiversity Offset Strategy and are listed below.

1. Suitable offsets must deliver an overall conservation outcome that improves or maintains the viability of the protected matter.

2. Suitable offsets must be built around direct offsets but may include other compensatory measures.

3. Suitable offsets must be in proportion to the level of statutory protection that applies to the protected matter.

4. Suitable offsets must be of a size and scale proportionate to the residual impacts on the protected matter.

5. Suitable offsets must effectively account for and manage the risks of the offset not succeeding.

6. Suitable offsets must be additional to what is already required, determined by law or planning regulations, or agreed to under other schemes or programs.

7. Suitable offsets must be efficient, effective, timely, transparent, scientifically robust and reasonable.

8. Suitable offsets must have transparent governance arrangements including being able to be readily measured, monitored, audited and enforced.

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Biodiversity Offset Strategy 3251_R05_Ecological Assessment _FINAL.docx 94

7.3 Biodiversity offset objectives

Williamtown Sand Syndicate will prepare a biodiversity offset strategy that seeks to achieve the following objectives:

• identify land-based offsets, where relevant, that contain as many as possible of the threatened vegetation communities, threatened flora species and threatened fauna species impacted by the Project

• where non-land based offsets are being proposed, ensure that they specifically target the key species of communities of concern, or higher threat-level species or communities

• identify land-based offsets, where relevant, that are strategically located and consider local and regional corridors

• identify offsets through which an environmental gain can be made via appropriate management strategies

• secure land-based offsets in perpetuity

• develop a management strategy for the positive environmental management of the proposed offset sites, where they are being utilised

• as a minimum provide offsets that have the same ecological value as the residual significant impacts of the Project on vegetation communities, threatened flora species and threatened fauna species.

7.4 Biodiversity offsetting pathways to be considered

It is anticipated that an offset strategy will need to be developed to compensate for the following:

• general ecological communities impacted by the proposed development

• residual significant impacts on the koala (Phascolarctos cinereus)

• residual significant impacts on Earp’s gum (Eucalyptus parramattensis subsp. decadens)

• potential residual significant impacts on the wallum froglet (Crinia tinnula).

Williamtown Sand Syndicate will investigate the following opportunities and pathways to ensure that an appropriate and comprehensive biodiversity offset strategy is prepared and implemented:

• Land-based offsetting opportunities on the remainder of the Project Area not subject to the development. This contains significant numbers of Earp’s gum (Eucalyptus parramattensis subsp. decadens) and koala habitat.

• Investigate opportunities to establish Earp’s gum (Eucalyptus parramattensis subsp. decadens) in substantial numbers on the Project Area not subject to the development. Targeted investigations on site identified previously disturbed areas that will provide a suitable area for Earp’s gum establishment to offset the loss of 284 Earp’s gum from within the proposed extraction area. This will be undertaken as part of the rehabilitation strategy which will prioritise reinstating locally occurring native vegetation communities (particularly koala habitat). This is likely to be a successful component of the proposed biodiversity offset strategy based on the successful establishment of previously planted Earp’s gum in

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Biodiversity Offset Strategy 3251_R05_Ecological Assessment _FINAL.docx 95

the Project Area following extensive mineral sands mining during the 1980s. All non-native vegetation communities occurring within the Project Area outside the proposed extraction area are considered to be suitable for targeted planting of the species, based on that the existing Earp’s gum on site have been planted previously.

• Investigate land-based offsetting opportunities in the lower Hunter Region and Port Stephens area.

• The above land-based offset opportunities will seek first to provide for ‘like for like’ offsetting outcomes, but will also consider the use of higher conservation status entities as substitutes for the target species/communities.

• Investigate current Biobanking credit purchase/retirement opportunities.

• Assess the possibility of deferring the retirement (purchase) of credits for periods of several years to give the proponent the opportunity to find credits as they become available or to establish their own Biobanking site.

• Investigate other supplementary measures, such as contributing to any relevant offset fund that the NSW Government establishes, or providing funding for recovery plan implementation for the relevant species.

The traditional offsetting approach identified in the DGRs comprises undertaking a detailed biodiversity assessment of the impact area, determining the significant residual impacts after undertaking the ‘avoid and mitigate’ hierarchy, and preparing a biodiversity offset strategy to meet or exceed the significant residual impacts of the project. Under the traditional approach the quantum of offsets required for projects are determined using offset ratios based on the ecological value of the vegetation communities or species being impacted, and precedents from relevant prior project approvals. Traditional approach offset ratios are generally expected to range between 1:1 and 3:1.

Williamtown Sand Syndicate will consult with OEH, Port Stephens Council and DPE in the development of the biodiversity offset strategy.

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Biodiversity Offset Strategy 3251_R05_Ecological Assessment _FINAL.docx 96

8.0 References

Anstis, M (2013). Tadpoles and Frogs of Australia. Reed New Holland, Sydney.

Barker, J, Grigg, G, C, & Tyler, M, J, (1995) A Field Guide to Australian Frogs. Surrey Beatty & Sons, Sydney.

Bell, S. and Driscoll, C. (2006) Vegetation of the Tomago and Tomaree Sandbeds, Port Stephens, New South Wales, Final report to Hunter Water Corporation, September 2006.

Botanic Gardens Trust, (2015) PlantNET – The Plant Information Network System of Botanic Gardens Trust, Sydney, Australia (version 2.0). accessed October 2015.

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

Carter, O. and Walsh, N. (2010) National Recovery Plan for the Dwarf Kerrawang Rulingia prostrata. Department of Sustainability and Environment, Melbourne.

Cogger, H G (2014). Reptiles & Amphibians of Australia. CSIRO Publishing.

Commonwealth Threatened Species Scientific Committee (TSSC) (2010) Advice to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts from the Threatened Species Scientific Committee (the Committee) on Amendment to the list of Threatened Species under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act).

Cronquist, A, (1981) An Integrated System of Classification of Flowering Plants. Columbia University Press, New York.

Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) (2006). NSW Recovery Plan for the Large Forest Owls: Powerful Owl (Ninox strenua), Sooty Owl (Tyto tenebricosa) and Masked Owl (Tyto novaehollandiae). DEC, Sydney.

Department of the Environment (DoE) (2013) Matters of National Environmental Significance, Significant Impact Guidelines 1.1.

Department of the Environment (2015) Protected Matters Search Tool http://www.environment.gov.au/webgis-framework/apps/pmst/pmst.jsf accessed October 2015.

Department of the Environment (DoE) (2015) Species Profile and Threats Database, Canberra, Australia http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/sprat.pl accessed April 2015.

Department of Environment and Climate Change (DECC) (2008) Approved Recovery Plan for the Koala (Phascolarctos cinereus), November 2008.

Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water NSW (DECCW) (2009). Draft National Recovery Plan for the Grey-headed Flying-fox Pteropus poliocephalus. prepared by Dr Peggy Eby. Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water NSW, Sydney.

Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water NSW (DECCW) (2009). Draft National Recovery Plan: Earps Dirty Gum Eucalyptus parramattensis subsp. decadens. Sydney: Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water NSW. Department of the Environment (DoE) (2013) Matters of National Environmental Significance, Significant Impact Guidelines 1.1.

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT References 3251_R05_Ecological Assessment _FINAL.docx 97

Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (DECCW) (2009) Lower Hunter Regional Conservation Plan, Department of Environment and Climate Change NSW, Sydney.

Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (DECCW) (2010) Guidelines for Developments Adjoining Land and Water Managed by the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water, June 2010.

Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources (DIPNR) (2003) Soil Landscapes of the Goulburn Region 1:100 000 Sheet, Soil Conservation Service of NSW, Sydney.

Department of Primary Industries (DPI) (2015) Fisheries Threatened Species Profiles http://pas.dpi.nsw.gov.au/Species/All_Species.aspx

East Coast Flora Survey (2006) Vegetation of the Tomago and Tomaree Sandbeds, Port Stephens, New South Wales, final report to Hunter Water Corporation.

Garnett, S, T, and Crowley, G, M, (2000) The Action Plan for Australian Birds. Environment Australia.

GHD (2007) Airport/Defence Related Employment Zone (Williamtown) Ecology Report, report prepared for the Department of Planning (DoP), February 2007.

Harden, G, J, editor, (1992) Flora of New South Wales. Volume 3. Royal Botanic Gardens Sydney & New South Wales University Press, Sydney.

Harden, G, J, editor, (1993) Flora of New South Wales. Volume 4. Royal Botanic Gardens Sydney & New South Wales University Press, Sydney.

Harden, G, J, editor, (2000) Flora of New South Wales. Volume 1. 2nd edition. New South Wales University Press and Royal Botanic Gardens, Sydney.

Harden, G, J, editor, (2002) Flora of New South Wales. Volume 2. Revised edition. Royal Botanic Gardens Sydney & New South Wales University Press, Sydney.

House S, (2003) Lower Hunter and Central Coast Regional Biodiversity Conservation Strategy, Technical Report, Digital Aerial Photo Interpretation and Updated Extant Vegetation Community Map, May 2003. Lower Hunter and Central Coast Regional Environmental Management Strategy, Callaghan, NSW.

Knott, T., Lunney, D., Coburn, D. and Callaghan, J. (1998) "An ecological history of Koala habitat in Port Stephens Shire and the Lower Hunter on the Central Coast of New South Wales, 1801-1998." Pacific Conservation Biology 4: 354.

Long, K. and Nelson, J. Yeara. National Recovery Plan for the Spotted-tailed Quoll Dasyurus maculatus. Department of Sustainability and Environment, Melbourne.

Lake Macquarie City Council (LMCC) (2013) Interim Grevillea parviflora subsp parviflora Protection and Management Guidelines.

Lunney, D., Gresser, S., O'Neill, L. E., Matthews, A. and Rhodes, J. (2007) The impact of fire and dogs on Koalas at Port Stephens, New South Wales, using population viability analysis. Pacific Conservation Biology 13: 189-201.

Marchant, S., Higgins, P. (eds) (1990) Handbook of Australian, New Zealand and Antarctic Birds. Oxford University Press, Melbourne.

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT References 3251_R05_Ecological Assessment _FINAL.docx 98

Menkhorst, P and Knight, F (2010). A field guide to the Mammals of Australia, Oxford University Press, South Melbourne

Meyer, E., Hero, J-M., Shoo, L. and Lewis, B. 2006. National recovery plan for the wallum sedgefrog and other wallum-dependent frog species . Report to Department of the Environment and Water Resources, Canberra. Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service, Brisbane.

National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) (2000) Vegetation Survey Classification and Mapping: Lower Hunter and Central Coast Region. Version 1.2. A Project undertaken for the Lower Hunter and Central Coast Regional Environment Management Strategy. Sydney Zone, New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service, Hurstville.

NSW Scientific Committee (2004a) Swamp sclerophyll forest on coastal floodplains of the NSW North Coast, Sydney Basin and South East Corner Bioregions - endangered ecological community listing - Final Determination.

NSW Scientific Committee (2004b) Freshwater wetlands on coastal floodplains of the NSW North Coast, Sydney Basin and South East Corner Bioregions - endangered ecological community listing - Final Determination.

NSW Scientific Committee (2014) Guidelines for interpreting listing criteria for species, populations and ecological communities under the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act. Listing guidelines version 1.4, November 2014.

Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) (2015) BioNet Atlas of NSW Wildlife, accessed October 2015.

Pizzey, G. and Knight, F (2012). A Complete Guide to the Birds of Australia. Harper Collins, Sydney.

Port Stephens Council (2002) Port Stephens Council Comprehensive Koala Plan of Management (CKPoM), prepared by Port Stephens Council with the Australian Koala Foundation.

Preston BJ, Adam P (2004a) Describing and listing threatened ecological communities under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (NSW). Part 1. Environmental Planning and Law Journal 21, 250-263.

Preston BJ, Adam P (2004b) Describing and listing threatened ecological communities under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (NSW). Part 2. Environmental Planning and Law Journal 21, 372- 390.

Robinson, M, (1998) A Field Guide to Frogs of Australia. Australian Museum/Reed New Holland, Sydney.

Saunders, D. (2002) Swifts Across the Strait. Swifts Across the Strait. February 2002.

Van Dyck, S and Strahan, R (2008). The Mammals of Australia: Third Edition. Australian Museum – Reed New Holland, Sydney.

Wheeler D, J, B, Jacobs S, W, L, and Whalley R, D, B, (2002) Grasses of New South Wales, 3rd Edition. The University of New England, Armidale.

Wilson, S and Swan, G (2008). A Complete Guide to Reptiles of Australia. Reed New Holland, Sydney.

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT References 3251_R05_Ecological Assessment _FINAL.docx 99