Environmental Consulting Options Tasmania

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF 31, 41 & 47 NUBEENA CRESCENT, TAROONA, TASMANIA

Environmental Consulting Options Tasmania (ECOtas) for University of Tasmania 24 July 2018

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

ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

CITATION This report can be cited as: ECOtas (2018). Ecological Assessment of 31, 41 & 47 Nubeena Crescent, Taroona, Tasmania. Report by Environmental Consulting Options Tasmania (ECOtas) for University of Tasmania, 24 July 2018.

AUTHORSHIP Field assessment: Mark Wapstra Report production: Mark Wapstra Habitat and vegetation mapping: Mark Wapstra Base data for mapping: TheList Digital and aerial photography: Mark Wapstra, GoogleEarth, TheList

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Neal Denning (Associate Director, Strategy and Policy, University of Tasmania) provided background information and facilitated a guided tour of the subject titles.

COVER ILLUSTRATION Looking into the consolidated patch of Eucalyptus globulus dry forest and woodland on 31 Nubeena Crescent.

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

Ecological Assessment of 31, 41 & 47 Nubeena Crescent, Taroona i ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Ecological Assessment of 31, 41 & 47 Nubeena Crescent, Taroona 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 DESCRIPTION OF 31, 41 & 47 NUBEENA CRESCENT ...... 6 METHODS ...... 12 Nomenclature ...... 12 Preliminary investigation ...... 12 Field assessment ...... 12 Vegetation classification ...... 13 Threatened flora ...... 13 Threatened fauna ...... 13 Declared weeds ...... 13 FINDINGS ...... 13 Vegetation types ...... 13 Comments on TASVEG mapping ...... 13 Vegetation types recorded as part of the present study ...... 14 Plant species...... 22 Threatened flora ...... 23 Known locations ...... 23 Threatened flora species potentially present (database analysis) ...... 23 Fauna species ...... 23 Known locations ...... 23 Threatened fauna species potentially present (database analysis) ...... 24 Other ecological values ...... 24 Weed species ...... 24 Rootrot pathogen, Phytophthora cinnamomi ...... 25 Myrtle wilt ...... 25 Myrtle rust ...... 25 Chytrid fungus and other freshwater pathogens ...... 26 Additional “Matters of National Environmental Significance” ...... 26

Ecological Assessment of 31, 41 & 47 Nubeena Crescent, Taroona iii ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

DISCUSSION...... 26 Summary of key findings ...... 26 Legislative and policy implications ...... 28 Recommendations ...... 31 REFERENCES...... 32 APPENDIX A. Vegetation community structure and composition ...... 34 APPENDIX B. Vascular plant species recorded from the study area (DGL patch) ...... 39 APPENDIX C. Analysis of database records of threatened flora ...... 42 APPENDIX D. Analysis of database records of threatened fauna ...... 46 APPENDIX E. DPIPWE’s Natural Values Atlas report for study area...... 50 APPENDIX F. Forest Practices Authority’s Biodiversity Values Atlas report for study area ...... 50 APPENDIX G. CofA’s Protected Matters report for study area ...... 50 ATTACHMENTS ...... 50

Ecological Assessment of 31, 41 & 47 Nubeena Crescent, Taroona iv ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

SUMMARY

General

The University of Tasmania (Infrastructure Services and Development) engaged Environmental Consulting Options Tasmania (ECOtas) to undertake an assessment of the ecological values associated with 31, 41 & 47 Nubeena Crescent, Taroona, Tasmania, primarily to ensure that the requirements of the identified ecological values are appropriately considered during further project planning under local, State and Commonwealth government approval protocols. The study area was assessed by Mark Wapstra on 18 August 2018.

Summary of key findings

Threatened flora • No plant species listed as threatened on the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBCA) were detected, or are known from database information, from the study area. • No plant species listed as threatened on the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 (TSPA) were detected, or are known from database information, from the study area. Threatened fauna • Five point locations for Lathamus discolor (swift parrot), listed as Critically Endangered and endangered on Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBCA) and Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 (TSPA), respectively, are known from the study area. The study area includes a consolidated patch of Eucalyptus globulus dry forest and woodland (TASVEG code: DGL) and additional scattered individuals of Eucalyptus globulus (blue gum), both habitat components considered important ads a foraging resource for the swift parrot. • Perameles gunnii (eastern barred bandicoot), listed as Vulnerable on the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBCA), has been anecdotally reported from the study area (but not confirmed in formal database reports), and potential habitat is present. • Potential (marginal) habitat is also present from Sarcophilus harrisii (Tasmanian devil), Dasyurus maculatus (spotted-tailed quoll), Dasyurus viverrinus (eastern quoll) and Tyto novaehollandiae (masked owl), all variously listed on the EPBCA and/or the TSPA. No formal database records exist from the study area, the species are also not reported anecdotally, and no evidence (e.g. scats, potential den sites, large hollow-bearing trees, etc.) of the species was observed. • No fauna species listed as threatened on the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBCA) and/or the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 (TSPA) were detected, or are known from database information, from the mining lease area. Vegetation types • The study area supports the following TASVEG mapping units: – Eucalyptus globulus dry forest and woodland (DGL); and – extra-urban miscellaneous (FUM).

Ecological Assessment of 31, 41 & 47 Nubeena Crescent, Taroona 1 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

• At a finer-scale of mapping, the study area also supports the following TASVEG mapping units: – Allocasuarina verticillata forest (NAV); – Bursaria – Acacia woodland and scrub (NBA); and – lichen lithosere as coastal rock (TASVEG code: ORO). • None of these mapping units equate to threatened ecological communities listed on the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 199. • FUM (and NAV, NBA & ORO) are not listed as threatened on Schedule 3A of the Tasmanian Nature Conservation Act 2002. • DGL is listed as threatened on Schedule 3A of the Tasmanian Nature Conservation Act 2002. • DGL also equates to a high priority biodiversity value within the intent of the Biodiversity Code of the Kingborough Interim Planning Scheme 2015. Weeds • Several plant species classified as “declared weeds” within the meaning of the Tasmanian Weed Management Act 1999 are present within the study area. • Several additional species classified as “environmental weeds” are also present. Plant disease • There is no evidence that the study area is infected with Phytophthora cinnamomi, myrtle wilt or myrtle rust. Animal disease (chytrid) • The study area does not support habitats conducive to the disease persisting (no waterbodies).

Recommendations

The recommendations provided below are a summary of those provided in relation to each of the ecological features described in the main report. The main text of the report provides the relevant context for the recommendations. It is assumed that the phrasing below will be modified in planning documents for the project.

Vegetation types It is recommended that the consolidated polygon of Eucalyptus globulus dry forest and woodland (TASVEG code: DGL) not be considered for intensive development because of its formal conservation status and importance as swift parrot foraging habitat.

Threatened flora No special management will be required because no threatened flora have been identified from the study area.

Ecological Assessment of 31, 41 & 47 Nubeena Crescent, Taroona 2 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Threatened fauna See above under Vegetation types. Further in relation to the swift parrot, at the stage of development application, it is recommended that project plans be provided to a suitably qualified ecologist with a view to mapping individual trees within and closer to a development footprint, such that the potential impact on the swift parrot can be ascertained. This would involve GPS waypointing each tree, identifying it to species, measuring variables such as height, diameter at breast height over bark and canopy spread, and noting presence of hollows, tree form and health. It is highly unlikely that works will require a permit under Section 51 of the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 (only issued for knowingly taking a species not disturbance to potential habitat) or referral under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Protection Act 1999 (small-scale projects of this nature would unlikely exceed the thresholds of the test of significance but this will depend on the number, size and context of trees needing to be removed).

Weed management At the stage of development application, it is recommended that project plans be provided to a suitably qualified ecologist with a view to mapping declared and environmental weeds, such that specific actions can be incorporated into any planning approvals (e.g. management of vegetation debris, especially in relation to disposal of material containing declared weeds).

Legislation and policy A permit under the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 should not be required (nor indeed technically possible) to “take” threatened flora and fauna because no specific sites have been identified. However, advice from the Policy & Conservation Advice Branch (PCAB, DPIPWE) may be warranted but this will depend on the footprint of any development proposal (essentially, the issue will be the number of individuals of Eucalyptus globulus (blue gum) that may be removed as these may comprise potential foraging habitat for the swift parrot). It is unlikely that a formal referral to the relevant Commonwealth government agency under the provisions of the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 will be warranted but this should be confirmed by the client through their own consideration of the Significant Impact Guidelines (or through discussion with DPIPWE and/or the Commonwealth Department of the Environment & Energy) once a development footprint is known and appropriate project-specific assessments have been undertaken. It is assumed that any project will be subject to a development application prepared under the provisions of the Kingborough Interim Planning Scheme 2015 (or the applicable Scheme at the time) and that this will need to address various zoning and code provisions related to “natural values”.

Ecological Assessment of 31, 41 & 47 Nubeena Crescent, Taroona 3 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Ecological Assessment of 31, 41 & 47 Nubeena Crescent, Taroona 4 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

PURPOSE, SCOPE, LIMITATIONS AND QUALIFICATIONS OF THE SURVEY

Purpose

The University of Tasmania (Infrastructure Services and Development) engaged Environmental Consulting Options Tasmania (ECOtas) to undertake an assessment of the ecological values associated with 31, 41 & 47 Nubeena Crescent, Taroona, Tasmania, primarily to ensure that the requirements of the identified ecological values are appropriately considered during further project planning under local, State and Commonwealth government approval protocols.

Scope

This report relates to: • flora and fauna species of conservation significance, including a discussion of listed threatened species (under the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 and/or the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999) potentially present, and other species of conservation significance/interest; • 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; • plant and animal disease management issues; • weed management issues; and • 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) might be used as part of various approval processes that may be required for works at the site. The report format will also be applicable, with some additional targeted assessments of particular values (such as the distribution of individual trees) to other assessment protocols as required by the Commonwealth Department of the Environment & Energy (for any referral/approval that may be required under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999), and under the local planning scheme (Kingborough Interim Planning Scheme 2015).

Limitations

The ecological assessment was undertaken on 18 July 2018. 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 most species present (particular those of conservation significance). Late spring and into summer is usually regarded as the most suitable period to undertake most botanical assessments. While some species have more restricted flowering periods, a discussion of the potential for the site to support these is presented. The timing of the survey is not considered critical for the present site due to the very high levels of disturbance in most of the anticipated project areas, the lack of anticipated

Ecological Assessment of 31, 41 & 47 Nubeena Crescent, Taroona 5 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting works in the patch of less disturbed native forest, and the habitats present, which are not generally strongly associated with such species. 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. At this stage of project planning, 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.

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. This report and associated documents do not constitute legal advice.

Permit

Any plant material was collected under DPIPWE permit TFL 17123 (in the name of Mark Wapstra). Relevant data will be entered into DPIPWE’s Natural Values Atlas database by the author. Some plant material may be lodged at the Tasmanian Herbarium by the author. No vertebrate or invertebrate material was collected.

DESCRIPTION OF 31, 41 & 47 NUBEENA CRESCENT

The study area comprises the following titles (Figures 1-3): • 31 Nubeena Crescent: PID 3584531; C.T. 171435/2 – owned by Crown Land Services (DPIPWE) at the time of assessment; • 41 Nubeena Crescent: PID 3584558; C.T. 171435/1 – owned by the University of Tasmania (freehold title); and • 47 Nubeena Crescent: PID n/a; C.T. 171411A/2 – owned by Crown Land Services (DPIPWE) at the time of assessment (former TasWater site). The study area comprises c. 5.56 ha, made up of 2.9844 ha (31 Nubeena Crescent), 2.2710 ha (41 Nubeena Crescent), and 0.3107 ha (47 Nubeena Crescent), centred on 528877mE 5244615mN (Taroona 5224 1:25,000 Tasmap). Other tenure and categorisations of the study area are as follows: • Kingborough municipality, with all subject titles currently zoned as Community Purpose under the Kingborough Interim Planning Scheme 2015, and subject to (in whole and part to varying degrees) the Landslide Hazard Area, Coastal Inundation Hazard Area, Coastal Erosion Hazard Area, Waterway and Coastal Protection Area, and Biodiversity Protection Area overlays (Figure 4 shows the latter two overlays, which have greatest relevance to the findings of this assessment);

Ecological Assessment of 31, 41 & 47 Nubeena Crescent, Taroona 6 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

• South East Bioregion; and • Southern Natural Resource Management (NRM) region. The study area is bounded as follows: • north: Nubeena Crescent; • east: Kingborough Council titles including “Taroona Park” and the local fire station; • coastal fringe of 31 & 41 Nubeena Crescent: Crown Land Services (DPIPWE) – coastal reserve including a public walking track and small title vested in the Parks & Wildlife Service (Batchelors Grave Historic Site) • east of 47 Nubeena Crescent: the Derwent estuary foreshore (title extends to foreshore) and small title (Lot 1 Nubeena Crescent currently vested in TasWater). The study area is located at the far eastern end of Nubeena Crescent, east of “Taroona Park” on a prominent point known as Crayfish Point. The eastern end of Taroona Beach finishes just below 31 Nubeena Crescent. There is a public walking track (well-formed gravel track) that runs from the end of Taroona Beach through to the end of Nubeena Crescent, with the Batchelors Grave Historic Site forming part of this experience. Two of the titles (41 & 47 Nubeena Crescent) are fully fenced preventing public ingress into the titles. However, 31 Nubeena Crescent is only partially fenced – effectively, there is public access to the forested slope from the west and south, and there is a well-formed (informal, bar dirt) track that runs between “Taroona Park” through this part of the title to the public walkway around Crayfish Point. The lower part of 31 Nubeena Crescent is regularly slashed/mown creating an open park-like forest structure on the gentler terrain below the main slope. Apart from the forested slope on 31 Nubeena Crescent, the study area has had a long history of anthropogenic use, with older topographic maps identifying the “animal quarantine station”, “sewage treatment works” and “fisheries research” as being present. In more recent times, IMAS has occupied much of 41 Nubeena Crescent. TasWater has recently vacated 47 Nubeena Crescent and this included removal of essentially all the infrastructure, leaving open bare ground and excavations. DPIPWE currently use the non-forested part of 31 Nubeena Crescent as the orange- bellied parrot breeding facility (and until recently also for Tasmanian devil quarantine services), comprising numerous buildings, car parks and other infrastructure. It is understood that DPIPWE is shifting this facility to Five Mile Beach. There is also a currently unused heritage-listed residence on the northern part of 31 Nubeena Crescent. The titles are accessed mainly through 41 Nubeena Crescent (from Nubeena Crescent) but there is also am unsealed gravel road providing access direct to 31 Nubeena Crescent (also from Nubeena Crescent). The elevation of the study area ranges from 0 m a.s.l. (as 47 Nubeena Crescent extends to the foreshore) to c. 30-35 m a.s.l. (northwestern corner of 31 Nubeena Crescent). The topography is a generally gentle slope with variable aspect, shifting from south- to southeast-facing at the southern end of 31 Nubeena Crescent to east- to northeast-facing on 41 & 47 Nubeena Crescent. The slope is slightly steeper on the forested southern part of 31 Nubeena Crescent, which gradually levels off to a gentle slope/top of slope in the far northwest of this title. There are no defined (on topographic maps) drainage features within study area, and none were observed during site assessment. Geology of the study area is wholly mapped as Tertiary-age (Cainozoic) “conglomerate, gravel and grit” (geocode: Tc). However, at least the forested slopes of 31 Nubeena Crescent have outcrops of Jurassic-age “dolerite (tholeiitic) with locally developed granophyre”, presumably as both bedrock and regolith from further upslope. The balance of the study area, however, appears to have deeply-developed soils not typical of doleritic areas, such that the underlying geology is likely to be largely correctly mapped. The geology is mentioned because it can have a significant influence on vegetation classification, presence of threatened flora, and to a lesser extent, threatened fauna.

Ecological Assessment of 31, 41 & 47 Nubeena Crescent, Taroona 7 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Figure 1. General location of the study area

Ecological Assessment of 31, 41 & 47 Nubeena Crescent, Taroona 8 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Figure 2. Detailed location of the study area – topographic and cadastral [source: TheList]

Ecological Assessment of 31, 41 & 47 Nubeena Crescent, Taroona 9 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Figure 3. Detailed location of the study area showing recent aerial imagery and cadastral boundaries [source: GoogleEarth and TheList, respectively]

Ecological Assessment of 31, 41 & 47 Nubeena Crescent, Taroona 10 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Figure 4. Study area showing current overlays (relevant to this report) under the Kingborough Interim Planning Scheme 2015 [source: TheList]

Ecological Assessment of 31, 41 & 47 Nubeena Crescent, Taroona 11 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

METHODS

Nomenclature

All grid references in this report are in GDA94, except where otherwise stated. Vascular species nomenclature follows de Salas & Baker (2017) 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 report (DPIPWE 2018). 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 records, vegetation mapping and other potential environmental values were interrogated. These sources include: • 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); • Tasmanian Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water & Environment’s Natural Values Atlas report ECOtas_NubeenaCrescent_Utas for a point (528877mE 5244615mN) defining the approximate centroid of the three subject titles, buffered by 5 km, dated 18 July 2018 (DPIPWE 2018) – Appendix E; • Forest Practices Authority’s Biodiversity Values Database report, specifically the species’ information for grid reference centroid 528877mE 5244615mN (i.e. the centroid of the Natural Values Atlas search area), buffered by 2 km, hyperlinked species’ profiles and predicted range boundary maps, dated 18 July 2018 (FPA 2018) – Appendix F; • Commonwealth Department of the Environment & Energy’s Protected Matters Search Tool Report defined by a polygon enclosing the three subject titles, buffered by 5 km, dated 18 July 2018 (CofA 2018) – Appendix G; • the TASVEG 3.0 vegetation coverage (as available through a GIS coverage); • GoogleEarth and TheList aerial orthoimagery; and • other sources listed in tables and text as indicated.

Field assessment

A guided site assessment was undertaken by Mark Wapstra and Neal Denning (Associate Director, Strategy and Policy, University of Tasmania) on 18 July 2018. This covered most of the study area, excluding the forested slope on 31 Nubeena Crescent, and was partly guided by DPIPWE officers in sensitive OBP areas. The forested slope was subsequently assessed by Mark Wapstra (also on 18 July 2018) by meandering transects that included all the boundaries and “criss-crosses” of the slope and lower flatter terrain. The opportunity was also taken to examine the coastal strip between Taroona Beach and Nubeena Crescent using the public walking track because this provided information on the veracity of the existing vegetation mapping that intersects the public and private titles.

Ecological Assessment of 31, 41 & 47 Nubeena Crescent, Taroona 12 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Vegetation classification

Vegetation was classified by waypointing vegetation transitions for later comparison to aerial imagery. The structure and composition of the vegetation types was described using nominal 30 m radius plots at a representative site within the vegetation types, and compiling “running” species lists between plots and vegetation types.

Threatened flora

The potential for threatened flora to occur in undisturbed and disturbed habitat was recognised, such that both the forested slope and developed/disturbed areas were assessed for the presence of such species. However, no threatened flora were encountered so further methods are not presented.

Threatened fauna

At this stage of project planning, 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.

Declared weeds

At this stage of project planning, declared weeds, as recognised under the Tasmanian Weed Management Act 1999, were noted as part of the compilation of species lists because it is unlikely that complex weed management planning will be necessary (such planning may require the GPS- pinpointing of weed occurrences at a later date).

FINDINGS

Vegetation types

Comments on TASVEG mapping

This section, which comments on the existing TASVEG 3.0 mapping for the mining lease 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. There are currently two TASVEG layers that should be examined as part of this type of assessment: the “static” TASVEG 3.0 coverage and the “dynamic” TASVEG Live.

Ecological Assessment of 31, 41 & 47 Nubeena Crescent, Taroona 13 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

In this case, TASVEG 3.0 and TASVEG Live map the study area (Figure 5) as: • Eucalyptus globulus dry forest and woodland (TASVEG code: DGL): forested slope in southern part of 31 Nubeena Crescent, and extending to the Crown and Council titles to the south and west; and • urban areas (TASVEG code: FUR): balance of subject titles, and extending extensively to the north of Nubeena Crescent and to the west of the northern half of 31 Nubeena Crescent. The main comments on the existing TASVEG mapping is that it has clearly intentionally included patches of native and exotic vegetation amongst buildings within both the subject titles and surrounds as part of the concept of FUR. This includes approximately one third of “Taroona Park” and all of the small title bordering Nubeena Crescent (adjacent to the northwestern part of 31 Nubeena Crescent), which support a mosaic of buildings, tracks, mown understorey and over- topping trees of various species and stature. Similarly, a patch of black wattle in the northwestern corner of 31 Nubeena Crescent, and patches of drooping sheoak and white gum between 47 & 41 Nubeena Crescent, have been subsumed within the concept of FUR. TASVEG appears to have used aerial imagery that allows for the reasonable interpretation of FUR to extend to the fenced boundaries of the subject titles, correctly recognising that most of the canopy that appears to be over the subject titles is from trees growing on the adjacent Crown titles. Interestingly, TASVEG also excludes the northeastern corner of the fenced forested slopes of 31 Nubeena Crescent from its polygon of DGL, perhaps suggesting that at the time of mapping this area was substantially disturbed (which was noted on site assessment). TASVEG has failed to map the coastal strip accurately, however, extending the concept of FUR to the obvious fringe of drooping sheoak/eucalypt forest that fringes the coast around 41 Nubeena Crescent, and failing to recognise Taroona Beach or the rocky foreshore as one of the “other natural environments” mapping units. Kingborough Council also has its own vegetation mapping layer (Figure 6), which is sometimes different to TASVEG 3.0 and TASVEG Live, depending on the part of the municipality. In this case, Council’s mapping includes both DGL and FUR (i.e. the same mapping units as TASVEG 3.0 and TASVEG Live) but the configuration of the polygons has been adjusted. Most notably, Council’s mapping includes a polygon that cuts across 41 & 47 Nubeena Crescent and the adjacent Crown title, allocating this to DGL. The basis of the revised vegetation mapping is noted as “NBA ENV002 NRM_1342_104 2”, which I understand to have been a desktop- and field-based re-mapping exercise. To what degree this area was field-checked is not known to me. Of greater concern, however, is that this new polygon extends across parts of 41 & 47 Nubeena Crescent that are clearly buildings, tracks, open grassy areas and sewage (or ex-sewage) infrastructure. Council’s mapping also extended the TASVEG polygon of DGL on the forested slope of 31 Nubeena Crescent to include part of the aforementioned northeastern corner of the forested slope (although only part of this “missed” patch and failing to extend to the actual boundary with the fence) and a fringe along the eastern boundary of the original DGL polygon. This latter addition is concerning because like the coastal polygon of DGL, it is also mapped over obvious buildings and exotic vegetation. I assume that most of these errors reflect the scale of mapping rather than field-verified polygons.

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). Appendix A provides a detailed description of the native vegetation mapping unit identified from the southern part of 31 Nubeena Crescent (with some notes also on the other mentioned vegetation types). Figures 7 & 8 show the revised mapping for the study area (See also Table 1 for a summary of the discussion below). Two maps have been provided: Figure 7 is the “simple” version showing just DGL and FUM, while Figure 8 shows the more complex vegetation mapping that recognises small patches of native vegetation marginally classifiable as a separate mapping unit.

Ecological Assessment of 31, 41 & 47 Nubeena Crescent, Taroona 14 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Figure 5. Existing TASVEG 3.0 vegetation mapping for the subject title and surrounds (refer to text for codes)

Ecological Assessment of 31, 41 & 47 Nubeena Crescent, Taroona 15 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Figure 6. Vegetation mapping supplied by Kingborough Council for the study area and surrounds (refer to text for codes)

Ecological Assessment of 31, 41 & 47 Nubeena Crescent, Taroona 16 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Figure 7. Revised vegetation mapping for study area (present assessment) (refer to text for codes)

Ecological Assessment of 31, 41 & 47 Nubeena Crescent, Taroona 17 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Figure 8. Revised vegetation mapping for study area (present assessment), showing addiitonal marginal mapping units present (refer to text for codes)

Ecological Assessment of 31, 41 & 47 Nubeena Crescent, Taroona 18 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

The majority of the study area is classifiable as either urban area (TASVEG code: FUR) or extra- urban miscellaneous (TASVEG code: FUM). TASVEG 3.0 and TASVEG Live currently map the developed parts of the study area as the former and in some ways, it is tempting to retain this for the sake of simplicity. Kitchener & Harris (2013) recognise FUR as being “dense infrastructure and buildings, usually in a geometric layout, distinguish” and FUM as “large areas of built infrastructure including park lands, cemeteries, sports fields or other managed exotic landscapes are mapped as FUM if they are located within rural and remote areas, [but] where these are located within cities, suburbs or townships they are mapped as part of urban land”. On this basis, the developed parts of the study area are technically better mapped as FUR but the fact that this site has been so long- used as a non-residential facility supports the classification as FUM over FUR. For future management purposes, whether the site is classified as FUR or FUM makes no material legislative or policy difference. In the description of FUR, Kitchener & Harris (2013) note that “these areas are largely or wholly devoid of vegetation apart from areas such as suburban gardens, street trees and parks”, which supports the existing TASVEG mapping within and adjacent to the study area of both the buildings and park-like vegetation as FUR. In the description of FUM, Kitchener & Harris (2013) note that “mapping of FUM may include small areas of modified native vegetation, often present as a fringe or narrow strip associated with infrastructure or land uses such as quarries, dams, airports, roads and railways, where such native vegetation cover is insufficient to map separately” and “where native vegetation areas large enough to map at 1:25,000 scale are maintained in a modified state (e.g. regularly slashed, mowed, burnt) these are better mapped as permanent easements (FPE)”, again, supporting inclusion of small patches of highly modified native/exotic vegetation within the subject areas in the concept of FUM (or separated as FPE, if linear). The above discussion has raised the issue of scale of mapping and what is reasonably regarded as practical. The following is taken from the introductory section of Kitchener & Harris (2013) as it has relevance to the classification of the vegetation of the study area with regard to the smaller patches of modified native vegetation. The minimum patch size for a viable vegetation community has not previously been defined in this manual. In relation to cartographic standards, advice from other jurisdictions and review of relevant publications (e.g. Neldner et al. 2012) suggests that for 1:25,000 scale mapping, a minimum polygon size of about 0.25 ha (or 25 m width for linear polygons) is appropriate. This includes features smaller than 0.25 ha where these are contiguous (i.e. their perimeters are separated by a distance of no greater than 12.5 m) and their combined area is 0.25 ha or greater. The TASVEG, minimum resolution of homogenous vegetation patches within continuous native vegetation is generally larger than 1 ha, however this varies depending on context. TASVEG also maps native vegetation in patches of smaller than 1 ha, though these have not been consistently mapped by the methods employed. Analysis of TASVEG shows that these smaller patches are both forest/woodland and non-forest vegetation. Regardless of whether they have been captured by TASVEG mapping, it is recognised that native vegetation communities can occur naturally or as remnants in a cleared or disturbed landscape in patches smaller than 1 ha. Patches (or contiguous patches) of vegetation as small as 0.1 ha may be valid for forest and woodland communities of high conservation significance where they are assessed as viable. For example, the threatened community Eucalyptus ovata forest and woodland (Schedule 3A Nature Conservation Act 2002) commonly occurs as small but viable patches in an undisturbed matrix of other forest types (e.g. Eucalyptus amygdalina forests on gravels and on sands in the midlands and north of Beaconsfield (North & Barker, 2002)). Important non-forest vegetation communities can be viable as patches of less than 0.1 ha in area. Appropriate mapping to 0.1 ha includes communities occupying clearly defined but localised environments distinct from the surrounding vegetation. Likely examples are wetland and saltmarsh communities, Alkaline pans, Rockplate grasslands, Cushion moorland and Lichen lithosere. Another issue with mapping at finer scales, especially in modified environments, is defining the limits of a vegetation community. Vegetation communities do not respect title boundaries per se but can be delineated by physical features such as high fences, separating “managed” and

Ecological Assessment of 31, 41 & 47 Nubeena Crescent, Taroona 19 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

“unmanaged” vegetation of the same original community either side of the fence, with the classification of the managed community shifting further and further from the original classification with each management action. Based on the above discussion points, I have reluctantly mapped three small patches of native vegetation mapping units within the area more broadly mapped as FUM – refer to Figure 8 that shows these patches as overlays. One patch of 0.064 ha is at the northern end of 31 Nubeena Crescent and has been mapped as Bursaria – Acacia woodland and scrub (TASVEG code: NBA). This classification is based simply on the current canopy of Acacia mearnsii (black wattle), although the understorey is virtually all exotic species, mainly introduced grass species such as Dactylis glomeratus (cocksfoot). The patch is disconnected from similar vegetation by a gap in the canopy created by a gravel road and a line of exotic trees along a fence, and further disturbed understorey to the west. Classification as NBA is marginal at best. A detailed description of this community is not provided in Appendix B. Two small patches (0.0637 ha and 0.0291 ha) of Allocasuarina verticillata forest (TASVEG code: NAV) have been mapped in the eastern parts of 41 & 47 Nubeena Crescent. Within the titles, classification separate from the concept of FUM is marginal at best because effectively these patches are a few scattered individuals of Allocasuarina verticillata (drooping sheoak) with occasional Eucalyptus viminalis (white gum), over a highly modified understory (but at least with a few native species such as Einadia nutans and Tetragonia implexicoma). Classification as NAV is mainly supported because the community extends into the coastal title on the other side of the fence. However, even this narrow band of NAV is modified and dissected by a track cut quite deeply into a soil/rock bank. The far eastern end of 47 Nubeena Crescent just into the Derwent estuary and includes the foreshore. This is rocky at this point, with scattered shrubs only. As such, it has been mapped as lichen lithosere (TASVEG code: ORO), although the mapping unit has been used in this case for coastal rocks without lichen. Alternative mapping units such as sand, mud (TASVEG code: OSM) or water, sea (TASVEG code: OAQ) may be more applicable conceptually but these do not apply in the strictest sense to areas of rock (Kitchener & Harris 2013). The southern third of 31 Nubeena Crescent has been mapped as Eucalyptus globulus dry forest and woodland (TASVEG code: DGL) – refer to Appendix A for a detailed structural and compositional description. This area is fenced on its northern limit just below the access road to the OBP facility, wholly restricting access. The area is also fenced on its eastern boundary. The patch is unfenced on its western and southern boundaries. Classification as DGL is wholly supported by the structure and composition of the vegetation. On the lower slopes, where the terrain levels out, frequent slashing/mowing has encouraged a grassy understorey that lacks the higher diversity on the steeper slopes to the north (these support additional species of shrub, herb, graminoid and grass), and includes several additional weed species. The patch is in generally good ecological condition, with a multi-aged structure, comprising mainly Eucalyptus globulus (blue gum) but also Eucalyptus viminalis (white gum) and Eucalyptus ovata (black gum). Unfortunately, the patch is quite weedy, with substantial portions dominated by exotic grass species, mainly as Dactylis glomeratus (cocksfoot), and several species of woody weed (declared and non-declared weed species). Defining the limits of this patch of DGL has obviously been problematic e.g. compare Figures 5 & 6 (TASVEG vs Council mapping) with Figure 7 (revised mapping), none of which align with one another, nor apparently the “footprint” of DGL. I have chosen to delimit the extent of DGL along the northern boundary of the patch by the fenceline because this effectively defines the extent of native trees and shrubs and divides the management actions (effectively none downslope). I have no issue with the polygon of DGL extending south towards Taroona Beach across the Crown title, noting that the canopy of mature trees is maintained but the understorey is much more substantially modified and includes a well-formed track. The only alternative for this modified part of the DGL polygon is the recently-created mapping unit known as agricultural land with native tree canopy (TASVEG code: FAC), although this largely exists to separate agricultural land (TASVEG code: FAG) from genuine forest. FAG is used “where there are crops, orchards or exotic grassland

Ecological Assessment of 31, 41 & 47 Nubeena Crescent, Taroona 20 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting pasture, including that with emergent trees which form a sparse canopy of less than 5% crown cover” and FAC is used “in the situation where a native tree canopy of ≥5% crown cover persists but the understorey has been cleared and replaced with exotic pasture species and is not expected to return to a native understorey in the medium term (~50 years), such as may be the case for native trees over improved pasture” (Kitchener & Harris 2013). In the case of this site, the understorey has not been properly “replaced with exotic pasture species”, such that FAC may be untenable. That said, some of the area of sparser blue gum canopy over playground and mown grass further west along Taroona Beach should not be classified as DGL. TASVEG maps this as DGL but Council mapping at least separates a small part of the playground area as FUR (although it misses most of the car park). The preceding section was presented because it affects the discussion of why no additional areas of the study area within the fenced areas have been classified as DGL, despite an overstorey of Eucalyptus globulus. One such patch occurs over the old Tasmanian devil pens, which are clearly so highly modified that classification as DGL is not supported. Another section of concern is the fringe of DGL added by Council mapping along the eastern boundary of the main patch of DGL. While this area appears to have a continuous canopy cover with the forest to the east based on aerial photography (and this is the case when field-checked), the understorey is highly modified. There is no justification for the extra mapping of DGL within 41 Nubeena Crescent by Council for the first 60 m (working north to south), simply because all the blue gums are on the western side of the fence and any apparent canopy on the eastern side of the fence is not native. At the approximate junction of 31 & 41 Nubeena Crescent, while the canopy of blue gum is fairly continuous, the understorey is effectively wholly exotic. The canopy within the fenced area comprises just four trees, with an additional two trees just on the southern side of the fence, and three larger trees on the western side of the fence. In isolation, classifying these four trees as DGL is obviously nonsensical (at best they would be FAC, FUR or FUM). In context of the buildings to the east and north, this classification would be tenable but in context of the better DGL to the west, classification as DGL may be marginally acceptable. I have chosen to map this area as FUM but note that this does not negate the potential conservation significance of the individual trees. I cannot accept any of the Council-mapped DGL along the eastern boundaries of 41 & 47 Nubeena Crescent, simply because the vegetation within the fenced area is highly modified and lacks a canopy dominated by eucalypt species (only scattered Eucalyptus viminalis are noted within the two small patches of NAV that have been noted). The coastal fringe is much better mapped as NAV, with perhaps a short section of c. 80 m mappable as DGL (as distinct from NAV) – this is almost correct on part of Council mapping, at least to the western start point of DGL outside the fenced titles. Of the mapping units recorded from the study area, none equate to threatened ecological communities listed on schedules of the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Of the mapping units recorded from the study area, DGL is listed as threatened on Schedule 3A of the Tasmanian Nature Conservation Act 2002. While the patch has some weed issues, these only slightly detract from the conservation value of the patch. It is contiguous with a much larger area of DGL to the west, making this a good-sized consolidated patch of DGL. It should also require little to no active management to maintain its conservation value: perhaps some weed removal will marginally enhance its ecological condition but these do not detract from the canopy health and vigour of active regeneration (numerous seedlings and saplings of all canopy species present). The patch is also of conservation significance because DGL is recognised as a key foraging resource for the endangered/Critically Endangered swift parrot (Lathamus discolor), which is well-known as utilising the greater Taroona foreshore and immediate hinterlands for foraging. DGL is also classified as a “high priority biodiversity value” within the meaning of Table E10.1 of the Biodiversity Code of the Kingborough Interim Planning Scheme 2015. The polygon is wholly subject to the Biodiversity Protection Area overlay under the Scheme, although it is noted this

Ecological Assessment of 31, 41 & 47 Nubeena Crescent, Taroona 21 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting overlay extends to the Council-mapped polygon of DGL and also incorporates the polygon of DGL to the east. It is recommended that this consolidated polygon of DGL not be considered for intensive development because of its formal conservation status and importance as swift parrot foraging habitat.

Table 1. Vegetation mapping units present in the study area [conservation status: NCA – as per Schedule 3A of the Tasmanian Nature Conservation Act 2002, using units described by Kitchener & Harris (2013), relating to TASVEG mapping units only (DPIPWE 2017); table headings are as per modules in Kitchener & Harris (2013); 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]

Conservation TASVEG mapping unit status Area Comments (Kitchener & Harris 2013) NCA (ha) EPBCA

Dry eucalypt forest and woodland

Eucalyptus globulus dry forest Refer Figure 7. Threatened and woodland 4.715 See discussion in main part of report and also Not threatened (DGL) Appendix A.

Non-eucalypt forest and woodland

Allocasuarina verticillata forest Not threatened 0.064 Refer Figure 8 – overlay on FUM. (NAV) Not threatened 0.029 See discussion in main part of report. Bursaria – Acacia woodland and Not threatened Refer Figure 8 – overlay on FUM. scrub 0.064 Not threatened See discussion in main part of report. (NBA)

Other natural environments

Lichen lithosere (“rock”) Not threatened Refer Figure 8 – overlay on FUM. 0.021 (ORO) Not threatened See discussion in main part of report.

Modified land

Extra-urban miscellaneous Not threatened Refer Figure 7. 0.852 (FUM) Not threatened See discussion in main part of report.

Plant species

General information

This section refers only to the part of 31 Nubeena Crescent mapped as DGL. There are numerous additional (mainly ornamental) species present elsewhere within the study area. A total of 88 vascular plant species were recorded from the study area (Appendix B for a complete list), comprising 62 dicotyledons (including 29 exotic species), 25 monocotyledons (including 12 exotic species), 1 gymnosperm (exotic) and 0 pteridophytes.

Ecological Assessment of 31, 41 & 47 Nubeena Crescent, Taroona 22 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Additional surveys at different times of the year may detect additional short-lived herbs and grasses, although follow-up surveys are not considered warranted because it is highly unlikely that any species with a high priority for conservation management will be detected (see also discussion under Threatened flora species potentially present (database analysis).

Threatened flora

Known locations

Database information indicates that the study area does not support known populations of flora listed as threatened on either the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 or the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Protection Act 1999. Field assessment did not detect any threatened flora species from the study area. In my opinion, specific referral to government agencies administering these Acts will not be warranted for any projects within the study area.

Threatened flora species potentially present (database analysis)

Appendix C (Table C1) provides a listing of threatened 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.

Fauna species

Note that the discussion below excludes reference to Neophema chrysogaster (orange-bellied parrot), which is only present on site (currently) as captive birds (there are database records within the vicinity of the study area, presumably reflecting escaped birds or nominal data points).

Known locations

Database information indicates that the study area support five point locations for Lathamus discolor (swift parrot), which is listed as endangered on the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 and as Critically Endangered on the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Protection Act 1999. These point locations represent sightings only, supporting general knowledge that the Taroona foreshore and immediate hinterlands are frequently utilised by the species. The study area supports potential foraging habitat for the species in the form of the forest mapped as DGL (southern end of 31 Nubeena Crescent). It is recommended that this consolidated polygon of DGL not be considered for intensive development because of its formal conservation status and importance as swift parrot foraging habitat. Additional potential foraging habitat is present within the study area in the form of individual and scattered copses of Eucalyptus globulus (blue gum). The degree to which these present as significant habitat (the term used in a generic sense) is difficult to ascertain. However, field

Ecological Assessment of 31, 41 & 47 Nubeena Crescent, Taroona 23 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting assessment indicated that the distribution of Eucalyptus globulus individuals is such that many (if not most) are likely to be practical to retain, depending on the configuration of future projects. It is recommended that at this stage of planning that individual blue gums be acknowledged as potential planning constraint but not a “fatal flaw”, meaning that mitigation and offset options are highly likely to be available under the relevant planning scheme applicable at the time. At the stage of development application, it is recommended that project plans be provided to a suitably qualified ecologist with a view to mapping individual trees within and closer to a development footprint, such that the potential impact on the swift parrot can be ascertained. This would involve GPS waypointing each tree, identifying it to species, measuring variables such as height, diameter at breast height over bark and canopy spread, and noting presence of hollows, tree form and health. It is highly unlikely that works will require a permit under Section 51 of the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 (only issued for knowingly taking a species not disturbance to potential habitat) or referral under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Protection Act 1999 (small-scale projects of this nature would unlikely exceed the thresholds of the test of significance but this will depend on the number, size and context of trees needing to be removed).

Threatened fauna species potentially present (database analysis)

Appendix D (Table D1) provides a listing of threatened fauna 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. The only species included in Table D1 (apart from the swift parrot, which is discussed above) that are likely to sporadically utilise the study area are Sarcophilus harrisii (Tasmanian devil), Dasyurus maculatus subsp. maculatus (spotted-tailed quoll), Dasyurus viverrinus (eastern quoll), Perameles gunnii subsp. gunnii (eastern barred bandicoot) and Tyto novaehollandiae (masked owl). No evidence of these species was observed on field assessment, however, DPIPWE staff reported sightings of the eastern barred bandicoot from around buildings. Any development proposal will need to acknowledge the potential impact on these species, although their potential presence should not be considered as “fatal flaw” to any particular project. It is highly unlikely that works will require a permit under Section 51 of the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 (only issued for knowingly taking a species not disturbance to potential habitat) or referral under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Protection Act 1999 (small-scale projects of this nature would unlikely exceed the thresholds of the test of significance).

Other ecological values

Weed species

Several plant species classified as “declared weeds” within the meaning of the Tasmanian Weed Management Act 1999 are present within the study area. Several additional species classified as “environmental weeds” (author opinion and as included in A Guide to Environmental and Agricultural Weeds of Southern Tasmania (NRM South 2017)) are also present. Refer to Appendix B for a complete list of these species. Several planning manuals provide guidance on appropriate management actions, which can be referred to develop site-specific prescriptions for future projects and general site management. These manuals include:

Ecological Assessment of 31, 41 & 47 Nubeena Crescent, Taroona 24 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

• 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; • 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 & Environment, Hobart; and • DPIPWE (2015). Weed and Disease Planning and Hygiene Guidelines - Preventing the Spread of Weeds and Diseases in Tasmania. Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water & Environment, Hobart. At this stage of planning, however, detailed weed mapping and development of a weed management plan is not considered warranted.

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). The native vegetation mapping unit (DGL) identified from the study area is not considered particularly susceptible to the pathogen (Rudman 2005; FPA 2009). No evidence of the pathogen was noted. I believe it is reasonable to consider this site as being PC-free and that future management should not need to take account of the pathogen (but note the manuals listed above also provide information on hygiene management, if required).

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 study area. No special management will be required.

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 2015).

Ecological Assessment of 31, 41 & 47 Nubeena Crescent, Taroona 25 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

No evidence of myrtle rust was noted. It is recommended that only indigenous native plants and/or plants sourced from a nursery identified as free from myrtle rust be used in any future amenity or rehabilitation plantings.

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. The study area does not support any waterbodies (dams, streams, drainage depressions, etc.) such that no special management will be required in relation to chytrid.

Additional “Matters of National Environmental Significance”

The EPBCA Protected Matters Area report (CofA 2017) indicates that the Threatened Ecological Community Giant Kelp Marine Forests of South East Australia, listed as Endangered, may occur within the area. Database information and field assessment indicates that no such vegetation is present within, or close to, the study area.

DISCUSSION

Summary of key findings

Threatened flora • No plant species listed as threatened on the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBCA) were detected, or are known from database information, from the study area. • No plant species listed as threatened on the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 (TSPA) were detected, or are known from database information, from the study area. Threatened fauna • Five point locations for Lathamus discolor (swift parrot), listed as Critically Endangered and endangered on Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBCA) and Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 (TSPA), respectively, are known from the study area. The study area includes a consolidated patch of Eucalyptus globulus dry forest and woodland (TASVEG code: DGL) and additional scattered individuals of Eucalyptus globulus (blue gum), both habitat components considered important ads a foraging resource for the swift parrot.

Ecological Assessment of 31, 41 & 47 Nubeena Crescent, Taroona 26 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

• Perameles gunnii (eastern barred bandicoot), listed as Vulnerable on the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBCA), has been anecdotally reported from the study area (but not confirmed in formal database reports), and potential habitat is present. • Potential (marginal) habitat is also present from Sarcophilus harrisii (Tasmanian devil), Dasyurus maculatus (spotted-tailed quoll), Dasyurus viverrinus (eastern quoll) and Tyto novaehollandiae (masked owl), all variously listed on the EPBCA and/or the TSPA. No formal database records exist from the study area, the species are also not reported anecdotally, and no evidence (e.g. scats, potential den sites, large hollow-bearing trees, etc.) of the species was observed. • No fauna species listed as threatened on the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBCA) and/or the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 (TSPA) were detected, or are known from database information, from the mining lease area. Vegetation types • The study area supports the following TASVEG mapping units: – Eucalyptus globulus dry forest and woodland (DGL); and – extra-urban miscellaneous (FUM). • At a finer-scale of mapping, the study area also supports the following TASVEG mapping units: – Allocasuarina verticillata forest (NAV); – Bursaria – Acacia woodland and scrub (NBA); and – lichen lithosere as coastal rock (TASVEG code: ORO). • None of these mapping units equate to threatened ecological communities listed on the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 199. • FUM (and NAV, NBA & ORO) are not listed as threatened on Schedule 3A of the Tasmanian Nature Conservation Act 2002. • DGL is listed as threatened on Schedule 3A of the Tasmanian Nature Conservation Act 2002. • DGL also equates to a high priority biodiversity value within the intent of the Biodiversity Code of the Kingborough Interim Planning Scheme 2015. Weeds • Several plant species classified as “declared weeds” within the meaning of the Tasmanian Weed Management Act 1999 are present within the study area. • Several additional species classified as “environmental weeds” are also present. Plant disease • There is no evidence that the study area is infected with Phytophthora cinnamomi, myrtle wilt or myrtle rust. Animal disease (chytrid) • The study area does not support habitats conducive to the disease persisting (no waterbodies).

Ecological Assessment of 31, 41 & 47 Nubeena Crescent, Taroona 27 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

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. The following information does not constitute legal advice and it is recommended that independent advice is sought from the relevant agency/authority.

Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995

Threatened flora and fauna 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 or fauna are likely to be taken, it is usual to apply for a permit under Section 51 of the Act on the required proforma to the Policy & Conservation Advice Branch (PCAB, DPIPWE) In this case, the study area does not support any populations of threatened flora, such that the Act will not have application. 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 able to issue a permit under Section 51 of the Act, DPIPWE’s Policy & Conservation Advice Branch (PCAB, DPIPWE) may make recommendations to a development proponent regarding managing habitat of threatened species and/or may endorse or comment on proposed offset/mitigation strategies. In this case, the extent to which such advice may be warranted will depend on the footprint of any development proposal (essentially, the issue will be the number of individuals of Eucalyptus globulus (blue gum) that may be removed as these may comprise potential foraging habitat for the swift parrot).

Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

The study area does not support any communities listed as threatened under the Act. The study area does not support known sites or potential habitat of flora species listed on the Act. The study area may support populations of the Tasmanian devil, spotted-tailed quoll, eastern quoll and masked owl (albeit the site must be considered marginal). Anecdotal evidence indicates that the eastern barred bandicoot is present. The Commonwealth Department of the Environment & Energy provides a Significant Impact Guidelines policy statement (CofA 2013) to determine if referral to the department is required. 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 may be a loss/modification of (marginal) potential habitat, the loss is not 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

Ecological Assessment of 31, 41 & 47 Nubeena Crescent, Taroona 28 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting 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. The more critical species that will require consideration under the EPBCA is the known and potential presence of Lathamus discolor (swift parrot). At the stage of development application, it is recommended that project plans be provided to a suitably qualified ecologist with a view to mapping individual trees within and closer to a development footprint, such that the potential impact on the swift parrot can be ascertained. This would involve GPS waypointing each tree, identifying it to species, measuring variables such as height, diameter at breast height over bark and canopy spread, and noting presence of hollows, tree form and health. It is highly unlikely that works will require a permit under Section 51 of the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 (only issued for knowingly taking a species not disturbance to potential habitat) or referral under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Protection Act 1999 (small-scale projects of this nature would unlikely exceed the thresholds of the test of significance but this will depend on the number, size and context of trees needing to be removed).

Tasmanian Nature Conservation Act 2002

Schedule 3A of the Act lists vegetation types classified as threatened within Tasmania. The study area supports a consolidated patch of Eucalyptus globulus dry forest and woodland (TASVEG code: DGL), which is listed on this Act. The intent of the listing is to minimise further clearance and conversion of the community. However, the Act itself does not provide an administrative mechanism for proposed clearance. This is achieved either through the Tasmanian Forest Practices Act 1985 (and associated regulations) or the Tasmanian Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 (i.e. through the provisions of the Kingborough Interim Planning Scheme 2015).

Tasmanian Forest Practices Act 1985 and associated regulations

The Act provides this definition of the concept of “clearing”: clearing of trees means the removal of trees by– (a) clearing, cutting, pushing or otherwise removing; or (b) destroying the trees in any way. The Act provides this definition of the concept of “trees”: trees means – (a) any woody plants with a height or potential height of 5 metres or more, whether or not living, dead, standing or fallen, that are– (i) native to Tasmania; or (ii) introduced into Tasmania and used for the processing or harvesting of timber; and (b) tree ferns [where tree fern means a plant of the species Dicksonia antarctica]. Within the study area area, on this basis, even the removal of seedlings, saplings, logs or trunks (dead or alive) of various species of native trees and tall shrubs may constitute “clearing” of “trees” under the Act. Section 4 of the Forest Practices Regulations 2017 specifies the following circumstance in which an FPP is not required, as follows:

Ecological Assessment of 31, 41 & 47 Nubeena Crescent, Taroona 29 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

4. Circumstances in which forest practices plan, &c., not required (j) 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 the purpose of enabling – (i) the construction of a building within the meaning of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 or of a group of such buildings; or (ii) the carrying out of any associated development – if the construction of the buildings or carrying out of the associated development is authorised by a permit issued under that Act. It is assumed that any future developments will include a “building” and approval through the planning scheme, such a Forest Practices Plan will not be required.

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”), no individuals, or products (e.g. nests, dens, etc.), of these species, are likely to be directly physically affected by future works, such that a permit under the Regulations should not be required. This may need to be reviewed after assessment of a specific development footprint.

Tasmanian Weed Management Act 1999

Several planning manuals provide guidance on appropriate management actions, which can be referred to develop site-specific prescriptions for future projects and general site management. These manuals include: • 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; • 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 & Environment, Hobart; and • DPIPWE (2015). Weed and Disease Planning and Hygiene Guidelines - Preventing the Spread of Weeds and Diseases in Tasmania. Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water & Environment, Hobart. At this stage of planning, however, detailed weed mapping and development of a weed management plan is not considered warranted. Some specific actions may be required under the Act for development proposals (e.g. management of vegetation debris, especially in relation to disposal of material containing declared weeds).

Tasmanian Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993

The applicable planning scheme for the study area is the Kingborough Interim Planning Scheme 2015. At this stage of project planning, the specifics of the Scheme are not addressed. However,

Ecological Assessment of 31, 41 & 47 Nubeena Crescent, Taroona 30 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting the intent of the present report is to inform any applications for re-zoning and re-configurations of overlays to better reflect land use purposes and the identified natural values, respectively. At a later stage (i.e. at the time of a specific development application), further site assessments may be required to more specifically identify particular values (e.g. location and character of individual trees) to develop an appropriate management strategy under the then applicable Scheme provisions.

Recommendations

The recommendations provided below are a summary of those provided in relation to each of the ecological features described in the main report. The main text of the report provides the relevant context for the recommendations. It is assumed that the phrasing below will be modified in planning documents for the project.

Vegetation types It is recommended that the consolidated polygon of Eucalyptus globulus dry forest and woodland (TASVEG code: DGL) not be considered for intensive development because of its formal conservation status and importance as swift parrot foraging habitat.

Threatened flora No special management will be required because no threatened flora have been identified from the study area.

Threatened fauna See above under Vegetation types. Further in relation to the swift parrot, at the stage of development application, it is recommended that project plans be provided to a suitably qualified ecologist with a view to mapping individual trees within and closer to a development footprint, such that the potential impact on the swift parrot can be ascertained. This would involve GPS waypointing each tree, identifying it to species, measuring variables such as height, diameter at breast height over bark and canopy spread, and noting presence of hollows, tree form and health. It is highly unlikely that works will require a permit under Section 51 of the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 (only issued for knowingly taking a species not disturbance to potential habitat) or referral under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Protection Act 1999 (small-scale projects of this nature would unlikely exceed the thresholds of the test of significance but this will depend on the number, size and context of trees needing to be removed).

Weed management At the stage of development application, it is recommended that project plans be provided to a suitably qualified ecologist with a view to mapping declared and environmental weeds, such that specific actions can be incorporated into any planning approvals (e.g. management of vegetation debris, especially in relation to disposal of material containing declared weeds).

Legislation and policy A permit under the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 should not be required (nor indeed technically possible) to “take” threatened flora and fauna because no specific sites have

Ecological Assessment of 31, 41 & 47 Nubeena Crescent, Taroona 31 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting been identified. However, advice from the Policy & Conservation Advice Branch (PCAB, DPIPWE) may be warranted but this will depend on the footprint of any development proposal (essentially, the issue will be the number of individuals of Eucalyptus globulus (blue gum) that may be removed as these may comprise potential foraging habitat for the swift parrot). It is unlikely that a formal referral to the relevant Commonwealth government agency under the provisions of the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 will be warranted but this should be confirmed by the client through their own consideration of the Significant Impact Guidelines (or through discussion with DPIPWE and/or the Commonwealth Department of the Environment & Energy) once a development footprint is known and appropriate project-specific assessments have been undertaken. It is assumed that any project will be subject to a development application prepared under the provisions of the Kingborough Interim Planning Scheme 2015 (or the applicable Scheme at the time) and that this will need to address various zoning and code provisions related to “natural values”.

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. APG (Angiosperm Phylogeny Group) (2016). An update of the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group classification for the orders and families of flowering plants: APG IV. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 181(1): 1–20. 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. CofA (Commonwealth of Australia) (2018). Department of the Environment & Energy’s Protected Matters Search Tool Report defined by a polygon enclosing the three subject titles, buffered by 5 km, dated 18 July 2018 – Appendix G. CofA (Commonwealth of Australia) (2013). EPBC Act Policy Statement 1.1: Significant Impact Guidelines – Matters of National Environmental Significance. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra. de Salas, M.F. & Baker, M.L. (2017). A Census of the Vascular Plants of Tasmania, including Macquarie Island. Tasmanian Herbarium, Hobart. DPIPWE (Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water & Environment) (2015). Weed and Disease Planning and Hygiene Guidelines – Preventing the Spread of Weeds and Diseases in Tasmania. Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water & Environment, Hobart. DPIPWE (Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water & Environment) (2015). Guidelines for Natural Values Surveys – Terrestrial Development Proposals. Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water & Environment, Hobart. DPIPWE (Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water & Environment) (2015). Survey Guidelines and Management Advice for Development Proposals that may Impact on the Tasmanian Devil (Sarcophilus harrisii): A Supplement to the Guidelines for Natural Values Surveys - Terrestrial Development Proposals. Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water & Environment, Hobart. DPIPWE (Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water & Environment) (2015). Biosecurity Factsheet: Myrtle Rust. Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water & Environment, Hobart.

Ecological Assessment of 31, 41 & 47 Nubeena Crescent, Taroona 32 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

DPIPWE (Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water & Environment) (2018). Natural Values Atlas report ECOtas_NubeenaCrescent_Utas for a point (528877mE 5244615mN) defining the approximate centroid of the three subject titles, buffered by 5 km, dated 18 July 20 – Appendix E. DPIPWE (Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water & Environment) (2018) Threatened Native Vegetation Communities List, as per Schedule 3A of the Tasmanian Nature Conservation Act 2002. http://dpipwe.tas.gov.au/conservation/flora-of-tasmania/monitoring-and-mapping- tasmanias-vegetation-(tasveg)/tasveg-the-digital-vegetation-map-of-tasmania/threatened- native-vegetation-communities. Duretto, M.F. (Ed.) (2009+) Flora of Tasmania Online. Tasmanian Herbarium, Hobart. 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) (2016). Habitat Descriptions of Threatened Flora in Tasmania. Forest Practices Authority, Hobart. FPA (Forest Practices Authority) (2018). Biodiversity Values Database report, specifically the species’ information for grid reference centroid 528877mE 5244615mN (i.e. the centroid of the Natural Values Atlas search area), buffered by 2 km, hyperlinked species’ profiles and predicted range boundary maps, dated 18 July 2018 – Appendix F. Kitchener, A. & Harris, S. (2013). From Forest to Fjaeldmark: Descriptions of Tasmania’s Vegetation. Edition 2. Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water & Environment, Hobart. 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 & Environment, Hobart. TSS (Threatened Species Section) (2003+). Notesheets and Listing Statements for various threatened species. Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water & Environment, Hobart. 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 Primary Industries, Parks, Water & Environment, Hobart.

Ecological Assessment of 31, 41 & 47 Nubeena Crescent, Taroona 33 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

APPENDIX A. Vegetation community structure and composition

The table below provide information on the structure and composition of the main native vegetation mapping unit identified from the study area.

Eucalyptus globulus dry forest and woodland (TASVEG code: DGL)

Refer to main text for detailed discussion of this community. The images below provide examples of the community, including from sites mentioned in the main text.

LHS. Looking into the consolidated patch of DGL on the lower slopes of 31 Nubeena Crescent, showing how the fence and road define the threshold of FUM and DGL RHS. DGL on the upper slopes oif its extent just below the fence showing the modified canopy structure in its northeastern corner and the informal walking track through the understorey

Views of DGL from approximately mid-slope showing the multi-aged canopy structure and relatively diverse understorey, albeit dominated by exotic grasses and with scattered woody weeds

Height (m) Species Stratum Cover (%) (underline = dominant, parentheses = sparse or occasional) 45 m Trees Eucalyptus globulus, (E. viminalis), (E. ovata) 10% 20-30 m Trees Eucalyptus globulus, (E. viminalis), (E. ovata) 30-40%

4-12 m Allocasuarina verticillata, Acacia melanoxylon, A. mearnsii, A. dealbata, Tall shrubs 10% Bursaria spinosa, eucalypt regeneration

Ecological Assessment of 31, 41 & 47 Nubeena Crescent, Taroona 34 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

1-3 m Dodonaea viscosa, Bursaria spinosa, eucalypt regeneration, Cotoneaster Medium shrubs <5% spp. <0.5 m Low shrubs Lissanthe strigosa, Rosa rubiginosa, Olearia ramulosa, Rubus spp. <5% Dactylis glomerata, Poa labillardierei, Deyeuxia quadriseta, Themeda Grass 80% triandra

Graminoids 5-20% Lomandra longifolia, Dianella spp.

Acaena spp., Galium aparine, Asperula conferta, Ranunculus lappaceus, Herbs 5% Linum marginale, Leptorhynchus squamatus, Plantago spp.

DGL viewed from its southeast corner showing the flatter terrain closer to the coastal Crown title (this area getting slashed, mown and grazed more heavily than the adjacent steeper slopes) and the steeper slopes to the north (which shows the multi-aged canopy structure and variably diverse understorey structure and composition)

Ecological Assessment of 31, 41 & 47 Nubeena Crescent, Taroona 35 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

BRIEF NOTES ON OTHER NATIVE VEGETATION COMMUNITIES

Allocasuarina verticillata forest (NAV)

Refer to main report text for detailed discussion. The images below show examples of the two patches within the fenced study area, as well as from along the coastal walking track.

Plates A1 & A2. Examples of “NAV” from within fenced titles, showing sparse cover of Allocasuarina verticillata and scattered Eucalyptus viminalis over a largely modified understorey (Einadia nutans and Tetragonia implexicoma are the two native species present)

Plates A3 & A4. Examples of better NAV from along the coastal fringe outside the fenced titles

Ecological Assessment of 31, 41 & 47 Nubeena Crescent, Taroona 36 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Bursaria – Acacia woodland and scrub (NBA)

Refer to main report text for detailed discussion. The images below show the small patch of this community marginally mappable in the north of 31 Nubeena Crescent.

Plates A5 & A6. “NBA” from northern end of 31 Nubeena Crescent (taken from Nubeena Crescent) showing canopy of Acacia mearnsii over exotic grass and herbs

Ecological Assessment of 31, 41 & 47 Nubeena Crescent, Taroona 37 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Extra-urban miscellaneous (FUM)

Refer to main report text for detailed discussion. The images below provide examples of parts of the study area with some native vegetation cover that have been mapped as FUM rather than a native vegetation community, but also show the overall expression of FUM (as opposed to the concept of FUR discussed in the main text).

Plate A7. (LHS) Looking into the old Tasmanian devil enclosures in the middle of 31 Nubeena Crescent showing a sparse cover of Eucalyptus globulus and Eucalyptus viminalis but over an entirely modified ground surface Plate A8. (RHS) Looking south downslope along the fenced eastern limit of the consolidated patch of DGL on 31 Nubeena Crescent (image is on 41 Nubeena Crescent), showing that this area has been inappropriately mapped on Council vegetation mapping as DGL (clearly better as FUM)

Plates A9 & A10. Southwest corner of 41 Nubeena Crescent showing wholly modified grass understorey within the fenced area with just four Eucalyptus globulus on the grassy slope and some additional individuals just outside the fence on its southern and western sides, creating a continuous canopy but a discontinuous understorey character

Ecological Assessment of 31, 41 & 47 Nubeena Crescent, Taroona 38 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

APPENDIX B. Vascular plant species recorded from the study area (DGL patch)

Botanical nomenclature follows A Census of the Vascular Plants of Tasmania (de Salas & Baker 2017), with family placement updated to reflect the nomenclatural changes recognised in the Flora of Tasmania Online (Duretto 2009+) and APG (2016); common nomenclature follows The Little Book of Common Names of Tasmanian Plants (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 Tasmanian Weed Management Act 1999

Table B1. Summary of vascular species recorded from the study area (DGL patch)

ORDER STATUS DICOTYLEDONAE MONOCOTYLEDONAE GYMNOSPERMAE PTERIDOPHYTA 33 13 - - e - - - - i 29 12 1 - Sum 62 25 1 0 TOTAL 88

DICOTYLEDONAE AIZOACEAE Tetragonia implexicoma bower spinach AMARANTHACEAE Einadia nutans subsp. nutans climbing saltbush APIACEAE i Conium maculatum hemlock Daucus glochidiatus australian carrot i Pastinaca sativa parsnip ASTERACEAE i Bellis perennis english daisy i Chrysanthemoides monilifera subsp. monilifera boneseed DW i Dimorphotheca fruticosa trailing daisy i Hypochaeris radicata rough catsear Leptorhynchos squamatus subsp. squamatus scaly buttons i Leucanthemum vulgare oxeye daisy Olearia ramulosa twiggy daisybush Senecio glomeratus subsp. glomeratus shortfruit purple fireweed Senecio hispidulus rough fireweed Senecio minimus shrubby fireweed Senecio quadridentatus cotton fireweed i Sonchus oleraceus common sowthistle i Taraxacum officinale common dandelion CAMPANULACEAE Wahlenbergia multicaulis bushy bluebell CAPRIFOLIACEAE i Lonicera japonica japanese honeysuckle CASUARINACEAE Allocasuarina verticillata drooping sheoak ERICACEAE Acrotriche serrulata ants delight Lissanthe strigosa subsp. subulata peachberry heath EUPHORBIACEAE Poranthera microphylla small poranthera

Ecological Assessment of 31, 41 & 47 Nubeena Crescent, Taroona 39 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

FABACEAE Acacia dealbata subsp. dealbata silver wattle Acacia mearnsii black wattle Acacia melanoxylon blackwood i Genista monspessulana montpellier broom DW i Trifolium repens white clover i Vicia sativa subsp. nigra narrowleaf vetch GERANIACEAE Geranium solanderi southern cranesbill LINACEAE Linum marginale native flax MALVACEAE i Malva sylvestris tall mallow MYRTACEAE Eucalyptus globulus subsp. globulus tasmanian blue gum Eucalyptus ovata var. ovata black gum Eucalyptus viminalis subsp. viminalis white gum OXALIDACEAE i Oxalis corniculata subsp. corniculata yellow woodsorrel PAPAVERACEAE i Fumaria muralis subsp. muralis wall fumitory PASSIFLORACEAE i Passiflora tarminiana banana passionfruit PITTOSPORACEAE Bursaria spinosa subsp. spinosa prickly box PLANTAGINACEAE i Plantago coronopus subsp. coronopus slender buckshorn plantain Plantago hispida hairy plantain i Plantago lanceolata ribwort plantain Plantago varia variable plantain POLYGONACEAE i Acetosella vulgaris sheep sorrel i Rumex crispus curled dock PROTEACEAE i Grevillea sp. 1 garden grevillea i Grevillea sp. 2 garden grevillea RANUNCULACEAE Ranunculus lappaceus woodland buttercup ROSACEAE Acaena echinata spiny sheepsburr Acaena novae-zelandiae common buzzy i Cotoneaster glaucophyllus var. serotinus largeleaf cotoneaster i Cotoneaster pannosus velvet cotoneaster i Rosa rubiginosa sweet briar i Rubus spp. blackberry DW RUBIACEAE Asperula conferta common woodruff i Coprosma repens mirrorbush i Galium aparine cleavers SANTALACEAE Exocarpos cupressiformis common native-cherry Exocarpos strictus pearly native-cherry SAPINDACEAE Dodonaea viscosa subsp. spatulata broadleaf hopbush THYMELAEACEAE Pimelea humilis dwarf riceflower GYMNOSPERMAE PINACEAE i Pinus radiata radiata pine

Ecological Assessment of 31, 41 & 47 Nubeena Crescent, Taroona 40 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

MONOCOTYLEDONAE AMARYLLIDACEAE Dianella brevicaulis shortstem flaxlily Dianella revoluta var. revoluta spreading flaxlily ASPARAGACEAE Arthropodium milleflorum pale vanilla-lily Lomandra longifolia sagg CYPERACEAE Lepidosperma laterale variable swordsedge Schoenus apogon common bogsedge IRIDACEAE i Romulea rosea var. australis lilac oniongrass POACEAE i Agrostis capillaris var. capillaris browntop bent i Agrostis gigantea redtop bent i Agrostis stolonifera creeping bent i Aira caryophyllea subsp. caryophyllea silvery hairgrass i Aira praecox early hairgrass i Arrhenatherum elatius var. bulbosum bulbous oatgrass i Dactylis glomerata cocksfoot Deyeuxia quadriseta reed bentgrass Dichelachne rara common plumegrass i Ehrharta erecta var. erecta panic veldtgrass i Holcus lanatus yorkshire fog i Lolium perenne perennial ryegrass Microlaena stipoides var. stipoides weeping grass Poa labillardierei var. labillardierei silver tussockgrass Rytidosperma penicillatum slender wallabygrass Tetrarrhena distichophylla hairy ricegrass Themeda triandra kangaroo grass i Vulpia bromoides squirreltail fescue

Ecological Assessment of 31, 41 & 47 Nubeena Crescent, Taroona 41 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

APPENDIX C. Analysis of database records of threatened flora

Table C1 provides a listing of threatened 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.

Table C1. Threatened flora reported from within 5,000 m of the study 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 2018) and other sources where indicated. Habitat descriptions are taken from TSS (2003+) and FPA (2016), except where otherwise indicated. Species marked with # are listed in CofA (2018). Where “Potential habitat present” is stated the Comments field, this refers only to the area of consolidated DGL, unless otherwise stated.

Status Scientific name TSPA Potential habitat Common name EPBCA Allocasuarina duncanii is strongly associated with dolerite rock plates or shallow soils over dolerite, where it occurs in monotypic stands or in association with Allocasuarina duncanii r Eucalyptus delegatensis or E. coccifera. Two small sites are on quarzitic conical sheoak - sandstone. The species is found from 230-1,000 m a.s.l. with most sites above 500 m. POTENTIAL HABITAT ABSENT. Asperula scoparia subsp. scoparia is widespread in Tasmania, and is mainly found in native grasslands and grassy forests, often on fertile substrates such Asperula scoparia subsp. as dolerite-derived soils. Forested sites are usually dominated by Eucalyptus r scoparia globulus and E. viminalis (lower elevations) and E. delegatensis (higher - prickly woodruff elevations). POTENTIAL HABITAT PRESENT. Species not detected (no constraint on timing of survey for detection or identification). Austrostipa bigeniculata is found mainly in the southeast and Midlands in open woodlands and grasslands, where it is often associated with Austrostipa nodosa. Austrostipa bigeniculata r POTENTIAL HABITAT PRESENT (in DGL and potentially other disturbed doublejointed speargrass - grassy understorey sites). Species not detected (no constraint on timing of survey for detection or identification). Bolboschoenus caldwellii is widespread in shallow, standing, sometimes brackish Bolboschoenus caldwellii r water, rooted in heavy black mud. sea clubsedge - POTENTIAL HABITAT ABSENT. Caladenia caudata has highly variable habitat, which includes the central north: Eucalyptus obliqua heathy forest on low undulating hills; the northeast: E. globulus grassy/heathy coastal forest, E. amygdalina heathy woodland and v forest, Allocasuarina woodland; and the southeast: E. amygdalina forest and Caladenia caudata VU woodland on sandstone, coastal E. viminalis forest on deep sands. Substrates tailed spider-orchid # vary from dolerite to sandstone to granite, with soils ranging from deep windblown sands, sands derived from sandstone and well-developed clay loams developed from dolerite. A high degree of insolation is typical of many sites. POTENTIAL HABITAT ABSENT. Caladenia filamentosa occurs in lowland heathy and sedgy eucalypt forest and Caladenia filamentosa r woodland on sandy soils. daddy longlegs - POTENTIAL HABITAT ABSENT. Caladenia sylvicola has only been found in dry forest adjacent to Huon Road, near Hobart. One site is on a highly insolated hillside on well-drained gravelly e loam overlying mudstone in heathy/shrubby Eucalyptus tenuiramis forest at Caladenia sylvicola CR about 240 m a.s.l. A second site is at slightly lower elevation (160 m a.s.l.) on forest fingers # only a moist, sheltered slope (on a similar substrate), growing among leaf litter and dense shrubs in E. obliqua dry sclerophyll forest. POTENTIAL HABITAT ABSENT.

Ecological Assessment of 31, 41 & 47 Nubeena Crescent, Taroona 42 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Status Scientific name TSPA Potential habitat Common name EPBCA The habitat of Carex gunniana is poorly understood and highly variable. It includes wet eucalypt forest, sandy heathlands, margins of streams, littoral sands, shingle with seepage, damp grasslands within dry forest and rough Carex gunniana r pasture. mountain sedge - POTENTIAL HABITAT MARGINALLY PRESENT (albeit atypical of known sites). Species not detected (no constraint on timing of survey for detection or identification). Carex longebrachiata grows along riverbanks, in rough grassland and pastures, in damp drainage depressions and on moist slopes amongst forest, often Carex longebrachiata r dominated by Eucalyptus viminalis, E. ovata or E. rodwayi. drooping sedge - POTENTIAL HABITAT PRESENT (in DGL and potentially other disturbed grassy understorey sites). Species not detected (no constraint on timing of survey for detection or identification). Dianella amoena occurs mainly in the northern and southern Midlands, where it r grows in native grasslands and grassy woodlands. Dianella amoena EN POTENTIAL HABITAT MARGINALLY PRESENT (albeit atypical of known grassland flaxlily # only sites). Species not detected (no constraint on timing of survey for detection or identification). Diuris palustris occurs in coastal areas in grassy open eucalypt forest, sedgy grassland and heathland with Leptospermum (teatree) and Melaleuca Diuris palustris e (paperbark) on poorly- to moderately-drained sandy peat and loams, usually in swamp doubletail - sites that are wet in winter. POTENTIAL HABITAT ABSENT. Epacris virgata (Kettering) occurs among foothills in southeastern Tasmania in dry sclerophyll forest on hilly terrain at elevations of 10-300 m a.s.l., mainly on v dolerite, though sometimes close to the geological boundary of dolerite and Epacris virgata Kettering EN Permian mudstone. It is generally associated with grassy/heathy Eucalyptus pretty heath # ovata woodland/forest, but is also occasionally found in grassy/heathy E. pulchella woodland/forest. POTENTIAL HABITAT ABSENT. Euphrasia scabra occurs in moist herb/sedge communities in grassy leads in marshes and in drier open grassy areas at the headwaters of creeks. Its habitat is associated with gaps created by grazing, flooding or other disturbance. It has been recorded from scattered sites throughout lowland areas of Tasmania, Euphrasia scabra e including the northwest coast, central north, Midlands, Eastern Tiers and around yellow eyebright - Hobart. However, it is considered to be extinct from many of these sites, and populations are low and transient in areas (Eastern Tiers and Hobart) with the greatest probability of still supporting the species. POTENTIAL HABITAT ABSENT. Glycine latrobeana occurs in a range of habitats, geologies and vegetation types. Soils are usually fertile but can be sandy when adjacent to or overlaying fertile soils. The species mainly occurs on flats and undulating terrain over a wide v Glycine latrobeana geographical range, including near-coastal environments, the Midlands, and the VU clover glycine Central Plateau. It mainly occurs in grassy/heathy forests and woodlands and # only native grasslands. POTENTIAL HABITAT ABSENT. Atypical of known sites and well outside the accepted range in Tasmania. Lachnagrostis robusta occurs in saline situations such as the margins of coastal Lachnagrostis robusta r and inland saline lagoons. tall blowngrass - POTENTIAL HABITAT ABSENT. The native habitat of Lepidium hyssopifolium is the growth suppression zone beneath large trees in grassy woodlands and grasslands (e.g. over-mature black wattles and isolated eucalypts in rough pasture). Lepidium hyssopifolium is now found primarily under large exotic trees on roadsides and home yards on farms. e It occurs in the eastern part of Tasmania between sea-level to 500 metres a.s.l. Lepidium hyssopifolium EN in dry, warm and fertile areas on flat ground on weakly acid to alkaline soils soft peppercress # derived from a range of rock types. It can also occur on frequently slashed grassy/weedy roadside verges where shade trees are absent. POTENTIAL HABITAT MARGINALLY PRESENT (under old pines and other “ornamental” eucalypts). Species not detected (no constraint on timing of survey for detection or identification).

Ecological Assessment of 31, 41 & 47 Nubeena Crescent, Taroona 43 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Status Scientific name TSPA Potential habitat Common name EPBCA Pomaderris intermedia occurs in heathland and heathy woodland on eastern Bass Strait islands but extends to mainly dry sclerophyll forest on mainland Pomaderris intermedia r Tasmania, most often associated with rock outcrops (dolerite), riparian areas lemon dogwood - and open forest. POTENTIAL HABITAT MARGINALLY PRESENT. Species not detected (no constraint on timing of survey for detection or identification).

Olearia hookeri is found on dry hills around Hobart in the State’s south and also along the central east coast. It grows within eucalypt woodlands with a mixed grassy-shrubby understorey, favouring north to northwesterly slopes on mudstone (except for an atypical occurrence on dolerite at Templestowe flats Olearia hookeri r near Seymour). In the south of the State the habitat is dominated by Eucalyptus crimsontip daisybush - amygdalina, Eucalyptus risdonii or Eucalyptus tenuiramis; in the central east near Mt Peter the habitat is dominated by Eucalyptus sieberi over a very sparse understorey. POTENTIAL HABITAT MARGINALLY PRESENT. Species not detected (no constraint on timing of survey for detection or identification).

Prasophyllum apoxychilum is restricted to eastern and northeastern Tasmania v where it occurs in coastal heathland or grassy and scrubby open eucalypt forest Prasophyllum apoxychilum on sandy and clay loams, often among rocks. It occurs at a range of elevations EN tapered leek-orchid and seems to be strongly associated with dolerite in the east and southeast of # only its range. POTENTIAL HABITAT ABSENT.

Pterostylis squamata occurs in heathy and grassy open eucalypt forest, Pterostylis squamata v woodland and heathland on well-drained sandy and clay loams. ruddy greenhood - POTENTIAL HABITAT ABSENT. Pterostylis pratensis is restricted to the Central Highlands of Tasmania, growing at an elevation of 850-1100 m a.s.l. in subalpine Poa labillardierei tussock Pterostylis pratensis v grassland that is very exposed, low and open, with patches of often stunted liawenee greenhood VU Olearia algida (alpine daisybush) and Hakea microcarpa (smallfruit needlebush) scrub on red–brown loamy to clay soils derived from basalt. POTENTIAL HABITAT ABSENT. Ranunculus pumilio var. pumilio occurs mostly in wet places (e.g. broad Ranunculus pumilio var. floodplains of permanent creeks, "wet pastures") from sea level to altitudes of r pumilio 800-900 m a.s.l. - ferny buttercup POTENTIAL HABITAT MARGINALLY PRESENT. Species not detected (timing suitable to detect other species of Ranunculus).

Rhodanthe anthemoides occurs in montane grasslands, heath and heathy scrub Rhodanthe anthemoides r in central and northwestern Tasmania. chamomile sunray - POTENTIAL HABITAT ABSENT. Rytidosperma indutum is relatively widespread on mudstone and dolerite in dry sclerophyll woodlands and associated lowland grasslands in drier parts of the State. Rytidosperma indutum r POTENTIAL HABITAT PRESENT (in DGL and potentially other disturbed tall wallabygrass - grassy understorey sites). This species is widespread and often locally common on both mudstone and dolerite substrates in the greater Hobart-Kingston area, and I have previously detected the species in the Taroona area. The species was not detected (no constraint on timing of survey for detection or identification).

Scleranthus brockiei mainly occurs at mid to higher elevations in native grasslands and grassy forests/woodlands, often in slightly poorly-drained sites (usually wetter sites than S. biflorus, which can co-occur). Some sites are in Scleranthus brockiei r lowland habitats, usually native grasslands and grassy woodlands. mountain knawel - POTENTIAL HABITAT MARGINALLY PRESENT (can occur in highly modified habitats at a range of elevations). Species not detected (no constraint on timing of survey for detection or identification).

Ecological Assessment of 31, 41 & 47 Nubeena Crescent, Taroona 44 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Status Scientific name TSPA Potential habitat Common name EPBCA Scleranthus fasciculatus is only recorded from a few locations in the Midlands and southeast. The vegetation at most of the sites is Poa grassland/grassy woodland. Scleranthus fasciculatus appears to need gaps between the tussock Scleranthus fasciculatus v spaces for its survival and both fire and stock grazing maintain the openness it spreading knawel - requires. Often found in areas protected from grazing such as fallen trees and branches. POTENTIAL HABITAT PRESENT. Species not detected (no constraint on timing of survey for detection or identification). Senecio squarrosus occurs in a wide variety of habitats. One form occurs predominantly in lowland damp tussock grasslands. The more widespread and common form occurs mainly in dry forests (often grassy) but extends to wet Senecio squarrosus r forests and other vegetation types. leafy fireweed - POTENTIAL HABITAT MARGINALLY PRESENT (can occur in highly modified habitats at a range of elevations). Species not detected (no constraint on timing of survey for detection or identification). Thelymitra atronitida has been recorded from near-coastal heathland, sedgeland Thelymitra atronitida e and open heathy/sedgy eucalypt woodland on relatively poorly-drained sandy blackhood sun-orchid - loams. The altitude range of known sites is 10-120 m a.s.l. POTENTIAL HABITAT ABSENT.

e Thelymitra jonesii occurs in moist coastal heath on sandy to peaty soils and in Thelymitra jonesii EN Eucalyptus obliqua forest in deep loam soil over dolerite. skyblue sun-orchid # only POTENTIAL HABITAT ABSENT. Vittadinia burbidgeae occurs in native grassland and grassy woodland. Vittadinia burbidgeae r POTENTIAL HABITAT MARGINALLY PRESENT (can occur in highly modified smooth new-holland-daisy - habitats at a range of elevations). Species not detected (no constraint on timing of survey for detection or identification). Vittadinia muelleri occurs in native grassland and grassy woodland. Vittadinia muelleri r POTENTIAL HABITAT MARGINALLY PRESENT (can occur in highly modified narrowleaf new-holland- - habitats at a range of elevations). Species not detected (no constraint on timing daisy of survey for detection or identification). Species of Xerochrysum are poorly understood in Tasmania, especially the Xerochrysum bicolor r identification of coastal species (X. bicolor and X. bracteatum). X. bicolor may eastcoast everlasting - be restricted to stabilised dune systems. POTENTIAL HABITAT ABSENT. Xerochrysum palustre has a scattered distribution with populations in the v northeast, east coast, Central Highlands and Midlands, all below about 700 m Xerochrysum palustre elevation. It occurs in wetlands, grassy to sedgy wet heathlands and extends to VU swamp everlasting associated heathy Eucalyptus ovata woodlands. Sites are usually inundated for # only part of the year. POTENTIAL HABITAT ABSENT.

Ecological Assessment of 31, 41 & 47 Nubeena Crescent, Taroona 45 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

APPENDIX D. Analysis of database records of threatened fauna

Table D1 provides a listing of threatened fauna 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.

Table D1. Threatened fauna records from 5,000 m of boundary of study 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 2018), Bryant & Jackson (1999) and FPA (2018); marine, wholly pelagic and littoral species such as marine mammals, fish and offshore seabirds are excluded. Species marked with # are listed in CoFA (2018).

Status Scientific name Tasmanian habitat description Comments on study area and TSPA Common name (and distribution) database records EPBCA Potential habitat of Accipiter novaehollandiae is native forest with mature elements below 600 m altitude, particularly along watercourses. Significant habitat may be summarised POTENTIAL HABITAT EFFECTIVELY Accipiter novaehollandiae e as areas of wet forest, rainforest and ABSENT. Species may utilise broader grey goshawk - damp forest patches in dry forest, with area for foraging but potential nesting a relatively closed mature canopy, low habitat is absent. stem density, and open understorey in close proximity to foraging habitat and a freshwater body (i.e. stream, river, lake, swamp, etc.). Potential foraging habitat of Alcedo azurea subsp. diemenensis is primarily freshwater (occasionally estuarine) POTENTIAL HABITAT ABSENT. No waterbodies such as large rivers and Alcedo azurea subsp. ephemeral or permanent waterbodies e streams with well-developed diemenensis or drainage features present. EN overhanging vegetation suitable for Tasmanian azure perching and water deep enough for Note that this species is listed on some # only kingfisher dive-feeding. Potential breeding database as Ceyx azureus subsp. habitat is usually steep banks of large diemenensis. rivers (a breeding site is a hole (burrow) drilled in the bank).

Potential habitat of Antipodia chaostola tax. leucophaea is dry forest and Antipodia chaostola tax. e woodland supporting Gahnia radula POTENTIAL HABITAT ABSENT. leucophaea EN (usually on sandstone and other Absence of both key Gahnia species. chaostola skipper # sedimentary rock types) or Gahnia microstachya (usually on granite- based substrates). Potential habitat of Aquila audax subsp. fleayi comprises potential nesting habitat and potential foraging habitat. Potential foraging habitat is a POTENTIAL NESTING HABITAT Aquila audax subsp. e wide variety of forest (including areas ABSENT. No known nests within fleayi subject to native forest silviculture) 1,000 m of subject titles; all EN Tasmanian wedge-tailed and non-forest habitats. surrounding forest of similar low # eagle Potential nesting habitat is tall eucalypt stature as within subject title, and trees in large tracts (usually more than subject to high levels of disturbance. 10 ha) of eucalypt or mixed forest. Nest trees are usually amongst the largest in a locality. They are generally

Ecological Assessment of 31, 41 & 47 Nubeena Crescent, Taroona 46 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Status Scientific name Tasmanian habitat description Comments on study area and TSPA Common name (and distribution) database records EPBCA in sheltered positions on leeward slopes, between the lower and mid sections of a slope and with the top of the tree usually lower than the ground level of the top of the ridge, although in some parts of the State topographic shelter is not always a significant factor (e.g. parts of the northwest and Central Highlands). Nests are usually not constructed close to sources of disturbance and nests close to disturbance are less productive. More than one nest may occur within a territory but only one is used for breeding in any one year. Breeding failure often promotes a change of nest in the next year. Potential habitat of Dasybela achroa is saltmarshes, saltpans, and adjacent Dasybela achroa v POTENTIAL HABITAT ABSENT. grasslands and grassy forest/woodland Saltmarsh vegetation is not present. saltmarsh looper moth - (within the same catchment as, and adjacent to saline habitats). POTENTIAL HABITAT PRESENT. No Potential habitat of Dasyurus evidence (e.g. scats) of the species maculatus subsp. maculatus is coastal was observed. The study area does not scrub, riparian areas, rainforest, wet support potential natural den sites forest, damp forest, dry forest and Dasyurus maculatus r (except in a very opportunistic sense) blackwood swamp forest (mature and subsp. maculatus VU of the species because of the very open regrowth), particularly where understorey lacking large coarse spotted-tailed quoll # structurally complex and steep rocky woody debris, rock piles and wombat areas are present, and includes burrows. The species may utilise the remnant patches in cleared agricultural greater study area as part of a home land. range and for foraging. Potential habitat of Dasyurus viverrinus is a variety of habitats - including rainforest, heathland, alpine Dasyurus viverrinus POTENTIAL HABITAT PRESENT. EN areas and scrub. However, it seems to eastern quoll See under spotted-tailed quoll. # prefer dry forest and native grassland mosaics which are bounded by agricultural land. POTENTIAL HABITAT ABSENT. e Potential habitat of Discocharopa These habitat features are not present Discocharopa vigens vigens is dry and wet eucalypt forests (site not effectively not on dolerite and EN ammonite snail on dolerite in the Hobart lowlands (all lacks the loose litter-strewn doleritic # below 400 m a.s.l). regolith typical of sites known to support the species. Potential habitat of Haliaeetus leucogaster comprises potential nesting habitat and potential foraging habitat. Potential foraging habitat is any large waterbody (including sea POTENTIAL NESTING HABITAT coasts, estuaries, wide rivers, lakes, ABSENT. No known nests within Haliaeetus leucogaster v impoundments and even large farm 1,000 m of subject titles; all dams) supporting prey items (fish). white-bellied sea-eagle - surrounding forest of similar low Potential nesting habitat is tall eucalypt stature as within subject title, and trees in large tracts (usually more than subject to high levels of disturbance. 10 ha) of eucalypt or mixed forest within 5 km of the coast (nearest coast including shores, bays, inlets and peninsulas), large rivers (Class 1), lakes or complexes of large farm dams.

Ecological Assessment of 31, 41 & 47 Nubeena Crescent, Taroona 47 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Status Scientific name Tasmanian habitat description Comments on study area and TSPA Common name (and distribution) database records EPBCA Scattered trees along river banks or pasture land may also be used. Potential habitat of Lathamus discolor comprises potential foraging habitat and potential nesting habitat. Potential foraging habitat comprises Eucalyptus e Lathamus discolor globulus (blue gum) or Eucalyptus Refer to FINDINGS Fauna species CR ovata (black gum) trees that are old Known locations for a detailed swift parrot # enough to flower. For management discussion of this species. purposes, potential nesting habitat is considered to comprise eucalypt forests that contain hollow-bearing trees. Potential habitat of Litoria raniformis is permanent and temporary waterbodies, usually with vegetation in or around them, including features POTENTIAL HABITAT ABSENT. No such as natural lagoons, permanently Litoria raniformis v ephemeral or permanent waterbodies or seasonally inundated swamps and or drainage features present within or green and golden frog VU wetlands, farm dams, irrigation close to the study area. channels, artificial water-holding sites such as old quarries, slow-flowing stretches of streams and rivers and drainage features. The study area is outside the natural Neophema chrysogaster e range of the species and it is only listed Not relevant. in DPIPWE (2018) & FPA (2018) orange-bellied parrot EN because of database records that represent the breeding facility. Potential habitat of Pardalotus quadragintus is any forest and POTENTIAL HABITAT ABSENT. The woodland supporting Eucalyptus study area supports scattered e Pardalotus quadragintus viminalis (white gum) where the individuals of Eucalyptus viminalis but EN canopy cover of E. viminalis is greater not in the configuration described (and forty-spotted pardalote # than or equal to 10% or where to the best of my knowledge there are E. viminalis occurs as a localised no known breeding colonies in the canopy dominant or co-dominant in Taroona area). patches exceeding 0.25 ha. Potential habitat of Perameles gunnii subsp. gunnii is open vegetation types including woodlands and open forests Perameles gunnii subsp. - Refer to FINDINGS Fauna species with a grassy understorey, native and gunnii VU Known locations for a detailed exotic grasslands, particularly in discussion of this species. eastern barred bandicoot # landscapes with a mosaic of agricultural land and remnant bushland. Potential habitat of Prototroctes v maraena is all streams and rivers in POTENTIAL HABITAT ABSENT. No Prototroctes maraena their lower to middle reaches. Areas ephemeral or permanent waterbodies VU Australian grayling above permanent barriers (e.g. Prosser or drainage features present within or # River dam, weirs) that prevent fish close to the study area. migration, are not potential habitat. Potential habitat of Pseudemoia pagenstecheri is grassland and grassy Pseudemoia woodland (including rough pasture v POTENTIAL HABITAT ABSENT. pagenstecheri with paddock trees), generally with a - Native grassland is not present. tussock skink greater than 20% cover of native grass species, especially where medium to tall tussocks are present.

Ecological Assessment of 31, 41 & 47 Nubeena Crescent, Taroona 48 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Status Scientific name Tasmanian habitat description Comments on study area and TSPA Common name (and distribution) database records EPBCA Potential habitat of Sarcophilus harrisii is all terrestrial native habitats, forestry plantations and pasture. Devils require shelter (e.g. dense vegetation, hollow logs, burrows or caves) and hunting habitat (open understorey mixed with patches of dense vegetation) within their home range (427 km2). Significant habitat of Sarcophilus harrisii is a patch of potential denning habitat where three or more entrances (large enough for a e devil to pass through) may be found Sarcophilus harrisii POTENTIAL HABITAT PRESENT. EN within 100 m of one another, and Tasmanian devil See under spotted-tailed quoll. # where no other potential denning habitat with three or more entrances may be found within a 1 km radius, being the approximate area of the smallest recorded devil home range. Potential denning habitat of Sarcophilus harrisii is areas of burrowable, well-drained soil, log piles or sheltered overhangs such as cliffs, rocky outcrops, knolls, caves and earth banks, free from risk of inundation and with at least one entrance through which a devil could pass. Potential habitat of Tyto novaehollandiae subsp. castanops is all areas with trees with large hollows (≥15 cm entrance diameter). In terms of using mapping layers, potential habitat is considered to be all areas POTENTIAL NESTING HABITAT with at least 20% mature eucalypt ABSENT. Large hollow-bearing trees Tyto novaehollandiae e crown cover (PI type mature density are absent from the study area. subsp. castanops VU class 'a', 'b', or 'c'). Remnants and Species may utilise broader area for paddock trees (in any dry or wet forest Tasmanian masked owl # foraging but potential nesting habitat is type) in agricultural areas may absent. constitute potential habitat. Significant habitat for the masked owl is any areas within the core range of native dry forest with trees over 100 cm dbh with large hollows (≥15 cm entrance diameter).

Ecological Assessment of 31, 41 & 47 Nubeena Crescent, Taroona 49 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

APPENDIX E. DPIPWE’s Natural Values Atlas report for study area

Appended as pdf file.

APPENDIX F. Forest Practices Authority’s Biodiversity Values Atlas report for study area

Appended as pdf file.

APPENDIX G. CofA’s Protected Matters report for study area

Appended as pdf file.

ATTACHMENTS

• .shp and .dwg files of revised vegetation mapping

Ecological Assessment of 31, 41 & 47 Nubeena Crescent, Taroona 50