2017 Rehabilitation

Monitoring Report

Report prepared for Bulga Coal Complex 12 October 2017

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction ...... 1.1

2.0 Methods...... 2.1 2.1 Site Layout ...... 2.3 2.2 Biometric Vegetation Sampling ...... 2.3 2.3 Landscape Function Analysis ...... 2.4 2.4 Pest Animals ...... 2.5

3.0 Results and Discussion ...... 3.5 3.1 Biometric Vegetation Sampling ...... 3.5 3.1.1 Grey Box-Ironbark Woodland ...... 3.6 3.1.2 Ironbark-Spotted Gum-Grey Box Woodland ...... 3.7 3.1.3 Swamp Oak Forest ...... 3.8 3.2 Landscape Function Analysis ...... 3.9 3.2.1 Landscape Organisation Index ...... 3.9 3.2.2 Soil Stability ...... 3.10 3.2.3 Soil Infiltration ...... 3.11 3.2.4 Soil Nutrients ...... 3.12 3.2.5 Sum of LFA ...... 3.13 3.3 Pest Animals ...... 3.14 3.4 Native/Exotic Composition ...... 3.14 3.5 Germination of Species from the Seed Mix ...... 3.16 3.5.1 Recommendations for Modification to Seed Mix ...... 3.17

4.0 Rehabilitation Progress Towards Closure Criteria ...... 4.18

5.0 Summary of Recommendations ...... 5.1

6.0 References ...... 6.2

ii

FIGURES

Figure 2.1 Location of 2017 Monitoring Sites and Target Vegetiaon Communities ...... 2.2 Figure 2.2 Site Layout ...... 2.3 Figure 3.1 Monitoring Sites Landscape Organisation Index ...... 3.10 Figure 3.2 Monitoring Sites Soil Stability Value ...... 3.11 Figure 3.3 Monitoring Sites Soil Infiltration Values ...... 3.12 Figure 3.4 Monitoring Sites Soil Nutrient Values ...... 3.13 Figure 3.5 Monitoring Sites Sum of LFA Values ...... 3.13 Figure 3.6 Abundance of Native, Non-invasive Weed and Invasive Weed Species ...... 3.15

APPENDICES

Appendix 1 Schedule of Monitoring ...... 6.3 Appendix 2 Results of Photo Monitoring ...... 6.7 Appendix 3 Biometric Score ...... 6.12 Appendix 4 Flora Species List...... 6.14 Appendix 5 Seed Mixes ...... 6.20

iii

1.0 Introduction

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

BCC has recently revised the closure criteria for the operation as part of the closure planning for a Mining Operation Plan submission in 2017. Therefore, BCC was required to update the existing rehabilitation and ecological monitoring program to ensure that the data collected from the monitoring program directly relates to measures in the revised closure criteria. This document reports on the methods and results of the 2017 Rehabilitation Monitoring Program at BCC, which was undertaken in accordance with the requirements of the revised Rehabilitation Monitoring Procedure (Emergent Ecology 2017).

2.0 Methods

The methodology adopted for the 2017 Rehabilitation Monitoring Program is outlined in the BCC Rehabilitation Monitoring Procedure (Emergent Ecology 2017). This methodology was developed in accordance with the BCC closure criteria, GCAA Completion Criteria and Rehabilitation Monitoring procedure (GCAA 2015) and Biometric methodology (DECCW 2011). The following sections outline the methods undertaken to complete the monitoring program.

Field surveys for the BCC Rehabilitation Monitoring Program were undertaken from the 29 to 31 May 2017. Seven sites required monitoring in 2017, as shown in Table 2.1 and locations provided on Figure 2.1. The longer term schedule for all rehabilitation monitoring sites is provided as Appendix 1.

Table 2.1 Monitoring Sites 2017

Site Vegetation Commencement Easting Northing Monitoring Type Name Community of Monitoring BM20 GBIW 324,666 6,387,133 Reference 2014 BM23 SOF 322,922 6,384,707 Reference 2014 BM25 ISGBW 322,151 6,377,683 Reference 2017 NB6 GBIW 321,082 6,384,632 Rehabilitation 2016 NVB1 GBIW 318,315 6,384,537 Rehabilitation 2015 NVB2 GBIW 319,823 6,380,432 Rehabilitation 2016 OTD1 ISGBW 322,180 6,379,337 Rehabilitation 2017 Vegetation community abbreviations: • GBIW: Grey Box-Ironbark Woodland • SOF: Swamp Oak Forest • ISGBW: Ironbark-Spotted Gum-Grey Box Woodland

2.1 Ü BM20

NB6 BM23 NVB1

C h a r l t o NVB2 n

R o a d

Legend OTD1 Monitoring Rehabilitation Site Reference Site Approved Disturbance Boundary

Grey Box-Ironbark Woodland ad Ro ke Ironbark-Spotted Gum-Grey Box Woodland Bro Swamp Oak FOrest BM25 Pasture Void Water Public Road Kilometers 0 0.250.5 1 1.5 2

Figure 2.1. Location of 2017 Monitoring Sites and Target Vegetation Communities 2.1 Site Layout

A new site layout was developed for 2017 which incorporates the Biometric methodology and previous BCC monitoring site layout. Site layout involved a 20m by 50m plot, with a nested 20m by 20m plot, and includes a 50m transect running through the plot, as shown in Figure 2.2. Monitoring methods undertaken within each plot and transect are outlined in Section 2.2.

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

Figure 2.2. Site layout (DECCW 2011).

2.2 Biometric Vegetation Sampling

The Biometric Vegetation Sampling method has been adopted to adequately compare the results of the monitoring program to a standard vegetation classification. The Biometric vegetation sampling method will allow a direct comparison of results to the NSW Government Vegetation Information System (VIS) database. The VIS database provides detailed information on hundreds of plant community types (PCT) throughout NSW and is updated and managed by the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH).

The Biometric vegetation sampling methodology was undertaken at each of the seven monitoring sites. The Biometric Vegetation Sampling methodology involved measuring the following components:

Native plant species richness: total number of species recorded in a 20m x 20m plot. The plot was systematically traversed, and the number of indigenous species were counted. All species were recorded to ensure the vegetation community is trending towards the target PCT;

Native over-storey: percent foliage cover at 10 points along a 50m transect. Native over-storey is the tallest woody stratum present (including emergents) that is 1m and higher and includes all species native to New South Wales;

2.3

Native mid-storey cover: percent foliage cover within the 20m x 20m plot. The mid-storey contains all vegetation between the over-storey stratum and 1m in height and includes all species native to New South Wales;

Native ground cover: percent foliage cover within the 20m x 20m plot for grasses, shrubs and other (such as herbs and forbs). The ground stratum contains all native vegetation below 1m in height and includes all species native to New South Wales;

Exotic plant cover: percent foliage cover within the 20m x 20m plot;

No. of trees with hollows: total no. of hollow trees within the 50m x 20m plot;

Total length of fallen logs: total length of logs at least 10cm diameter and at least 0.5m long within a 50m x 20m plot; and

Regeneration: measured as the proportion of over-storey species present at the site that are regenerating (i.e. with dbh < 5cm) within the entire zone. For example, if there are three tree species present at the site but only one of these species is regenerating, then the value is 0.33.

2.3 Landscape Function Analysis

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

LFA methodology collects data at a coarse scale (landscape organisation) and fine scale (soil surface assessment). Ground cover types (patches and inter-patches) are identified along each transect. The landscape organisation index is the proportion of the length of patch to the total length of the transect. For example, if the transect is an entire patch (i.e. a continuous grassland), the index would score 100. In comparison, a totally bare (interpatch) transect would score a value of 0 (zero). A landscape with high functionality has high retention of vital resources such as water, topsoil and organic matter, whereas low functionality implies that some of these resources are vulnerable to loss from the system.

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

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

2.4 11. slaking characteristics.

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

At each LFA site, the following information was also recorded:

• Two permanent photo monitoring points. Photos were taken from the location of the previous year’s monitoring, or where relevant the start and end of the transect, facing along the length of the transect; • Slope angle and aspect; • Number of rills/gullies greater than one metre width or depth along the 50 metre transect; • General erosion at the site; • Drainage structures are functioning appropriately and are in accordance with the final landform plan; and • the location of bare areas greater than 400m2, including at risk areas, where soil testing may be required.

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

2.4 Pest Animals

A search for evidence of pest animals was undertaken at all sites, throughout the 20m by 50m plot. The survey involved searching for scats, tracks, diggings, prey carcass and/or bones. The likely species and impact was recorded.

3.0 Results and Discussion

The results of the field surveys, and relevant discussion points are provided in the following section. The results of the photo monitoring are provided in Appendix 2.

3.1 Biometric Vegetation Sampling

The results of the Biometric Vegetation Sampling are provided in Table 3.1, Table 3.2 and Table 3.3, along with the relevant benchmark values for each plant community type (PCT). The Biometric Score

3.5 is determined by comparing the results of the monitoring to the Biometric Score values from the Operation Manual for Biometric (DECCW 2011), shown in Appendix 3. A colour coded system has been developed to visually represent the benchmark value for each feature, shown in Table 3.1. The BCC closure criteria aims for a benchmark value of 2, therefore all cells that are blue and green have achieved, or exceeded, the closure criteria. Cells that are orange or red did not achieve the closure criteria standard in 2017. A full list of flora species identified during the 2017 survey effort is provided in Appendix 4.

Table 3.1. Benchmark Colour Code

Benchmark Value

0 1 2 3 Colour

3.1.1 Grey Box-Ironbark Woodland

Four of the sites monitored in 2017 are targeted at a Grey Box-Ironbark Woodland, one site occurs in remnant vegetation (BM20) and three sites occur in mine rehabilitation (NVB1, NVB2 & NB6). The biometric value for each feature monitored is provided in Table 3.2.

Table 3.2. Biometric Scores for Each Site

Grey Box-Ironbark Reference Rehabilitation Feature Woodland BM20 NB6 NVB1 NVB2 Benchmark Value Native Plant Species Richness 41 34 15 20 22 (total) Native over-storey cover (%) 15 - 40 14 0 0 0 Native mid-storey cover (%) 5 - 20 30 1 5 0 Native ground cover (grasses) (%) 30 - 50 80 20 40 25 Native ground cover (shrubs) (%) 5 - 10 10 5 2 3 Native ground cover (other) (%) 20 - 40 5 <1 1 1 Exotic plant cover (%) Not Available 25 60 30 80 Number of trees with hollows 3 1 0 0 0 Total length of fallen logs 5 27 0 0 0 Proportion of over-storey Not Available 0.5 1 1 1 regeneration (%) Year of Establishment n/a 2016 2015 2016 Note: A benchmark value for exotic plant cover and proportion of over-storey regeneration is not provided for individual communities. A range of values for these features has been developed in the Operation Manual for Biometric (DECCW 2011), provided in Appendix 2.

The remnant vegetation site (BM20) shows that herbs and forbs in the ground cover and number of hollow trees are not at the PCT benchmark value. These results should be taken into consideration when assessing the rehabilitation targeted at Grey Box-Ironbark Woodland.

Native plant species richness was highest at the remnant site (BM20), as expected. NVB2 achieved a benchmark score of 2, being 22 native species (or 54% of the benchmark value). NVB1 needs one more native species to achieve the Biometric Score of 2, and NB6 needs six more native species to achieve the Biometric Score of 2. These values will vary over time as the rehabilitation matures.

3.6

Managing the exotic weed cover and ensuring that the cover of the canopy and shrub layers are not too dense, will allow the Native Plant Species Richness value to increase. The rehabilitation sites generally follow a similar pattern of no canopy trees, low diversity in the herb/forb ground cover, no hollow bearing trees and no fallen timber. NVB1 achieves the benchmark level for native mid-storey cover, which is likely to be due to this site being established in 2015. NVB2 and NB6 did not achieves the benchmark level for native mid-storey cover, which is likely to be due to these sites being established in 2016 and therefore the shrub layer has not developed. The native ground cover (shrubs) value for all sites has achieved the closure criteria Biometric Score of ≥2. This layer is likely to mature into native over-storey and mid-storey cover as the rehabilitation matures.

Exotic plant cover was highest at NVB2, followed by NB6, both of which were below the target benchmark value. The dominant exotic plant species at these sites was South African pigeon grass (Setaria sphacelata), with greater than >50% cover. South African pigeon grass is likely to be shaded out in the rehabilitation areas as the canopy develops. Consideration for targeted control of this species should occur at locations where the cover is greater than 70% cover, including NVB2. Invasive and exotic weed species recorded during the surveys are discussed further in Section 3.4.

3.1.2 Ironbark-Spotted Gum-Grey Box Woodland

Two of the sites monitored in 2017 are targeted at a Ironbark-Spotted Gum-Grey Box Woodland, one site occurs in remnant vegetation (BM25) and one site occurs in mine rehabilitation (OTD1). The biometric value for each feature monitored is provided in Table 3.3.

Table 3.3. Biometric Scores for Each Site

Ironbark-Spotted Gum-Grey Box Reference Rehab Feature Woodland BM25 OTD1 Benchmark Value Native Plant Species Richness 38 43 15 (total) Native over-storey cover (%) 15 - 40 34 0 Native mid-storey cover (%) 4 - 40 30 0 Native ground cover (grasses) 30 - 60 15 30 (%) Native ground cover (shrubs) 3 - 15 5 1 (%) Native ground cover (other) (%) 10 - 25 5 <1 Exotic plant cover (%) Not Available <1 30 Number of trees with hollows 1.2 1 0 Total length of fallen logs 10 8 0 Regeneration (No. sp regen/No. Not Available 1 1 OS sp) Year of Establishment n/a 2016

The remnant vegetation site (BM25) achieved the target closure criteria value of a Biometric Score of ≥2 for all features. Native plant species richness was highest at the remnant site (BM25), as expected, exceeding the benchmark value. OTD1 achieved a benchmark score of 1, with 15 native plant species recorded (39% of the benchmark value). OTD1 requires 4 additional native species to be recorded at the site to achieve a benchmark value of 2. OTD1 was established in 2016 and therefore the rehabilitation is at a very early stage. The Native Plant Species Richness is likely to

3.7 increase in value as the rehabilitation matures. Managing the exotic weed cover and ensuring that the cover of the canopy and shrub layers are not too dense, will allow the Native Plant Species Richness value to increase. The rehabilitation site, OTD1, provided no canopy trees or mid-storey layer, low diversity in the shrubs and herb/forb ground cover layer, no hollow bearing trees and no fallen timber. This is expected for rehabilitation in the first 12 months of establishment. The native ground cover (grasses) value for OTD1 exceeded the remnant vegetation and achieved the closure criteria Biometric Score of ≥2. This indicates that a good diversity of native grasses germinated from the top soil and/or seed mix. It is expected that the native ground cover (shrubs) and (other) will increase as the rehabilitation matures.

Exotic plant cover achieved the closure criteria Biometric Score of ≥2 for the remnant site and rehabilitation site. However, kikuyu (Cenchrus clandestinus) was recorded at OTD1, at <1%. Although this is a low occurrence, kikuyu has potential to dominate rehabilitation areas if not actively controlled. Invasive and exotic weed species recorded during the surveys are discussed further in Section 3.4.

3.1.3 Swamp Oak Forest

One of the sites monitored in 2017 was a Swamp Oak Forest reference site, being BM23. The biometric value for each feature monitored is provided in Table 3.4.

Table 3.4. Biometric Scores for Each Site

Swamp Oak Forest Variable BM23 Benchmark Value Native Plant Species Richness (total) 24 20 Native over-storey cover (%) 15 - 70 14 Native mid-storey cover (%) 10 - 60 20 Native ground cover (grasses) (%) 5 - 50 40 Native ground cover (shrubs) (%) 5 - 30 2 Native ground cover (other) (%) 5 - 40 10 Exotic plant cover (%) Not Available 20 Number of trees with hollows 0.2 1 Total length of fallen logs (m) 5 1 Proportion of over-storey regeneration (%) Not Available 1

BM23, a reference site, achieved a Biometric Score of ≥2 for all features other than shrubs in the ground cover and length of fallen timber. These results should be taken into consideration when assessing the rehabilitation targeted at Swamp Oak Forest. One invasive exotic plant species was recorded at BM23, being Rhodes grass (Chloris gayana) at a cover of 10%. This species should be actively controlled to ensure it does not dominate the ground cover diversity at the site. Invasive and exotic weed species recorded during the surveys are discussed further in Section 3.4.

3.8 3.2 Landscape Function Analysis

The reference and rehabilitation sites are targeted at a woodland habitat type. Due to the early stage of the rehabilitation, the canopy and shrub layers have not developed at the rehabilitation sites. Therefore, the landscape is more open to erosion, has less stability and generally has poorer infiltration and nutrient cycling. The reference sites are mature ecosystems with good ground cover and a diverse structure, however the soil is moderately compact.

The characteristic landscape of the three reference sites consisted of a gentle to moderate slope (3- 12 degrees), sand-clay to sandy-clay-loam soil, good ground cover of grasses and leaf litter and minimal erosion recorded. The three reference sites occurred on the upper slope (BM25), mid-slope (BM20) and lower slope riparian area (BM23). A good cover of micro-habitats was present at the reference sites, consisting of rocks and fallen timber. Minor erosion (<100mm) was recorded at the reference sites, however sediment and erosion control work is not currently required.

The characteristic landscape of the four rehabilitation sites consists of a gentle to moderate slope (0.5-12 degrees), sand-clay soil, moderate to high cover of grasses, low abundance of decomposing leaf material and minor erosion recorded in the form of small rills (up to 200mm wide and deep). The four rehabilitation sites occurred on the upper slope (NB6) and mid to lower slope (NVB1, NVB2 & OTD1). Limited cover of micro-habitats was recorded at the rehabilitation sites. Minor erosion (<200mm) was recorded at the rehabilitation sites, however sediment and erosion control work is not currently required. The existing drainage structures are in accordance with the final landform plan. Bare areas greater than 400m2 were not recorded at any rehabilitation sites. Details of the monitoring sites are provided in Table 3.5.

Table 3.5. LFA Monitoring Site Features

Site Monitoring First Slope Aspect Rills/Gullies Name Type Monitored (Degrees) (Bearing) >1m BM20 Reference 2014 12 190 No BM23 Reference 2014 3 210 No BM25 Reference 2017 6 285 No NB6 Rehabilitation 2016 <1 125 No NVB1 Rehabilitation 2015 10 270 No NVB2 Rehabilitation 2016 9 230 No OTD1 Rehabilitation 2017 12 240 No

The following sections outline the results of the LFA monitoring at each site.

3.2.1 Landscape Organisation Index

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

The 2017 reference sites generally provided a dense ground cover with small areas of potential runoff and therefore scored a high LOI. Previous years comparisons can be made with BM20

3.9 (Ironbark-Grey Box Woodland) and BM23 (Swamp Oak Forest), due to BM25 being established in 2017. BM20 and BM23 provided a slightly lower LOI value in 2017 than in previous years however the 2017 value (>80) remains high, resulting in good cover in the ground layer.

The rehabilitation LOI values ranged from a moderately-low value of 53 at NB6 to a high value of 85 at NVB2. All the rehabilitation sites were established in 2015 or 2016 and therefore a lower LOI relates to the early establishment of ground cover species. The values recorded at the rehabilitation sites indicate between 50%-85% ground cover. Although NB6 is the lowest LOI value, this site occurs on a flat gradient (<1 degree) and therefore erosion from the lack of ground cover was not recorded. A summary of the LOI values at each transect is presented below in Figure 3.1.

Figure 3.1. Monitoring Sites Landscape Organisation Index.

3.2.2 Soil Stability

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

In 2017, the reference and rehabilitation monitoring sites had a moderate component of perennial vegetation, poor development of leaf litter, stable topsoil and little evidence of erosion (along the LFA transect). Comparison to the previous monitoring period reveals that the rehabilitation sites had an increase in stability value in 2017 (refer to Figure 3.2 below), generally ranging from 60 to 80, compared to a value of 50 to 60 in 2016. This increase score of stability relates to the increase in ground cover at all sites. BM20 and BM23 showed to have a lower Stability value compared to previous years, however the value is not a significant drop from previous years.

3.10

Figure 3.2. Monitoring Sites Soil Stability Values

Following each LFA monitoring event, a benchmark range of values can be developed from the reference sites and compared to the progress of the rehabilitation. The Stability value range for the reference woodland sites is 72 to 85, from 2014 to 2017. The results of the 2017 rehabilitation monitoring sites for Stability are provided in Table 3.6. The results show that NVB1 is within range of the reference Stability values. NB6, NVB2 and OTD1 are within 15% of the benchmark range of the reference sites and are therefore trending towards the reference site values, a target of the closure criteria. This slightly lower value is expected from rehabilitation that is in early stages of establishment, based on low ground cover, poor leaf litter development, crust formation of early establishment of soils and low level of deposited materials collected at patches (such as grass tussocks, shrubs and trees).

Table 3.6. Results of the Stability Value on Rehabilitation Sites from the 2017 LFA survey

Rehabilitation Sites

NB6 NVB1 NVB2 OTD1 66 76 68 63

3.2.3 Soil Infiltration

Soil infiltration assesses the basal grass/canopy cover, litter cover, soil surface roughness, slake test and soil texture, to account for the ability of these factors to contribute to infiltration of water into the soil. The results of the Infiltration for each site are provided in Figure 3.3.

3.11

Figure 3.3. Monitoring Sites Soil Infiltration Values

Due to having limited data over successional years for the rehabilitation sites (due to their young age), only basic observations can be made for the data collected. The Infiltration value has increased at NB6, NVB1 and NVB2 from previous monitoring events which is likely due to the increased perennial vegetation. Good vegetation cover is developing at these sites and the soil profile is developing organic material. OTD1 provided a slightly higher Infiltration index value of 59. This was mostly due to the deep rip lines providing a holding capacity for water to infiltrate.

Following each LFA monitoring event, a benchmark range of values can be developed from the reference sites and compared to the progress of the rehabilitation. The Infiltration value range for the reference woodland sites is 49 to 61, from 2014 to 2017. The results of the 2017 LFA monitoring for Infiltration are provided in Table 3.7. The results show that NB6 and NVB1 are within range of the reference Infiltration values. NVB2 and OTD1 are within 15% of the benchmark range of the reference sites and are therefore trending towards the reference site values, a target of the closure criteria. The lower value is expected in early stages of establishment, based on poor development of basal grass/canopy cover and poor development of leaf litter decomposition.

Table 3.7. Infiltration Values at Rehabilitation Sites from the 2017 LFA survey

Rehabilitation Sites

NB6 NVB1 NVB2 OTD1 47 43 55 59

3.2.4 Soil Nutrients

Soil Nutrients, or the cycling of nutrients within the soil system, is assessed by basal cover of perennial grasses, litter cover, cryptogram cover and soil surface roughness. Soil Nutrient values were higher at all monitoring sites compared with previous records, shown in Figure 3.4. This may be due to the increase in ground cover layer and associated increase in litter. The Soil Nutrient value

3.12 range for the reference sites is 47 to 76. All records in 2017 were within the target range and are therefore trending towards the reference site values, a target of the closure criteria.

Figure 3.4. Monitoring Sites Soil Nutrient Values

3.2.5 Sum of LFA

The sum of the 2017 LFA Stability, Infiltration and Soil Nutrient values provide an indicator of the most functional to least functional monitoring site in 2017 (refer to Figure 3.5). The results show that BM20 (reference site) is the most functional site, which is likely to be based on good ground cover, good development of leaf litter, minimal erosion and good development of the soil profile. BM23 (reference site) is shown to be the least functional site, which is likely to be based on the compact soil, poor soil development, poor ground cover and low rain splash protection. All values were within 20% of BM20 (the most functional site) and therefore this shows that the rehabilitation sites are trending towards the reference sites.

Figure 3.5. Monitoring Sites Sum of LFA Values

3.13 3.3 Pest Animals

Evidence of pest animals were recorded at low levels at several sites, as shown in Table 3.8. Pest species recorded did not show signs of being detrimental to the development of the rehabilitation or integrity of the reference sites. Annual pest management programs should continue in reference and rehabilitation areas to ensure pest species do not cause detrimental damage.

Impact to the rehabilitation areas includes:

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

Table 3.8 Pest Animals Recorded at Each Monitoring Site

Monitoring Site Common

Species Control Mechanism Name B1 BM25 BM20 BM23 NB6 NV NVB2 OTD1 Rabbit Oryctolagus 1080/pindone baiting Feb/March X cuniculus Hare Lupus 1080/pindone baiting Feb/March X europaeus Kangaroo Macropus Culling program X X X X X giganteus

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

3.4 Native/Exotic Plant Composition

A total of 145 plant species were recorded across all monitoring sites in 2017, including 101 native species and 44 weed species. The following section outlines the native and weed species composition at the monitoring sites. A complete flora list provided in Appendix 4.

Weed species provide a significant barrier to achieving the establishment of locally occurring vegetation communities. Weed species can be categorised as;

• noxious, which require active control by land managers and enforced by the local weeds authority; • environmental, which require control due to their invasive nature; or • non-invasive, which generally require minimal to no active control.

3.14 Figure 3.6 indicates the total number of native and weed species recorded at all monitoring sites in 2017. Native species are shown in green, non-invasive species (such as scarlet pimpernel, slender celery and sow thistle) are shown in orange and invasive weeds (noxious or environmental weeds, such as prickly pear, galenia, Rhodes grass and kikuyu) are shown in red.

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

Figure 3.6. Abundance of Native, Non-invasive Weed and Invasive Weed Species

The abundance of native species varies across the monitoring sites. BM25 and BM20 provide the highest number of native species, as expected from the reference sites. NVB2 provides the highest number of native species recorded at a rehabilitation sites, with 22 native species, which is higher than one of the reference sites (BM23). The rehabilitation sites are within range of the lowest performing reference site (i.e. ≤25% native species recorded). This is a good indication that the early stage rehabilitation is trending towards the locally occurring native vegetation communities, a target of the closure criteria.

The high abundance of non-invasive weed species is to be expected in early stage rehabilitation. These areas provide a greater opportunity for weed species to become established. Non-invasive weed species can contribute to the soil development, microclimate for target species establishment and provide alternate grazing material for pest animal species. Most of the non-invasive species will be shaded out, and decline, as native vegetation becomes established and provides a canopy. However, non-invasive species need to be monitored to ensure they do not outcompete the establishment of target native species.

The most dominant and high risk invasive species recorded during the 2017 survey effort are provided in Table 3.9. This table has been developed to assist in management of target weed species at the reference and rehabilitation sites. As indicated in the Biometric Score (refer to Appendix 3), to achieve a score of ≥2 the site must have less than 33% weeds. Rehabilitation sites NB6 and NBV2 were the only sites not to achieve the score. This is the result of a dominance of South African pigeon grass at both sites and galenia at NVB2. South African pigeon grass is likely to shade out as the shrub and tree canopy develops, however galenia is unlikely to be shaded out and will require

3.15 targeted control to appropriately manage this species. All species mentioned below require regular monitoring to ensure they don’t become dominant at any sites.

Table 3.9 Dominant Invasive Species Recorded During 2017 Monitoring

Monitoring Site (% Foliage Cover)

Family Scientific Name Common Name NB6 BM20 BM23 BM25 NBV1 NVB2 OTD1

Aiozaceae Galenia pubescens galenia <1 2 10 Cactaceae +Opuntia aurantiaca tiger pear <1 <1 +Opuntia stricta var. Cactaceae common prickly pear <1 stricta Fabaceae subf. Acacia saligna golden wreath wattle <1 <1 1 1 Mimosoideae Poaceae Cenchrus clandestinus kikuyu 5 3 <1

Poaceae Chloris gayana Rhodes grass 10 5

Poaceae Megathyrsus maximus guinea grass 1 2 2

Poaceae Setaria sphacelata South African pigeon grass 50 80 2

Solanaceae +Lycium ferocissimum African boxthorn <1 <1 Verbenaceae +Lantana camara lantana 20 <1 <1 + indicates declared Noxious Weed in Singleton LGA.

3.5 Germination of Species from the Seed Mix

This section identifies the germination success of species targeted in the seed mix. Two seed mixes are used at BCC, being Grey Box-Ironbark Woodland and Ironbark-Spotted Gum-Grey Box Woodland, shown in Appendix 5. Table 3.10 shows the monitoring site, target vegetation community, year of establishment and number of species identified in the seed mix that were recorded in the plot.

Table 3.10. Germination Success on Seed Mix and Natural Recruitment.

No. of Sp. Total Monitoring Target Year of No. of Sp. in from Seed Native Sp. Site Community Establishment Seed Mix Mix Recorded NB6 GBIW 2016 25 9 15 NVB1 GBIW 2015 25 10 22 NVB2 GBIW 2016 25 6 20 OTD1 ISGBW 2016 22 7 15 Vegetation community abbreviations: • GBIW: Grey Box-Ironbark Woodland • ISGBW: Ironbark-Spotted Gum-Grey Box Woodland

3.16 A total of 25 flora species are used in the Box-Ironbark Woodland seed mix. Of the three sites targeted, NVB1 showed the highest number of species recorded from the target seed mix. The most successful species to germinate from the Box-Ironbark Woodland seed mix were wattles (such as A. amblygona, A. decora, A. decurrens and A. falcata), eucalypts (such as C. maculata, E. crebra, E. molucanna, E. tereticornis), sticky hop bush (Dodonaea viscosa) and plump windmill grass (Chloris ventricosa).

Species that did not occur at any of the rehabilitation sites from the Box-Ironbark Woodland seed mix includes bulloak (Allocasuarina luehmanii), berry saltbush (Einadia hastata), false sarsaparilla (Hardenbergia violacea), wattled mat-rush (Lomandra filiformis), blackthorn (Bursaria spinosa), winter apple (Eremophila debilis) and weeping grass (Microlaena stipoides). Due to the early stage of rehabilitation it is possible that these species will establish over time.

A total of 22 flora species are used in the Ironbark-Spotted Gum-Grey Box Woodland seed mix, with seven species recorded from within OTD1 in 2017. Species recorded from the seed mix at OTD1 includes wattles (A. falcata, A. implexa and A. salicina), eucalypts (C. maculata and E. crebra), sticky hop bush (Dodonaea viscosa) and false sarsaparilla (Hardenbergia violacea).

Species that did not occur at the monitoring sites from the Ironbark-Spotted Gum-Grey Box Woodland seed mix includes bulloak (Allocasuarina luehmanii), gorse bitter pea (Davisea ulicifolia), black wattle (Acacia decurrens), wattled mat-rush (Lomandra filiformis), blackthorn (Bursaria spinosa), winter apple (Eremophila debilis), blue flax lily (Dianella caerulea) and weeping grass (Microlaena stipoides). Due to the early stage of rehabilitation it is possible that these species will establish over time. Further monitoring will assist in determining the most effective species in the seed mix and if species should be removed from the seed mix due to a low success rate (therefore not cost effective).

Table 3.10 also highlights the value of native species germinating from the topsoil, and potentially wind and fauna. More than half of the total native species recorded at any site was from species that were not included in the seed mix and therefore must have been present in the topsoil or dispursed by wind or fauna. Appropriate topsoil management can increase the occurrence of native species in rehabilitation areas. Direct placement of topsoil, low compactions, minimal rehandling and short time periods in storage will increase the likelihood of cryptic native species germinating and therefore increase the native species richness score, and potentially reduce the cost of seeding. Appropriate weed management will contribute to the success of all native species germinating, particularly from the topsoil.

3.5.1 Recommendations for Modification to Seed Mix

Species that are known to have low germination rates that are included in the seed mix include blackthorn (Bursaria spinosa), amulla (Eremophila debilis) and blue flax-lily (Dianella caerulea). Amulla and blue flax-lily require seeds to be collected fresh and treated (e.g. scarified) prior to direct seeding. Typically, birds distribute these species over time where suitable habitat has been provided. Blackthorn is a small seed that does not compete well with cover crops, grasses and other native species. Infill planting is a good method to introduce this species, and other species that colonise rapidly, to a rehabilitation area.

Species to potentially include in the seed mix are provided in Table 3.11. These species generally have a high germination rate and will assist in increasing the native species richness score to ensure the rehabilitation achieves the closure criteria objectives. All species listed in Table 3.11 can be used in Grey Box-Ironbark Woodland and Ironbark-Spotted Gum-Grey Box Woodland, typically at a low rate of approximately 0.1 to 0.3 kg per hectare.

3.17

Table 3.11. Potential Species to Include in the Seed Mix

Common Name Species Shrubs Sifton bush Cassinia quinquefaria Sticky daisy bush Olearia elliptica Herbs and Rushes Burr-daisy Calotis (lappulacea and cuneifolia) Fuzzweed Vittadinia (cuneata or muelleri) Yellow buttons Chrysocephalum apiculatum Lemon beauty-heads Calocephalus citreus Many-flowered mat-rush Lomandra multiflora Grasses Purple wiregrass Aristida ramosa Queensland bluegrass Dichanthium sericium Red grass Bothriochloa (decipiens or macra) Barbed wire grass Cymbopogon refractus (previously Austrodanthonia) Wallaby grass (bipartitum or fulvum) Spring grass Eriochloa pseudoacrotricha Couch Cynodon dactylon Open summer-grass Digitaria diffusa Lovegrass Eragrostis brownii slender rats tail grass Sporobolus creber

4.0 Rehabilitation Progress Towards Closure Criteria

Table 4.1 provides a colour-coded guide to how the rehabilitation is progressing towards the closure criteria. The colour-coding is consistent with the Benchmark Colour Code shown in Table 3.1.

As shown in Table 4.1, the rehabilitation is progressing well towards the closure criteria with nine of the 18 completion indicators achieving the closure criteria benchmark for all sites and only three completion indicators having the lowest score (of zero) for all sites. The three lowest scoring completion indicators include:

1. lack nest boxes/stag trees/rock piles included in the rehabilitation area; 2. lack of hollow bearing trees; and 3. lack of native over-storey cover.

These results are expected in early stage rehabilitation, with all sites being established in 2015 and 2016. Discussions on all aspects of the completion criteria are provided in Section 3 and a summary of recommendations is provided in Section 5.

4.18 Table 4.1. Rehabilitation Progress Towards the Closure Criteria.

Monitoring Site Completion Monitoring Method

Phase Objective Domain Completion Criteria Criteria Aspect Indicator Used NB6 NVB1 NVB2 OTD1 Drainage structures have been Landform slope, constructed in LFA gradient accordance with the The constructed final landform final landform plan All is stable and complies with the The number of Provide a sustainable approved final landform gullies or rills (>1.0m final landform and use Landform Establishment Active erosion width or depth) LFA that can co-exist with occurring in a 50m surrounding land uses transect Salvaged hollows, The final landform includes nest boxes, stag Native features which provide habitat Habitat Features trees or rock piles Biometric Woodland for native fauna species are included in the rehabilitated areas Bare areas of soil >400m2 are tested Soil chemistry does not affect Soil chemical, physical for pH, EC, ESP, All the ongoing health of desired properties and Macro nutrients and LFA vegetation species amelioration trace elements, and ameliorants applied as required LFA stability index is Soil properties are comparable to or suitable for the trending towards LFA Growth Medium establishment and that of the local Development maintenance of selected remnant vegetation vegetation species LFA infiltration index Soil properties do not affect Native is comparable to or the ongoing health of desired Landform Function Woodland trending towards LFA vegetation species that of the local remnant vegetation LFA nutrient recycling index is LFA comparable to or trending towards

4.1 Monitoring Site

Completion Monitoring Method

Phase Objective Domain Completion Criteria Criteria Aspect

Indicator Used

NB6 NVB1 NVB2 OTD1 that of the local remnant vegetation

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

4.2

Monitoring Site

Completion Monitoring Method

Phase Objective Domain Completion Criteria Criteria Aspect

Indicator Used

NB6 NVB1 NVB2 OTD1 Weed presence is n/a n/a n/a n/a within ranges found at reference sites Weed Species Biometric and does not present a risk to rehabilitation areas Ground cover n/a n/a n/a n/a provided by Ground cover is greater than Protective Ground perennial vegetation Biometric 70% Cover species is greater than 70%

Monitoring reports do not indicate that Pest animals do not pose a risk pest animals are Pest All to the ongoing health of Pest Animals impacting upon Animals rehabilitation areas health of rehabilitation areas

Native over-storey cover achieves a Biometric biometric score of 2 Establish self-sustaining for the relevant PCT native woodland Ecosystem Structure communities consistent Ecosystem and Land Use Native mid-storey with the final land use, cover achieves a Sustainability Biometric and that require no on- biometric score of 2 going care and The rehabilitated vegetation for the relevant PCT community is consistent with maintenance Native the desired EEC required by the Native ground cover Woodland (grasses) achieves a Project Approval (according to Biometric NSW Government benchmarks) biometric score of 2 for the relevant PCT Native ground cover Ground Cover (shrubs) achieves a Biometric biometric score of 2 for the relevant PCT Native ground cover (other) achieves a Biometric biometric score of 2

4.3

Monitoring Site

Completion Monitoring Method

Phase Objective Domain Completion Criteria Criteria Aspect

Indicator Used

NB6 NVB1 NVB2 OTD1 for the relevant PCT

The proportion of over-storey species occurring as Ecosystem Health regeneration Biometric achieves a biometric score of 2 for the relevant PCT The rehabilitated vegetation The exotic species community is self-sustaining richness achieves a biometric score of 2 for the relevant PCT Weed Species Biometric (if available) or is comparable to the local reference sites (no./400m2) The number of trees with hollows The rehabilitated vegetation achieves a biometric community provides suitable Fauna Habitat Biometric score of 2 for the habitat for native fauna relevant PCT (no./1000m2) Combination of n/a n/a n/a n/a slope, erosion and Grazing areas are assessed to vegetation have a Rural Land Capability Land Capability Reporting conditions indicate Establish self-sustaining Class of VI or better land capability is agricultural areas that Pasture Class VI or better are capable of achieving Pasture biomass is n/a n/a n/a n/a required production consistent with Grazing areas have comparable Pasture Carrying Capacity agricultural industry productivity to district averages Assessment guidelines and/or local reference sites

4.4

5.0 Summary of Recommendations

The following section provides a summary of recommendations from the 2017 monitoring program.

Section 3.1 Biometric Vegetation Sampling

• The abundance of fallen timber should be increased to assist in achieving the closure criteria indicator of a Biometric Score of 2 (50%-100% of benchmark). Fallen timber was not recorded at any of the rehabilitation sites in 2017. Currently the benchmark requires 5m of fallen timber (>100mm diameter) within the 20m by 50m plot in targeted woodlands, therefore the rehabilitation needs to achieve 2.5m of fallen timber per plot (or 25m per hectare) as a minimum. Fallen timber will develop over time as the rehabilitation matures (particularly when wattle species die back) however to achieve early relinquishment additional fallen timber will need to be included to achieve the closure criteria. An alternate method to achieve this would be to thin appropriate trees/shrubs (i.e. >100mm diameter) at the desired rate prior to relinquishment. This would rely on having an appropriate density of trees/shrubs to support this method.

Section 3.3 Pest Animals

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

Section 3.4 Native/Exotic Plant Composition

• High risk invasive plant species, as outlined in Table 3.9, should be targeted to ensure these species do not dominate areas in which they occur, particularly rehabilitation areas. Managing the exotic weed cover will allow the Native Plant Species Richness value to increase, therefore assist in achieving the completion indicator in the BCC Closure Criteria.

• Targeted control of South African pigeon grass (Setaria sphacelata) should be considered at locations where the cover is greater than 70% cover, i.e. NVB2. Selective spraying around existing ground cover, shrub and tree species should be considered where the South African pigeon grass is dominating. Blanket spraying should not occur due to the potential impact to target native species.

Section 3.5 Germination of Species from the Seed Mix

• Table 3.11 provides a list of additional native plant species that could be added to the current seed mix for both target vegetation community types to assist in increasing the Biometric Score of Native Plant Species Richness.

5.1

6.0 References

DECCW (2011). Operation manual for Biometric 3.1. NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water, Sydney.

Emergent Ecology (2017). Rehabilitation Monitoring Procedure. Prepared for Bulga Coal Complex, 18 May 2017.

GCAA (2015). 11.16 Completion Criteria and Rehabilitation Monitoring Procedure. Produced by Glencore Coal Assets Australia, Doc No.: CAA-HSEC-PRO-0010.

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

6.2

APPENDIX 1 Schedule of Monitoring

6.3 Appendix 1 – Schedule of Monitoring

The results of the 2017 photo monitoring are provided in the following section.

Year Site Site Type Name 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028

BM19 Reference X X X X X X X X X

BM20 Reference X X X X X X X X X

BM23 Reference X X X X X X X X X

BM24 Reference X X X X X X X X X

BM25 Reference X X X X X X

BM26 Reference X X X X X X

SE11 Rehabilitation X X X X X X X X X

DAM01 Rehabilitation X X X X X X X X

NB5 Rehabilitation X X X X X X X X

NB6 Rehabilitation X X X X X X X

SB6 Rehabilitation X X X X X X X X

SB7 Rehabilitation X X X X X X X X

SB8 Rehabilitation X X X X X X X X

6.4 Year Site Site Type Name 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028

NVB1 Rehabilitation X X X X X X X

NVB2 Rehabilitation X X X X X X X

NVB3 Rehabilitation X X X X X X

NVB4 Rehabilitation X X X X X X

NVB5 Rehabilitation X X X X X X

NVB6 Rehabilitation X X X X X X

OTD1 Rehabilitation X X X X X X X

OTD2 Rehabilitation X X X X X X

OTD3 Rehabilitation X X X X X X

OTD4 Rehabilitation X X X X X X

OTD5 Rehabilitation X X X X X X

OTD6 Rehabilitation X X X X X X

EEA1 Rehabilitation X X X X X X

EEA2 Rehabilitation X X X X X X

EEA3 Rehabilitation X X X X X X

6.5 Year Site Site Type Name 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028

EEA4 Rehabilitation X X X X X X

EEA5 Rehabilitation X X X X X X

EEA6 Rehabilitation X X X X X X

MP1 TBC TBC TBC TBC TBC TBC TBC TBC TBC

MP2 TBC TBC TBC TBC TBC TBC TBC TBC TBC

MP3 TBC TBC TBC TBC TBC TBC TBC TBC TBC

MP4 TBC TBC TBC TBC TBC TBC TBC TBC TBC

Pasture1 TBC TBC TBC TBC TBC TBC TBC TBC TBC

Pasture2 TBC TBC TBC TBC TBC TBC TBC TBC TBC

Pasture3 TBC TBC TBC TBC TBC TBC TBC TBC TBC

SOF1 TBC TBC TBC TBC TBC TBC TBC TBC TBC

6.6 APPENDIX 2 Photo Monitoring Results

6.7 Appendix 2 – Photo Monitoring Results

The results of the 2017 photo monitoring are provided in the following section.

BM20 2014 2015

2016 2017

6.8 BM23 2014 2015

2016 2017

BM25 2017 – LFA Start 2017 – LFA End

6.9 NB6 2016 2017

NVB1 2015 2016

2017

6.10 NVB2 2016 2017

OTD1 2017 – LFA Start 2017 – LFA End

6.11 APPENDIX 3 Biometric Score

6.12 Appendix 3 – Biometric Score

The results of the monitoring were compared to the Biometric Score in Table 1. The specific benchmark values for each plant community type is provided in Section 3.

Table 1. Biometric Score (DECCW 2011)

Biometric Score Variable 0 1 2 3 Native Plant >0 - <50% of 50% - <100% of 0 ≥ benchmark Species Richness benchmark benchmark 0 – 10% >10 - <50% 50 - <100% Native over-storey or or Or within benchmark cover >200% of 150 – 200% of >100 – 150% of range benchmark benchmark benchmark 0 – 10% >10 - <50% 50 - <100% Native mid-storey or or Or within benchmark cover >200% of 150 – 200% of >100 – 150% of range benchmark benchmark benchmark 0 – 10% >10 - <50% 50 - <100% Native ground or or Or within benchmark cover (grasses) >200% of 150 – 200% of >100 – 150% of range benchmark benchmark benchmark 0 – 10% >10 - <50% 50 - <100% Native ground or or Or within benchmark cover (shrubs) >200% of 150 – 200% of >100 – 150% of range benchmark benchmark benchmark 0 – 10% >10 - <50% 50 - <100% Native ground or or Or within benchmark cover (other) >200% of 150 – 200% of >100 – 150% of range benchmark benchmark benchmark Exotic plant cover >66% >33 – 66% >5 – 33% 0 – 5% 0 Number of trees 0 - <50% of 50 – <100% of (unless benchmark ≥ benchmark with hollows benchmark benchmark includes 0) Total length of 0 – 10% of >10 - <50% of 50 - <100% of ≥ benchmark fallen logs benchmark benchmark benchmark Proportion of over- storey 0% >0 - <50% 50 - <100% ≥ 100% regeneration

6.13 APPENDIX 4 Flora Species List

6.14 Appendix 4 – Flora Species List

The following table provides a list all flora species recorded during the 2017 monitoring program at each site. The values provided in the table are percent foliage cover of each species occurring throughout a site.

Note: * indicates a introduced species

Reference Site Rehabilitation Site

Family Scientific Name Common Name NB6 OTD1 NBV1 NVB2 BM20 BM23 BM25

Acanthaceae Brunoniella australis blue trumpet 1 <1 *Galenia pubescens var. Aiozaceae galenia <1 2 10 pubescens Amaranthaceae *Gomphrena celosioides gomphrena weed 1 Anthericaceae Caesia parviflora pale grass-lily <1 Anthericaceae Laxmannia gracilis slender wire lily <1 *Gomphocarpus narrow-leaved Apocynaceae <1 <1 1 1 <1 fruticosus cotton bush stinking Araliaceae Hydrocotyle laxiflora 2 pennywort Asteraceae *Aster subulatus wild aster 1 1 <1 Asteraceae *Bidens pilosa cobbler's pegs 3 <1 1 Asteraceae *Carthamus lanatus saffron thistle Asteraceae *Cirsium vulgare spear thistle 1 1 <1 Asteraceae *Conyza bonariensis flaxleaf fleabane <1 1 1 <1 *Cymbonotus Asteraceae bear's ear <1 lawsonianus Asteraceae *Hypochaeris radicata flat weed <1 Asteraceae *Schkuria pinnata - <1 1 1 <1 *Senecio Asteraceae fireweed <1 <1 <1 2 1 <1 madagascariensis common Asteraceae *Sonchus oleraceus <1 1 1 <1 sowthistle Asteraceae *Tagetes minuta stinking roger <1 Asteraceae Brachyscome microcarpa forest daisy 2 Asteraceae Calotis cuneifolia purple burr-daisy <1 Asteraceae Calotis lappulacea yellow burr-daisy 1 Chrysocephalum Asteraceae yellow buttons 2 apiculatum Leucochrysum albicans Asteraceae - <1 var. albicans Olearia elliptica subsp. Asteraceae sticky daisy bush <1 elliptica Asteraceae Senecio quadridentatus cotton fireweed <1 Vittadinia cuneata var. Asteraceae fuzzweed <1 cuneata Asteraceae Vittadinia sp. - <1

6.15 Reference Site Rehabilitation Site

Family Scientific Name Common Name NB6 OTD1 NBV1 NVB2 BM20 BM23 BM25

Virginian Brassicaceae *Lepidium virginicum 2 peppercress Brassicaceae *Rapistrum rugosum turnip weed <1 Cactaceae *Opuntia aurantiaca tiger pear <1 <1 *Opuntia stricta var. common prickly Cactaceae <1 stricta pear Campanulaceae Wahlenbergia communis tufted bluebell <1 Campanulaceae Wahlenbergia luteola native bluebell 1 Casuarinaceae Allocasuarina luehmanii bulloak <1 Casuarinaceae Casuarina glauca swamp oak 5 Chenopodiaceae Atriplex semibaccata creeping saltbush 2 1 Chenopodiaceae Einadia hastata berry saltbush <1 Einadia nutans subsp. Chenopodiaceae climbing saltbush 1 nutans Einadia trigonos subsp. Chenopodiaceae fishweed <1 <1 1 trigonos Chenopodiaceae Enchylaena tomentosa ruby saltbush 2 Convolvulaceae Dichondra repens kidney weed 2 <1 <1 <1 <1 Cyperaceae Cyperus gracilis - 1 Cyperaceae Lepidosperma laterale - <1 Ericaceae subf. Astroloma humifusum native cranberry <1 Epacridoideae Ericaceae subf. Lissanthe strigosa peach heath 1 Epacridoideae Euphorbiaceae Euphorbia drummondii caustic weed 1 <1 Fabaceae subf. *Medicago sp. a medic 3 Faboideae Fabaceae subf. *Trifolium campestre hop clover <1 Faboideae Fabaceae subf. *Trifolium repens white clover <1 Faboideae Fabaceae subf. *Vicia sativa vetch 1 <1 Faboideae Fabaceae subf. Bossiaea rhombifolia - <1 Faboideae Fabaceae subf. Daviesia ulicifolia gorse bitter pea <1 Faboideae Fabaceae subf. Desmodium gunnii slender tick trefoil 1 Faboideae Fabaceae subf. Desmodium - 1 Faboideae rytidophyllum Fabaceae subf. Glycine tabacina love creeper 2 <1 <1 1 Faboideae Fabaceae subf. Hardenbergia violacea false sarsparilla <1 Faboideae Fabaceae subf. golden wreath *Acacia saligna <1 <1 1 1 Mimosoideae wattle

6.16 Reference Site Rehabilitation Site

Family Scientific Name Common Name NB6 OTD1 NBV1 NVB2 BM20 BM23 BM25

Fabaceae subf. Acacia amblygona fan wattle 10 1 2 <1 Mimosoideae Fabaceae subf. Acacia binervia coast myall <1 Mimosoideae Fabaceae subf. Acacia buxifolia box-leaf wattle <1 Mimosoideae Fabaceae subf. western silver Acacia decora <1 1 2 Mimosoideae wattle Fabaceae subf. Acacia decurrens black wattle <1 1 Mimosoideae Fabaceae subf. Acacia falcata sickle wattle <1 <1 2 <1 Mimosoideae Fabaceae subf. Acacia implexa hickory wattle 1 2 <1 Mimosoideae Fabaceae subf. Acacia irrorata green wattle <1 Mimosoideae Fabaceae subf. Acacia salicina cooba 1 <1 Mimosoideae Geranium solanderi Geraniaceae native geranium <1 subsp. solanderi Geraniaceae Pelargonium australe native storksbill <1 1 small St John's Hypericaceae Hypericum gramineum <1 wort Lamiaceae *Stachys arvensis stagger weed <1 Lamiaceae Ajuga australis Austral bugle 1 1 Lamiaceae Mentha diemenica slender mint 1 Lobeliaceae Pratia purpurascens white root 2 1 Lomandraceae Lomandra filiformis wattle mat-rush <1 Lomandra multiflora many-flowered Lomandraceae 1 <1 subsp. multiflora mat-rush red-flowered Malvaceae *Modiola caroliana 1 <1 mallow Malvaceae *Pavonia hastata <1 Malvaceae *Sida rhombifolia Paddy's lucerne <1 <1 2 5 <1 Malvaceae Sida corrugata variable sida 1 <1 Myrtaceae Corymbia maculata spotted gum <1 1 <1 narrow-leaved Myrtaceae Eucalyptus crebra 20 2 2 <1 2 <1 ironbark Myrtaceae Eucalyptus molucanna grey box 10 50 1 2 Myrtaceae Eucalyptus tereticornis forest red gum 70 <1 1 Oleaceae Jasminum volubile stiff jasmine <1 Notelaea microcarpa Oleaceae velvet mock olive <1 var. microcarpa Oxalidaceae Oxalis perennans - 1 1 1 Dianella caerulea var. Phormiaceae blue flax lily <1 producta Phyllanthaceae Breynia oblongifolia coffee bush <1

6.17 Reference Site Rehabilitation Site

Family Scientific Name Common Name NB6 OTD1 NBV1 NVB2 BM20 BM23 BM25

Phyllanthaceae Phyllanthus virgatus - 1 <1 Bursaria spinosa subsp. Pittosporaceae blackthorn 20 spinosa Plantaginaceae *Plantago lanceolata plantain 2 <1 2 20 Plantaginaceae Plantago debilis - <1 Poaceae *Cenchrus clandestinus kikuyu 5 10 <1 Poaceae *Chloris gayana Rhodes grass 10 5 feathertop Poaceae *Chloris virgata 3 Rhodes grass Poaceae *Ehrhata erecta panic veldt grass 1 Poaceae *Megathyrsus maximus guinea grass 1 2 2 Poaceae *Paspalum dilatatum paspalum 1 Poaceae *Setaria pumila pale pigeon grass 5 40 <1 South African Poaceae *Setaria sphacelata 50 80 2 pigeon grass Poaceae Aristida personata purple wire-grass 30 20 Poaceae Aristida ramosa purple wire-grass <1 threeawn Poaceae Aristida vagans 40 speargrass slender bamboo Poaceae Austrostipa verticillata 1 grass Poaceae Bothriochloa biloba - 5 Poaceae Bothriochloa decipiens red grass 15 Bothriochloa decipiens Poaceae red grass 20 var. decipiens Poaceae Chloris divaricata slender chloris 5 Poaceae Chloris truncata windmill grass 10 plump windmill Poaceae Chloris ventricosa 20 <1 5 grass Poaceae Cymbopogon refractus barbed-wire grass 10 <1 <1 <1 5 Poaceae Cynodon dactylon common couch 20 25 25 30 Queensland Poaceae Dicanthium sericeum 1 bluegrass Poaceae Echinochloa esculentoa Japanese millet <1 Poaceae Echinopogon caespitosus hedgehog grass 5 paddock Poaceae Eragrostis leptostachya 5 lovegrass Poaceae Eragrostis sp. a lovegrass <1 1 Eriochloa Poaceae early spring grass 5 1 pseudoacrotricha Poaceae Microlaena stipoides weeping grass 20 Poaceae Panicum effusum hairy panic 2 <1 5 2 Poaceae Paspalidium distans - <1 Poaceae Rytidosperma bipartitum wallaby grass 5

6.18 Reference Site Rehabilitation Site

Family Scientific Name Common Name NB6 OTD1 NBV1 NVB2 BM20 BM23 BM25

Poaceae Rytidosperma fulvum wallaby grass 5 Poaceae Rytidosperma sp. a wallaby grass <1 1 Poaceae Setaria parviflora pigeon grass 1 slender rat's tail Poaceae Sporobolus creber <1 5 grass Polygonaceae *Polygonum aviculare wireweed 1 Primulaceae *Lysimachia arvensis scarlet pimpernel <1 3 10 <1 Proteaceae Grevillea montana - <1 narrow-leaved Proteaceae Persoonia linearis <1 geebung Pteridaceae Cheilanthes distans bristly cloak fern 1 Cheilanthes sieberi Pteridaceae poison rock fern 2 <1 <1 subsp. sieberi Ranunculaceae Clematis glycinoides headache vine <1 Rubiaceae *Richardia stellaris - 1 common Rubiaceae Asperula conferta 2 woodruff Choretrum sp. A Coxs Santalaceae - 1 Gap Dodonaea viscosa subsp. Sapindaceae sticky hop bush <1 5 5 2 <1 cuneata Scrophulariaceae Eremophila debilis winter apple 1 <1 <1 Solanaceae *Lycium ferocissimum African boxthorn <1 <1 black-berry Solanaceae *Solanum nigrum <1 1 1 <1 nightshade Solanaceae *Withania somnifera winter cherry <1 western Stackhousiaceae Stackhousia muricata <1 stackhousia Verbenaceae *Lantana camara lantana 20 <1 <1 Verbenaceae *Verbena bonariensis purpletop <1 1 1 <1 Total Species 40 30 46 35 41 44 37

6.19 APPENDIX 5 Seed Mixes

6.20 Appendix 5 – Biometric Score

The seed mixes used in the rehabilitation is provided in the tables below.

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

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

6.22