Monday 5Th December

Environmental Consulting Options Tasmania

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF THE PROPOSED DUCK IRRIGATION SCHEME (PIPELINES), TASMANIA

Environmental Consulting Options Tasmania (ECOtas) for Tasmanian Irrigation Pty Ltd 15 January 2016

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

ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

CITATION This report can be cited as: ECOtas (2016). Ecological Assessment of the Proposed Duck Irrigation Scheme (Pipelines), Tasmania. Report by Environmental Consulting Options Tasmania (ECOtas) for Tasmanian Irrigation Pty Ltd, 15 January 2016.

AUTHORSHIP Field assessment: Mark Wapstra, Phil Bell Report production: Mark Wapstra Habitat and vegetation mapping: Mark Wapstra, Phil Bell Base data for mapping: TheList, TasMap, GoogleEarth, Tasmanian Irrigation GIS mapping: Mark Wapstra Digital and aerial photography: Mark Wapstra, Phil Bell, GoogleEarth, TheList

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Paul Ellery (Tasmanian Irrigation) facilitated access and provided background information. Miguel de Salas (Tasmanian Herbarium) confirmed my identification of Centipeda species.

COVER ILLUSTRATION Main image: Black River at approximate location of pipeline crossing. Insets (L-R): Gratiola pubescens (hairy brooklime), Epilobium pallidiflorum (showy willowherb).

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

Ecological Assessment of Duck Irrigation Scheme (Pipelines), Tasmania i ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Ecological Assessment of Duck Irrigation Scheme (Pipelines), Tasmania ii ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

CONTENTS SUMMARY ...... 1 PURPOSE, SCOPE, LIMITATIONS AND QUALIFICATIONS OF THE SURVEY ...... 5 Purpose ...... 5 Scope ...... 5 Limitations ...... 5 Qualifications ...... 6 Permit ...... 6 THE PROPOSAL...... 6 THE STUDY AREA ...... 7 METHODS ...... 8 Nomenclature ...... 8 Preliminary investigation ...... 8 Botanical survey ...... 9 Zoological survey ...... 9 Masked owl, Tyto novaehollandiae subsp. castanops ...... 10 Wedge-tailed eagle, Aquila audax subsp. fleayi ...... 10 Green and golden frog, Litoria raniformis ...... 10 Tasmanian devil, Sarcophilus harrisii & quoll species, Dasyurus spp...... 10 Giant freshwater crayfish, Astacopsis gouldi & Australian grayling, Prototroctes maraena ...... 10 Tasmanian azure kingfisher, Ceyx azureus subsp. diemenensis ...... 10 Grey goshawk, Accipiter novaehollandiae ...... 10 FINDINGS ...... 11 Vegetation types ...... 11 Comments on TASVEG mapping ...... 11 Vegetation types recorded as part of the present study ...... 12 Comments on conservation significance of vegetation types ...... 14 Plant species ...... 41 General observations ...... 41 Priority species recorded from the study area ...... 41 Comments on priority flora recorded from databases ...... 48 Fauna species ...... 48 General observations ...... 48 Priority fauna – sightings and potential habitat ...... 48 Comments on priority fauna recorded from databases ...... 53

Ecological Assessment of Duck Irrigation Scheme (Pipelines), Tasmania iii ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Other ecological values ...... 53 Additional “Matters of National Environmental Significance” – threatened ecological communities ...... 53 Weed species ...... 53 Rootrot pathogen, Phytophthora cinnamomi ...... 55 Myrtle wilt ...... 55 Myrtle rust ...... 55 Chytrid fungus and other freshwater pathogens ...... 56 DISCUSSION ...... 56 Summary of key findings ...... 56 Legislative and policy implications ...... 58 Recommendations ...... 62 REFERENCES ...... 63 APPENDIX A. Vegetation community structure and composition ...... 66 APPENDIX B. Vascular plant species recorded from study area ...... 69 APPENDIX C. Vertebrate fauna recorded from study area ...... 76 APPENDIX D. Analysis of database records of threatened flora...... 80 APPENDIX E. Analysis of database records of threatened fauna ...... 85 APPENDIX F. Annotated images of threatened flora ...... 90 APPENDIX G. Annotated images of potential habitat of threatened fauna ...... 92 APPENDIX H. Annotated images of weeds ...... 94 APPENDIX I. DPIPWE’s Natural Values Atlas report for assessment area ...... 97 APPENDIX J. CofA’s Protected Matters report for assessment area ...... 97 OTHER ATTACHMENTS ...... 97

Ecological Assessment of Duck Irrigation Scheme (Pipelines), Tasmania iv ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

SUMMARY

General

Tasmanian Irrigation Pty Ltd engaged Environmental Consulting Options Tasmania (ECOtas) to undertake an ecological assessment of the proposed Duck Irrigation Scheme, specifically the proposed off-take and transfer pipeline and the distribution pipeline routes, primarily to facilitate further land use planning though local, State and Commonwealth government environmental planning approvals protocols. The study area was assessed on 8-10 December 2015 by Mark Wapstra and Phil Bell.

Summary of key findings

Non-priority flora (e.g. species of biogeographic significance) x No species of high conservation significance detected – no special management actions required. Non-priority fauna (e.g. species of biogeographic significance) x No species of high conservation significance detected – no special management actions required. x Note that the project area supports several species of frog, which are susceptible to the chytrid frog pathogen – it is recommended that Tasmanian Irrigation explore a management strategy with the biosecurity section of DPIPWE with a view to determining the chytrid status of the Duck Irrigation Scheme project area. Threatened flora x No plant species listed as threatened on the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 were detected from within or adjacent to the study area. No such species are known from database records, and the survey corridor does not support potential habitat strongly associated with such species. x Two plant species listed as threatened on the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 were detected within or close to the study area, and one additional species is known from database records, as follows:  Amphibromus neesii (southern swampgrass): known from database records from junction of Achesons Road – unlikely to be physically affected by the installation of the pipeline;  Epilobium pallidiflorum (showy willowherb): localised patch on eastern side of Deep Creek (may be difficult to avoid) and widespread and abundant in pasture drains east of Sedgy Creek (likely to be practical to avoid all or most of patch); and  Gratiola pubescens (hairy brooklime): locally abundant at Black River crossing point – likely to be impractical to avoid sites. x The presence of the State-listed species will need to be taken into account in further land use planning under Section 51 of the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995. At this stage of planning, it appears unlikely that the presence of these species will significantly constrain the project i.e. they do not present as a “fatal flaw”, although it is

Ecological Assessment of Duck Irrigation Scheme (Pipelines), Tasmania 1 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

recommended to seek clarification of this from the relevant sections of DPIPWE prior to further detailed project planning. Threatened fauna x Potential habitat is present for:  giant freshwater crayfish (Astacopsis gouldi);  Australian grayling (Prototroctes maraena);  Tasmanian azure kingfisher (Ceyx azureus subsp. diemenensis);  grey goshawk (Accipiter novaehollandiae);  Tasmanian devil (Sarcophilus harrisii);  spotted-tailed quoll (Dasyurus maculatus subsp. maculatus);  eastern quoll (Dasyurus viverrinus); and  eastern barred bandicoot (Perameles gunnii subsp. gunnii). x Tasmanian Irrigation should implement its standard threatened fauna management protocols, as previously accepted by State and Commonwealth agencies. Advice should be sought from the relevant section of DPIPWE if these standard protocols are not applicable or need to be modified to suit a particular aspect of the project. Vegetation types x The study area supports thirteen TASVEG 3.0 mapping units:  agricultural land (FAG);  weed infestation (FWU);  permanent easements (FPE);  urban areas (FUR);  plantations for silviculture (FPL);  water, sea (OAQ);  Acacia melanoxylon forest on rises (NAR);  Melaleuca ericifolia swamp forest (NME);  Melaleuca squarrosa scrub (SMR);  Eucalyptus nitida dry forest and woodland (DNI);  Eucalyptus brookeriana wet forest (WBR);  Eucalyptus obliqua forest with broad-leaf shrubs (WOB); and  Eucalyptus nitida forest over Leptospermum (WNL). x WBR and NME are classified as threatened under Schedule 3A of the Tasmanian Nature Conservation Act 2002. There may be minor management implications such as minimising disturbance to these vegetation types during pipeline installation and allowing disturbed areas to regenerate to a similar vegetation type post-works. x The study area does not support any vegetation types that equate to threatened ecological communities listed under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

Ecological Assessment of Duck Irrigation Scheme (Pipelines), Tasmania 2 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Weeds x Seven species classified as “declared weeds” within the meaning of the Tasmanian Weed Management Act 1999 were detected from the study area. x Given the largely primary production context and widespread nature of the species in the broader project area, eradication is not a realistic objective because of the massive source of future propagules, and because it would require a coordinated approach between numerous private property owners and other land managers including local council and the Department of State Growth (for roadside occurrences) to properly address the extent of weed infestations. x Strict machinery hygiene protocols, as outlined in Rudman et al. (2004), Rudman (2005) and Allan & Gartenstein (2010), are recommended where the distribution of weeds is such that the project works present a risk of exacerbating infestations, especially where such exacerbation may impact on primary production activities or introduce these weeds to areas of native vegetation without significant infestations. In addition, machinery that has operated in weed-infested parts of the project area should not be moved to another part of the project area, municipality, other municipalities, reserved areas, or private properties without being subject to strict machinery hygiene protocols (see the manual Keeping it Clean - A Tasmanian Field Hygiene Manual to Prevent the Spread of Freshwater Pests and Pathogens (Allan & Gartenstein 2010) for further details). It may be prudent in some locations to pre-treat localised infestations or flag off a weed infestation (to prevent machinery, vehicle and personnel incursions) prior to the commencement of works. Post- works monitoring is strongly recommended with appropriate control of novel or exacerbated infestations. Plant and animal disease x No evidence of plant disease (Phytophthora cinnamomi, rootrot fungus; myrtle wilt; myrtle rust) was detected. x The main concern is the future risk of transferring water from a chytrid-infected water storage facility (determined as chytrid-free) to non-infected parts of a catchment (so far determined as chytrid-free). x Strict machinery hygiene protocols, as outlined in Rudman et al. (2004), Rudman (2005) and Allan & Gartenstein (2010), are recommended, as well as the implementation of a chytrid management strategy to minimise the risk of introducing the pathogen to chytrid- free sites.

Recommendations

At this stage of project planning for the Duck Irrigation Scheme, the ecological assessment of the proposed transfer/distribution pipeline corridor components of the project has indicated the presence of several values that will require further consideration during further project development, including: x vegetation types – the need for a Forest Practices Plan will need to be determined to ascertain the application of the Permanent Native Forest Estate policy and management of threatened vegetation types under Schedule 3A of the Tasmanian Nature Conservation Act 2002; x threatened flora – only State-listed species have been detected, meaning consideration of referral under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 will not be required;

Ecological Assessment of Duck Irrigation Scheme (Pipelines), Tasmania 3 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

x threatened flora – the mechanism for application of a permit under Section 51 of the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 will need to be clarified (depends on whether a permit issued under the Water Management Act 1999 negates the need for a Forest Practices Plan under the Forest Practices Act 1985); x potential habitat of threatened fauna – Tasmanian Irrigation should implement its standard threatened fauna management protocols, as previously accepted by State and Commonwealth agencies; advice should be sought from the relevant section of DPIPWE if these standard protocols are not applicable or need to be modified to suit a particular aspect of the project, noting that Tasmanian Irrigation routinely refer all proposed schemes to the Commonwealth Department of the Environment under the provisions of the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999); x declared weeds – strict machinery hygiene protocols, as outlined in Rudman et al. (2004), Rudman (2005) and Allan & Gartenstein (2010), are recommended where the distribution of weeds is such that the project works present a risk of exacerbating infestations; x plant disease – no significant constraints but strict machinery hygiene protocols are recommended; and x freshwater pathogens (chytrid) – the main concern is the future risk of transferring water from a chytrid-infected water storage facility (determined as chytrid-free) to non- infected parts of a catchment (so far determined as chytrid-free); strict machinery hygiene protocols, as outlined in Rudman et al. (2004), Rudman (2005) and Allan & Gartenstein (2010), are recommended, as well as the implementation of a chytrid management strategy to minimise the risk of introducing the pathogen to chytrid-free sites. There are no ecological values that are likely to critically constrain the pipeline components of the Duck Irrigation Scheme. However, this should be confirmed by advice from relevant authorities, and further management prescriptions may need to be developed in relation to some of the identified values and/or potential risks.

Ecological Assessment of Duck Irrigation Scheme (Pipelines), Tasmania 4 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

PURPOSE, SCOPE, LIMITATIONS AND QUALIFICATIONS OF THE SURVEY

Purpose

Tasmanian Irrigation Pty Ltd engaged Environmental Consulting Options Tasmania (ECOtas) to undertake an ecological assessment of the proposed Duck Irrigation Scheme, specifically the proposed off-take and transfer pipeline and the distribution pipeline routes, primarily to facilitate further land use planning though local, State and Commonwealth government environmental planning approvals protocols.

Scope

This report relates to: x flora and fauna species of conservation significance, including a discussion of listed threatened species potentially present, and other species of conservation significance/interest; x vegetation types (forest and non-forest, native and exotic) present, including a discussion of the distribution, condition, extent, composition and conservation significance of each community; x plant and animal disease management issues; x weed management issues; and x a discussion of some of the policy and legislative implications of the identified ecological values. This report follows the government-produced Guidelines for Natural Values Surveys - Terrestrial Development Proposals (DPIPWE 2015) in anticipation that the report (or extracts of it) may be used as part of various approval processes that may be required for the development proposal on the site. The assessment also complies with the ecological components of the Tasmanian EPA’s Environmental Effects Report requirements. The report also addresses matters usually considered by the Assessment Committee for Dam Construction (ACDC) under Section 154 of the Water Management Act 1999, meeting the intent of the ACDC’s Directions for Natural Values Assessments for Dam Works Proposals. The report also specifically addresses further information usually requested by local government for developments on sites where particular environmental values need to be considered under the relevant planning scheme. The report format will also be applicable to other assessment protocols as required by the Commonwealth Department of the Environment (as it is understood that Tasmanian Irrigation routinely refers this type of land use proposal to the Commonwealth Department of the Environment under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999).

Limitations

The ecological assessment was undertaken on 8-10 December 2015. Many plant species have ephemeral or seasonal growth or flowering habits, or patchy distributions (at varying scales), and it is possible that some species were not recorded for this reason. However, every effort was made to sample the range of habitats present in the survey area to maximise the opportunity of recording the majority of species present (particular those of conservation significance). Late spring and into

Ecological Assessment of Duck Irrigation Scheme (Pipelines), Tasmania 5 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting summer is usually regarded as the most suitable period to undertake the majority of botanical assessments. While some species have more restricted flowering periods, a discussion of the potential for the site to support these is presented. That said, the vegetation types predicted to be within the survey corridor were not anticipated to have a high likelihood of supporting annual or ephemerally flowering threatened plant species so there were no requirements to specifically target a particular time of year for the survey. The survey was also limited to vascular species: species of mosses, lichens and liverworts were not recorded. However, a consideration is made of threatened species (vascular and non-vascular) likely to be present (based on habitat information and database records) and reasons presented for their apparent absence. Surveys for threatened fauna were practically limited to an examination of “potential habitat” (i.e. comparison of on-site habitat features to habitat descriptions for threatened fauna), and detection of tracks, scats and other signs, except as indicated.

Qualifications

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

Permit

Any plant material was collected under DPIPWE permit TFL 15280 (in the name of Mark Wapstra). Relevant data will be entered into DPIPWE’s Natural Values Atlas database by the author. Some plant material will be lodged at the Tasmanian Herbarium by the author. No invertebrate or vertebrate material was collected.

THE PROPOSAL [taken from Proposed Duck Irrigation Scheme – Vegetation, Flora and Fauna Values Assessment: Request for Quotation documentation]

The Duck Irrigation Scheme (DUCK) is currently in the detailed design phase of development. Key elements of the project include: x a proposed 6,000 ML storage on Forestry Tasmania land at Edith Creek; x a transfer pipeline, approximately 2 km in length from the Duck River; and x approximately 60 km of distribution pipeline. This consultancy relates to the proposed DUCK located in the Smithton region in the State’s far northwest. The focus of this assessment is the Duck River off-take and transfer pipeline and the distribution pipeline routes. Within this scope the aims of the consultancy are to: x document the existing vegetation, flora and fauna values within the pipeline corridor and other identified areas, as shown in the attached documentation; and x identify distribution of threatened vegetation, flora and fauna species’ habitat, communities or populations listed under State and/or Commonwealth legislation.

Ecological Assessment of Duck Irrigation Scheme (Pipelines), Tasmania 6 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

THE STUDY AREA

The study area comprises the extent of the key elements of the proposed Duck River off-take and transfer pipeline and the distribution pipeline routes that form part of the Duck Irrigation Scheme. The study area does not include the proposed storage dam on Mill Creek nor the transfer pipeline route to the Duck River: these elements of the project are subject to assessments by other environmental consultants. The extent of the study area was indicated in Proposed Duck Irrigation Scheme – Vegetation, Flora and Fauna Values Assessment: Request for Quotation documentation and subsequently provided GIS files. The distribution pipeline route is located almost wholly on private property and road reserve areas between Medwins Road (south of the Black River) and west to Montagu, with several additional distribution routes north and south of the main line (Smithton 3447, Stanley 3448, Mella 3247 and Montagu 3248 1:25,000 scale TASMAPs), and the Duck River off-take and transfer pipeline route is on State forest, private property and road reserve areas between Mill Creek and just west of Trowutta Road – only areas east of the Duck River assessed under present report (Togari 3246 1: 25,000 scale TASMAP). Land tenure and other categorisations of the project area are as follows: x various private property titles (details held by Tasmanian Irrigation); x Circular Head municipality; x King Bioregion; and x Cradle Coast Natural Resource Management (NRM) region. The majority of the pipeline route crosses gentle to low undulating terrain utilised for grazing and cropping, dissected by minor drainage features, most of which are cleared or dominated by weeds. Some larger rivers and creeks are present including the Duck and Black rivers and Deep Creek. The pipeline route supports limited areas of “intact” native vegetation, with most such vegetation restricted to highly modified remnants amongst paddocks and along creeks. Geology of the study area is variable and includes the following: x Tertiary-age (Cainozoic) “basalt (tholeiitic to alkalic) and related pyroclastic rocks” (geocode: Tb); x Cambrian (Palaeozoic) “polymict conglomerate, lithicwacke, siltstone and mudstone with rare marine fossils (Scopus Formation)” (geocode: Cm); x Neoproterozoic (Proterozoic) “tholeiitic basalt (Spinks Creek Volcanics, Bernafai Volcanics and correlates)” (geocode: Lsb); x Neoproterozoic (Proterozoic) “turbiditic mudstone, siltsone, lithicwacke and diamictite with dominantly mafic detritus” (geocode: Lsv); x Neoproterozoic (Proterozoic) “basal siliceous conglomerate and sandstone (Forest Conglomerate and Quartzite, Donaldson Formation and correlates)” (geocode: Lsc); x Mesoproterozoic (Proterozoic) “dominantly dark, laminated, commonly pyritic siltstone and mudstone (Cowrie Siltstone and similar sequences)” (geocode: Lrc); x Quaternary-age (Cainozoic) “sand gravel and mud of alluvial, lacustrine and littoral origin” (geocode: Qh); and x Quaternary-age (Cainozoic) “coastal sand gravel” (geocode: Qps).

Ecological Assessment of Duck Irrigation Scheme (Pipelines), Tasmania 7 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

The geology of the study area is mentioned due to its strong influence on vegetation expression, and especially the actual and potential presence of threatened flora species. Access was not granted to several parcels of private property. However, most sections of the proposed pipeline route across these titles could be easily assessed from adjacent titles or road verges and the vegetation types confirmed by reference to aerial imagery. In my opinion, follow- up surveys are not warranted because all such areas were either pasture/crops or non-priority native vegetation types with a very low opportunity for populations of threatened flora or significant potential habitat of threatened fauna (that could not be documented).

METHODS

Nomenclature

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

Preliminary investigation

Available sources of threatened flora and fauna records, vegetation mapping and other potential environmental values were interrogated. These sources include: x Tasmanian Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water & Environment’s Natural Values Atlas records for threatened flora and fauna (GIS coverage maintained by the author current as at date of report); x Tasmanian Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water & Environment’s Natural Values Atlas Report ECOtas_TI_DuckPipelines for a line feature representing the pipeline route, buffered by 5 km, dated 15 December 2015 (DPIPWE 2015a) – Appendix I; x Forest Practices Authority’s Biodiversity Values Database report, specifically the species’ information for nominal grid references at various points along the pipeline route, buffered by 5 km, hyperlinked species’ profiles and predicted range boundary maps, dated 15 December 2015 (FPA 2015) – obtained to provide the DPIPWE/FPA-endorsed descriptions of potential habitat of threatened fauna and to confirm the accepted core and potential range boundaries of various threatened fauna species; x Commonwealth Department of the Environment’s Protected Matters Search Tool Report for an approximate linear feature representing the pipeline route (-40.856877 145.312701, -40.857916 145.172969, -40.857656 145.089885, -40.828307 145.041476, -40.787509 144.948436), buffered by 10 km, dated 15 December 2015 (CofA 2015) – Appendix J; x the TASVEG 3.0 vegetation coverage (as available through a GIS coverage); and x other sources listed in tables and text as indicated.

Ecological Assessment of Duck Irrigation Scheme (Pipelines), Tasmania 8 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Botanical survey

The study area was assessed on 8-10 December 2015 by Mark Wapstra and Phil Bell (ECOtas). The survey aimed to assess the range of habitat types present in the study area (at the broad scale e.g. vegetation type, altitude variation, and at the finer scale e.g. microhabitats such as open areas, tracks, poorly-drained patches, disturbed sites, dams, remnant patches of woodland, bases of isolated eucalypts, etc.). In relation to the pipeline route, a GIS coverage projected on to aerial imagery and cadastral data on a hand-held GPS was used to navigate the route. For the purposes of assessment, the pipeline corridor was assumed to be c. 100 m wide (i.e. 50 m either side of a nominal centre line). In most places, the 100 m width was easily assessed by a slightly meandering transect through open pasture or along a road/fence verge without the need for doubling-back to ensure adequate survey intensity. In some places, the pipeline route was walked in two directions to ensure adequate coverage. In addition, it is noted that where potential habitat for threatened flora or fauna was detected outside the nominal 100 m survey corridor, the survey was locally extended (hence some data points may be outside the nominal corridor). Reference to topographic maps (Smithton 3447, Stanley 3448, Mella 3247, Montagu 3248 and Togari 3246 1:25,000 scale TASMAPs), aerial photography (GoogleEarth, TheList) and vegetation maps (TASVEG 3.0) established the approximate range and distribution of topographic and habitat variation present in the study area. Detailed plots recording all vascular species, vegetation structure and site characteristics were undertaken in each of the representative native vegetation types. Plot data and species list can be supplied on request. Boundaries between vegetation types were delineated using waypoints gathered by hand-held GPS (Garmin Oregon 650) combined with interpretation of aerial photography. Where threatened flora populations were encountered, hand-held GPS (Garmin Oregon 650) was used to mark the point location and/or extent of the population and estimates made of abundance of individuals, where practical. The term “where practical” is used in relation to species such as Gratiola pubescens (hairy brooklime) that formed dense mats on the bank of the Black River. Approximate counts were made of the number of individuals of Epilobium pallidiflorum (showy willowherb) by counting flowering heads, but recognising that this may not truly represent the number of individuals of this rhizomatous and multi-scaped herb. Other species were subject to more precise counts (but see notes under each species for specific information). Where “declared weeds”, within the meaning of the Tasmanian Weed Management Act 1999, were encountered, hand-held GPS (Garmin Oregon 650) was used to mark the point location and/or extent of the population and noted made of abundance of individuals and/or extent of patch. Some weed patches were documented by annotating field maps for later creation of shape file polygons.

Zoological survey

Potential habitat for threatened fauna (as listed on databases referred to above) was assessed by reference to the vegetation types and site characteristics present. The presence of mammals, birds, frogs and reptiles was determined by opportunistic discovery (e.g. sightings and calls) during the main botanical assessment, and evidence such as tracks, scats and other signs, except as indicated below.

Ecological Assessment of Duck Irrigation Scheme (Pipelines), Tasmania 9 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Masked owl, Tyto novaehollandiae subsp. castanops

Surveys for the masked owl were limited to examining the bases of large mature trees with obvious large hollows potentially suitable for nesting and/or roosting for evidence of occupation (e.g. feathers, pellets, prey items, whitewash).

Wedge-tailed eagle, Aquila audax subsp. fleayi

Forested areas were surveyed for the presence of wedge-tailed eagle nests within the survey area only. No surveys were undertaken outside the indicated survey area.

Green and golden frog, Litoria raniformis

Surveys for the green and golden frog were undertaken by opportunistic visual and auditory assessments at sites with potential habitat (e.g. dams, vegetated drainage channels entering and exiting dams).

Tasmanian devil, Sarcophilus harrisii & quoll species, Dasyurus spp.

Surveys for Tasmanian devil and quoll species followed, in a general sense, Survey Guidelines and Management Advice for Development Proposals that may impact on the Tasmanian Devil (Sarcophilus harrisii) (DPIPWE 2015). Potential habitat was also assessed according to guidelines provided in Identifying Tasmanian Devil and Spotted-tailed Quoll Habitat. Fauna Technical Note No. 10 (FPA 2013). The intention was to waypoint locations of evidence of these species (e.g. scats, potential den sites, remains, roadkill) using hand-held GPS (Garmin Oregon 650) but the failure to detect such evidence meant that no such data was recorded (the survey area is essentially a vast expanse of pasture and crops with only remnant patches of native vegetation).

Giant freshwater crayfish, Astacopsis gouldi & Australian grayling, Prototroctes maraena

No formal surveys for these species were undertaken but the presence of potential habitat was assessed by reference to habitat features (this applied to the Black River, Duck River, Deep Creek, Ghost Creek and a small number of other streams). Other drainage features crossed by the pipeline were not considered to constitute prime potential habitat, based on Assessing Giant Freshwater Crayfish Habitat in Class 4 Streams. Fauna Technical Note No. 3 (FPA 2013).

Tasmanian azure kingfisher, Ceyx azureus subsp. diemenensis

There is no endorsed survey protocol for this species in Tasmania. Wapstra et al. (2010) documented the distribution of the species and described its habitat, providing a basis for assessing the potential of drainage features to support breeding and/or foraging individuals of this species.

Grey goshawk, Accipiter novaehollandiae

Potential habitat was assessed against the criteria and guidelines provided in Goshawk Habitat Categories. Fauna Technical Note No. 12 (FPA 2010).

Ecological Assessment of Duck Irrigation Scheme (Pipelines), Tasmania 10 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

FINDINGS

Vegetation types

Comments on TASVEG mapping

This section, which comments on the existing TASVEG 3.0 mapping for the study area, is included to highlight the differences between existing mapping and the more recent mapping from the present study to ensure that any parties assessing land use proposals (via this report) do not rely on existing mapping. Note that TASVEG mapping, which was mainly a desktop mapping exercise based on aerial photography, is often substantially different to ground-truthed vegetation mapping, especially at a local scale. An examination of existing vegetation mapping is usually a useful pre- assessment exercise to gain an understanding of the range of habitat types likely to be present and the level of previous botanical surveys. The following vegetation types are currently mapped along the pipeline route: x agricultural land (FAG); x regenerating cleared land (FRG); x permanent easements (FPE); x plantations for silviculture (FPL) and unverified plantations for silviculture (FPU); x Eucalyptus obliqua dry forest (DOB); x Eucalyptus ovata forest and woodland (DOV); x Eucalyptus nitida dry forest and woodland (DNI); x Eucalyptus brookeriana wet forest (WBR); x Eucalyptus nitida wet forest (undifferentiated) (WNU); x Eucalyptus obliqua forest with broad-leaf shrubs (WOB); x Eucalyptus obliqua wet forest (undifferentiated) (WOU); x coastal heathland (SCH); x Melaleuca squarrosa scrub (SMR); x Leptospermum scoparium heathland and scrub (SLS); x Acacia melanoxylon forest on rises (NAR); x Acacia melanoxylon swamp forest (NAF); x Melaleuca ericifolia swamp forest (NME); x Leptospermum lanigerum – Melaleuca squarrosa swamp forest (NLM); and x water, sea (OAQ). Of these vegetation types, WBR, DOV and NME are listed as threatened under Schedule 3A of the Tasmanian Nature Conservation Act 2002 but none equate to threatened ecological communities listed under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. In the northwest, forests mapped as DOV are much more likely to be dominated by Eucalyptus brookeriana and therefore classifiable as WBR and not DOV. Forest mapping units listed as “undifferentiated” (e.g. WNU, WOU) usually require field verification to correctly allocate the patch

Ecological Assessment of Duck Irrigation Scheme (Pipelines), Tasmania 11 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting of forest to a better-defined mapping unit. The distinction between FAG and FRG is sometimes well- defined but in other places masked by land use practices such as grazing and cultivation regime. Aerial interpretation of vegetation mapped as SMR, SLS, NAR, NAF, NME and NLM almost always require field verification. Only limited parts of the survey area are mapped as FPE, although the wider road corridors could have been mapped as such as they are well-defined. Unusually, many farm dams (of various sizes) and areas of open water along larger rivers and creeks have been mapped as OAQ (more usual for such vegetation to be subsumed into surrounding mapping units such as FAG).

Vegetation types recorded as part of the present study

Vegetation types have been classified according to TASVEG 3.0, as described in From Forest to Fjaeldmark: Descriptions of Tasmania’s Vegetation (Kitchener & Harris 2013). Table 1 provides information on the vegetation types identified with notes provided on condition. Figures 1-26 indicate the revised mapping of the vegetation within the study area (also supplied as GIS files to the client). More detailed descriptions of the native vegetation mapping units identified from the study area are provided in Appendix A. It should be noted that roads (including the Bass Highway) and farm tracks and transmission lines have not been separately mapped as “permanent easements” (TASVEG code: FPE) where they occur as part of a broader vegetation type such as “pasture”. Not all small farm dams have been mapped separately as “water” (TASVEG code: OAQ) because of the practicalities of mapping at such small scales. Only larger areas of weeds (mainly gorse and willow) were mapped separately as “weed infestation” (TASVEG code: FWU). In practice, many of the patches currently mapped as forest occur amongst pasture and have a wholly pasture-dominated understorey. The canopy cover “forces” a classification as forest but in reality these sites are managed and ecologically function as pasture. This does not preclude their value for some elements of biodiversity but does present a somewhat distorted view of the conservation significance of some mapping units (e.g. WBR). The classification of “degraded forest” under the TASVEG mapping system is under review by DPIPWE/Forest Practices Authority but for the moment I have taken a conservative approach to classification and mapping.

Table 1. Vegetation mapping units present in study area [conservation priorities: TASVEG – as per Schedule 3A of the Tasmanian Nature Conservation Act 2002, using units described by Kitchener & Harris (2013), relating to TASVEG mapping units only; EPBCA – as per the listing of ecological communities on the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, relating to communities as described under that Act, but with equivalencies to TASVEG units]

TASVEG Conservation priority Equivalent TASVEG Comments (Kitchener & Harris 2013) EPBCA

Agricultural, urban and exotic vegetation

FAG occupies the majority of the survey corridor, where it is represented by grazing land, crops, and degraded pasture. For the purposes of mapping practicality, roads and tracks have Agricultural land Not threatened not been separated from the FAG classification within the survey corridor. (FAG) Not threatened FAG grades into FRG in some areas, mainly the more poorly- drained areas of pasture, although I have chosen to combine areas of FAG and FRG due to the small scale of mapping. Small areas of FAG could also be classified as FWU, although most

Ecological Assessment of Duck Irrigation Scheme (Pipelines), Tasmania 12 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

TASVEG Conservation priority Equivalent TASVEG Comments (Kitchener & Harris 2013) EPBCA patches of weeds were small and not mappable at a practical scale. FAG also contains farm dams (some larger ones have been mapped separately as “water, sea” (TASVEG code: OAQ), where obvious on aerial imagery or on the ground). See also note under FPL regarding inclusion of shelterbelts/windbreaks into the concept of FAG.

FWU has been used to map locally dense stands of gorse Weed infestation Not threatened (mainly in old paddocks), willow (mainly in riparian areas) and some mixed stands of weeds. Some localised clumps within (FWU) Not threatened pasture and forest have not been separated as FWU due to scale of mapping.

Permanent FPE has been used to map the old railway line at the far eastern Not threatened easements end of the survey corridor. FPE could have been used to map Not threatened areas of major roads but in practice these have been subsumed (FPE) into surrounding vegetation (mainly FAG).

FUR is used to map homesteads and surrounding farm Urban areas Not threatened buildings, driveways and ornamental gardens, and some small parts of the survey corridor that fall within Smithton and (FUR) Not threatened Forest. Some areas mapped as FUR actually support a tree canopy but are clearly managed as an urban yard.

FPL has only been used to map areas of trees clearly planted Plantations for Not threatened for a commercial purpose. Linear strips (mainly of macrocarpa silviculture pine, but also occasionally radiate pine or shining gum) along Not threatened (FPL) fencelines intended as shelterbelts/windbreaks are subsumed into the concept of FAG.

Other natural environments

Water, sea Not threatened Areas of wide open water and larger farm dams are mapped as (OAQ) Not threatened OAQ.

Non-eucalypt forest and woodland

Acacia melanoxylon NAR occurs along several creeklines, mainly created due to the Not threatened forest on rises historical removal of the eucalypt canopy. All areas of NAR are Not threatened highly disturbed and barely mappable as such (almost better (NAR) mapped as FWU or FAG in some cases).

Melaleuca ericifolia NME occurs as some relatively large intact stands in better Threatened swamp forest condition and some poor condition remnant stands. Virtually all Not threatened occurrences are regrowth in structure, simple in composition (NME) and underlain by weeds (mainly blackberry).

Scrub, heathland and coastal complexes

Localised stands dominated by Melaleuca squarrosa have been Melaleuca squarrosa Not threatened mapped as SMR, although their classification is problematic scrub because some stands are little more than stems of Melaleuca Not threatened (SMR) squarrosa over pasture, and others are dense but very low so grade into other scrub classifications.

Dry eucalypt forest and woodland

Eucalyptus nitida dry Not threatened DNI occurs extensively throughout the survey corridor as small forest and woodland remnants (usually over a highly modified understorey of Not threatened (DNI) pasture). DNI grades into wet forest units (e.g. at Deep Creek).

Ecological Assessment of Duck Irrigation Scheme (Pipelines), Tasmania 13 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

TASVEG Conservation priority Equivalent TASVEG Comments (Kitchener & Harris 2013) EPBCA

Wet eucalypt forest and woodland

WBR and WOB are the two dominant wet sclerophyll vegetation Eucalyptus mapping units in the survey corridor. Separating the two is brookeriana wet Threatened difficult due to subtle variations in dominance of the canopy forest eucalypt, and the fact that virtually all stands are highly Not threatened disturbed (functionally acting as pasture and not forest). WBR (WBR) can support Eucalyptus viminalis although that species is rarely dominant over sufficient area to warrant its own classification. While some areas of forest are easily classified as WOB (e.g. those along the Black River) because they have a “standard” understorey of wet sclerophyll species, most patches mapped Eucalyptus obliqua as WOB are nothing more than a canopy of Eucalyptus obliqua forest with broad- Not threatened over pasture, with a presumed historical wet sclerophyll leaf shrubs understorey based on topography and nearby forest. WOB Not threatened almost grades into Eucalyptus obliqua dry forest (TASVEG (WOB) code: DOB) where bracken dominates the understorey but as such stands are usually remnant and been subject to frequent grazing and/or fire, I have presumed that in the absence of disturbance they will shift to WOB rather than DOB.

Eucalyptus nitida WNL occurs in the northwestern part of the survey corridor but forest over Not threatened in other places grades with WBR, WOB and DNI. The separation Leptospermum of these units is problematic because of the usually highly Not threatened disturbed understorey meaning that deciding between wet and (WNL) dry forest classification is difficult.

Comments on conservation significance of vegetation types

Of the vegetation types present, two are classified as threatened under Schedule 3A of the Tasmanian Nature Conservation Act 2002. None of the vegetation mapping units equate to threatened ecological communities as listed on schedules of the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. “Eucalyptus brookeriana wet forest” (WBR) and “Melaleuca ericifolia swamp forest (NME) are both widespread within the survey corridor. However, virtually all stands will be avoided (i.e. they have been mapped within the nominal 100 m survey corridor but it was obvious that the pipeline would be installed adjacent to such stands or pass through the most highly disturbed part of the occurrences. In my opinion, there are only a small number of stands of native vegetation in sufficiently good ecological condition to warrant special management – a simple recommendation is to restrict pipeline installation to open pasture areas or where the forest canopy is already disturbed and the understorey is essentially pasture.

Ecological Assessment of Duck Irrigation Scheme (Pipelines), Tasmania 14 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Figure 1. Revised vegetation mapping of survey corridor (existing and novel threatened flora and fauna records also shown)

Ecological Assessment of Duck Irrigation Scheme (Pipelines), Tasmania 15 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Figure 2. Revised vegetation mapping of survey corridor (existing and novel threatened flora and fauna records also shown)

Ecological Assessment of Duck Irrigation Scheme (Pipelines), Tasmania 16 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Figure 3. Revised vegetation mapping of survey corridor (existing and novel threatened flora and fauna records also shown)

Ecological Assessment of Duck Irrigation Scheme (Pipelines), Tasmania 17 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Figure 4. Revised vegetation mapping of survey corridor (existing and novel threatened flora and fauna records also shown)

Ecological Assessment of Duck Irrigation Scheme (Pipelines), Tasmania 18 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Figure 5. Revised vegetation mapping of survey corridor (existing and novel threatened flora and fauna records also shown)

Ecological Assessment of Duck Irrigation Scheme (Pipelines), Tasmania 19 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Figure 6. Revised vegetation mapping of survey corridor (existing and novel threatened flora and fauna records also shown)

Ecological Assessment of Duck Irrigation Scheme (Pipelines), Tasmania 20 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Figure 7. Revised vegetation mapping of survey corridor (existing and novel threatened flora and fauna records also shown)

Ecological Assessment of Duck Irrigation Scheme (Pipelines), Tasmania 21 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Figure 8. Revised vegetation mapping of survey corridor (existing and novel threatened flora and fauna records also shown)

Ecological Assessment of Duck Irrigation Scheme (Pipelines), Tasmania 22 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Figure 9. Revised vegetation mapping of survey corridor (existing and novel threatened flora and fauna records also shown)

Ecological Assessment of Duck Irrigation Scheme (Pipelines), Tasmania 23 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Figure 10. Revised vegetation mapping of survey corridor (existing and novel threatened flora and fauna records also shown)

Ecological Assessment of Duck Irrigation Scheme (Pipelines), Tasmania 24 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Figure 11. Revised vegetation mapping of survey corridor (existing and novel threatened flora and fauna records also shown)

Ecological Assessment of Duck Irrigation Scheme (Pipelines), Tasmania 25 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Figure 12. Revised vegetation mapping of survey corridor (existing and novel threatened flora and fauna records also shown)

Ecological Assessment of Duck Irrigation Scheme (Pipelines), Tasmania 26 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Figure 13. Revised vegetation mapping of survey corridor (existing and novel threatened flora and fauna records also shown)

Ecological Assessment of Duck Irrigation Scheme (Pipelines), Tasmania 27 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Figure 14. Revised vegetation mapping of survey corridor (existing and novel threatened flora and fauna records also shown)

Ecological Assessment of Duck Irrigation Scheme (Pipelines), Tasmania 28 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Figure 15. Revised vegetation mapping of survey corridor (existing and novel threatened flora and fauna records also shown)

Ecological Assessment of Duck Irrigation Scheme (Pipelines), Tasmania 29 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Figure 16. Revised vegetation mapping of survey corridor (existing and novel threatened flora and fauna records also shown)

Ecological Assessment of Duck Irrigation Scheme (Pipelines), Tasmania 30 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Figure 17. Revised vegetation mapping of survey corridor (existing and novel threatened flora and fauna records also shown)

Ecological Assessment of Duck Irrigation Scheme (Pipelines), Tasmania 31 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Figure 18. Revised vegetation mapping of survey corridor (existing and novel threatened flora and fauna records also shown)

Ecological Assessment of Duck Irrigation Scheme (Pipelines), Tasmania 32 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Figure 19. Revised vegetation mapping of survey corridor (existing and novel threatened flora and fauna records also shown)

Ecological Assessment of Duck Irrigation Scheme (Pipelines), Tasmania 33 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Figure 20. Revised vegetation mapping of survey corridor (existing and novel threatened flora and fauna records also shown)

Ecological Assessment of Duck Irrigation Scheme (Pipelines), Tasmania 34 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Figure 21. Revised vegetation mapping of survey corridor (existing and novel threatened flora and fauna records also shown)

Ecological Assessment of Duck Irrigation Scheme (Pipelines), Tasmania 35 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Figure 22. Revised vegetation mapping of survey corridor (existing and novel threatened flora and fauna records also shown)

Ecological Assessment of Duck Irrigation Scheme (Pipelines), Tasmania 36 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Figure 23. Revised vegetation mapping of survey corridor (existing and novel threatened flora and fauna records also shown)

Ecological Assessment of Duck Irrigation Scheme (Pipelines), Tasmania 37 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Figure 24. Revised vegetation mapping of survey corridor (existing and novel threatened flora and fauna records also shown)

Ecological Assessment of Duck Irrigation Scheme (Pipelines), Tasmania 38 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Figure 25. Revised vegetation mapping of survey corridor (existing and novel threatened flora and fauna records also shown)

Ecological Assessment of Duck Irrigation Scheme (Pipelines), Tasmania 39 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Figure 26. Revised vegetation mapping of survey corridor (existing and novel threatened flora and fauna records also shown)

Ecological Assessment of Duck Irrigation Scheme (Pipelines), Tasmania 40 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Plant species

General observations

A total of 301 vascular plant species were recorded from the study area (Appendix B), comprising 190 dicotyledons (including 2 endemic and 96 exotic species); 98 monocotyledons (including 1 endemic and 44 exotic species); 11 pteridophytes (all native) and 2 gymnosperms (both exotic). Additional surveys at different times of the year may detect additional short-lived herbs and grasses, although such surveys are not considered warranted because any additional species detected are not likely to have a high priority for conservation management. Note the high proportion of exotic species reflecting the highly modified character of much of the project area.

Priority species recorded from the study area

Database information indicated a relatively low likelihood of threatened flora. Field assessment confirmed that the majority of the survey corridor does not support vegetation types strongly associated with threatened flora. Only two species of threatened flora were detected as a consequence of the surveys, and one additional species is indicated as present within the survey corridor based on database information. All species are discussed in greater detail below. The distribution of threatened flora is indicated in Figures 27-30 and summarised in Table 2. Appendix F provides annotated images of the majority of the species of concern. Note that the data for threatened flora collected as part of the present assessment will be provided to the client in the requested format.

Table 2. Details of threatened flora recorded from study area (and nearby sites) [EPBCA = Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999; TSPA = Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995]

Status Summary of potential Species TSPA Comments impact of project on EPBCA species

EPBCA-listed species

None present.

TSPA-listed species

Known only from two overlapping database records (A.M. Buchanan, 14 & 28 Jan. 1993, 338812mE 5474983mN ± 100 m) indicated as “Achesons Road Range extension: no turn off, SW of Smithton”. A third Range infilling: no Amphibromus neesii r database record is placed west of this New populations: no (southern swampgrass) - site in the middle of the survey corridor Significant impact: no (see but this is an erroneous duplicate that comments below) can be discounted. The species was not detected at this site (nor others).

Ecological Assessment of Duck Irrigation Scheme (Pipelines), Tasmania 41 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Status Summary of potential Species TSPA Comments impact of project on EPBCA species

One small patch of c. 10-20 plants in Range extension: no (recent c. 1 m diameter area on eastern verge records are indicating the of Deep Creek (just below the end of the species to be much more old highway that almost reaches the widespread than previously creek bank). thought, including in near- Epilobium pallidiflorum r Several patches of 100s of plants (in coastal parts of the northwest) (showy willowherb) - total) in an artificial drainage ditch on Range infilling: no (known the edge of pasture and a fenced off records in general area) remnant patch of highly disturbed New populations: yes Melaleuca ericifolia swamp forest (localised in this vegetation but mainly Significant impact: no (see in open ditches) east of Sedgy Creek. comments below)

Locally common along western verge of the Black River, where it grows amongst Range extension: no flood debris and river sands/gravels, Range infilling: yes Gratiola pubescens v forming extensive and dense mats. It New populations: yes (hairy brooklime) - also occurs as scattered patches in the river gravel/cobbles in the middle of the Significant impact: no (see river (in gravel banks exposed at this comments below) time of low river flow).

Amphibromus neesii (southern swampgrass) is listed as rare on the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1999. This is a perennial grass, with a flush of growth and fertile material present from late spring through summer. It is widespread in Tasmania and often locally common. The site within/adjacent to the survey corridor (Figure 27) was not confirmed but is likely to be outside any areas likely to be disturbed because the pipeline will be installed outside the wettest areas – this species has its “feet wet”, growing in seasonally inundated swamps, wetlands and drains. At this stage of project planning it seems unlikely that populations of Amphibromus neesii will be physically disturbed, although this may depend on the manner in which construction occurs. Despite the record only having a 100 m precision, it is clearly labelled as “Achesons Road turn off, SW of Smithton”, meaning it is precisely placed. Provided that the mapped site is excluded from disturbance, a permit under Section 51 of the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1999 should not be required.

Epilobium pallidiflorum (showy willowherb) is listed as rare on the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1999. This is a perennial herb, with a flush of growth and fertile material present from late spring through summer. It occurs in natural wetlands (occasionally in swamp forests), margins of slow-flowing rivers and creeks, floodplains, edges of farm dams and drainage ditches in seasonally inundated habitats. Until recently, this species was not considered to be widespread in Tasmania but in recent years there has been a large number of novel sites, mainly across the north coast. Unfortunately, many of these are not supported by voucher specimens lodged at the Tasmanian Herbarium. The species can be confused with the introduced Epilobium ciliatum and the native but non-threatened Epilobium billardierianum (which can also grow tall in swampy habitats). However, the species is known from the northwest of the State, including from King Island, from confirmed collections. The sites at Deep Creek and Sedgy Creek are novel but do not represent a range extension nor significant range infilling, and both sites are in expected habitat (Table 2; Figures 28 & 29). Depending on how the pipeline is installed across Deep Creek, the small patch of Epilobium pallidiflorum may be practical to avoid. The site should be examined by TI officers and a determination made if it can be practically excluded. If this is not anticipated to be practical, a

Ecological Assessment of Duck Irrigation Scheme (Pipelines), Tasmania 42 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting permit under Section 51 of the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1999 will be required to “take” the patch on the assumption that works will result in the temporary elimination of the species (it is a rapid coloniser of disturbed ground because it produces masses of aerially-dispersed seed). It is likely that it will be practical to avoid the population of Epilobium pallidiflorum near Sedgy Creek by aligning it south of the mapped locations, which all occur in poorly-drained ground and existing landowner-created ditches. As such, a permit under Section 51 of the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1999 should not be required (TI officers should confirm this by a site assessment).

Gratiola pubescens (hairy brooklime) is listed as vulnerable on the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1999. This is a perennial herb that is widespread in the northeastern portion of Tasmania with outlying occurrences on King Island (Figure 31). The notesheet for the species states: “About three-quarters of the twenty known sites in Tasmania have been discovered since the species was listed on the TSP Act in 1995, including all sites in the State’s east and northeast. Gratiola pubescens was not recognised in Tasmania until the late 1980s, having been included previously in Gratiola nana (Curtis 1967). Records of Gratiola nana in lowland areas of Tasmania that date to this period or earlier (& lack supporting herbarium specimens), should be considered questionable until the sites have been re-surveyed. A reassessment of the conservation status of Gratiola pubescens may be warranted following such surveys”. The novel site detected along at the Black River (Figure 30) represents a significant range infilling with the nearest sites on King Island and Devonport. However, this range infilling is not unexpected because potential habitat is widespread in northern Tasmania, the taxonomy and identification of the species has been confused and there are several records of Gratiola nana in lowland parts of the north-northwest coast that are likely to be Gratiola pubescens (e.g. Togari, Roger River, Arthur- Pieman coastal sites). Avoiding physical disturbance to Gratiola pubescens at the Black River crossing point will be impractical because it occurs in the middle of the river (on a presently exposed gravel bank) and extensively on the western bank. It is clearly benefiting from natural disturbance events such as floods, proliferating on exposed gravel/sand banks and rises. Presumably the population’s extent fluctuates with water levels. Shifting the pipeline upstream or downstream will not result in the practical protection of the species as it essentially occupies the entirety of the western bank. It is more sensible to accept some disturbance to the species from pipeline burial activities because this probably represents a similar level of disturbance to a flash flood event. A permit under Section 51 of the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1999 will be required to disturb the site. It is recommended that conditions be imposed that require post- installation monitoring of the site to determine the response of the species to the works. It is recognised that works in and around the Black River will already require stringent environmental controls such that imposing a requirement to “minimise disturbance” related to Gratiola pubescens would be redundant. For the permit application, it is difficult to specify the number of plants that will be affected because it is a mat-forming perennial herb for which it is impractical to count separate plants. It would be more appropriate to indicate that an unspecified number of individuals and part of the population will be disturbed, recognising that it extends upstream and downstream of the pipeline crossing point such that only part of the population will be affected.

Ecological Assessment of Duck Irrigation Scheme (Pipelines), Tasmania 43 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Figure 27. Distribution of Amphibromus neesii within the survey corridor (existing records)

Ecological Assessment of Duck Irrigation Scheme (Pipelines), Tasmania 44 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Figure 28. Distribution of Epilobium pallidiflorum near Sedgy Creek (novel records)

Ecological Assessment of Duck Irrigation Scheme (Pipelines), Tasmania 45 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Figure 29. Distribution of Epilobium pallidiflorum at Deep Creek (novel record)

Ecological Assessment of Duck Irrigation Scheme (Pipelines), Tasmania 46 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Figure 30. Distribution of Gratiola pubescens at the Black River (novel records)

Ecological Assessment of Duck Irrigation Scheme (Pipelines), Tasmania 47 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Figure 31. Distribution of Gratiola pubescens in Tasmania [source: Natural Values Atlas, 16 Dec. 2015]

Comments on priority flora recorded from databases

Appendix D provides a listing of priority flora from within 5,000 m of the study area (nominal buffer width usually used to discuss the potential of a particular study area to support various species listed in databases), with comments on whether potential habitat is present for the species, and possible reasons why a species was not recorded. Some species not listed on databases but considered by the author to have potential to occur in the survey area are also discussed. Note that the field assessment was not restricted to the species listed in Appendix D but considered any threatened flora with the potential to be present. While the database analysis utilises a nominal buffer of 5,000 m, the author’s own experience of the greater northwest region, especially the coastal hinterlands, combined with database interrogation, meant that the specific potential for numerous other species previously recorded from the wider area were taken into account.

Fauna species

General observations

Refer to Appendix C for a description of vertebrate fauna (native and exotic) detected from the survey area.

Priority fauna – sightings and potential habitat

No fauna species, listed as threatened on the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 or the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, were

Ecological Assessment of Duck Irrigation Scheme (Pipelines), Tasmania 48 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting directly recorded from the study area. There are known sites and potential habitat of several species, as detailed below (see also Appendix G for annotated images of threatened fauna habitat).

Astacopsis gouldi (giant freshwater crayfish) is listed as vulnerable on the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1999 and the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Database records indicate known populations in the Duck River (upstream of the Poilinna Road crossing) and its broader catchment (I understand that the assessments of the Mill Creek dam have confirmed the species from that part of the catchment) and the Black River (but only c. 8 km upstream of the pipeline crossing point). There are no records from Deep Creek, although there is a database record from 1946 from the general area. The Black River provides superficially ideal habitat for the species at the pipeline crossing point with slow-flowing deep-water sections, undercut banks, intact riparian vegetation (wet sclerophyll forest) and in-stream coarse woody debris. It is reasonable to assume that the species may be present in this part of the Black River, although the absence of “downstream” records of such a distinctive and relatively well-surveyed species is potentially indicative of its absence. Deep Creek presents also presents as superficially ideal habitat for the species at the pipeline crossing point. While relatively shallow and fast-flowing, the intact riparian vegetation, undercut banks (overhung with blackberry creating shading) and some coarse woody debris in slower-flowing sections are suitable for the species (somewhat similar to sections of Caroline Creek near Railton, which supports a healthy population). Most other drainage features that will be crossed by the pipeline are not ideal habitat for the species. While it may be potentially present, the crossing points are likely to not interfere with the creeks themselves (e.g. Ghost Creek west of Forest will be crossed at two existing dam wall crossings). Most drainage features amongst pasture will either be avoided (e.g. farm dams) or are not much more than shallow drains unsuitable for the species. It is understood that Tasmanian Irrigation have developed a set of standard operating protocols for the management of riparian areas, including specific actions for the management of Astacopsis gouldi. It is recommended that these be applied, as a minimum at the Black River, Duck River and Deep Creek (Environmental Protection Guideline EPG1 Disturbance to Terrestrial and Aquatic Flora and Fauna). Refer to DISCUSSION Legislative and policy implications for more detail on the application of the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1999 and the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

Prototroctes maraena (Australian grayling) is listed as vulnerable on the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1999 and the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Database records indicate known populations in the Duck River (at the Poilinna Road crossing). It is also reasonable to assume it would be present in the lower reaches of the Black River, although there are no supporting records. It is understood that Tasmanian Irrigation have developed a set of standard operating protocols for the management of riparian areas. It is recommended that these be applied, as a minimum at the Black River and Duck River to minimise the risk of a deleterious impact on Prototroctes maraena (Environmental Protection Guideline EPG1 Disturbance to Terrestrial and Aquatic Flora and Fauna). Refer to DISCUSSION Legislative and policy implications for more detail on the application of the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1999 and the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

Ecological Assessment of Duck Irrigation Scheme (Pipelines), Tasmania 49 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Ceyx azureus subsp. diemenensis (Tasmanian azure kingfisher) is listed as endangered on the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1999 and the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (note that the use of the name Alcedo by DPIPWE in the Natural Values Atlas database is not in accordance with BirdLife Australia’s official list of scientific and common names, which I have chosen to adhere to). The species has its stronghold in northwest Tasmania, with most sightings and breeding records associated with the larger river systems such as those draining into Bass Strait and the west coast (Wapstra et al. 2010). The species is known from the Black River, Duck River and Deep Creek (both downstream of the Bass Highway and upstream at Lake Mikany). There are no known breeding sites at any of the locations where the pipeline will cross areas with potential habitat. While Tasmanian Irrigation’s Environmental Protection Guideline EPG1 Disturbance to Terrestrial and Aquatic Flora and Fauna do not specifically refer to the azure kingfisher, they are considered appropriate to manage the low risk of detecting a nest during construction. The risk is considered low because in Tasmania the nest sites appear to be many kilometres apart e.g. just two nest sites along c. 14 km of the Arthur River cf. nests every 500-1,000 m on some mainland river (Wapstra et al. 2010), such that the statistical likelihood of a nest at the specific crossing point is very low. The existing requirement to undertake active searches for Astacopsis gouldi within two days of commencing works could be applied to the azure kingfisher. While there are no endorsed survey protocols, it is suggested that the banks of the river on either side of the crossing points (c. 50 m upstream and downstream of the pipeline crossing point) be examined for nests at the same time as undertaking surveys for crayfish. Staking out suitable sections of bank (steep protected banks above the normal flood zone) with binoculars for a minimum of 15 minutes is suggested. Breeding activity is only likely to be detected during late spring-summer and finding breeding tunnels outside this period is unlikely (they are usually well-hidden). If breeding activity is noted, further advice would need to be sought from DPIPWE on the most appropriate site-specific management (e.g. distance and/or temporal disturbance buffers on nest site). Birds may utilise the stretches of river/creek where the pipeline will cross for foraging but installation of the pipeline would only cause temporary disturbance to foraging activity and would not require special consideration. Refer to DISCUSSION Legislative and policy implications for more detail on the application of the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1999 and the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

Accipiter novaehollandiae (grey goshawk) is listed as endangered on the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1999. There are no database records (sightings or nests) anywhere along the survey corridor but the northwest swamp forests are considered the stronghold for the species. On the assumption that the pipeline will not require removal of the small remnants of swamp forest/eucalypt forest that occur on road verges and amongst paddocks because there are ample options to avoid the need to disturb native vegetation, a detailed assessment of the potential of these to support foraging and/or nesting habitat of the grey goshawk has not been undertaken. It is also reasonable to assume that the species will utilise a wide range of vegetation types for foraging but is unlikely to nest in tiny forest remnants. The survey corridor did include some more extensive areas of non-riparian forest, although mainly as the edges of larger patches extending just into the survey corridor, or at sites where it is obvious the pipeline will be installed along the road/in pasture rather than through native forest requiring clearing. For this reason, a detailed assessment of the potential of these to support foraging and/or nesting habitat of the grey goshawk has not been undertaken. Where the pipeline crosses more major rivers and creeks (e.g. Black River, Deep Creek, Duck River), a more detailed assessment of potential habitat was undertaken. No novel nests were detected at any of these sites. Detection of nests is somewhat serendipitous and nesting birds can be secretive and a brief survey during the course of the broader ecological assessment may not be

Ecological Assessment of Duck Irrigation Scheme (Pipelines), Tasmania 50 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting successful in detecting a nest. As such, Tasmanian Irrigation should apply some standard “stop work and notify” protocols to sites where swamp forest/eucalypt forest will be disturbed and there is a chance (albeit very low) of a nest being detected during works. The three main river crossings are at the Black River, Duck River and Deep Creek. All support potential nesting habitat. The Black River supports Eucalyptus obliqua forest with broad-leaf shrubs (WOU) in relatively good condition, although the understorey is not ideal as foraging habitat of the grey goshawk as it is mainly densely shrubby. The secondary canopy that would typically be used for nesting is lacking development of more mature trees of species such as blackwood, meaning the site represents lower quality (primarily foraging) habitat. Deep Creek supports Melaleuca ericifolia swamp forest (NME) on the downstream side of the Bass Highway, with an open understorey overtopped by a relatively mature canopy, meaning the site represents lower quality (primarily foraging) habitat. Forest along the Duck River is dominated by Eucalyptus brookeriana over a secondary canopy of blackwood (fairly well-developed) over weds, pasture and bracken, meaning it represents priority habitat, although the narrow linear strip of riparian forest surrounded by well-develop pasture probably lowers the potential quality of the site for breeding and it would be more likely the species would breed in larger intact patches of riparian forest upstream along the Duck River or elsewhere in the forested part of the catchment. The existing requirement to undertake active searches for Astacopsis gouldi within two days of commencing works could be applied to the grey goshawk in a similar manner to that described for the azure kingfisher (but obviously surveying the canopy and sub-canopy trees along the river/creek verges for nest sites).

Beddomeia topsiae (Williamson Creek freshwater snail) is listed as rare on the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1999. There is a record from 1995 labelled “Birthday Creek, trib of Duck River, south of Edith Creek”, and this is placed near the crossing of this creek by Trowutta Road (Figure 32). The core and potential range boundary of the species produced by DPIPWE/Forest Practices Authority does not extend the core or potential range to include all of Birthday Creek (Figure 32). Within the survey corridor, the riparian vegetation of the western arm of Birthday Creek has been wholly cleared and the eastern arm is disturbed scrub over a drain. On this basis, no special management is suggested in relation to Beddomeia topsiae.

Beddomeia wiseae (Blizzards Creek freshwater snail) is listed as vulnerable on the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1999. There is a record from 1989 labelled “Birthday Ck, trib of Duck River, on Scotchtown Rd”, and this is placed near the crossing of this creek by Trowutta Road (Figure 32) i.e. very close to the record of Beddomeia topsiae discussed above (Figure 32). The core and potential range boundary of the species produced by DPIPWE/Forest Practices Authority does not extend the core or potential range to include all of Birthday Creek (Figure 32). Technically, the whole of the survey corridor is outside the core range and potential range of Beddomeia wiseae. On this basis, no special management is suggested in relation to Beddomeia wiseae.

Sarcophilus harrisii (Tasmanian devil) is listed as endangered on both the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1999 and the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. No scats of the species were detected along the survey corridor. This is not overly surprising given that most of the survey area comprises well-developed grazing and cropping ground. No suspected den or potential den sites were detected. The survey corridor supports marginal potential denning habitat, although temporary “layup” areas are widespread. In the absence of the detection of any

Ecological Assessment of Duck Irrigation Scheme (Pipelines), Tasmania 51 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting specific sites such as dens, no special management recommendations are made beyond applying a “stop work and notify” protocol in the event of potential den sites being detected during construction activities.

Dasyurus maculatus subsp. maculatus (spotted-tailed quoll) is listed as rare on both the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1999 and as Vulnerable on the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. See comments under Tasmanian devil.

Dasyurus viverrinus (eastern quoll) is listed as endangered on the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. See comments under Tasmanian devil.

Figure 32. Extract of core and potential ranges of Beddomeia topsiae and Beddomeia wiseae, showing Trowutta Road (main north-south road) and Poilinna Road (most northerly east-west road on map) showing that the survey corridor, which runs east-west south of Poilinna Road to close to the end of the next farm access track to the south, is outside the currently mapped core and potential ranges of both species

Ecological Assessment of Duck Irrigation Scheme (Pipelines), Tasmania 52 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Comments on priority fauna recorded from databases

Appendix E provides a listing of priority fauna recorded from within 5,000 m (nominal buffer width usually used to discuss the potential of a particular study area to support various species listed in databases) of the study area, with comments on whether potential habitat is present for the species, and possible reasons why a species was not recorded.

Other ecological values

Additional “Matters of National Environmental Significance” – threatened ecological communities

The EPBCA Protected Matters Area report (CofA 2015) indicates that the Vulnerable threatened ecological community “Temperate Coastal Saltmarsh” is likely to occur within the report area. No part of the survey corridor (or adjacent areas) have been mapped as any form of saltmarsh or wetland, and the EPBCA-listed entity does not need to be further considered.

Weed species

Seven species classified as “declared weeds” within the meaning of the Tasmanian Weed Management Act 1999 were detected from the study area (Table 3): this number increases to eight if different taxa of Rubus are recognised. Three of these species are also considered as Weeds of National Significance (WoNS). Four additional species regarded by the author as potentially invasive environmental weeds were detected from the study area (Table 3). Appendix H provides annotated images of several of the weed infestations within the project area. Given the largely primary production context and widespread nature of the species in the broader project area, eradication is not a realistic objective because of the massive source of future propagules, and because it would require a coordinated approach between numerous private property owners and other land managers including local council and the Department of State Growth (for roadside occurrences) to properly address the extent of weed infestations. Strict machinery hygiene protocols, as outlined in Rudman et al. (2004), Rudman (2005) and Allan & Gartenstein (2010), are recommended where the distribution of weeds is such that the project works present a risk of exacerbating infestations, especially where such exacerbation may impact on primary production activities or introduce these weeds to areas of native vegetation without significant infestations. In addition, machinery that has operated in weed-infested parts of the project area should not be moved to another part of the project area, municipality, other municipalities, reserved areas, or private properties without being subject to strict machinery hygiene protocols (see the manual Keeping it Clean - A Tasmanian Field Hygiene Manual to Prevent the Spread of Freshwater Pests and Pathogens (Allan & Gartenstein 2010) for further details). It may be prudent in some locations to pre-treat localised infestations or flag off a weed infestation (to prevent machinery, vehicle and personnel incursions) prior to the commencement of works. Post-works monitoring is strongly recommended with appropriate control of novel or exacerbated infestations.

Ecological Assessment of Duck Irrigation Scheme (Pipelines), Tasmania 53 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Table 3. Details of environmental weeds recorded from study area

Status on Species Comments WMA 1

Species classified as “declared weeds” within the meaning of the Tasmanian Weed Management Act 1999 [* = also Weed of National Significance, WoNS]

Blackberry is locally abundant within the study area, mainly occurring along fencelines, roadsides and occasionally in riparian areas. The * Rubus anglocandicans 2 presence of the species is of concern to primary production but the 2 installation of a pipeline in already infested areas is unlikely to severely Rubus leucostachys B (wi) exacerbate the extent and density of the species. (blackberry) Specific locations have not been pinpointed by GPS because any such mapping would simply represent a snapshot of the current distribution and not be useful for management purposes.

* Ulex europaeus Gorse is localised within the survey corridor, limited to a few B (li) occurrences near the Black River. Some specific sites have been (gorse) pinpointed.

Erica lusitanica This species was localised to a few locations along road verges only. A (li) It is unlikely that installation of the pipeline will physically disturb any (spanish heath) sites and cause the infestations to become worse. Broom was restricted to a small number of seedlings and a few larger * Genista monspessulana plants on the eastern side of the Black River in disturbed eucalypt B (wi) forest. Installation of a pipeline poses a minor risk of exacerbating the (canary broom) current infestation by creating areas of bare soil suitable for germination.

* Salix x fragilis nothovar. fragilis Willow is present at some river and creek crossings (e.g. Duck River). B (wi) Installation of the pipeline is unlikely to exacerbate the extent of (crack willow) willow infestations. Localised at crossing point on Ghost Creek near Fords Road, Carduus pycnocephalus associated with existing primary production activities. Installation of a B (wi) pipeline poses a minor risk of exacerbating the current infestation by (slender thistle) creating areas of bare soil suitable for germination but this statement applies to all thistle species. Localised at crossing point on Duck River near Poilinna Road and Sedgy Creek south of Back Line Road, associated with existing primary Cirsium arvense var. arvense production activities. Installation of a pipeline poses a minor risk of B (li) (perennial thistle) exacerbating the current infestation by creating areas of bare soil suitable for germination but this statement applies to all thistle species.

Other potentially problematic weed species

Localised to small number of riparian areas e.g. Duck River near Conium maculatum Poilinna Road, Ghost Creek near Fords Road. The species does not - pose a significant threat at present but pipeline installation could (hemlock) exacerbate current infestations and pose a future risk to primary production. Foxglove was restricted to a small infestation on the western side of the Black River. Installation of a pipeline poses a minor risk of Digitalis purpurea exacerbating the current infestation by creating areas of bare soil - suitable for germination. Once established, this species can persist for (foxglove) a long time, be difficult to eradicate and invade native vegetation (especially when there is a mechanism for seed spread such as floods along the Black River).

Psoralea pinnata Several large and fertile individuals on southern side of Bass Highway - west of Deep Creek in disturbed forest margin. The species can spread (blue butterfly bush) quickly but is also easily controlled if it becomes problematic. Cotoneaster franchetii - Single plant on fenceline at far eastern end of pipeline (grey cotoneaster)

Ecological Assessment of Duck Irrigation Scheme (Pipelines), Tasmania 54 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

1 WMA = status on Tasmanian Weed Management Act 1999 as per Statutory Weed Management Plans available at www.dpipwe.tas.gov.au; “zone B” species = “containment”, within the meaning of the Weed Management Act 1999, is the most appropriate management objective for municipalities who have problematic infestations but no plan and/or resources to undertake control actions at a level required for eradication (the management outcome for these municipalities is ongoing prevention of the spread of declared weeds from existing infestations to areas free or in the process of becoming free of these weeds); “zone B: species = “eradication”, within the meaning of the Weed Management Act 1999, is the most appropriate management objective for municipalities, which have little or occurrences of the species, or when a credible plan for eradicating existing infestations is being developed and implemented (with the ultimate management outcome for Zone A municipalities achieving and maintaining the total absence of the species from within municipal boundaries); wi = widespread infestations reported from municipality; li = limited infestations reported from the municipality 2 the genus Rubus has recently undergone a review within Australia (Evans et al. 2007) but the Weed Management Act still lists all species under the aggregate Rubus fruticosus; Rubus anglocandicans was the only species identified from the study area

Rootrot pathogen, Phytophthora cinnamomi

Phytophthora cinnamomi (PC) is widespread in lowland areas of Tasmania, across all land tenures. However, disease will not develop when soils are too cold or too dry. For these reasons, PC is not a threat to susceptible plant species that grow at altitudes higher than about 700 metres or where annual rainfall is less than about 600 mm (e.g. Midlands and Derwent Valley). Furthermore, disease is unlikely to develop beneath a dense canopy of vegetation because shading cools the soils to below the optimum temperature for the pathogen. A continuous canopy of vegetation taller than about 2 metres is sufficient to suppress disease. Hence PC is not considered a threat to susceptible plant species growing in wet sclerophyll forests, rainforests (except disturbed rainforests on infertile soils) and scrub e.g. teatree scrub (Rudman 2005; FPA 2009). According to Rudman (2005), none of the vegetation types recorded from the study area are particularly susceptible to the root-rot pathogen, Phytophthora cinnamomi. No evidence of the pathogen was noted (i.e. no dead or dying susceptible plant species). No soil sampling was undertaken (for later laboratory analysis for the pathogen). The project presents a low risk of the pathogen being introduced to the site (existing access and generally well-drained heavily grassed areas), although strict machinery hygiene protocols applied to minimise the risk of introducing or spreading weeds will also minimise the risk of introducing plant disease.

Myrtle wilt

Myrtle wilt, caused by a wind-borne fungus (Chalara australis), occurs naturally in rainforest where myrtle beech (Nothofagus cunninghamii) is present. The fungus enters wounds in the tree, usually caused by damage from wood-boring insects, wind damage and forest clearing. The incidence of myrtle wilt often increases forest clearing events such as windthrow and wildfire. Nothofagus cunninghamii is absent from the study area.

Myrtle rust

Myrtle rust is a disease limited to plants in the Myrtaceae family. This plant disease is a member of the guava rust complex caused by Puccinia psidii, a known significant pathogen of Myrtaceae plants outside Australia. Infestations are currently limited to NSW, Victoria, Queensland and Tasmania (DPIPWE 2015d). No evidence of myrtle rust was noted.

Ecological Assessment of Duck Irrigation Scheme (Pipelines), Tasmania 55 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Chytrid fungus and other freshwater pathogens

Native freshwater species and habitat are under threat from freshwater pests and pathogens including Phytophthora cinnamomi (root rot), Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (Chytrid frog disease), Mucor amphibiorum (platypus Mucor disease) and the freshwater algal pest Didymosphenia geminata (Didymo) (Allan & Gartenstein 2010). Freshwater pests and pathogens are spread to new areas when contaminated water, mud, gravel, soil and plant material or infected animals are moved between sites. Contaminated materials and animals are commonly transported on boots, equipment, vehicles tyres and during road construction and maintenance activities. Once a pest pathogen is present in a water system it is usually impossible to eradicate. The manual Keeping it Clean - A Tasmanian Field Hygiene Manual to Prevent the Spread of Freshwater Pests and Pathogens (Allan & Gartenstein 2010) provides information on how to prevent the spread of freshwater pests and pathogens in Tasmanian waterways wetlands, swamps and boggy areas. Tasmanian Irrigation have existing management protocols that are applied in relation to chytrid, and these should be adhered to for the Duck Irrigation Scheme. Tasmanian Irrigation have advised that chytrid testing undertaken by TI in November/December 2015 in the vicinity of the Mill Creek Dam site (source waters) failed to detect chytrid (n = 60; Litoria ewingi and Crinia tasmaniensis), and that it was also undetected in the lower Montagu catchment and the lower Duck catchment, although at the two latter locations the number of samples was less than 60 (TI pers. comm.).

DISCUSSION

Summary of key findings

Non-priority flora (e.g. species of biogeographic significance) x No species of high conservation significance detected – no special management actions required. Non-priority fauna (e.g. species of biogeographic significance) x No species of high conservation significance detected – no special management actions required. x Note that the project area supports several species of frog, which are susceptible to the chytrid frog pathogen – it is recommended that Tasmanian Irrigation explore a management strategy with the biosecurity section of DPIPWE with a view to determining the chytrid status of the Duck Irrigation Scheme project area. Threatened flora x No plant species listed as threatened on the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 were detected from within or adjacent to the study area. No such species are known from database records, and the survey corridor does not support potential habitat strongly associated with such species. x Two plant species listed as threatened on the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 were detected within or close to the study area, and one additional species is known from database records, as follows:  Amphibromus neesii (southern swampgrass): known from database records from junction of Achesons Road – unlikely to be physically affected by the installation of the pipeline;

Ecological Assessment of Duck Irrigation Scheme (Pipelines), Tasmania 56 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

 Epilobium pallidiflorum (showy willowherb): localised patch on eastern side of Deep Creek (may be difficult to avoid) and widespread and abundant in pasture drains east of Sedgy Creek (likely to be practical to avoid all or most of patch); and  Gratiola pubescens (hairy brooklime): locally abundant at Black River crossing point – likely to be impractical to avoid sites. x The presence of the State-listed species will need to be taken into account in further land use planning under Section 51 of the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995. At this stage of planning, it appears unlikely that the presence of these species will significantly constrain the project i.e. they do not present as a “fatal flaw”, although it is recommended to seek clarification of this from the relevant sections of DPIPWE prior to further detailed project planning. Threatened fauna x Potential habitat is present for:  giant freshwater crayfish (Astacopsis gouldi);  Australian grayling (Prototroctes maraena);  Tasmanian azure kingfisher (Ceyx azureus subsp. diemenensis);  grey goshawk (Accipiter novaehollandiae);  Tasmanian devil (Sarcophilus harrisii);  spotted-tailed quoll (Dasyurus maculatus subsp. maculatus);  eastern quoll (Dasyurus viverrinus); and  eastern barred bandicoot (Perameles gunnii subsp. gunnii). x Tasmanian Irrigation should implement its standard threatened fauna management protocols, as previously accepted by State and Commonwealth agencies. Advice should be sought from the relevant section of DPIPWE if these standard protocols are not applicable or need to be modified to suit a particular aspect of the project. Vegetation types x The study area supports thirteen TASVEG 3.0 mapping units:  agricultural land (FAG);  weed infestation (FWU);  permanent easements (FPE);  urban areas (FUR);  plantations for silviculture (FPL);  water, sea (OAQ);  Acacia melanoxylon forest on rises (NAR);  Melaleuca ericifolia swamp forest (NME);  Melaleuca squarrosa scrub (SMR);  Eucalyptus nitida dry forest and woodland (DNI);  Eucalyptus brookeriana wet forest (WBR);  Eucalyptus obliqua forest with broad-leaf shrubs (WOB); and  Eucalyptus nitida forest over Leptospermum (WNL).

Ecological Assessment of Duck Irrigation Scheme (Pipelines), Tasmania 57 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

x WBR and NME are classified as threatened under Schedule 3A of the Tasmanian Nature Conservation Act 2002. There may be minor management implications such as minimising disturbance to these vegetation types during pipeline installation and allowing disturbed areas to regenerate to a similar vegetation type post-works. x The study area does not support any vegetation types that equate to threatened ecological communities listed under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Weeds x Seven species classified as “declared weeds” within the meaning of the Tasmanian Weed Management Act 1999 were detected from the study area. x Given the largely primary production context and widespread nature of the species in the broader project area, eradication is not a realistic objective because of the massive source of future propagules, and because it would require a coordinated approach between numerous private property owners and other land managers including local council and the Department of State Growth (for roadside occurrences) to properly address the extent of weed infestations. x Strict machinery hygiene protocols, as outlined in Rudman et al. (2004), Rudman (2005) and Allan & Gartenstein (2010), are recommended where the distribution of weeds is such that the project works present a risk of exacerbating infestations, especially where such exacerbation may impact on primary production activities or introduce these weeds to areas of native vegetation without significant infestations. In addition, machinery that has operated in weed-infested parts of the project area should not be moved to another part of the project area, municipality, other municipalities, reserved areas, or private properties without being subject to strict machinery hygiene protocols (see the manual Keeping it Clean - A Tasmanian Field Hygiene Manual to Prevent the Spread of Freshwater Pests and Pathogens (Allan & Gartenstein 2010) for further details). It may be prudent in some locations to pre-treat localised infestations or flag off a weed infestation (to prevent machinery, vehicle and personnel incursions) prior to the commencement of works. Post- works monitoring is strongly recommended with appropriate control of novel or exacerbated infestations. Plant and animal disease x No evidence of plant disease (Phytophthora cinnamomi, rootrot fungus; myrtle wilt; myrtle rust) was detected. x The main concern is the future risk of transferring water from a chytrid-infected water storage facility (determined as chytrid-free) to non-infected parts of a catchment (so far determined as chytrid-free). x Strict machinery hygiene protocols, as outlined in Rudman et al. (2004), Rudman (2005) and Allan & Gartenstein (2010), are recommended, as well as the implementation of a chytrid management strategy to minimise the risk of introducing the pathogen to chytrid- free sites.

Legislative and policy implications

Some commentary is provided below with respect to the key threatened species, vegetation management and other relevant legislation. Note that there may be other relevant policy instruments in addition to those discussed. It is recognised that at this stage of planning, the

Ecological Assessment of Duck Irrigation Scheme (Pipelines), Tasmania 58 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting commentary below is preliminary only because the final design of the project may modify the extent of disturbance/loss of key ecological values.

Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995

Three plant species listed as threatened on the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 were detected within or adjacent to the study area. Threatened flora on this Act are managed under Section 51, where a permit is required to knowingly “take” (which includes kill, injure, catch, damage, destroy and collect), keep, trade in or process any specimen of a listed species. Where threatened flora are likely to be disturbed, it is usual to apply for a permit under Section 51 of the Act on the required proforma to the Policy & Conservation Assessment Branch (PCAB, DPIPWE). This should only be submitted when the specific design of the project is known such that details can be provided of the degree of anticipated impact on the species. However, internal planning protocols within DPIPWE may allow the approval (and any associated conditions) to be provided under the Tasmanian Water Management Act 1999, which can include conditions related to threatened species. It is also noted that the installation of the transfer and distribution pipelines may trigger the need for a Forest Practices Plan under the Tasmanian Forest Practices Act 1985 and associated Regulations – if this is the case, threatened species can be managed in accordance with Section 51 of the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 through the “agreed procedures” outlined in Section D of the Forest Practices Code (i.e. a permit separate to the Forest Practices Plan may not be required). The present report has provided sufficient information to allow a consideration of the potential impacts of the Duck Irrigation Scheme on threatened flora within the predicted disturbance footprint of the project. In summary, while threatened flora may be affected by the project, the disturbance/loss is considered acceptable in the context of the broader distribution and conservation status of the species. Potential habitat of threatened fauna is more complex to manage under Section 51 of the Act because unless works would result in the “taking” of a specimen, a permit under the Act is not technically possible. However, it is usual for development proposals involving the disturbance of potential habitat of threatened species listed on the Act to be referred to DPIPWE for advice. In the absence of being in a position to issue a permit under Section 51 of the Act, PCAB may make recommendations to a development proponent in regard to managing habitat of threatened species and/or may endorse or comment on proposed offset/mitigation strategies. Whether this advice is provided through PCAB (DPIPWE), other divisions of DPIPWE or via the Forest Practices Authority makes little material difference. However, it is recommended that Tasmanian Irrigation receive formal advice on the management requirements related to aquatic species (Astacopsis gouldi, Prototroctes maraena and Ceyx azureus) and terrestrial species (Sarcophilus harrisii, Dasyurus species, Accipiter novaehollandiae). It is noted that Tasmanian Irrigation already apply a standard set of protocols in relation to most of these species and these are likely to be relevant to the Duck Irrigation Scheme. The State government (usually through DPIPWE) can make recommendations on mitigating adverse effects of activities on the environment, through the objectives of the Resource Management and Planning System for Tasmania (RMPS), which includes promoting “sustainable development of natural and physical resources and the maintenance of ecological processes and genetic diversity.” The principles of the RMPS are embedded within Schedules of the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995. The RMPS definition of sustainable development includes “avoiding, remedying or mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the environment” (information sourced from the undated DPIPWE document General Offsets Principles”, downloaded from http://www.dpiw.tas.gov.au/inter.nsf/Attachments/SSKA-7UM3RT?open, 2 May 2010).

Ecological Assessment of Duck Irrigation Scheme (Pipelines), Tasmania 59 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

No flora species listed on the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 were detected from within or adjacent to the study area. The study area does support potential habitat for some additional species but the timed targeted survey was undertaken at a time to maximise the opportunity to detect such species, and their presence has not been realised. As such, there should be no constraints under this Act related to potential habitat of threatened flora. Several fauna species listed on the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 are likely to occur within and adjacent to the project area. The study area does support potential habitat for some species (e.g. Tasmanian devil, spotted-tailed quoll, eastern quoll, eastern barred bandicoot, giant freshwater crayfish, Tasmanian azure kingfisher, Australian grayling, Tasmanian masked owl, wedge-tailed eagle, and green and golden frog). The Commonwealth Department of the Environment provides a Significant Impact Guidelines policy statement (CofA 2013) to determine if referral to the department is required. The key elements of the criteria are related to whether the activity is likely to lead to a long-term decrease in the size of an important population of a species, reduce the area of occupancy of an important population, fragment an existing important population into two or more populations, adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of a species, disrupt the breeding cycle of an important population, modify, destroy, remove or isolate or decrease the availability or quality of habitat to the extent that the species is likely to decline, result in invasive species that are harmful to a threatened species becoming established in the threatened species’ habitat, introduce disease that may cause the species to decline, or interfere substantially with the recovery of the species. These criteria are considered below in relation to the two species of threatened flora identified from the project area. In my opinion, with respect to the above species, any proposed disturbance within the study area will not constitute a “significant impact” because while there will be a loss of small areas of potential habitat and disturbance to other areas, the loss is not of a scale such that it is likely to lead to a long-term decrease in the size of an important population of a species, reduce the area of occupancy of an important population, fragment an existing important population into two or more populations, adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of a species, disrupt the breeding cycle of an important population, modify, destroy, remove or isolate or decrease the availability or quality of habitat to the extent that the species is likely to decline, result in invasive species that are harmful to a threatened species becoming established in the threatened species’ habitat, introduce disease that may cause the species to decline, or interfere substantially with the recovery of the species. It is recognised that Tasmanian Irrigation routinely refer all major projects to the Commonwealth Department of the Environment such that the Significant Impact Guidelines can be considered in greater detail in the context of the wider project implications (e.g. the irrigation district, dam and transfer/distribution pipelines), particularly in relation to the application of specific management actions to mitigate potential impacts on EPBCA-listed species.

Tasmanian Nature Conservation Act 2002

Two vegetation types (“Eucalyptus brookeriana wet forest”, WBR; “Melaleuca ericifolia swamp forest”, NME) are classified as threatened on Schedule 3A of the Act. The implications of this are somewhat complex because the Act does not provide a direct mechanism for the management of listed vegetation types, except where vegetation management is regulated under the Forest Practices Act 1985 (see below).

Ecological Assessment of Duck Irrigation Scheme (Pipelines), Tasmania 60 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

However, the intent of the listing of vegetation types on the Act is clearly to ensure their long-term conservation management (although there are no defined terms or thresholds, for example, in relation to extent, condition and context, to guide development of management actions for a particular project). In this case, however, the installation of the pipeline through these vegetation types would cause minimal loss of the vegetation types (depending on the longer term management of vegetation around the pipeline corridor, it may be construed that there will be no “clearing” or loss of these vegetation types), can probably be achieved without the loss of a significant number of mature trees, and will probably not lead to a long-term reduction in the ecological condition of the identified patches. On this basis, the currently conceptualised design of the project is acceptable under the Act and should be able to proceed, subject to the suggested careful management to minimise disturbance.

Tasmanian Wildlife (General) Regulations 2010

While the assessment of the study area indicated the presence of species listed on schedules of the Regulations (i.e. “specially protected wildlife”, “protected wildlife”, “partly protected wildlife” – see Appendix C), no “products” (e.g. nests, dens, etc.) of these species were detected. Any disturbance within the study area will not knowingly disturb listed species or products of such species, such that no special actions are likely to be required in relation to these Regulations.

Tasmanian Weed Management Act 1999

Seven species classified as “declared weeds” within the meaning of the Tasmanian Weed Management Act 1999 were detected from the study area. These species are subject to Statutory Weed Management Plans under the Weed Management Act 1999 (see information on weed section of DPIPWE’s web site). The study area falls within the Circular Head municipality, which for the management of most species is classified as a “Zone B” municipality (widespread or localised infestations). In relation to “Zone B” species, “containment”, within the meaning of the Weed Management Act 1999, is the most appropriate management objective for municipalities who have problematic infestations but no plan and/or resources to undertake control actions at a level required for eradication. The management outcome for these municipalities is ongoing prevention of the spread of declared weeds from existing infestations to areas free or in the process of becoming free of these weeds. Note that the only “Zone A” species (Erica lusitanica) detected from with the survey corridor was located on a road verge and at a site that will not be affected by the pipeline installation. Given the largely primary production context and widespread nature of the species in the broader project area, eradication is not a realistic objective because of the massive source of future propagules, and because it would require a coordinated approach between numerous private property owners and other land managers including local council and the Department of State Growth (for roadside occurrences) to properly address the extent of weed infestations. Strict machinery hygiene protocols, as outlined in Rudman et al. (2004), Rudman (2005) and Allan & Gartenstein (2010), are recommended where the distribution of weeds is such that the project works present a risk of exacerbating infestations, especially where such exacerbation may impact on primary production activities or introduce these weeds to areas of native vegetation without significant infestations. In addition, machinery that has operated in weed-infested parts of the project area should not be moved to another part of the project area, municipality, other municipalities, reserved areas, or private properties without being subject to strict machinery hygiene protocols (see the manual Keeping it Clean - A Tasmanian Field Hygiene Manual to Prevent the Spread of Freshwater Pests and Pathogens (Allan & Gartenstein 2010) for further details). It

Ecological Assessment of Duck Irrigation Scheme (Pipelines), Tasmania 61 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting may be prudent in some locations to pre-treat localised infestations or flag off a weed infestation (to prevent machinery, vehicle and personnel incursions) prior to the commencement of works. Post-works monitoring is strongly recommended with appropriate control of novel or exacerbated infestations.

Tasmanian Forest Practices Act 1985 and associated regulations

A Forest Practices Plan (FPP) is required for most “clearing” activities in areas of forest and woodland (and for some activities within threatened non-forest native vegetation). Usually, an FPP is only required for clearing activities that exceed certain thresholds i.e. 1 ha or 100 tonnes of timber, from any one property in any calendar year. An FPP is required for any clearing on “vulnerable land”, which includes sites inhabited by threatened species or riparian features. Under the Regulations (section 4), circumstances in which an FPP is not required are specified, which include: 4. Circumstances in which forest practices plan, &c., not required For the purpose of section 17(6) of the Act, the following circumstances are prescribed: (d) the harvesting of timber or the clearing of trees on any land, or the clearance and conversion of a threatened native vegetation community on any land, for one or more of the following purposes: (i) dam works authorised by a dam permit granted under the Water Management Act 1999… On this basis, a Forest Practices Plan is not required for “clearing” of “forest” provided that a permit is issued under the Tasmanian Water Management Act 1999 for the Mill Creek dam component of the project. Advice should be sought from the Forest Practices Authority as to whether the granting of a dam permit under the Water Management Act 1999 is interpreted as also being applicable to the transfer and distribution pipelines (and other project elements). In my opinion, this is the logical interpretation and intent of clause 4.(d)(i) because the associated dam itself would not progress in the absence of the associated works (i.e. the granting of the permit should be for the whole project, if this is permissible under the Water Management Act 1999. If an FPP remains a formal requirement, advice will need to be sought from the Forest Practices Authority on the management of vegetation types (including the application of the Permanent Native Forest Estate policy), threatened fauna and flora, declared and other environmental weeds, and plant and animal disease under the provisions of the Forest Practices Code 2000.

Recommendations

At this stage of project planning for the Duck Irrigation Scheme, the ecological assessment of the proposed transfer/distribution pipeline corridor components of the project has indicated the presence of several values that will require further consideration during further project development, including: x vegetation types – the need for a Forest Practices Plan will need to be determined to ascertain the application of the Permanent Native Forest Estate policy and management of threatened vegetation types under Schedule 3A of the Tasmanian Nature Conservation Act 2002; x threatened flora – only State-listed species have been detected, meaning consideration of referral under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 will not be required;

Ecological Assessment of Duck Irrigation Scheme (Pipelines), Tasmania 62 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

x threatened flora – the mechanism for application of a permit under Section 51 of the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 will need to be clarified (depends on whether a permit issued under the Water Management Act 1999 negates the need for a Forest Practices Plan under the Forest Practices Act 1985); x potential habitat of threatened fauna – Tasmanian Irrigation should implement its standard threatened fauna management protocols, as previously accepted by State and Commonwealth agencies; advice should be sought from the relevant section of DPIPWE if these standard protocols are not applicable or need to be modified to suit a particular aspect of the project, noting that Tasmanian Irrigation routinely refer all proposed schemes to the Commonwealth Department of the Environment under the provisions of the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999); x declared weeds – strict machinery hygiene protocols, as outlined in Rudman et al. (2004), Rudman (2005) and Allan & Gartenstein (2010), are recommended where the distribution of weeds is such that the project works present a risk of exacerbating infestations; x plant disease – no significant constraints but strict machinery hygiene protocols are recommended; and x freshwater pathogens (chytrid) – the main concern is the future risk of transferring water from a chytrid-infected water storage facility (determined as chytrid-free) to non- infected parts of a catchment (so far determined as chytrid-free); strict machinery hygiene protocols, as outlined in Rudman et al. (2004), Rudman (2005) and Allan & Gartenstein (2010), are recommended, as well as the implementation of a chytrid management strategy to minimise the risk of introducing the pathogen to chytrid-free sites. There are no ecological values that are likely to critically constrain the pipeline components of the Duck Irrigation Scheme. However, this should be confirmed by advice from relevant authorities, and further management prescriptions may need to be developed in relation to some of the identified values and/or potential risks.

REFERENCES

Allan, K. & Gartenstein, S. (2010). Keeping It Clean: A Tasmanian Field Hygiene Manual to Prevent the Spread of Freshwater Pests and Pathogens. NRM South, Hobart. Bryant, S.L. & Jackson, J. (1999). Tasmania’s Threatened Fauna Handbook: What, Where and How to Protect Tasmania’s Threatened Animals. Threatened Species Unit, Parks & Wildlife Service, Hobart. Chuter, A. & Wapstra, M. (2014). Thismia rodwayi (fairy lanterns) discovered in the north-west during snail monitoring. Forest Practices News 12(1): 3. CofA (Commonwealth of Australia) (2013). EPBC Act Policy Statement 1.1: Significant Impact Guidelines – Matters of National Environmental Significance. Department of the Environment & Heritage. CofA (Commonwealth of Australia) (2015). Protected Matters Search Tool Report for an approximate linear feature representing the pipeline route (-40.856877 145.312701, -40.857916 145.172969, -40.857656 145.089885, -40.828307 145.041476, -40.787509 144.948436), buffered by 10 km, dated 15 December 2015. [appended]. de Salas, M.F. & Baker, M.L. (2015). A Census of the Vascular Plants of Tasmania and Index to The Student’s Flora of Tasmania and Flora of Tasmania Online. Tasmanian Herbarium, Hobart. DPIPWE (Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water & Environment) (2015a). Guidelines for Natural Values Surveys - Terrestrial Development Proposals. Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water & Environment, Hobart.

Ecological Assessment of Duck Irrigation Scheme (Pipelines), Tasmania 63 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

DPIPWE (Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water & Environment) (2015b). Survey Guidelines and Management Advice for Development Proposals that may impact on the Tasmanian Devil (Sarcophilus harrisii). Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water & Environment, Hobart. DPIPWE (Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water & Environment) (2015c). Threatened flora and fauna data, extracted from the online Natural Values Atlas. Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water & Environment, Hobart. DPIPWE (Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water & Environment) (2015d). Natural Values Atlas Report ECOtas_TI_DuckPipelines for a line feature representing the pipeline route, buffered by 5 km, dated 15 December 2015. [appended] DPIPWE (Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water & Environment) (2015e). Threatened Native Vegetation Communities List July 2007 as per Schedule 3A of the Tasmanian Nature Conservation Act 2002. http://www.dpiw.tas.gov.au/inter.nsf/webpages/awah-6547zl?open DPIPWE (Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water & Environment) (2015f). Biosecurity Factsheet: Myrtle Rust. Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment, Hobart. Duretto, M.F. (Ed.) (2009+). Flora of Tasmania Online. Tasmanian Herbarium, Tasmanian Museum & Art Gallery: Hobart. www.tmag.tas.gov.au/floratasmania. Evans, K.J., Symon, D.E., Whalen, M.A., Hosking, J.R., Barker, R.M. & Oliver, J.A. (2007). Systematics of the Rubus fruticosus aggregate (Rosaceae) and other exotic Rubus taxa in Australia. Australian Systematic Botany 20: 187–251. FPA (Forest Practices Authority) (2009). Management of Phytophthora cinnamomi in Production Forests. Flora Technical Note No. 8. Forest Practices Authority, Hobart. FPA (Forest Practices Authority) (2015). Biodiversity Values Database report, specifically the species’ information for nominal grid references at various points along the pipeline route, buffered by 5 km, hyperlinked species’ profiles and predicted range boundary maps, dated 15 December 2015 (FPA 2015) – obtained to provide the DPIPWE/FPA-endorsed descriptions of potential habitat of threatened fauna and to confirm the accepted core and potential range boundaries of various threatened fauna species [used for habitat descriptions of threatened fauna only]. Jones, D.L. (1998). A taxonomic review of Caladenia in Tasmania. Australian Orchid Research 3: 1660. Jones, D.L. (1998). A taxonomic review of Prasophyllum in Tasmania. Australian Orchid Research 3: 94134. Jones, D.L. (1998). A taxonomic review of Pterostylis in Tasmania. Australian Orchid Research 3: 135177. Kitchener, A. & Harris, S. (2013). From Forest to Fjaeldmark: Descriptions of Tasmania’s Vegetation. Edition 2. Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water & Environment, Tasmania. Rudman T. (2005). Interim Phytophthora cinnamomi Management Guidelines. Nature Conservation Report 05/7, Biodiversity Conservation Branch, Department of Primary Industries, Water & Environment, Hobart. Rudman, T., Tucker, D. & French, D. (2004). Washdown Procedures for Weed and Disease Control. Edition 1. Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment, Hobart. TSS (Threatened Species Section) (2003+). Notesheets and Listing Statements for various threatened species. DPIPWE, Hobart. TSS (Threatened Species Section) (2012). Survey Time and Potential Habitat Guide for Tasmania’s Threatened Flora. Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water & Environment, Hobart. Wapstra, M., Bryant, S. & Bell, P. (2010). Conservation overview of the azure kingfisher Ceyx azureus subsp. diemenensis in Tasmania. Tasmanian Bird Report 34: 823.

Ecological Assessment of Duck Irrigation Scheme (Pipelines), Tasmania 64 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Wapstra, M., Roberts, N., Wapstra, H. & Wapstra, A. (2012). Flowering Times of Tasmanian Orchids: A Practical Guide for Field Botanists. Self-published by the authors (Third Edition, May 2012 version). Wapstra, H., Wapstra, A., Wapstra, M. & Gilfedder, L. (2005+, updated online at www.dpipwe.tas.gov.au). The Little Book of Common Names for Tasmanian Plants. Department of Primary Industries, Water & Environment, Hobart.

Ecological Assessment of Duck Irrigation Scheme (Pipelines), Tasmania 65 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

APPENDIX A. Vegetation community structure and composition The images below provide basic information on the structure and composition of some of the key native vegetation mapping units identified from the survey corridor.

Plates A1 & A2. WOB over pasture – mapping this area as “forest” is somewhat nonsensical but the canopy is obvious on aerial imagery and mapping as “pasture” (FAG) is not entirely acceptable under TASVEG 3.0

Plate A3. (LHS) SMR over pasture – ecologically this remnant stand functions as pasture Plate A4. (RHS) Small remnant stand of NME (mixed composition)

Plate A5. (LHS) Disturbed WOB on eastern bank of Black River Plate A6. (RHS) Better condition WOB on western slope above Black River

Ecological Assessment of Duck Irrigation Scheme (Pipelines), Tasmania 66 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Plates A7 & A8. Examples of disturbed riparian WOB on Ghost Creek

Plate A9. (LHS) Remnant stand of NME on north side of Back Line Road Plate A10. (RHS) Looking into same stand of NME showing blackberry understorey in front but better open understorey with ground and trunked ferns in rear

Plate A11. (LHS) Highly disturbed facies of WBR on Sedgy Creek Plate A12. (RHS) Disturbed facies of WBR grading into WOB/WVI on eastern side of Deep Creek

Ecological Assessment of Duck Irrigation Scheme (Pipelines), Tasmania 67 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Plate A13. (LHS) Disturbed facies of WBR on Deep Creek Plate A14. (RHS) Better condition NME along Deep Creek

Plate A15. (LHS) Stand of DNI with a shrubby/heathy understorey on southern side of Bass Highway Plate A16. (RHS) Remnant stand of DNI acting as shelterbelt

Plate A17. (LHS) One of the larger and better condition patches of NME in northwest of survey corridor Plate A18. (RHS) Distant view of WNL in northwest of survey corridor

Ecological Assessment of Duck Irrigation Scheme (Pipelines), Tasmania 68 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

APPENDIX B. Vascular plant species recorded from study area Botanical nomenclature follows A Census of the Vascular Plants of Tasmania (de Salas & Baker 2015), with family placement updated to reflect the nomenclatural changes recognised in the Flora of Tasmania Online (Duretto 2009+); common nomenclature follows Wapstra et al. (2005+, updated online at www.dpipwe.tas.gov.au). i = introduced/naturalised; e = endemic to Tasmania; DW = declared weed within meaning of the Tasmanian Weed Management Act 1999; EW = environmental weed; TSPA = threatened species within the meaning of the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995

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

ORDER STATUS DICOTYLEDONAE MONOCOTYLEDONAE GYMNOSPERMAE PTERIDOPHYTA 92 53 - 11 e 2 1 - - i 96 44 2 - Sum 190 98 2 11 TOTAL 301

DICOTYLEDONAE AMARANTHACEAE i Chenopodium album fat hen APIACEAE i Conium maculatum hemlock EW APOCYNACEAE Parsonsia brownii twining silkpod i Vinca major blue periwinkle ARALIACEAE i Hedera helix ivy Hydrocotyle hirta hairy pennywort Hydrocotyle muscosa mossy pennywort Hydrocotyle pterocarpa winged pennywort ASTERACEAE i Achillea millefolium yarrow i Bellis perennis english daisy i Carduus pycnocephalus slender thistle DW Cassinia aculeata subsp. aculeata common dollybush Centipeda elatinoides spreading sneezeweed i Cirsium arvense var. arvense creeping thistle DW i Cirsium vulgare spear thistle i Cotula coronopifolia water buttons Euchiton involucratus star cottonleaf Euchiton japonicus common cottonleaf Euchiton sphaericus globe cottonleaf i Gamochaeta calviceps grey cudweed i Gazania linearis tufted gazania i Helminthotheca echioides bristly oxtongue i Hypochaeris glabra smooth catsear i Hypochaeris radicata rough catsear Lagenophora stipitata blue bottledaisy i Leontodon saxatilis hairy hawkbit Olearia lirata forest daisybush i Osteospermum fruticosum trailing daisy Ozothamnus ferrugineus tree everlastingbush

Ecological Assessment of Duck Irrigation Scheme (Pipelines), Tasmania 69 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Senecio linearifolius var. linearifolius common fireweed groundsel Senecio minimus shrubby fireweed Senecio quadridentatus cotton fireweed i Sonchus asper subsp. asper prickly sowthistle i Sonchus oleraceus common sowthistle BETULACEAE i Betula pendula silver birch BRASSICACEAE i Brassica rapa turnip i Capsella bursa-pastoris shepherds purse i Cardamine hirsuta hairy bittercress i Hirschfeldia incana hoary mustard i Nasturtium officinale two-row watercress i Raphanus raphanistrum wild radish i Sinapis arvensis charlock i Sisymbrium officinale hedge-mustard CAMPANULACEAE Wahlenbergia gracilis sprawling bluebell Wahlenbergia stricta subsp. stricta tall bluebell CARYOPHYLLACEAE i Cerastium vulgare common mouse-ear i Moenchia erecta erect chickweed i Polycarpon tetraphyllum fourleaf allseed i Sagina apetala annual pearlwort i Spergularia rubra greater sandspurrey CASUARINACEAE e Allocasuarina monilifera necklace sheoak CELASTRACEAE Stackhousia monogyna forest candles CONVOLVULACEAE Dichondra repens kidneyweed CRASSULACEAE Crassula helmsii swamp stonecrop CUNONIACEAE Bauera rubioides wiry bauera DILLENIACEAE Hibbertia prostrata prostrate guineaflower DROSERACEAE Drosera auriculata tall sundew ERICACEAE Acrotriche serrulata ants delight Astroloma humifusum native cranberry Epacris impressa common heath Epacris lanuginosa swamp heath i Erica lusitanica spanish heath DW Leucopogon ericoides pink beardheath Leucopogon parviflorus coast beardheath Monotoca elliptica tree broomheath Monotoca glauca goldey wood EUPHORBIACEAE Amperea xiphoclada var. xiphoclada broom spurge i Euphorbia peplus petty spurge FABACEAE Acacia dealbata subsp. dealbata silver wattle Acacia longifolia subsp. sophorae coast wattle Acacia melanoxylon blackwood Acacia mucronata subsp. mucronata erect caterpillar wattle Acacia myrtifolia redstem wattle Acacia verticillata subsp. verticillata prickly moses Aotus ericoides golden pea i Genista monspessulana montpellier broom DW Goodia lotifolia smooth goldentip i Lotus corniculatus var. corniculatus common birdsfoot-trefoil

Ecological Assessment of Duck Irrigation Scheme (Pipelines), Tasmania 70 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

i Lotus corniculatus var. tenuifolius narrow birdsfoot-trefoil i Lotus suaveolens hairy birdsfoot-trefoil i Medicago polymorpha burr medick i Psoralea pinnata blue butterflybush EW Pultenaea juniperina prickly beauty i Trifolium dubium suckling clover i Trifolium glomeratum cluster clover i Trifolium pratense red clover i Trifolium repens white clover i Trifolium subterraneum subterranean clover i Trifolium tomentosum woolly clover i Ulex europaeus gorse DW i Vicia sativa subsp. nigra narrowleaf vetch i Vicia sativa subsp. sativa common vetch i Vicia tetrasperma smooth vetch FUMARIACEAE i Fumaria muralis subsp. muralis wall fumitory GENTIANACEAE i Centaurium erythraea common centaury GERANIACEAE i Erodium botrys long heronsbill i Erodium cicutarium common heronsbill i Erodium malacoides oval heronsbill i Geranium molle soft cranesbill Geranium solanderi southern cranesbill GOODENIACEAE Goodenia ovata hop native-primrose HALORAGACEAE Gonocarpus micranthus subsp. micranthus creeping raspwort Gonocarpus tetragynus common raspwort Gonocarpus teucrioides forest raspwort HYPERICACEAE Hypericum gramineum small st johns-wort Hypericum japonicum matted st johns-wort LAMIACEAE Ajuga australis australian bugle Prostanthera lasianthos var. lasianthos christmas mintbush i Prunella vulgaris selfheal LAURACEAE Cassytha melantha large dodderlaurel LINACEAE Linum marginale native flax LOBELIACEAE Lobelia anceps angled lobelia Lobelia pedunculata matted lobelia LYTHRACEAE Lythrum hyssopifolia small loosestrife MALVACEAE i Malva dendromorpha tree mallow i Malva nicaeensis mallow-of-nice MYRSINACEAE i Lysimachia arvensis scarlet pimpernel MYRTACEAE Eucalyptus brookeriana brookers gum i Eucalyptus globulus subsp. globulus tasmanian blue gum i Eucalyptus nitens shining gum e Eucalyptus nitida western peppermint Eucalyptus obliqua stringybark Eucalyptus viminalis subsp. viminalis white gum Leptospermum lanigerum woolly teatree Leptospermum scoparium common teatree Melaleuca ericifolia coast paperbark Melaleuca squarrosa scented paperbark

Ecological Assessment of Duck Irrigation Scheme (Pipelines), Tasmania 71 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

ONAGRACEAE Epilobium billardierianum subsp. billardierianum robust willowherb Epilobium billardierianum subsp. intermedium marsh willowherb i Epilobium ciliatum glandular willowherb Epilobium hirtigerum hairy willowherb Epilobium pallidiflorum showy willowherb TSPA (rare) OROBANCHACEAE i Orobanche minor lesser broomrape i Parentucellia latifolia broadleaf glandweed i Parentucellia viscosa yellow glandweed OXALIDACEAE i Oxalis corniculata subsp. corniculata yellow woodsorrel PAPAVERACEAE i Papaver dubium longhead poppy i Papaver somniferum subsp. somniferum opium poppy PHYLLANTHACEAE Poranthera microphylla small poranthera PITTOSPORACEAE Billardiera macrantha highland appleberry Bursaria spinosa subsp. spinosa prickly box Pittosporum bicolor cheesewood i Pittosporum tenuifolium kohuhu PLANTAGINACEAE i Callitriche stagnalis mud waterstarwort i Digitalis purpurea foxglove EW Gratiola peruviana southern brooklime TSPA (vulnerable) Gratiola pubescens hairy brooklime i Plantago coronopus subsp. coronopus slender buckshorn plantain i Plantago lanceolata ribwort plantain i Plantago major great plantain i Veronica serpyllifolia thyme speedwell POLYGONACEAE i Acetosella vulgaris sheep sorrel i Polygonum aviculare creeping wireweed i Rumex crispus curled dock i Rumex obtusifolius broadleaf dock i Rumex pulcher subsp. pulcher fiddle dock PORTULACACEAE Montia fontana subsp. chondrosperma waterblinks PROTEACEAE Banksia marginata silver banksia RANUNCULACEAE Clematis aristata mountain clematis i Ranunculus repens creeping buttercup RESEDACEAE i Reseda luteola weld RHAMNACEAE Pomaderris apetala subsp. apetala common dogwood ROSACEAE Acaena echinata spiny sheepsburr Acaena novae-zelandiae common buzzy Acaena x anserovina hybrid sheepsburr i Cotoneaster franchetii grey cotoneaster EW i Malus pumila apple i Potentilla recta upright cinquefoil i Rosa rubiginosa sweet briar i Rubus anglocandicans blackberry DW i Rubus leucostachys blackberry DW Rubus parvifolius native raspberry i Sanguisorba minor salad burnet RUBIACEAE Coprosma quadrifida native currant i Galium aparine cleavers

Ecological Assessment of Duck Irrigation Scheme (Pipelines), Tasmania 72 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Galium australe tangled bedstraw RUTACEAE Zieria arborescens subsp. arborescens stinkwood SALICACEAE i Salix x fragilis nothovar. fragilis crack willow DW SANTALACEAE Exocarpos cupressiformis common native-cherry SCROPHULARIACEAE i Verbascum thapsus great mullein i Verbascum virgatum twiggy mullein SOLANACEAE i Solanum tuberosum potato STYLIDIACEAE Stylidium graminifolium narrowleaf triggerplant THYMELAEACEAE Pimelea drupacea cherry riceflower Pimelea ligustrina subsp. ligustrina tall riceflower Pimelea linifolia slender riceflower URTICACEAE Australina pusilla subsp. pusilla small shade nettle Urtica incisa scrub nettle VIOLACEAE Viola hederacea subsp. hederacea ivyleaf violet Viola sieberiana tiny violet GYMNOSPERMAE CUPRESSACEAE i Hesperocyparis macrocarpa monterey cypress PINACEAE i Pinus radiata radiata pine MONOCOTYLEDONAE AGAPANTHACEAE i Agapanthus praecox subsp. orientalis agapanthus ALISMATACEAE i Alisma plantago-aquatica water plantain ARACEAE Lemna disperma common duckweed CENTROLEPIDACEAE Centrolepis strigosa subsp. strigosa hairy bristlewort CYPERACEAE Baumea tetragona square twigsedge Carex appressa tall sedge Carex fascicularis tassel sedge i Cyperus eragrostis drain flatsedge Cyperus lucidus leafy flatsedge Ficinia nodosa knobby clubsedge Gahnia grandis cutting grass Isolepis cernua nodding clubsedge Isolepis fluitans floating clubsedge Isolepis inundata swamp clubsedge Isolepis marginata little clubsedge Lepidosperma elatius tall swordsedge Lepidosperma ensiforme arching swordsedge Lepidosperma filiforme common rapiersedge Schoenus apogon common bogsedge Schoenus fluitans floating bogsedge HEMEROCALLIDACEAE Dianella tasmanica forest flaxlily IRIDACEAE Diplarrena moraea white flag-iris Patersonia fragilis short purpleflag Patersonia occidentalis var. occidentalis long purpleflag i Watsonia versfeldii white watsonia

Ecological Assessment of Duck Irrigation Scheme (Pipelines), Tasmania 73 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

JUNCACEAE i Juncus articulatus jointed rush e Juncus astreptus rigid rush Juncus australis southern rush Juncus bassianus forest rush Juncus bufonius toad rush i Juncus capitatus capitate rush i Juncus effusus soft rush Juncus holoschoenus jointleaf rush Juncus pallidus pale rush Juncus pauciflorus looseflower rush Juncus planifolius broadleaf rush Juncus procerus tall rush Juncus sarophorus broom rush Juncus subsecundus finger rush Luzula densiflora dense woodrush LAXMANNIACEAE Lomandra longifolia sagg LUZURIAGACEAE Drymophila cyanocarpa turquoise berry ORCHIDACEAE Chiloglottis cornuta green bird-orchid Gastrodia procera tall potato-orchid Gastrodia sesamoides short potato-orchid POACEAE i Agrostis capillaris var. capillaris browntop bent i Agrostis stolonifera creeping bent Agrostis venusta graceful bent i Aira caryophyllea subsp. caryophyllea silvery hairgrass i Aira elegantissima delicate hairgrass i Aira praecox early hairgrass i Alopecurus pratensis subsp. pratensis meadow foxtail i Anthoxanthum odoratum sweet vernalgrass i Arrhenatherum elatius var. bulbosum bulbous oatgrass Australopyrum pectinatum prickly wheatgrass Austrostipa stuposa corkscrew speargrass i Avena barbata bearded oat i Avena sativa cereal oat i Briza maxima greater quaking-grass i Briza minor lesser quaking-grass i Bromus cebadilla chilean brome i Bromus diandrus great brome i Bromus hordeaceus soft brome i Catapodium rigidum ferngrass i Cynodon dactylon var. dactylon couchgrass i Cynosurus cristatus crested dogstail i Cynosurus echinatus rough dogstail i Dactylis glomerata cocksfoot Deyeuxia quadriseta reed bentgrass i Digitaria sanguinalis summergrass Echinopogon ovatus hedgehog grass i Festuca arundinacea tall fescue i Glyceria declinata small sweetgrass i Holcus lanatus yorkshire fog i Hordeum leporinum long-anther barleygrass i Hordeum vulgare barley Lachnagrostis filiformis common blowngrass i Lolium multiflorum italian ryegrass i Lolium perenne perennial ryegrass i Paspalum dilatatum paspalum i Phalaris aquatica toowoomba canarygrass i Phalaris minor lesser canarygrass i Poa annua winter grass

Ecological Assessment of Duck Irrigation Scheme (Pipelines), Tasmania 74 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

i Poa infirma early meadowgrass Poa labillardierei var. labillardierei silver tussockgrass i Poa pratensis kentucky bluegrass i Polypogon monspeliensis annual beardgrass Rytidosperma caespitosum common wallabygrass Rytidosperma penicillatum slender wallabygrass Rytidosperma racemosum var. racemosum stiped wallabygrass Tetrarrhena distichophylla hairy ricegrass Tetrarrhena juncea forest wiregrass i Vulpia bromoides squirreltail fescue POTAMOGETONACEAE Potamogeton ochreatus blunt pondweed RESTIONACEAE Baloskion australe southern cordrush Baloskion tetraphyllum subsp. tetraphyllum tassel cordrush Eurychorda complanata flat cordrush TYPHACEAE i Typha latifolia great reedmace PTERIDOPHYTA BLECHNACEAE Blechnum minus soft waterfern Blechnum nudum fishbone waterfern Blechnum wattsii hard waterfern DENNSTAEDTIACEAE Histiopteris incisa batswing fern Hypolepis rugosula ruddy groundfern Pteridium esculentum bracken DICKSONIACEAE Dicksonia antarctica soft treefern DRYOPTERIDACEAE Polystichum proliferum mother shieldfern GLEICHENIACEAE Gleichenia microphylla scrambling coralfern Sticherus lobatus spreading fanfern OSMUNDACEAE Todea barbara southern kingfern

Ecological Assessment of Duck Irrigation Scheme (Pipelines), Tasmania 75 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

APPENDIX C. Vertebrate fauna recorded from study area The following table lists the vertebrate fauna recorded from the study area. The list is based on opportunistic detection during the course of the more detailed botanical assessment. Intensive surveys for vertebrate fauna (e.g. dissection of logs, turning of stones, nocturnal and crepuscular surveys, trapping, etc.) were not undertaken. Vertebrate nomenclature follows the following texts for the different groups: Birds: Christidis, L. & Boles, W.E. (2008). Systematics and Taxonomy of Australian Birds. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, with nomenclature updated to the interim working list provided by BirdLife Australia; Reptiles: Hutchinson, M., Swain, R. & Driessen, M. (2001). Snakes and Lizards of Tasmania. Fauna of Tasmania Handbook No. 9. University of Tasmania and Department of Primary Industries, Water & Environment, Hobart, with nomenclature updated to recent scincid taxonomy, as included in A Complete Guide to Reptiles of Australia (Wilson & Swan 2013). Amphibians: Littlejohn, M. (2003). Frogs of Tasmania. Fauna of Tasmania Handbook No. 6 (2nd edition). University of Tasmania, Hobart. i = introduced/naturalised; e = endemic to Tasmania

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

ORDER STATUS MAMMALS BIRDS AMPHIBIANS REPTILES 3 30 2 1 e 1 3 - - i 1 7 - - Sum 5 40 2 1 TOTAL 48

Table C2. Vertebrate fauna recorded from assessment area [domestic stock and household pets excluded] [s = sighting, d = diggings, sc = scats, a = audible; o = other]

Record Status Scientific name Common name Comments

MAMMALS

TACHYGLOSSIDAE (echidna family)

Tachyglossus aculeatus Diggings infrequent; roadkill on Bass s, d, o Short-beaked echidna setosus Highway

MACROPOIDAE (kangaroo & wallaby family)

Small number sighted; scats s, sc, o Macropus rufogriseus Red-necked wallaby numerous; skulls occasional; roadkill on Bass Highway

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

PHALANGERIDAE (possum family)

Scats on logs, rocks and tracks; one Common brushtail s, sc, o Trichosurus vulpecula skull; “runs” up stringybarks; roadkill possum on Bass Highway

Ecological Assessment of Duck Irrigation Scheme (Pipelines), Tasmania 76 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Record Status Scientific name Common name Comments

LEPORIDAE (rabbit and hare family)

s, sc, o i Oryctolagus cuniculus European rabbit Several flushed; roadkill; skulls; scats

REPTILES

SCINCIDAE (skinks)

Individuals on river rocks at Black s Niveoscincus metallicus Metallic skink River

AMPHIBIANS

HYLIDAE (tree frogs)

a Litoria ewingii Brown tree frog Heard at dams

MYOBATRACHIDAE (ground frogs)

a Crinia signifera Common froglet Heard at dams

BIRDS

ANATIDAE (duck, geese and swan family)

One dead bird in paddock under o Cygnus atratus Black swan powerlines east of Sedgy Creek

s Chenonetta jubata Australian wood duck Small flock on dam on Ghost Creek

Pair on slow-flowing section of Duck s Anas superciliosa Pacific black duck River

COLUMBIDAE (pigeon and dove family)

a Phaps chalcoptera Common bronzewing Calls occasional in forest

ARDEIDAE (heron, egret and bittern family)

Several sighted in wet paddocks and s Egretta novaehollandiae White-faced heron around farm dams

ACCIPITRIDAE (eagle, hawk and kite family)

s Circus approximans Swamp harrier Several foraging over wet paddocks

Tasmanian wedge- Adult being harangued by ravens near s e Aquila audax fleayi tailed eagle Back Line Road

FALCONIDAE (falcon family)

Several seen in flight; occasionally s Falco berigora berigora Brown falcon perched on roadside fenceposts

CHARADRIIDAE (plover and dotterel family)

Vanellus miles Southern masked s Several in paddocks novaehollandiae lapwing

RALLIDAE (crake, rail and swamphen family)

Numerous individuals seen in wet s, o e Tribonyx mortierii Tasmanian native-hen pasture/forest interfaces; droppings abundant in wet pastures

Ecological Assessment of Duck Irrigation Scheme (Pipelines), Tasmania 77 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Record Status Scientific name Common name Comments

CACATUIDAE (cockatoo and corella family)

Calyptorhynchus funereus Tasmanian yellow- a Flock heard in distance xanthanotus tailed black cockatoo

PSITTACIDAE (parrot, lorikeet and rosella family)

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

CUCULIDAE (cuckoo family)

a Cacomantis flabelliformis Fan-tailed cuckoo Several heard

a Cacomantis pallidus Pallid cuckoo Occasional calls

HALYCONIDAE (kookaburra family)

s, a i Dacelo novaeguineae Laughing kookaburra Several seen and heard

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

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

ACANTHIZIDAE (thornbill and gerygone family)

Several small flocks and individuals s, a Acanthiza pusilla Brown thornbill seen and heard, mainly in forested areas

PARDALOTIDAE (pardalote family)

a Pardalotus punctatus Spotted pardalote Calls occasional in forest

a Pardalotus striatus Striated pardalote Calls numerous in forest

MELIPHAGIDAE (honeyeater and chat family)

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

CAMPEPHAGIDAE (cuckoo-shrike and triller family)

Black-faced cuckoo- Individuals seen and heard on forest s, a Coracina novaehollandiae shrike margins near Black River

PACHYCEPHALIDAE (whistler and shrike-thrush family)

Pachycephala pectoralis Tasmanian golden a Calls in eucalypt forest occasional glaucura whistler

Colluricincla harmonica Tasmanian grey shrike- Numerous calls, sightings occasional, s, a strigata thrush mainly in eucalypt forest

ARTAMIDAE (woodswallow, currawong, butcherbird and magpie family)

Small number of small flocks and s, a Artamus cyanopterus Dusky wood-swallow individuals foraging at forest/pasture interfaces

s Cracticus torquatus Grey butcherbird One seen in farm garden near Forest

Two seen in macrocarpa pine s Cracticus tibicen Australian magpie shelterbelt

Ecological Assessment of Duck Irrigation Scheme (Pipelines), Tasmania 78 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Record Status Scientific name Common name Comments

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

s, a Strepera versicolor Grey currawong Sightings and calls occasional

RHIPIDURIDAE (fantail family)

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

CORVIDAE (crow and raven family)

Corvus tasmanicus s, a Southern forest raven Several seen and heard tasmanicus

PETROICIDAE (australian robin family)

Tasmanian scarlet s Petroica multicolour leggii One adult sighted on fencepost robin

s, a e Melanodryas vittata vittata Tasmanian dusky robin Occasional in forested areas

ALAUDIDAE (lark family)

s i Alauda arvensis Eurasian skylark Several sighted in drier paddocks

HIRUNDINIDAE (swallow and martin family) Numerous over pasture and wider s Hirundo neoxena Welcome swallow open water

s Petrochelidon nigricans Tree martin Small flocks above forest patches

TURDIDAE (thrush family) Several seen around farmhouses, s i Turdus merula Common blackbird blackberry “hedgerows” and pine shelterbelts STURNIDAE (starling family) Several nesting in old stag at edge of s i Sturnus vulgaris Common starling dam east of Mengha Road in Forest; several seen throughout project area PASSERIDAE (sparrow family) Several seen around farmhouses, s i Passer domesticus House sparrow blackberry “hedgerows” and pine shelterbelts FRINGILLIDAE (old world finch family) Several small flocks in blackberry s i Carduelis carduelis European goldfinch “hedgerows” and around farm buildings

One seen in ornamental plants around s i Chloris chloris Common greenfinch farmhouse in Forest

Ecological Assessment of Duck Irrigation Scheme (Pipelines), Tasmania 79 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

APPENDIX D. Analysis of database records of threatened flora

Table D1 provides a listing of priority flora from within 500 m and 5000 m of the assessment area (nominal buffer widths usually used to discuss the potential of a particular assessment area to support various species listed in databases), with comments on whether potential habitat is present for the species, and possible reasons why a species was not recorded. Some species not listed on databases but considered by the author to have potential to occur in the survey area are also discussed. Note that the field assessment was not restricted to the species listed in Table D1 but considered any threatened flora with the potential to be present. While the database analysis utilises a nominal buffer of 5,000 m, the author’s own experience of the greater northwest region, especially the coastal hinterlands, combined with database interrogation, meant that the specific potential for numerous other species previously recorded from the wider area were taken into account.

Table D1. Priority flora records from within 500 m and 5000 m of boundary of assessment area Species listed below are listed as rare (r), vulnerable (v), endangered (e), or extinct (x) on the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 (TSPA); vulnerable (VU), endangered (EN), critically endangered (CR) or extinct (EX) on the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBCA). Information below is sourced from the DPIPWE’s Natural Values Atlas (DPIPWE 2015) and other sources where indicated. Habitat descriptions are taken from TSS (2003+) and TSS (2012), except where otherwise indicated.

Status Species TSPA Observations Comments EPBCA

Records within the assessment area

Amphibromus neesii r Refer to FINDINGS Plant species Priority species 3 records (southern swampgrass) - recorded from the study area.

Two records fall within the survey corridor about 500 m west of Deep Creek. Both records are by Barry Dudman (15 Oct. 1977, 4 Nov. 1974) and have a precision of 5,000 m, falling on the AGD66 easting/northing crosshairs i.e. the records are highly inaccurate. In addition, the records are not supported by voucher specimens held in any national herbaria. 2 records The record within 500 m is from Rev. H.B. Atkinson on [1 additional record Caladenia patersonii v 1 Nov. 1925, nominally indicated as having a precision within 500 m; of 1,000 m, although this is likely to be substantially (patersons spider-orchid) - 17 additional underestimated given the historical nature of the records within record. The record is labelled “Watsons Bend, near 5,000 m] Smithton”, which is assumed to be the patch of forest associated with the Duck River and well away from the survey corridor. Potential habitat (usually near-coastal heathy forest and woodland) is effectively absent from the survey corridor with all superficially suitable habitat being heavily disturbed (and also unlikely to be impacted).

The record that technically falls within the survey corridor near Myrtle Creek (east of Forest) is from 4 Nov. 1837 (collector unattributed but probably Pterostylis rubenachii e R.C. Gunn), unlabelled (probably originally annotated 1 record as “Circular Head) and of low precision (± 5,000 m), (arthur river greenhood) EN falling on the AGD66 easting/northing crosshairs i.e. the record could be from virtually anywhere in the greater Circular Head region (the species is presently only known from the Arthur-Pieman region).

Ecological Assessment of Duck Irrigation Scheme (Pipelines), Tasmania 80 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Status Species TSPA Observations Comments EPBCA Potential habitat (near-coastal grassland and sedgeland) is absent from the survey corridor.

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

Potential habitat is variable so could be present (e.g. riparian forests along Black River may be Agrostis australiensis r superficially suitable). The species was not detected 1 record (southern bent) - (survey coincided with the fertile growth phase of the Agrostis-Lachnagrostis genus and other non- threatened species were detected).

Historical record only from the broad region (1837). Asperula subsimplex r 1 record Potential habitat (waterlogged sites such as swamps, (water woodruff) - wetlands, “wet pastures”, drains, etc.) present. This perennial herb was not detected.

This species is probably restricted to the Duniams Road-Devils Elbow Road area west of Rocky Cape and possibly south along Newhaven Road, where it occurs in shrubby-heathy open woodland and forest. Records outside these areas are somewhat dubious as they are not supported by formal collections and there is considerable confusion between Caladenia campbellii and Caladenia alata (a widespread and non-threatened Caladenia campbellii e 1 record species). (thickstem fingers) CR Potential habitat is marginally present in some patches of Eucalyptus nitida and/or Eucalyptus obliqua forest but most sites are highly disturbed and considered unsuitable due to the land use history. The surveys were conducted outside the peak flowering period of the species (Wapstra et al. 2012) but in my opinion, no areas of potential habitat will be materially affected so further times targeted surveys are not warranted.

This is a species that is difficult to consider because of taxonomic confusion. It is widespread in Tasmania (Midlands, East Tamar, Circular Head) but there are no confirmed recent collections. There were numerous collections in the Circular Head region in the 1830s (Jones 1998) and it is suspected to occur in near- Caladenia lindleyana e coastal open forest and woodland. Recent collections 1 record (lindleys spider-orchid) CR suspected of being the species are from near Anthony Beach in highly modified forest. The surveys were conducted outside the peak flowering period of the species (Wapstra et al. 2012) but in my opinion, no areas of potential habitat will be materially affected so further times targeted surveys are not warranted.

The surveys were conducted outside the peak flowering period of the species (Wapstra et al. 2012) Caladenia pusilla r but in my opinion, no areas of potential habitat 1 record (tiny fingers) - (usually wet heathland and heathy forest) will be materially affected so further times targeted surveys are not warranted.

This species is confirmed from the Rocky Cape and Bluff Hill Point Road area, where it occurs in heathland Corunastylis brachystachya e and heathy woodland, usually only present after a 1 record (shortspike midge-orchid) EN significant fire event. There is a record from the Jocks Road-Bass Highway intersection, where it is now presumed extinct due to land clearing.

Ecological Assessment of Duck Irrigation Scheme (Pipelines), Tasmania 81 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Status Species TSPA Observations Comments EPBCA Potential habitat is effectively absent from the survey corridor with all superficially suitable habitat being heavily disturbed (and also unlikely to be impacted).

Potential habitat (usually deeply incised and well- Cyathea cunninghamii e protected shady gullies in wet sclerophyll forest) 5 records absent from the survey corridor. If present outside (slender treefern) - prime habitat (e.g. along the Black River, Deep Creek, etc.), this distinctive fern would have been detected.

Deyeuxia densa r This species can occur in virtually any habitat type but 1 record (heath bentgrass) - was not detected.

Diuris lanceolata e Potential habitat (usually windswept coastal heathland 6 records and shrubland, very occasionally open heathy forest (large goldenmoths) EN but then usually in very rocky situations) absent.

Epilobium pallidiflorum r Species detected – refer to FINDINGS Plant species 8 records (showy willowherb) - Priority species recorded from the study area.

Potential habitat (heathland on quartzites as at Goodenia geniculata e Cathedral Hill in Rocky Cape National Park) absent. 1 record There is a record from near Crayfish Creek that (bent native-primrose) - remains unconfirmed but is also from heathy woodland. This species was not detected.

Potential habitat (poorly-drained swamp forests) Hypolepis distans e marginally present in the form of small remnants of 6 records (scrambling groundfern) EN NME. The species was not detected from any such patches (most patches will not be affected).

Potential habitat (usually wet forest, sometimes Hypolepis muelleri r floodplains of rivers, or in damper drainage 1 record (harsh groundfern) - depressions amongst dry forest) present. This distinctive fern was not detected.

Potential habitat is poorly understood but is assumed to be wet forest and poorly-drained habitats in other vegetation types. Detection of this species is usually Isolepis habra r serendipitous (i.e. often amongst collections of “green 1 record (wispy clubsedge) - stuff” collected for later identification). Sites with greater potential for species such as Isolepis habra (e.g. Black River margins) were searched but the species was not detected.

Isolepis stellata r 1 record As above. (star clubsedge) -

Potential habitat (usually very near-coastal forest, Lachnagrostis rudis subsp. r scrub and river outfalls, only occasionally inland along rudis 1 record tidal river systems) essentially absent (parts of the - (coast blowngrass) Black River could be considered marginal). The species was not detected.

Limonium australe var. r australe numerous records Potential habitat (coastal saltmarshes) absent. - (yellow sea-lavender)

Persicaria decipiens v Potential habitat (swamp forests, riparian areas of 1 record slower-flowing rivers) present. This species was not (slender waterpepper) - detected.

Pneumatopteris pennigera e Potential habitat (wet forests and swamp forests on 22 records limestone-based/calcareous substrates) absent. This (lime fern) - species was not detected.

Ecological Assessment of Duck Irrigation Scheme (Pipelines), Tasmania 82 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Status Species TSPA Observations Comments EPBCA

Potential habitat is poorly understood because at present the species is only confirmed from open grassy forest on a hill near Latrobe but apparently the species used to be widespread in the Circular Head region (Jones 1998). In reality, the Prasophyllum truncatum species-complex in Tasmania is so poorly understood Prasophyllum robustum e and taxonomically confused that assigning any 1 record (robust leek-orchid) CR herbarium collections to a species is fraught with problems. In the absence of a proper understanding of the species and its habitat, it is assumed that it is absent from the survey corridor and that the disturbed forests are unsuitable for the species, as the survey was outside the peak flowering period (Wapstra et al. 2012).

Prasophyllum secutum e Potential habitat (scrubby dune swales and windswept 5 records (northern leek-orchid) EN coastal heath/shrubland) absent.

Pterostylis lustra e Potential habitat (near-coastal swamp forest and 3 records (small sickle greenhood) - scrub) absent.

Thelymitra holmesii r Potential habitat (usually poorly-drained wet 1 record (bluestar sun-orchid) - heathland) absent.

This species has only recently had a major range extension to the northwest forests (Chuter & Wapstra Thismia rodwayi r 2014), where it occurs in typical habitat for the species 1 record (wet sclerophyll forest). Potential habitat within the (fairy lanterns) - survey corridor is marginal because it is relatively dry (edge effects, grazing) and it is unlikely that it will support the species.

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

Caladenia campbellii e Species or species’ habitat may occur See sections of table above. (thickstem fingers) CR within area

This species, which is endemic to Tasmania, is not Species or species’ Caladenia caudata v known from northwest Tasmania, with all records habitat likely to previously allocated to this species from this region (tailed spider-orchid) VU occur within area now recognised as Caladenia dienema (see below).

This species is only confirmed in recent times from the Caladenia dienema e Species or species’ Arthur-Pieman region but may once have occurred in habitat may occur the Rocky Cape and Circular Head regions. Potential (windswept spider-orchid) EN within area habitat (usually windswept coastal heathland) is absent from the survey corridor.

Caladenia lindleyana e Species or species’ habitat may occur See sections of table above. (lindleys spider-orchid) CR within area

Corunastylis brachystachya e Species or species’ habitat likely to See sections of table above. (shortspike midge-orchid) EN occur within area

Diuris lanceolata e Species or species’ habitat likely to See sections of table above. (large goldenmoths) EN occur within area

Glycine latrobeana v Species or species’ Potential habitat (usually grassy forests and habitat likely to woodlands and native grasslands in the Midlands but (clover glycine) VU occur within area also extends to some near-coastal grasslands) absent.

Ecological Assessment of Duck Irrigation Scheme (Pipelines), Tasmania 83 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Status Species TSPA Observations Comments EPBCA

Hypolepis distans e Species or species’ habitat likely to See sections of table above. (scrambling groundfern) EN occur within area

Potential habitat (usually grassy forests and Leucochrysum albicans var. Species or species’ e woodlands and native grasslands in the Midlands and tricolor habitat known to northwest grasslands but also extends to some near- EN occur within area (grassland paperdaisy) coastal grasslands as at The Nut near Stanley) absent.

Prasophyllum secutum e Species or species’ habitat likely to See sections of table above. (northern leek-orchid) EN occur within area

Species or species’ Pterostylis ziegeleri v Potential habitat (native grasslands, mainly in the habitat may occur Midlands but also in coastal grasslands) absent. (grassland greenhood) VU within area

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

While the Natural Values Atlas does not indicate any records within 5,000 m of the survey area, the species is known historically from Woolnorth and Circular Head (Jones 1998). The status of the species is uncertain Caladenia pallida e no database with some notion it may simply be a hybrid between records (rosy spider-orchid) CR the Arachnorchis subgenus and the Petalochilus subgenus, or that it is better considered as a variety of Caladenia patersonii. See comments under that species for information on habitat.

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

Potential habitat (poorly-drained sites such as roadside Lythrum salicaria v no database ditches, farm dam edges, slow-flowing river sections, (purple loosestrife) - records floodplains) present. This distinctive herb was not detected.

Potential habitat (shaded sites along riparian habitats, under rocky overhangs and amongst shrub-covered dune swales, the latter the prime habitat on King Parietaria debilis r no database Island) is marginally present in some riparian areas records (shade pellitory) - and remnant patches of swamp forest. This perennial low shrubby herb (detectable and identifiable at any time of the year) was not detected.

Ecological Assessment of Duck Irrigation Scheme (Pipelines), Tasmania 84 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

APPENDIX E. Analysis of database records of threatened fauna

Table E1 provides a listing of priority fauna from within the assessment area, and from 500 m and 5000 m of the assessment area (nominal buffer widths usually used to discuss the potential of a particular assessment area to support various species listed in databases), with comments on whether potential habitat is present for the species, and possible reasons why a species was not recorded.

Table E1. Priority fauna records from within the assessment area, and from 500 m and 5000 m of boundary of assessment area Species listed below are listed as rare (r), vulnerable (v), endangered (e), or extinct (x) on the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 (TSPA); vulnerable (VU), endangered (EN), critically endangered (CR) or extinct (EX) on the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBCA). Information below is sourced from the DPIPWE’s Natural Values Atlas (DPIPWE 2015), Bryant & Jackson (1999) and FPA (2015); marine, wholly pelagic and marine littoral species such as marine mammals, fish and offshore seabirds are excluded.

Status Species TSPA Observations Comments EPBCA

Records from within assessment area [excluding marine, pelagic and littoral species]

2 records in Duck River at Poilinna Prototroctes maraena v Road crossing Refer to FINDINGS Fauna species Priority fauna – (Australian grayling) VU [2 additional sightings and potential habitat. records within 5,000 m] 3 records from immediate roadsides at Deep Sarcophilus harrisii e Creek, Montagu Refer to FINDINGS Fauna species Priority fauna – (Tasmanian devil) EN and Poilinna Road sightings and potential habitat. [numerous additional records within 5,000 m]

Records and potential habitat within 5000 m of assessment area [and not considered in above sections]

19 records Accipiter novaehollandiae e Refer to FINDINGS Fauna species Priority fauna – including 6 nest sightings and potential habitat. (grey goshawk) - sites Potential breeding habitat is defined as “tall eucalypt trees in large tracts (usually more than 10 ha) of eucalypt or mixed forest” and potential foraging habitat “includes a wide variety of forested (including areas subject to native forest silviculture) and non-forest habitats” (FPA 2015). no known nests Aquila audax subsp. The species is likely to utilise the broader assessment within 1,000 m of fleayi e area as part of a broader territory and a foraging area (as the boundary of indicated by the sighting record). (Tasmanian wedge-tailed EN the survey eagle) corridor There are no known nests within 500 m (or 1000 m line- of-sight), usual nominal management buffers applied in production forests. The present survey did not detect any novel nest sites from the survey corridor and there are no areas of suitable forest likely to support nest sites within c. 500 m of the survey corridor. Astacopsis gouldi v Refer to FINDINGS Fauna species Priority fauna – (giant freshwater numerous records VU sightings and potential habitat. crayfish)

Ecological Assessment of Duck Irrigation Scheme (Pipelines), Tasmania 85 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Status Species TSPA Observations Comments EPBCA Beddomeia fultoni e The entire survey corridor is well outside the predicted (Farnhams Creek 1 record range of the species (FPA 2015), which is centred on the - freshwater snail) Christmas Hills area. Beddomeia topsiae e Refer to FINDINGS Fauna species Priority fauna – (Williamson Creek 7 records - sightings and potential habitat. freshwater snail) Beddomeia wiseae v Refer to FINDINGS Fauna species Priority fauna – (Blizzards Creek 4 records - sightings and potential habitat. freshwater snail) Ceyx azureus subsp. diemenensis e Refer to FINDINGS Fauna species Priority fauna – 22 records (Tasmanian azure EN sightings and potential habitat. kingfisher) Dasyurus maculatus r Refer to FINDINGS Fauna species Priority fauna – subsp. maculatus numerous records VU sightings and potential habitat. (spotted-tailed quoll) Potential habitat is “slow-flowing waters such as swamps, lagoons, drains or backwaters of streams, often with aquatic vegetation; also in temporary waters that dry up in summer for as long as 6-7 months, especially if burrowing crayfish burrows are present, although these Galaxiella pusilla v no database will usually be connected to permanent water; may also (eastern dwarf galaxiid) VU records include forested swampy areas” (FPA 2015), which is effectively absent from the survey corridor. The study area is well outside the range of known sites for the species in northwest Tasmania (e.g. Harcus River Road area) and this species should not require special consideration. no known nests Haliaeetus leucogaster v within 1,000 m of See comments under wedge-tailed eagle. (white-bellied sea-eagle) - the boundary of survey corridor The survey corridor is well outside the usually accepted breeding range of the species and the records represent sightings over many years, presumably of migratory birds. Potential breeding habitat is effectively absent from the survey corridor (lack of hollow-bearing trees). Lathamus discolor e Foraging habitat is also absent: Eucalyptus ovata is 12 records absent, although the ecologically equivalent Eucalyptus (swift parrot) EN brookeriana is widespread (the species would presumably utilise this tree species but it flowers very erratically and there is unlikely to be a significant number of trees felled); Eucalyptus globulus is restricted to some windbreak/roadside plantings that will not be affected by the pipeline installation. Potential habitat is “natural and artificial coastal and near- coastal wetlands, lagoons, marshes, swamps and ponds (including dams), with permanent freshwater and abundant marginal, emergent and submerged aquatic vegetation” (FPA 2015), habitat elements present within the assessment area. Limnodynastes peroni e 14 records Apart from on King Island (where the species can occur (striped marsh frog) - quite far “inland”), this species usually occurs in near- coastal freshwater lagoons. In the far northwest, there is a well-known population that occurs near the Welcome River on the Bass Highway. While potential habitat is possibly present, much of the survey corridor is outside the currently recognised

Ecological Assessment of Duck Irrigation Scheme (Pipelines), Tasmania 86 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Status Species TSPA Observations Comments EPBCA distribution of the species. The distinctive call of the species was not heard at any sites. In my opinion, it is reasonable to conclude that the project will not have a significant impact on the striped marsh frog. Potential habitat is “permanent and temporary waterbodies, usually with vegetation in or around them, including features such as natural lagoons, permanently or seasonally inundated swamps and wetlands, farm dams, irrigation channels, artificial water-holding sites such as old quarries, slow-flowing stretches of streams and rivers and drainage features” (FPA 2015), habitat elements present within the survey corridor. Litoria raniformis v no database There are scant records of the green and golden frog from (green and golden frog) VU records the northwest, with only one historical record (1961) within 5,000 m of the survey corridor. While there is potential habitat present (because technically any farm dam or roadside ditch could support the species), there are no sites that have been identified as prime potential habitat warranting a more formal assessment. In my opinion, it is reasonable to conclude that the project will not have a significant impact on the green and golden frog. Potential foraging (saline succulent herbfields and Neophema chrysogaster e shrublands) and breeding habitat (hollow-rich forests and 1 record (orange-bellied parrot) CR woodlands) absent. The record is presumed to be a sighting of a vagrant migratory individual. Potential habitat is “any vegetation type, including forest (native and plantation) and non-forest native and non- native types, with an understorey either dominated by Oreisplanus munionga e Carex appressa or supporting Carex appressa in patches tax. larana 2 records (as small as 20 square metres)” (FPA 2015), which is VU (Marrawah skipper) virtually absent from the survey corridor. Carex appressa was localised on the western bank of the Black River and only scattered elsewhere within the survey corridor. No sites had evidence of the skipper.

Potential habitat is “open vegetation types including woodlands and open forests with a grassy understorey, Perameles gunnii subsp. native and exotic grasslands, particularly in landscapes gunnii - with a mosaic of agricultural land and remnant bushland” 16 records (eastern barred VU (FPA 2015), which is extensive throughout most of the bandicoot) survey corridor. Installation of a pipeline is unlikely to have a deleteriously impact on habitat, except at a highly localised and temporary scale.

Potential habitat is “grassland and grassy woodland Pseudemoia (including rough pasture with paddock trees), generally v pagenstecheri no database with a greater than 20% cover of native grass species, - records especially where medium to tall tussocks are present” (tussock skink) (FPA 2015), habitat types absent from the assessment area.

Potential habitat is “mature, regrowth and regenerating forests, predominantly wet eucalypt but also including some rainforest and blackwood” (FPA 2015), which is marginally present in limited parts of the survey corridor. Tasmaphena lamproides r The potential range of the species only extends as far east 20 records (keeled snail) - as Forest so at least part of the survey corridor as outside the predicted range of the species. Patches of potential habitat were in very poor condition and formal surveys were not considered warranted (cattle grazed, lacking well-developed leaf litter and coarse woody debris).

Ecological Assessment of Duck Irrigation Scheme (Pipelines), Tasmania 87 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Status Species TSPA Observations Comments EPBCA Thylacinus cynocephalus x 3 records Species is presumed extinct. (thylacine) EX Potential habitat is “all areas with trees with large hollows (>15 cm entrance diameter”, particularly where there is a high number of potential hollow-bearing trees per hectare (e.g. > 8/ha (FPA 2015), which is essentially Tyto novaehollandiae e absent from the survey corridor. subsp. castanops 4 records (no nest VU sites) The species is likely to be present in the wider area (pairs (Tasmanian masked owl) and individuals have very large home ranges/territories and utilise a wide range of habitat for foraging) but installation of the pipeline will not have a significant impact on the species.

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

Species or Migratory Aerial foraging bird that rarely lands – assessment area Apus pacificus species’ habitat Marine presents marginal habitat only and any works in the area likely to occur (fork-tailed swift) Species would not have a deleterious impact on the species. within area Aquila audax subsp. fleayi e Breeding likely to See sections of table above. (Tasmanian wedge-tailed EN occur within area eagle) Potential habitat (natural and artificial wetlands and Migratory Species or swampy habitats) numerous. The species may utilise Ardea alba Wetland/ species’ habitat farm dams, slow-flowing river sections and wet pasture, (great egret) Marine known to occur but these habitat elements will not be deleteriously Species within area affected by the installation of the pipeline (temporary disturbance only). Migratory Species or Ardea ibis Wetland/ species’ habitat As above. (cattle egret) Marine may occur within Species area Species or Astacopsis gouldi v species’ habitat (giant freshwater See sections of table above. VU known to occur crayfish) within area Potential habitat (natural and artificial swampy habitats) Species or numerous. The species may utilise farm dams, slow- Botaurus poiciloptilus - species’ habitat flowing river sections and wet pasture, but these habitat (Australasian bittern) EN known to occur elements will not be deleteriously affected by the within area installation of the pipeline (temporary disturbance only). Ceyx azureus subsp. diemenensis e Breeding known to occur within See sections of table above. (Tasmanian azure EN area kingfisher) Species or Dasyurus maculatus r species’ habitat subsp. maculatus See sections of table above. VU known to occur (spotted-tailed quoll) within area Species or Dasyurus viverrinus - species’ habitat See sections of table above. (eastern quoll) EN known to occur within area Species or Galaxiella pusilla v species’ habitat See sections of table above. (eastern dwarf galaxiid) VU known to occur within area

Ecological Assessment of Duck Irrigation Scheme (Pipelines), Tasmania 88 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Status Species TSPA Observations Comments EPBCA Potential habitat (natural and artificial wetlands and swampy habitats) numerous. The species may utilise Migratory Roosting known Gallinago hardwickii farm dams, slow-flowing river sections and wet pasture, Wetland to occur within (Lathams snipe) but these habitat elements will not be deleteriously Species area affected by the installation of the pipeline (temporary disturbance only).

Haliaeetus leucogaster v Breeding known to occur within See sections of table above. (white-bellied sea-eagle) - area Species or Hirundapus caudacutus Migratory Aerial foraging bird that rarely lands – study area species’ habitat Terrestrial presents marginal habitat only and any works in the area (white-throated known to occur Species would not have a deleterious impact on the species. needletail) within area Lathamus discolor e Breeding likely to See sections of table above. (swift parrot) EN occur within area Species or Litoria raniformis v species’ habitat See sections of table above. (green and golden frog) VU likely to occur within area

Neophema chrysogaster e Migratory route known to occur in See sections of table above. (orange-bellied parrot) CR area Species or Migratory Motacilla flava species’ habitat Listing of species in CofA (2015) is erroneous as not Terrestrial may occur within known to occur in Tasmania. (yellow wagtail) Species area Potential habitat present (species utilises a wide range of habitats but tends to be most frequent in dry open tall woodlands and forests and associated sheltered Species or slopes/gullies). Migratory Myiagra cyanoleuca species’ habitat Terrestrial The species was not detected by sight or call during the known to occur (satin flycatcher) Species assessment, which was undertaken just within the within area species’ residential period in the State. Any works in the area would only marginally impact on potential habitat, with most works outside the most likely habitat of eucalypt forests.

Oreisplanus munionga Species or e species’ habitat tax. larana See sections of table above. VU likely to occur (Marrawah skipper) within area Perameles gunnii subsp. Species or gunnii - species’ habitat See sections of table above. (eastern barred VU known to occur bandicoot) within area Species or Prototroctes maraena v species’ habitat See sections of table above. (Australian grayling) VU known to occur within area Species or Sarcophilus harrisii e species’ habitat See sections of table above. (Tasmanian devil) EN likely to occur within area

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

Ecological Assessment of Duck Irrigation Scheme (Pipelines), Tasmania 89 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

APPENDIX F. Annotated images of threatened flora

Plate F1. (LHS) Habitat of Gratiola pubescens – the species is scattered across this cobble-gravel rise in the middle of the presently low river Plate F2. (RHS) Habitat of Gratiola pubescens – the extensive green mats are the species

Plate F3. (LHS) Mat of Gratiola pubescens Plate F4. (RHS) Flowering plant of Gratiola pubescens (note the glandular hairs on the stems and leaves)

Plate F5. (LHS) Habitat of Epilobium pallidiflorum in paddock drain east of Sedgy Creek Plate F6. (RHS) Habitat of Epilobium pallidiflorum in weed-infested old dam east of Sedgy Creek

Ecological Assessment of Duck Irrigation Scheme (Pipelines), Tasmania 90 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Plate F7. (LHS) Flowers and leaves of Epilobium pallidiflorum from Sedgy Creek Plate F8. (RHS) Flower of Epilobium pallidiflorum from Sedgy Creek

Plates F9 & F10. Habitat of Epilobium pallidiflorum on Deep Creek

Ecological Assessment of Duck Irrigation Scheme (Pipelines), Tasmania 91 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

APPENDIX G. Annotated images of potential habitat of threatened fauna

Plate G1. (LHS) Looking upstream along the Black River – this site provides habitat for the Australian grayling, azure kingfisher and giant freshwater crayfish; marginal nesting habitat for the grey goshawk is present along this section of the Black River Plate G2. (RHS) Looking upstream along the Black River – note the in-stream coarse woody debris including the large hollow log

Plate G3. (LHS) Deep Creek upstream of Bass Highway – potential habitat for the giant freshwater crayfish, probably marginal for Australian grayling (weir downstream probably prevents upstream passage) and possible foraging habitat for the azure kingfisher Plate G4. (RHS) As above but downstream of Bass Highway – the forest along Deep Creek probably provides marginal to somewhat suitable foraging and nesting habitat for the grey goshawk

Ecological Assessment of Duck Irrigation Scheme (Pipelines), Tasmania 92 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Plates G5 & G6. Duck River near Poilinna Road – relatively good habitat for the giant freshwater crayfish and azure kingfisher, a known site for the Australian grayling (although now well upstream of several in- stream weirs and dams) and potential foraging/nesting habitat for the grey goshawk

Ecological Assessment of Duck Irrigation Scheme (Pipelines), Tasmania 93 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

APPENDIX H. Annotated images of weeds

Plate H1. (LHS) Disturbed riparian scrub/forest on eastern side of Black River – blackberry, gorse and canary broom occur on this bank Plate H2. (LHS) Single plant of Cotoneaster franchetii along fenceline near eastern end of pipeline

Plate H3. (LHS) Scattered individuals of Ulex europaeus with denser patch behind (outside survey corridor) near eastern end of pipeline Plate H4. (RHS) Dense patch of Ulex europaeus on western side of Black River (associated with private apiary site)

Plate H5. (LHS) Gorse thicket on crossing of Ghost Creek Plate H6. (RHS) Gorse and blackberry on south side of Back Line Road

Ecological Assessment of Duck Irrigation Scheme (Pipelines), Tasmania 94 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Plate H7. (LHS) Fenceline “hedges” of blackberry off Back Line Road Plate H8. (RHS) Blackberry on edges of crossing point of Ghost Creek

Plate H9. (LHS) Willow on edge of Back Line Road Plate H10. (RHS) Willow along Duck River

Plate H11. (LHS) Blackberry beneath NME on north side of Back Line Road Plate H12. (RHS) Dense patch of spear thistle in disturbed forest opening near Reservoir Road/Back Line Road junction

Ecological Assessment of Duck Irrigation Scheme (Pipelines), Tasmania 95 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Plate H13. (LHS) Blackberry and hemlock in disturbed pasture/forest interface near Duck River Plate H14. (RHS) Blackberry along Poilinna Road verge

Ecological Assessment of Duck Irrigation Scheme (Pipelines), Tasmania 96 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

APPENDIX I. DPIPWE’s Natural Values Atlas report for assessment area

Appended as pdf file.

APPENDIX J. CofA’s Protected Matters report for assessment area

Appended as pdf file.

OTHER ATTACHMENTS x .shp and .xls file of point locations of threatened flora x .shp file of vegetation mapping

Ecological Assessment of Duck Irrigation Scheme (Pipelines), Tasmania 97 Duck Irrigation Scheme: Addendum 1 – Marthicks Road

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

Tasmanian Irrigation Pty Ltd ATTENTION: Paul Ellery (Project Manager) PO Box 84 Evandale TAS 7212

2 March 2016 Dear Paul RE: DUCK Irrigation Scheme (pipelines) Vegetation, Flora and Fauna Assessments Addendum to main report – Marthicks Road re-route and Trowutta Road “paddocks”

Following the assessment of the pipeline routes associated with the Duck Irrigation Scheme in December 2015 and the production of the report on ecological values (Ecological Assessment of the Proposed Duck Irrigation Scheme (Pipelines), Tasmania. Report by Environmental Consulting Options Tasmania (ECOtas) for Tasmanian Irrigation Pty Ltd, 15 January 2016), Tasmanian Irrigation re-engaged ECOtas to assess a short re-route section south of Marthicks Road near Smithton and two short sections near Trowutta Road (as per supplied maps). The Marthicks Road site was assessed on 24 February using the same methods as outlined in ECOtas (2016). The other two re-routes were not formally assessed as both are through open paddock and sufficient information is available from aerial imagery, databases and initial site visits near both locations. The following provides a brief summary of the ecological values identified.

Vegetation types

Figure 1 provides an updated vegetation map for the Marthicks Road re-route section. The section includes the following TASVEG 3.0 mapping units: x “agricultural land” (FAG): areas of good and poor quality pasture, some with minor to moderate levels of weeds (gorse), and including some scrubby sections along drainage depressions; x “weed infestation” (FWU): areas of gorse amongst the Melaleuca squarrosa and Leptospermum scoparium scrub; and x “Melaleuca squarrosa scrub” (SMR): moderately dense thickets re-colonising old pasture, mainly dominated by Melaleuca squarrosa but locally dominated to co-dominated by Leptospermum scoparium. It is understood that the pipeline route will pass through the existing clearing through the scrub. This area has been mapped as SMR but is quite heavily infested with gorse so care with weed management is recommended. ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting 1 Duck Irrigation Scheme: Addendum 1 – Marthicks Road None of the identified vegetation types are classified as threatened under Schedule 3A of the Tasmanian Nature Conservation Act 2002 or equate to threatened ecological communities under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. The two sections near Trowutta Road can be mapped as “agricultural land” (FAG). A revised shape file is not provided (this data gap can be completed internally by TI).

Threatened flora

See ECOtas (2016) for an analysis of the potential for the site to support threatened flora. No threatened flora are known from database information or were detected by site assessment.

Threatened fauna

See ECOtas (2016) for an analysis of the potential for the sites to support threatened fauna. No threatened fauna are known from database information or were detected by site assessment.

Other ecological values

See ECOtas (2016) for a discussion of other ecological values including weeds (see also comments under Vegetation types above), plant and animal diseases.

Please do not hesitate to contact me further if additional information is required. Kind regards

Mark Wapstra Senior Scientist/Manager

ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting 2 Duck Irrigation Scheme: Addendum 1 – Marthicks Road

Figure 1. Updated vegetation mapping for Marthicks Road re-route section (refer to text for codes)

ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting 3