KIATA WIND FARM

FLORA AND FAUNA ASSESSMENT

Windlab Pty Ltd

Suite 5 61 - 63 Camberwell Road, Hawthorn, VIC 3123 P.O. Box 337, Camberwell, VIC 3124 Ph. (03) 9815 2111 Fax. (03) 9815 2685 October 2015 Report No. 13079 (4.2)

Kiata Wind Farm – Flora and Fauna Assessment Report No. 13079 (4.2)

CONTENTS 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 6 2. INTRODUCTION ...... 9 2.1. Project description ...... 9 2.1.1. Wind Farm Assessment Area ...... 9 2.1.2. Construction Access Track Assessment Area ...... 9 2.2. Project site ...... 12 3. LEGISLATIVE BACKGROUND...... 19 3.1. Planning and Environment Act 1987 ...... 19 3.1.1. Local provisions ...... 19 3.1.2. State provisions ...... 19 3.2. EPBC Act ...... 24 3.3. FFG Act ...... 24 3.4. EE Act ...... 24 4. FLORA AND FAUNA ASSESSMENT ...... 25 4.1. Flora and vegetation assessment methods ...... 25 4.1.1. Existing information ...... 25 4.1.2. Field methodology ...... 27 4.2. Fauna assessment methods ...... 29 4.3. Limitations ...... 29 4.4. Results ...... 30 4.4.1. Flora ...... 30 4.4.2. Ecological Vegetation Classes ...... 34 4.4.3. Scattered trees ...... 37 4.4.4. Listed ecological communities ...... 37 4.4.5. Fauna ...... 38 5. BIRD UTILISATION SURVEY ...... 53 5.1. Introduction ...... 53 5.2. Methods ...... 53 5.2.1. Locations of survey points ...... 53 5.2.2. Fixed-point bird count method ...... 54 5.2.3. Incidental observations ...... 55 5.2.4. Limitations ...... 55

Page | ii Kiata Wind Farm – Flora and Fauna Assessment Report No. 13079 (4.2)

5.3. Results ...... 57 5.3.1. Species Composition ...... 57 5.3.2. Flight heights ...... 72 5.3.3. Notable species...... 72 5.4. Impacts to birds ...... 78 6. BAT ASSESSMENT ...... 79 6.1. Introduction ...... 79 6.2. Methods ...... 79 6.2.1. Survey sites ...... 79 6.2.2. Bat recordings ...... 79 6.3. Limitations ...... 80 6.4. Results ...... 82 6.4.1. Species recorded ...... 82 6.4.2. Bat activity ...... 83 7. IMPACTS AND REGULATORY IMPLICATIONS ...... 86 7.1. Proposed development ...... 86 7.2. Design response to mitigate impacts on flora and fauna ...... 86 7.2.1. Construction access area ...... 86 7.2.2. Wind farm ...... 87 7.3. Impacts of proposed development under state provisions ...... 87 7.3.1. Remnant patch vegetation ...... 87 7.3.2. Scattered trees ...... 87 7.4. Native Vegetation Information Management system ...... 87 7.4.1. Risk–based assessment pathway for the site ...... 87 7.4.2. Strategic biodiversity score ...... 88 7.4.3. Habitat importance ...... 88 7.5. Implications for the proposed development ...... 88 7.5.1. Planning and Environment Act 1987 ...... 88 7.5.2. Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 ...... 88 7.5.3. Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988...... 90 7.5.4. Environmental Effects Act 1978 ...... 91 7.5.5. Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning Threatened Species Advisory List ...... 92

Page | iii Kiata Wind Farm – Flora and Fauna Assessment Report No. 13079 (4.2)

7.6. Avoidance and Mitigation Measures ...... 92 8. REFERENCES ...... 93

TABLES Table 1: Summary of the assessment process and offset requirements ...... 23 Table 2: FFG Act and EPBC Act listed flora species and potential to occur in the Wind Farm Assessment Area and Construction Access Track Assessment Area ...... 32 Table 3: Description of habitat zones ...... 35 Table 4: Summary of habitat hectare assessment results ...... 36 Table 5: Listed fauna species and potential to occur in the Wind Farm Assessment Area and Construction Access Track Assessment Area ...... 40 Table 6: Habitat associated with each survey point ...... 53 Table 7: Times when points were counted for each fixed-point bird count survey day .... 54 Table 8: Number and height distribution of bird species at survey points during surveys at the proposed Kiata Wind Farm site ...... 71 Table 9: Summary of birds recorded at the three flight heights ...... 72 Table 10: Raptor species recorded at impact points ...... 74 Table 11: Incidental raptor observations ...... 75 Table 12: Bat species recorded ...... 82 Table 13: Summary of recorded bat calls ...... 85 Table 14 Removal from native vegetation patches ...... 87 FIGURES Figure 1: Locality Map and Study Area ...... 11 Figure 2: Study Area and Native Vegetation - Overview ...... 13 Figure 3: Study Area and Native Vegetation - Detailed ...... 14 Figure 4: Study Area and Native Vegetation - Detailed ...... 15 Figure 5: Study Area and Native Vegetation - Detailed ...... 16 Figure 6: Study Area and Native Vegetation - Detailed ...... 17 Figure 7: Study Area and Native Vegetation - Detailed ...... 18 Figure 8 Red-tailed Black Cockatoo VBA Records ...... 48 Figure 9 Mapped Red-tailed Black Cockatoo Habitat ...... 49 Figure 10: Bird utilisation survey points ...... 56 Figure 11: Incidental raptor and waterbird flight paths ...... 76 Figure 12: Bat survey locations ...... 81

Page | iv Kiata Wind Farm – Flora and Fauna Assessment Report No. 13079 (4.2)

APPENDICES Appendix 1: Detailed habitat hectare assessment results ...... 98 Appendix 2: Flora species recorded in the study area and threatened species known (or with the potential) to occur in the search region ...... 102 Appendix 3: Scattered trees in the study area ...... 106 Appendix 4: Vertebrate terrestrial fauna species that occur or are likely to occur in the study area ...... 109 Appendix 5: Guidelines for impacts to trees ...... 117 Appendix 6: General development recommendations ...... 118 Appendix 7: Bird utilisation survey - raw data at impact points...... 120 Appendix 8: Bird utilisation survey - raw data at reference sites ...... 121 Appendix 9: Bat call records from five sites at Kiata Wind Farm ...... 122 Appendix 10: EVC Benchmarks ...... 132 Appendix 11: Biodiversity assessment report (DELWP/NVIM) ...... 133

Page | v Kiata Wind Farm – Flora and Fauna Assessment Report No. 13079 (4.2)

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Windlab engaged Brett Lane & Associates Pty. Ltd. (BL&A) to conduct a detailed flora and fauna assessment on a 950 hectare area of land at Coker Dam Road, Kiata, 10 kilometres south-east of Nhill in north-western Victoria (Figure 1). Windlab are proposing to construct Kiata Wind Farm comprising 13 wind turbines and associated infrastructure, including transmission cabling, substation and construction and maintenance access roads and tracks. The investigation also focused on a potential ten kilometre access route to the wind farm along Janetskis Road and Coker Dam Road. The flora assessment in the Wind Farm Assessment Area was undertaken between September 23rd and 27th 2013. The native vegetation assessment and targeted flora survey in the Construction Access Track Assessment area was conducted between October 14th and 18th 2013. During this assessment one listed species was recorded in the Wind Farm Assessment Area: Wimmera Mallee-box (DELWP listed as rare). An additional two listed flora species were recorded in the Construction Access Track Assessment area: . Hairy-pod Wattle (EPBC Act – listed as vulnerable; FFG Act – listed as threatened; DELWP – listed as vulnerable) . Thorny Bitter-pea (DELWP – listed as rare) Buloke (FFG Act listed) was also recorded in roadside vegetation along Salisbury South Rd, well outside of the assessment areas. A follow up flora and native vegetation survey was conducted on the 14th August 2015 to assess a number of additional areas following amendments to the wind farm layout. Twelve habitat zones in the Wind Farm Assessment Area and 20 habitat zones in the Construction Access Track Assessment Area were recorded during the flora and vegetation surveys. These comprised the following (EVC’s): . Lower Rainfall Shallow Sands Woodland (EVC 882_62) . Sandstone Ridge Shrubland (EVC 93) None of the native vegetation in either assessment area qualified as a listed ecological community. Forty scattered trees were recorded in the Wind Farm Assessment Area and 20 scattered trees were recorded in the Construction Access Track Assessment Area. The general fauna assessment of the Wind Farm and Construction Access Track was conducted on 23rd – 27th September and 14th – 18th October 2013. Four habitat types were recorded during the assessment: . Agricultural land . Woodland . Aquatic habitat . Mallee habitat. Three threatened species (Bearded Dragon, Brown Treecreeper and Purple-gaped Honeyeater) listed on the DELWP Advisory List were recorded in study area. An unconfirmed record of the Southern Bentwing Bat (listed on the EPBC Act) was recorded during bat surveys (detailed in Chapter 6). A further 11 birds, one mammal, two reptiles and one invertebrate listed as threatened have the potential to occur onsite, based on

Page | 6 Kiata Wind Farm – Flora and Fauna Assessment Report No. 13079 (4.2)

the availability of suitable habitat and previous records in the region. The construction and operation of the proposed wind farm would not significantly impact these species. A bird utilisation survey was carried out from the 14th – 19th March 2014 to gather baseline information on bird use of habitat within the Wind Farm Assessment Area. Species were generally found to be common, farmland species characteristic of a landscape with small areas of fragmented native vegetation patches. The Purple-gaped Honeyeater (listed on the DELWP Advisory List) was recorded from reference site 2, which is outside of the current disturbance zone. This species generally stays in woodland areas and would not be expected to fly at rotor swept area (RSA) heights. The majority of birds recorded during the survey flew below RSA. Two raptor species were recorded (Australian Hobby and Wedge-tailed Eagle). A pair of Wedge-tailed Eagle was found to reside within the Wind Farm Assessment Area. Raptor utilisation rate was 0.012 birds per hectare per hour, which is very low compared to other wind farms in Victoria. Therefore collision risk with the wind turbines and associated infrastructure is considered to be low. Seven bat species were recorded during the autumn and summer targeted survey. One unconfirmed record of the Southern Bent-wing Bat was made during the March 2014 survey. The record is considered unconfirmed because there is uncertainty that the call belonged to the Southern Bent-wing Bat as discussed below. The bat call attributed to the threatened Southern Bent-wing was recorded only once on the site. However, the call of the species can vary from region to region and it is possible the call is from a common species attributed to the Southern Bent-wing bat call complex i.e. Little Forest Bat or Chocolate Wattled Bat. Due to the unusual nature of the call, it was sent to Dr. Lindy Lumsden from Arthur Rylah Institute, who examined the call through the Anascheme software to compare a call to a reference call (recorded call of a known species) of the species in question. The software determined there was a 75% probability of the call being attributed to a Southern Bent-wing bat, however Dr. Lumsden could not definitely say whether it is a Southern Bent-wing bat call or not, as no reference bat calls from the Kiata region were available. The two maternity caves for the Southern Bent-wing Bat are located at Warrnambool and Naracoorte. The National Recovery Plan for the Southern Bent-wing Bat Miniopterus schreibersii bassanii (Lumsden et al 2015) does not recently record the Southern Bent- wing Bat as occurring north-east of the Naracoorte caves. In light of the lack of current records and suitable roosting habitat, there is a low likelihood of it being Southern Bent- wing bat. The proposed Kiata Wind Farm is over 100 kilometres from the Naracoorte Caves, so it is considered out of the species range. Given the Naracoorte roosting and maternity caves are over 100 kilometres from the project site, it is possible that the call was part of a bat species complex that includes the Southern Bent-wing Bat and that the call actually belonged to another species. In the unlikely event that the call did belong to this species, it is likely to occur in very small numbers as individual vagrants. The current development footprint will result in the loss of a total of 0.036 hectares of remnant patch native vegetation from habitat zones Q, R and HH. This equates to the loss of 0.011 General Biodiversity Equivalence Units (GBEU’s). The regulatory implications for the wind farm proposal are outlined below: . All proposed vegetation removal is located in areas mapped as Location Risk A

Page | 7 Kiata Wind Farm – Flora and Fauna Assessment Report No. 13079 (4.2)

. Based on a combination of the Location Risk and the Extent Risk, the Guidelines stipulate that the proposal will be assessed under the low risk assessment pathway . 0.011 General Biodiversity Equivalence Units (GBEU’S) will be required to offset the removal of remnant patch native vegetation. The minimum strategic biodiversity score of the offset site is 0.557. General offsets need to be located within the Wimmera Catchment Management Authority area or the Hindmarsh Local Government Area. . Offsets must be secured prior to construction. There are two options for achieving the offset targets, these are: o On-site – identified within the development site; or o Off-site – available over the counter through BushBroker. . A referral under the EPBC Act will be required because of a potential for an impact on the Southern Bentwing Bat and Malleefowl. . Members of several protected flora groups listed under the FFG Act were recorded along areas of public roadside vegetation, a very small portion of which is proposed to be removed. A licence will be required from DELWP to remove these protected values from public land. . A Referral to the state Minister for Planning is unlikely to be required under the EE Act for the aspects covered by the current investigation. The wind farm and construction access track layouts have been designed to avoid and minimise the removal of native vegetation and habitat for fauna species, following the results of the preliminary investigations and subsequent field surveys. Through an iterative process, the current wind farm layout has resulted in a vastly smaller impact on native vegetation and fauna habitat than previous layout proposals, which responds to the principles of the Guidelines very well.

Page | 8 Kiata Wind Farm – Flora and Fauna Assessment Report No. 13079 (4.2)

2. INTRODUCTION Windlab engaged Brett Lane & Associates Pty. Ltd. (BL&A) to conduct a detailed flora and fauna assessment on a 950 hectare area of land at Coker Dam Road, Kiata, 10 kilometres south-east of Nhill in north-western Victoria (Figure 1). Windlab are proposing to construct Kiata Wind Farm comprising 13 wind turbines and associated and associated infrastructure, including transmission cabling, substation and construction and maintenance access roads and tracks. The investigation also focused on a potential ten kilometre access route to the wind farm along Janetskis Road and Coker Dam Road. This investigation was commissioned to provide detailed information on the extent and condition of native vegetation and fauna habitat in the study area. This report outlines any implications of potential impacts to flora and fauna under relevant national, state and local legislation and policy. Key elements of the BL&A work undertaken for the project are presented in this report as follows: . Flora and fauna assessment (Chapter 4) . Bird utilisation survey (Chapter 5) . Bat surveys (Chapter 6) This investigation was undertaken by a team from BL&A, comprising Brett Macdonald (Senior Ecologist), Peter Lansley (Senior Ecologist), Teisha Lay (Zoologist), Jonathan Wilson (Botanist), Annabelle Stewart (Senior Ecologist & Project Manager), Bernard O’Callaghan (Senior Ecologist & Project Manager) and Brett Lane (Principal Consultant).

2.1. Project description The proposed project comprises two components: Wind Farm Assessment Area and Construction Access Track Assessment Area (Figure 1). These are described below.

2.1.1. Wind Farm Assessment Area The components of the project assessed for their impacts on vegetation and flora included: . Thirteen turbine positions, including a 10 metre diameter base construction area and an adjacent 45x75 metre construction hardstand. . The 6 metre wide turbine access tracks within the Wind Farm Assessment Area and a one metre width track for cabling . On-site electrical substation . Site office, temporary batching plant, construction laydown area (111 metres x 160 metres); and . Local roads, which are wide enough already for construction traffic.

2.1.2. Construction Access Track Assessment Area An initial overview constraints investigation of native vegetation in roadsides along Janetskis and Coker Dam Road (approximately 9.5 kilometres in length) and along Salisbury South Road (approximately nine kilometre in length) was undertaken. The purpose of the investigation was to advise which access track route was the most

Page | 9 Kiata Wind Farm – Flora and Fauna Assessment Report No. 13079 (4.2)

appropriate with regard to minimising impacts on flora and fauna values. The results of the assessment are presented in BL&A (2013b). The assessment found that the east-west route utilising Janetskis and Coker Dam Road would result in lower impacts to flora and fauna habitat, when compared to the north- south route along Salisbury South Road. The east-west route is more appropriate for the following reasons: . Higher quality native vegetation and a greater number of listed ecological values were recorded along the north-south route, compared to the east-west route. . The east-west route currently supports a wider and better-formed road passage compared with the north-south route. The access track along the east-west route will be six metres wide and public roads in this area are considered wide enough, although an assessment of the trimming in some areas may be undertaken if required.

Page | 10 KIATA WIND FARM ^_

MELBOURNE

Little Desert NP

Sources: Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, USGS, Intermap, iPC, NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom, 2013

Kilometers 0 1 2 4 Legend Figure1: Locality Map Wind farm assessment area Project: Kiata Wind Farm

Roadside assessment area Client: Windlab

Project No.: 13079 Date: 22/07/2014 Created By: M. Ghasemi / B. MacDonald ¯ Kiata Wind Farm – Flora and Fauna Assessment Report No. 13079 (4.2)

2.2. Project site The study area for this investigation was approximately 1,000 hectares of private land (freehold farmland) centred on the intersection of Salisbury South Road and Coker Dam Road in the Kiata district, some 10 kilometres south-east of Nhill in north-western Victoria (Figure 1). The State Department of the Environment, Land, Water and Planning’s (DELWP) current EVC mapping of the study area (c. 2005) suggested that approximately 25 percent of the study area supported remnant native vegetation. Interpretation of recent Google Earth aerial photography (c. 2009 to 2013) and observations during the site inspection suggested otherwise. Very little remnant native vegetation was observed throughout the study area, covering approximately five percent of the study area. Remnant native vegetation that was recorded in the study area comprised mostly narrow linear patches of highly degraded Sandstone Ridge Shrubland (EVC 93) within private land and linear strips of relatively high quality Sandstone Ridge Shrubland (EVC 93) along public road reserves. A large patch of Lower Rainfall Shallow Sands Woodland (EVC 882_62) was recorded near the centre of the private land outside the Wind Farm Assessment Area and narrow linear patches of the same along sections of the construction access track. Numerous scattered mallee trees were also observed throughout the entire study area. The vast majority of the study area comprised cropped freehold land in various stages of crop rotation. Fallow crops were subject to sheep grazing at the time of the field assessment. The most prominent landscape features in the study area were a series of gentle low ridges dissected by shallow ephemeral drainage lines. Soils were of aeolian origin and comprised sandy loams of varying texture (largely dictated by clay fraction). The majority of the proposed wind farm infrastructure (particularly turbines and access roads) will be sited on these low ridges. Numerous farm dams were also observed throughout the study area, although they appeared to offer little habitat to fauna species. The review of existing information and observations during the site inspection suggest that no significant wetlands exist in the study area. In terms of linkages to other habitats in the region (i.e. degree of isolation/fragmentation), native vegetation and fauna habitat connectivity in the study area was moderate to high, which reflects the connectivity throughout most of the region. Large areas of native vegetation adjoin the study area, including the Conservation Volunteers reserve in the south-west and Little Desert National Park (c. 132 000 hectares) in the south-east. These large remnant woodland blocks flank the south-east and south-west wind farm boundaries and form a network of wider, regional value which provides dispersal routes for species that may move between habitats. Proposed turbines are located adjacent to these high quality woodland habitats. Structural habitat connectivity is limited to native vegetation along road reserves, which can be intermittent. The study area lies within the Wimmera bioregion and the Wimmera catchment. With the exception of road reserves, the entire study area is zoned Farm Zone (FZ). Road reserves are zoned Road Zone (RZ) in the Hindmarsh Planning Scheme. No relevant planning overlays currently cover the study area.

Page | 12 Figure 7 Figure 3

Figure 6 Figure 4

SALISBURY SOUTH ROAD

JANETSKIS ROAD

COKER DAM ROAD

Figure 5

Metres Legend 0 250 500 1,000 Assessment Area Figure 2: Assessment Area - Overview Impact Area Project: Kiata Wind Farm

Client: Windlab

Project No.: 13079 Date: 1/10/2015 Created By: M. Ghasemi / B. MacDonald ¯ II

INSET 1

H 37 G (! (! HH

38 II INSET 1 (! (! 76 HH (! 75 Y KK 39 JJ

CC

CC

(! 68

(! 67

(! DD 36

F

DD Legend 35 77 Figure 3: Assessment Area and Native Vegetation- Native vegetation to be removed 31 Tree Numbers Assessment Area Detailed LL Bearded Dragon A Habitat Zones Impact Area Y Project: Kiata Wind Farm 33 Native Vegetation GF Wedge-tailed Eagle nest 34 Client: Windlab Lower Rainfall Shallow Sands Woodland (EVC 882_62) EPBC Act and FFG Act Species Project No.: 13079 Date: 1/10/2015 Created By: M. Ghasemi / J. Wilson ^_ Sandstone Ridge Shrubland (syn. Broombush Mallee) (EVC 93) FFG Act Protected Orchids ") Hairy Pod Wattle (! Scattererd Trees ¯ Metres 0 100 200 400

SALISBURY SOUTH ROAD 67

36 DD

INSET 1 EE F GF Q DD 35 (! 77 P (! R LL (! (! R 33 FF 34

INSET 2

Q

SALISBURY SOUTH ROAD R

EE

(! 31 74 66 P (! (! Q R GG INSET 1 FF COKER DAM ROAD R Q R

R S INSET 2 T U V (!(! W

(! Legend Figure 4: Assessment Area and Native Vegetation- Native vegetation to be removed 32 31 Tree Numbers Assessment1 Area Detailed 2 Bearded Dragon A Habitat Zones Impact Area Y Project: Kiata Wind Farm Native Vegetation3 GF Wedge-tailed Eagle nest Client: Windlab Lower Rainfall Shallow Sands Woodland (EVC 882_62) EPBC Act and FFG Act Species Project No.: 13079 Date: 1/10/2015 Created By: M. Ghasemi / J. Wilson ^_ Sandstone Ridge Shrubland (syn. Broombush Mallee) (EVC 93) FFG Act Protected Orchids ") Hairy Pod Wattle (! Scattererd Trees ¯ Metres 0 100 200 400 COKER DAM ROAD

R Q R

R S INSET 2 T U V

(!

32 1 2

(! 3 (! 7 (! 9 (! 8 (! 11 FF 4 (! (! 5 (! 6 A (! (! ! ( 12 (! 13 10 B B (! 16 D 23 B (! (! 24 25 (!(!(! (! 21 26 (! ! (! C 18 20 ( (! 15 17 19 E (! (! (! 14 22 27 28 29 (! (! 30

(!

Legend Figure 5: Assessment Area and Native Vegetation- Native vegetation to be removed 31 Tree Numbers Assessment Area Detailed Bearded Dragon A Habitat Zones Impact Area Y Project: Kiata Wind Farm Native Vegetation GF Wedge-tailed Eagle nest Client: Windlab Lower Rainfall Shallow Sands Woodland (EVC 882_62) EPBC Act and FFG Act Species Project No.: 13079 Date: 1/10/2015 Created By: M. Ghasemi / J. Wilson ^_ Sandstone Ridge Shrubland (syn. Broombush Mallee) (EVC 93) FFG Act Protected Orchids ") Hairy Pod Wattle (! Scattererd Trees ¯ Metres 0 100 200 400 (! (! J 58 ! ( (! (!(! SALISBURY SOUTH ROAD 57 (!(!(!(! 60 61 K EE 62 63 )")"""" 64 )" )))" )")")" )")")" " 73 )")")")" )")")") ) )" 65 70 71 72 )" )" K L N O M ^_ ^_^_^_^_ ^_ 74 JANETSKIS ROAD^_^_^_ P

INSET 1 FF

1 Legend 2 Figure 6: Assessment Area and Native Vegetation- Native vegetation to be removed 31 Tree Numbers 3 Assessment Area Detailed Bearded Dragon A Habitat Zones Impact Area Y Project: Kiata Wind Farm Native Vegetation GF Wedge-tailed Eagle nest Client: Windlab Lower Rainfall Shallow Sands Woodland (EVC 882_62) EPBC Act and FFG Act Species Project No.: 13079 Date: 10/09/2015 Created By: M. Ghasemi / J. Wilson ^_ Sandstone Ridge Shrubland (syn. Broombush Mallee) (EVC 93) FFG Act Protected Orchids ") Hairy Pod Wattle (! Scattererd Trees ¯ Metres 0 100 200 400 I

I (!

59 (! (! (! 58 57 60

Legend Figure 7: Assessment Area and Native Vegetation- Native vegetation to be removed 31 Tree Numbers Assessment Area Detailed Bearded Dragon A Habitat Zones Impact Area Y Project: Kiata Wind Farm Native Vegetation GF Wedge-tailed Eagle nest Client: Windlab Lower Rainfall Shallow Sands Woodland (EVC 882_62) EPBC Act and FFG Act Species Project No.: 13079 Date: 4/09/2015 Created By: M. Ghasemi / J. Wilson ^_ Sandstone Ridge Shrubland (syn. Broombush Mallee) (EVC 93) FFG Act Protected Orchids ") Hairy Pod Wattle (! Scattererd Trees ¯ Metres 0 100 200 400 Kiata Wind Farm – Flora and Fauna Assessment Report No. 13079 (4.2)

3. LEGISLATIVE BACKGROUND

3.1. Planning and Environment Act 1987 Victoria’s planning schemes are constituted under the Planning and Environment Act 1987. This section discusses planning provisions in the local planning scheme applicable to flora and fauna.

3.1.1. Local provisions

Local Planning Policy Frameworks There are no provisions in the LPPF of the Hindmarsh Planning Scheme including overlays that relate to native flora and fauna.

Overlays No overlays relevant to this investigation cover the study area.

3.1.2. State provisions Destruction, lopping or removal of native vegetation on land which, together with all contiguous land in one ownership, has an area of 0.4 hectares or more requires a planning permit under Clause 52.17 of all Victorian Planning Schemes. This includes the removal of dead trees with a DBH (diameter at breast height or 1.3 metres) of 40 centimetres or more and any individual scattered native plants. In May 2013 the Victorian Government announced the outcome of a major review of Victoria’s native vegetation permitted clearing regulations. On 20th December 2013 a planning scheme amendment was gazetted to implement a number of reforms to Victoria's native vegetation permitted clearing regulations, particularly Clauses 12.01 (Biodiversity), 52.16 (Native vegetation precinct plan) and 52.17 (Native vegetation). As part of these reforms the previously incorporated document Victoria’s Native Vegetation – a Framework for Action was replaced by a new incorporated document, Permitted clearing of native vegetation – Biodiversity assessment guidelines (DEPI 2013a). Before issuing a planning permit, Responsible Authorities are obligated to refer to Clause 12.01 (Biodiversity) in the Planning Scheme. This refers in turn to the following online tool and document: . The Native Vegetation Information Management (NVIM) system (DEPI 2014). . Permitted clearing of native vegetation – Biodiversity assessment guidelines (DEPI 2013a). These are discussed below.

Native Vegetation Information Management system (NVIM) The online Native Vegetation Information Management system (NVIM) is an interactive mapping tool, which provides some of the information required to accompany a permit to remove native vegetation. It does not replace the application process. The information provided by NVIM can include the following (described in more detail below): . The location risk of the native vegetation

Page | 19 Kiata Wind Farm – Flora and Fauna Assessment Report No. 13079 (4.2)

. The condition of the native vegetation – used for the low-risk assessment pathway only . The strategic biodiversity score of the native vegetation proposed to be removed . The native vegetation offset requirement – used for the low risk assessment pathway only.

Biodiversity assessment guidelines

Guidelines objective As set out in Permitted clearing of native vegetation – Biodiversity assessment guidelines (‘the Guidelines’) the objective for permitted clearing of native vegetation in Victoria is ‘No net loss in the contribution made by native vegetation to Victoria’s biodiversity’. The key strategies for ensuring this outcome when considering an application to remove native vegetation are: . Avoiding the removal of native vegetation that makes a significant contribution to Victoria’s biodiversity . Minimising impacts on Victoria’s biodiversity from the removal of native vegetation . Where native vegetation is permitted to be removed, ensuring it is offset in a manner that makes an equivalent contribution to Victoria’s biodiversity made by the native vegetation to be removed. Note: if native vegetation does not meet the definition of either a remnant patch or scattered trees, the Guidelines are not required to be applied.

Risk-based assessment pathways The first step in determining the type of assessment required for any site in Victoria is to determine the risk to biodiversity associated with the proposed native vegetation removal and therefore the risk-based assessment pathway for the proposed native vegetation removal. There are three risk-based pathways for assessing an application to remove native vegetation, below. . Low risk . Moderate risk . High risk This risk-based assessment pathway is determined by two factors, outlined below. Extent risk – the area in hectares proposed to be removed or the number of scattered trees. Note: extent risk also includes any native vegetation clearing for which permission has been granted in the last five years. Location risk – the likelihood that removing native vegetation in a location will have an impact on the persistence of a rare or threatened species classified into three categories: Location A, Location B and Location C.

Page | 20 Kiata Wind Farm – Flora and Fauna Assessment Report No. 13079 (4.2)

The risk-based pathway for assessing an application to remove native vegetation is determined by the following matrices for remnant patches and scattered trees: Extent (remnant patches) Location A Location B Location C < 0.5 hectares Low Low High ≥ 0.5 hectares and < 1 hectare Low Moderate High ≥ 1 hectare Moderate High High Extent (scattered trees) Location A Location B Location C < 15 scattered trees Low Moderate High ≥ 15 scattered trees Moderate High High Notes: All native vegetation within any subdivision plot of less than 0.4 hectares is deemed to be lost; For applications with combined removal of both remnant patch and scattered trees, the extent of the scattered trees is converted to an area by assigning a standard area of 0.071 hectares per tree – the total extent is then used to determine the risk-based pathway. The presence of any Location B or Location C risk categories within an area of proposed native vegetation removal means this whole area of removal is considered to belong to that category for the purpose of determining the risk-based assessment pathway.

Strategic biodiversity score The strategic biodiversity score generated by NVIM acts as a measure of the site’s importance for Victoria’s biodiversity relative to other locations across the landscape. It is calculated based on a weighted average of scores across an area of native vegetation proposed for removal on a site.

Habitat importance Habitat importance mapping produced by DELWP is based on one or a combination of habitat importance models, habitat distribution models or site record data. It identifies the following: . Habitat importance for dispersed species – based on habitat distribution models and assigned a habitat importance score ranging from 0 to 1 . Highly localised habitats – considered to be equally important for a particular species and assigned a habitat importance score of 1. Habitat importance mapping is used to determine the type of offset required under the moderate and high risk assessment pathways.

Biodiversity equivalence Biodiversity equivalence scores are used to quantify losses in the contribution to Victoria’s biodiversity from removing native vegetation and gains in this contribution from a native vegetation offset. There are two types of biodiversity equivalence scores depending on whether or not the site makes a contribution to the habitat of a Victorian rare or threatened species.

Page | 21 Kiata Wind Farm – Flora and Fauna Assessment Report No. 13079 (4.2)

. A general biodiversity equivalence score is a measure of the contribution native vegetation on a site makes to Victoria’s biodiversity overall and applies when no habitat importance scores are applicable according to the equation: General biodiversity equivalence score = habitat hectares x strategic biodiversity score . A specific biodiversity equivalence score is a measure of the contribution that native vegetation on a site makes to the habitat of a particular rare or threatened species – calculated for each such species for which the site provides important habitat (using habitat importance scores provided by DELWP) according to the equation: Specific biodiversity equivalence score = habitat hectares x habitat importance score

Offset requirements A native vegetation offset is required for the approved removal of native vegetation. Offsets conform to one of two types and each type incorporates a risk factor to address the risk of offset failing: . A general offset applies if the removal of native vegetation impacts Victoria’s overall biodiversity and has an offset risk factor of 1.5 applied according to the equation: General risk-adjusted offset requirement = general biodiversity equivalence score (clearing site) x 1.5 . A specific offset applies if the native vegetation makes a significant impact to habitat for a rare or threatened species determined by a specific-general offset test. It applies to each species impacted and has an offset risk factor of 2 applied according to the equation: Specific risk-adjusted offset requirement = specific biodiversity equivalence score (clearing site) x 2 Note: if native vegetation does not meet the definition of either a remnant patch or scattered trees an offset is not required.

DELWP referral criteria Clause 66.02 of the planning scheme determines the role of DELWP in the assessment of native vegetation removal permit applications. If an application is referred, DELWP may make certain recommendations to the responsible authority in relation to the permit application. An application to remove native vegetation must be referred to DELWP in the following circumstances: . Applications where the native vegetation to be removed is 0.5 hectares or more . All applications in the high risk-based pathway . Applications where a property vegetation plan applies to the site . Applications on Crown land which are occupied or managed by the responsible authority.

Page | 22 Kiata Wind Farm – Flora and Fauna Assessment Report No. 13079 (4.2)

Summary of the assessment process The assessment process, decision guidelines and offset requirements for approved native vegetation removal are outlined in Table 1. Table 1: Summary of the assessment process and offset requirements Risk-based Assessment quantum inputs Decision guidelines Offset requirements pathway General offset applies: . General offset = general biodiversity equivalence score (clearing site) x 1.5 . Habitat hectares* (NVIM) An application for removal cannot be refused on biodiversity grounds (unless it is not in accordance with any property vegetation plan that applies to the site). . Offset must be located in the same CMA^ or Local Low . Strategic biodiversity score (NVIM) Government Area as the removal Note: this guideline also applies to native vegetation that does not meet the definition of either a . General biodiversity equivalence score remnant patch or scattered trees. . Offset must have a strategic biodiversity score at least 80% of the native vegetation removed . Offset must be secured before the removal of native vegetation

The responsible authority will consider: . The strategic biodiversity score and habitat importance score of the native vegetation proposed to If the specific biodiversity equivalence scores for any rare be removed and threatened species fails the specific-general offset . Any property vegetation plan that applies to the site test, then a general offset applies (as above) Moderate . Habitat hectares* (site assessment) . Whether reasonable steps have been taken to ensure that impacts of the proposed removal of Otherwise, a specific offset applies for each rare and native vegetation on biodiversity have been minimised with regard to the contribution to threatened species: . Strategic biodiversity score (NVIM) biodiversity made by the native vegetation to be removed and the native vegetation to be retained . Specific offset = specific biodiversity equivalence . Habitat importance scores for each . Whether an offset has been identified that meets the requirements score (clearing site) x 2 Victorian rare and threatened species . The need to remove native vegetation to create defendable space to reduce the risk of bushfire . Offset must be located in the same species habitat . Specific biodiversity equivalence score anywhere in Victoria as determined by DELWP for each rare and threatened species In addition to the considerations for the moderate pathway (above) the responsible authority will habitat importance mapping OR determine whether the native vegetation to be removed makes a significant contribution to Victoria’s . When a specific offset is required for multiple species, biodiversity. This includes considering: . General biodiversity equivalence score if the offset site must satisfy the specific offset no habitat importance scores apply . Impacts on important habitat for rare or threatened species, particularly highly localised habitat requirements for all of these species or multiple High offset sites may be used . Proportional impacts on remaining habitat for rare or threatened species . Offset must be secured before the removal of native . If the removal of the native vegetation will contribute to a cumulative impact that is a significant vegetation threat to the persistence of a rare or threatened species . The availability of, and potential for, gain from offsets

* Habitat hectares = condition score (out of 1) x extent (hectares) ^ Catchment Management Authority Note: All applications must provide information about the vegetation to be removed such as location and address of the property, description of the vegetation, maps and recent dated photographs.

Page | 23 Kiata Wind Farm – Flora and Fauna Assessment Report No. 13079 (4.2)

3.2. EPBC Act The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 protects a number of threatened species and ecological communities that are considered to be of national conservation significance. Any significant impacts on these species require the approval of the Australian Minister for the Environment. If there is a possibility of a significant impact on nationally threatened species or communities or listed migratory species, a Referral under the EPBC Act should be considered. The Minister will decide after 20 business days whether the project will be a ‘controlled action’ under the EPBC Act, in which case it cannot be undertaken without the approval of the Minister. This approval depends on a further assessment and approval process (lasting between three and nine months, depending on the level of assessment).

3.3. FFG Act The Victorian Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (FFG Act) lists threatened and protected species and ecological communities (DEPI 2013b, DEPI 2013c). Any removal of threatened flora species or communities (or protected flora) listed under the FFG Act from public land requires a Protected Flora Licence or Permit under the Act, obtained from DELWP. The FFG Act does not apply to private land.

3.4. EE Act The “Ministerial Guidelines for Assessment of Environmental Effects under the Environment Effects Act 1978” (DSE 2006), identifies the following criteria related to flora and fauna which assist in determining whether a Referral to the State Minister for Planning is required: . Potential clearing of ten hectares or more of native vegetation from an area that is of an EVC identified as endangered by the Department of Environment and Primary Industries (DEPI 2014b). . Potential long-term loss of a significant proportion (1 to 5% depending upon conservation status of species concerned) of known remaining habitat or population of a threatened species in Victoria. . Potential long-term change to a wetland’s ecological character, where that wetland is Ramsar listed, or listed in ‘A Directory of Important Wetlands in Australia’. . Potential major effects upon the biodiversity of aquatic ecosystems over the long term. . Potential significant effects on matters listed under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988. One or a combination of these criteria may trigger a requirement for a Referral to the Victorian Minister for Planning who will determine if an EES is required.

Page | 24

Kiata Wind Farm – Flora and Fauna Assessment Report No. 13079 (4.2)

4. FLORA AND FAUNA ASSESSMENT

4.1. Flora and vegetation assessment methods This section describes the methods employed for the flora and fauna assessment including sources of information reviewed to maximise the effectiveness of the survey.

4.1.1. Existing information Existing information was obtained from a wider area, termed the ‘search region’ defined for this assessment as an area with a radius of 10 kilometres from the approximate centre point of the study area (coordinates: latitude 36° 23’ 39” S and longitude 141° 45’ 36” E) for threatened ecological communities and flora and fauna species, and a radius of 30 kilometres for listed migratory species. The information was then used to ascertain which listed species had the potential to occur based on the availability of suitable habitat. The following reports, planning scheme and/or development plans, relating to the study area were reviewed: . Kiata Wind Farm: Fatal Flaw Investigation – Flora and Fauna (BL&A 2013a) . Kiata Wind Farm: Overview Roadside Investigation (BL&A 2013b) . Best Practice Guidelines for Implementation of Wind Energy Projects in Australia (Clean Energy Council 2013) . Australian Wind Energy Association interim standards for bird risk assessment (BL&A 2005) . Environment Protection and Heritage Council Draft National Wind Farm Development Guidelines (EPHC 2010) . DELWP Policy and Planning Guidelines for Development of Wind Energy Facilities in Victoria (DELWP 2015)

Location and extent risk The likely risk-based pathway for assessment of any proposed vegetation removal relies on the ‘location risk’ and ‘extent risk’ determined with the assistance of the online Native Vegetation Information Management system (NVIM) administered by the Department of Environment and Primary Industries (DEPI 2014). NVIM online mapping was viewed to determine the mapped location risk of the study area and to gain a preliminary indication of the extent risk, described below. Location risk identifies the likelihood that removing native vegetation in a location will have an impact on the persistence of a rare or threatened species. Location risk is mapped and classified in three categories:

Location A Location B Location C

Extent risk is the likely area in hectares or the number of scattered trees proposed to be removed. The risk-based assessment pathways are described in more detail in Section 3.1.2.

Page | 25

Kiata Wind Farm – Flora and Fauna Assessment Report No. 13079 (4.2)

Habitat importance maps, were also reviewed by DELWP to determine whether the study area contains important habitat for Victorian rare and threatened flora and fauna species listed on the department’s advisory lists (DEPI 2013a) based on one or a combination of habitat importance models, habitat distribution models or site record data. Habitat importance mapping identifies the following: . Habitat importance for dispersed species – based on habitat distribution models and assigned a habitat importance score ranging from 0 to 1. . Highly localised habitats – considered to be equally important for a particular species and assigned a habitat importance score of 1. Habitat importance mapping is used to determine the type of offset required under the moderate and high risk assessment pathways.

Native vegetation Pre-1750 (pre-European settlement) vegetation mapping administered by DELWP was reviewed to determine the type of native vegetation likely to occur in the study area and surrounds. Information on Ecological Vegetation Classes (EVC) was obtained from published EVC benchmarks. These sources included: . Relevant EVC benchmarks for the Victorian Volcanic Plain bioregion1 (DSE 2009a); and . Biodiversity Interactive Maps (DSE 2012a).

Listed matters Existing flora and fauna species records and information about the potential occurrence of listed matters were obtained from the search region. A list of the flora and fauna species recorded in the search region was obtained from the Victorian Biodiversity Atlas (VBA) (DEPI 2013) and the Victorian Flora Information System (FIS) (Viridans Biological Databases 2013), databases administered by DELWP. The online Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) Protected Matters Search Tool (DSEWPC 2013) was consulted to determine whether nationally listed species or communities potentially occurred in the radius of investigation based on habitat modelling. The list of flora and/or fauna communities, listed under the FFG Act Threatened List (DEPI 2013) was reviewed to ascertain whether any Victorian listed ecological communities were likely to occur in the study area. Plant taxonomy used throughout this report follows the FIS standards. This report follows the AVW Fauna taxonomy and follows the AVW and Christakis and Boles (2008) nomenclature.

1 A bioregion is defined as “a geographic region that captures the patterns of ecological characteristics in the landscape, providing a natural framework for recognising and responding to biodiversity values”. In general bioregions reflect underlying environmental features of the landscape (DNRE 1997).

Page | 26

Kiata Wind Farm – Flora and Fauna Assessment Report No. 13079 (4.2)

4.1.2. Field methodology

Survey timing

Wind Farm Assessment Area The wind farm area field assessment was conducted from 23rd to the 27th September 2013. During this assessment, the study area was inspected initially by vehicle and areas supporting remnant native vegetation and/or fauna habitat were surveyed in detail on foot. A follow up flora and native vegetation survey was conducted on the 14th August 2015 to assess a number of additional areas following amendments to the wind farm layout. Sites in the study areas found to support native vegetation or habitat for rare or threatened fauna were mapped. Mapping was undertaken through a combination of aerial photograph interpretation and ground-truthing using a hand held GPS, which is accurate to approximately five metres.

Construction Access Track Assessment Area A detailed flora and fauna assessment and targeted flora surveys of the east-west route was carried out between October 14th and 18th 2013 to accurately assess any potential impacts on ecological values as a result of the required road upgrades. The activities undertaken to complete this task are described below. Targeted surveys were undertaken along the road reserves for listed threatened flora species that had potential to occur within the Construction Access Track Assessment Area.

Native vegetation assessment Native vegetation is defined in the Victoria Planning Provisions as ‘plants that are indigenous to Victoria, including trees, shrubs, herbs and grasses’. The Biodiversity assessment guidelines define native vegetation as belonging to two categories (DEPI 2013a): . Remnant patch; or . Scattered trees. The definitions of these categories are provided below, along with the prescribed DELWP methods to assess them. Remnant patch A remnant patch of native vegetation is either: . An area of native vegetation where at least 25 per cent of the total perennial understorey plant cover is native; and/or

Page | 27

Kiata Wind Farm – Flora and Fauna Assessment Report No. 13079 (4.2)

. Any area with three or more native canopy trees2 where the canopy foliage cover3 is at least 20 per cent of the area. Remnant patch condition is assessed using the habitat hectare method (Parkes et al. 2003; DSE 2004) whereby components of native vegetation (e.g. tree canopy, understorey and ground cover) are assessed against an EVC benchmark. The score effectively measures the percentage resemblance of the vegetation to its original condition. The NVIM system (DEPI 2014) provides modelled condition scores for native vegetation to be used in certain circumstances (Section 3.1.2). All wetlands mapped on DELWP’s native vegetation layer are treated as a remnant patch. The condition score assists in defining the biodiversity equivalence score (described in Section 3.1.2) of the native vegetation and the offset targets if removal of native vegetation is approved. Scattered trees The Biodiversity assessment guidelines define scattered trees as a native canopy tree2 that does not form part of a remnant patch of native vegetation. Scattered trees are counted, the species identified and their DBH (diameter at breast height or 1.3 metres above ground) measured or estimated.

Targeted flora assessment Targeted flora assessments were undertaken in the Construction Access Track Assessment Area for species considered likely to occur (details in Section 4.4.1). Areas of suitable habitat were traversed in transects spaced five metres apart during the species’ known flowering season. The following species were targeted. Peak flowering times are provided in parentheses. . Species listed on the EPBC Act: o Downy Star-Bush (September to November) o Hairy-pod Wattle (July to October) o Jumping-jack Wattle (Anytime) o Metallic Sun-orchid (September to December) o Rigid Spider-orchid (September to October) o Wimmera Spider-orchid (September to October). . Species listed on the FFG Act: o Bow-lip Spider-orchid (August to October) o Buloke (Anytime) o Hairy Tails (November to February).

2 A canopy tree is a reproductively mature tree that is greater than 3 metres in height and is normally found in the upper layer of the relevant vegetation type. 3 Foliage cover is the proportion of the ground that is shaded by vegetation foliage when lit from directly above.

Page | 28

Kiata Wind Farm – Flora and Fauna Assessment Report No. 13079 (4.2)

The targetted survey was undertaken between 14th and 18th October 2013 during the known flowering time for these species. During a site visit on the 14th August 2015, the locations of all individual Hairy-pod Wattle shrubs within the study area were mapped using a differential GPS, which is accurate to approximately 25 centimetres.

4.2. Fauna assessment methods The fauna assessment of the Wind Farm and Construction Access Track was conducted on 23rd – 27th September and 14th – 18th October 2013. Habitats were assessed for their potential to support fauna species listed as threatened. Records of fauna species observed during the survey were also noted. The Wind Farm Assessment Area and Construction Access Track Assessment Area were surveyed by vehicle. Where indigenous fauna habitat was recorded more detailed observations were undertaken on foot. The following techniques were used to detect fauna species in areas of suitable habitat in the study area: . Incidental searches were undertaken for mammal scats, tracks and signs (e.g. diggings, signs of feeding and nests/burrows); . Turning over rocks and other ground debris for reptiles, frogs and mammals; . Bird observation during the day; and . General searches for reptiles and frogs; including listening for frog calls in seasonally wet areas. The quality of fauna habitat was assessed based on the following three categories: High: All fauna habitat components, including old-growth trees, fallen timber, leaf litter, surface rocks are usually present and habitat linkages to other remnant ecosystems in the landscape are intact. Moderate: Some fauna habitat components are missing, although linkages with other remnant habitats in the landscape are intact. Low: Many fauna habitat components have been lost as have linkages with other remnant habitats in the landscape. Remnant vegetation possesses few indigenous components.

4.3. Limitations The flora assessment was undertaken in spring, when some annual and/or seasonally emergent plant species may have been undetectable or in the senescent or pre-flowering stage of their life-cycle and lacking essential identification characteristics. Due to the seasonal dormancy of some species, short survey duration and large size of the study area, some species may have been missed, particularly rare or cryptic species. During the flora assessment the majority of private land in the study area was subject to sheep grazing, which had limited vegetation height in the ground layer to an average of less than 10 centimetres, and more commonly less than five centimetres. In this condition, plant identification to species level is very difficult, due to the lack of identifiable plant features, particularly in grass species.

Page | 29

Kiata Wind Farm – Flora and Fauna Assessment Report No. 13079 (4.2)

The timing of the survey and condition of vegetation was otherwise considered suitable to ascertain the extent and quality of treed and shrubby native vegetation. The fauna assessment was undertaken during cool, sunny and windy weather conditions. These conditions were considered suitable for detecting most birds and larger mammals likely to occur in the study area. Other faunal groups, such as migratory birds, small mammals, reptiles, and most amphibians were either unlikely to have been present at the time/season of the assessment or could not be detected due to unsuitable seasonal and weather conditions. As the primary purpose of the investigation was to assess the extent and quality of native vegetation and fauna habitats in the study area and any potential impacts, the review of existing information, combined with the field survey were sufficient to complete this aspect of the assessment. Wherever appropriate, a precautionary approach was adopted in the discussion of implications. That is, where insufficient evidence was available on the occurrence or potential occurrence of a species, it was assumed that it could be in an area of suitable habitat. The implications under legislation and policy were considered accordingly.

4.4. Results

4.4.1. Flora During the field assessments 48 plant species were recorded. Of these, 40 (83%) were indigenous and eight (17%) were introduced or non-indigenous native in origin (Appendix 2). VBA and FIS records (Viridans Biological Databases 2013a) and the EPBC Protected Matters Search Tool (DSEWPC 2013) indicated that within the search region there were records of, or there occurred potential suitable habitat for, 49 listed flora species. Of these, 13 species were listed under the federal EPBC Act, 16 on the state Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (FFG Act) and 45 on DELWP’s Advisory List for Rare and Threatened Flora (DEPI 2005). One listed threatened flora species was recorded in the Wind Farm Assessment Area during the field surveys. This was: . Wimmera Mallee-box (DELWP – listed as rare). Three listed species were recorded within the Construction Access Track Assessment Area during the field surveys: . Hairy-pod Wattle (EPBC Act – listed as vulnerable; FFG Act – listed as threatened; DELWP – listed as vulnerable) . Thorny Bitter-pea (DELWP – listed as rare) . Wimmera Mallee-box (DELWP – listed as rare). Buloke (listed on the FFG Act) was recorded along Salisbury South Rd, outside of the impact area, although it was not recorded during the targeted flora surveys. Therefore, this species will not be impacted by the proposed construction of the wind farm. The potential occurrence of species listed under the FFG Act and/or the EPBC Act in the Wind Farm Assessment Area and the Construction Access Track Area is addressed in Table 2. Species that may occur or are likely to occur in the study area are highlighted.

Page | 30

Kiata Wind Farm – Flora and Fauna Assessment Report No. 13079 (4.2)

Species considered ‘likely to occur’ are those that have a very high chance of being in the study area based on numerous records in the search region and suitable habitat in the study area. Species considered to have the ‘potential to occur’ are those where suitable habitat exists, but recent records are scarce. Adopting the precautionary approach, these species have the potential to occur. This analysis indicates that no suitable habitat occurred within the Wind Farm Assessment Area for any listed flora species. Conversely suitable habitat was identified for seven listed flora species in the Construction Access Track Assessment Area in addition to those recorded during the assessment. These are presented below. . Bow-lip Spider-orchid (FFG – listed as threatened; DELWP – listed as vulnerable) . Downy Star-Bush (EPBC Act – listed as vulnerable; FFG Act – listed as threatened; DELWP – listed as vulnerable) . Hairy Tails (FFG – listed as threatened) . Jumping-jack Wattle (EPBC Act – listed as endangered; FFG Act – listed as threatened; DELWP – listed as endangered) . Metallic Sun-orchid (EPBC Act – listed as endangered; FFG Act – listed as threatened; DELWP – listed as endangered) . Rigid Spider-orchid (EPBC Act – listed as endangered; DELWP – listed as vulnerable) . Wimmera Spider-orchid (EPBC Act – listed as endangered; FFG Act – listed as threatened; DELWP – listed as endangered). Flora species listed on the DELWP threatened species advisory list that were either recorded, or were considered to potentially occur in the Wind Farm Assessment Area and Construction Access Track Assessment Area, are listed in Appendix 2. Those recorded are highlighted.

Page | 31

Kiata Wind Farm – Flora and Fauna Assessment Report No. 13079 (4.2)

Table 2: FFG Act and EPBC Act listed flora species and potential to occur in the Wind Farm Assessment Area and Construction Access Track Assessment Area Conservation status Potential to occur in Potential to occur in Wind Common Name Scientific Name EPBC Habitat Construction Access Track FFG Act Farm Assessment Area Act Assessment Area status status Information on this species occurrence in Victoria could not be sourced. It is likely that it A herb Aphanes pentamera V Doesn't appear to occur in Victoria doesn't occur in that state. Habitat present in the No habitat present in the Construction Access Track Bow-lip Spider- Mallee-scrub or Callitris woodland on sandy soils or box-woodland on clay-loam (Entwisle Caladenia toxochila L Wind Farm Assessment Area Assessment Area – Not orchid 1994). – unlikely to occur recorded during targeted survey –Unlikely to occur Recorded in roadside Not observed during the field vegetation outside of the Allocasuarina survey of the Wind Farm impact area, but not Buloke L Woodlands on non-calcareous soils. Commonly grows with Grey Box (Entwisle 1996). luehmannii Assessment Area – unlikely recorded during targeted to occur flora surveys within the study area – unlikely to occur Restricted to Lake Fyans (south west of Stawell, Victoria). Record from Deep Lead Flora and Candy Spider- Fauna Reserve is unconfirmed. Occurs in Plains Sedgy Woodland; Shallow Sands Woodland. Caladenia versicolor V L No habitat in the study area – unlikely to occur orchid Soils are generally sandy/silty clay loams derived from Quaternary alluvial and swamp deposits (Todd 2000). This species grows in Heathy Mallee containing Astroloma conostephioides (Flame Heath), Habitat present in the Babingtonia behrii (Broom Baeckea), Calytrix tetragona (Common Fringe-myrtle), Cassytha No habitat present in the Construction Access Track Asterolasia glabella (Slender Dodder-laurel), Dillwynia sericea (Showy Parrot-pea), Eucalyptus leptophylla Downy Star-Bush V L Wind Farm Assessment Area Assessment Area – Not phebalioides (Slender-leaf Mallee), Glischrocaryon behrii (Golden Pennants), Hakea mitchellii (Desert – unlikely to occur recorded during targeted Hakea), Hibbertia virgata (Twiggy Guinea-flower), Melaleuca lanceolata subsp. lanceolata survey –Unlikely to occur (Moonah) and M. wilsonii (Violet Honey-myrtle) (Carter 2010).

Grows in open Eucalyptus largiflorens/Eucalyptus leucoxylon woodland with a sparse grassy Floodplain Pterostylis cheraphila V L understorey, on seasonally inundated, heavy, grey-black clay soils. A couple of sites occur on No habitat in the study area – unlikely to occur Rustyhood the floodplain of the Wimmera River (Duncun et al 2009). Habitat present in the Construction Access Track No habitat present in the Hairy Tails Ptilotus erubescens L Fertile soils with grassland and woodland communities (Walsh 1996). Assessment Area – Not study area – unlikely to occur recorded during targeted survey –Unlikely to occur Occurs in the Wimmera region of western Victoria, in a range of woodland, shrubland and open mallee vegetation communities, on sandy clay to clay-loam soils; with some stands on Not observed during the field ironstone gravel, rarely on heavy clays. In mallee vegetation it occurs on well-drained soils, Habitat present in the study survey of the Wind Farm Hairy-pod Wattle Acacia glandulicarpa V L where it grows with Eucalyptus incrassata, Eucalyptus dumosa, Eucalyptus wimmerensis area – recorded in study Assessment Area – unlikely and/or Eucalyptus behriana. On heavier soils, it occurs in grassy and shrubby woodland area to occur habitats with Eucalyptus leucoxylon, Eucalyptus microcarpa, Allocasuarina luehmannii or Eucalyptus largiflorens (Carter 2011). In Victoria, this species is restricted to a small area in the State’s west, in the Diapur-Kaniva area of the Wimmera. It grows in a range of habitats from Melaleuca uncinata, on the highest Jumping-jack parts of the northern Lawloit Range, on gravely duplex ironstone soils; to mallee scrub and Acacia enterocarpa E L Not observed during the field surveys - unlikely to occur Wattle grassy woodlands of Eucalyptus leucoxylon (Yellow Gum), E. microcarpa (Grey Box) and Allocasuarina luehmannii (Buloke) on more fertile soils in adjacent areas (Moritz & Bickerton 2011).

Page | 32 Kiata Wind Farm – Flora and Fauna Assessment Report No. 13079 (4.2) Conservation status Potential to occur in Potential to occur in Wind Common Name Scientific Name EPBC Habitat Construction Access Track FFG Act Farm Assessment Area Act Assessment Area status status Habitat present in the Construction Access Track Metallic Sun- Thelymitra Primarily in mesic coastal heathlands, grasslands and woodlands, but also in drier inland No habitat present in the E f Assessment Area – Not orchid epipactoides heathlands, open forests and woodlands. (Backhouse & Jeanes 1995 in DSEWPC 2003). study area – unlikely to occur recorded during targeted survey –Unlikely to occur Habitat present in the Construction Access Track Rigid Spider- Eucalyptus and Callitris woodland in well-drained sandy loams. Grows among shrubs (Jones No habitat in the study area Caladenia tensa E Assessment Area – Not orchid 2006). – unlikely to occur recorded during targeted survey –Unlikely to occur Sandhill Information on this species occurrence in Victoria could not be sourced. It is likely that it Pterostylis arenicola V Doesn't appear to occur in Victoria Greenhood Orchid doesn't occur in that state. Found in remnant native grasslands and grassy woodlands on heavy soils (Walsh 1999) on the Comesperma No habitat present in the assessment areas – unlikely to Small Milkwort L Western Basalt Plains, dominated by Kangaroo Grass, Silver Tussock and, less commonly, polygaloides occur wallaby grasses and spear grasses (DSE 1999)

Scattered distribution throughout western Victoria. Usually in swampy depressions in grassland No habitat present in the assessment areas – unlikely to Swamp Diuris Diuris palustris L or open woodland. Numbers have reduced due to agricultural clearing (Entwisle 1994). occur – unlikely to occur

No habitat present in the assessment areas – unlikely to Swamp Sheoak Casuarina obesa L Brackish or saline swampy land near lakes or rivers (Entwisle 1996). occur – unlikely to occur

NSW and Victoria in thick patches in floodwaters. Also Victoria in River Red Gum open Western Water- No habitat present in the assessment areas – unlikely to Callitriche cyclocarpa V L woodland with an open grassy understorey dominated by Paspalidium jubiflorum along river starwort occur – unlikely to occur banks, and with wallaby grasses on ground less-frequently inundated (DEC 2013).

Only known from two extant populations at Natimuk and Minyip, in western Victoria. Both populations occur on level ground with a loamy soil type. The Natimuk population occurs on a Only known from two population outside of the search region Wimmera Rice- Pimelea spinescens roadside reserve in a grassland dominated by spear grasses and wallaby grasses (Austrostipa C L and habitat in the assessment areas is probably unsuitable - flower subsp. pubiflora and Austrodanthonia species respectively), with scattered shrubs of Bursaria spinosa (Sweet unlikely to occur Bursaria) and Senna artemisioides (Cassia), whereas the population at Minyip occurs on Crown Land within a Buloke grassland area (DSE 2008).

Habitat present in the Construction Access Track Wimmera Spider- Occurs on Cypress-pine/Yellow Gum Woodland on sandy loams derived from Tertiary and No habitat in the study area Caladenia lowanensis E L Assessment Area – Not orchid Quaternary aeolian deposits (Todd 2000). – unlikely to occur recorded during targeted survey –Unlikely to occur Finely texture soils in a wide range of vegetation communities such as grassland, wetland, Winged Pepper- Lepidium No habitat present in the assessment areas – unlikely to E L floodplain woodland and chenopod shrublands. Also, dry and eroded clay scolds in sparsely cress monoplocoides occur – unlikely to occur vegetated areas (DSE 2003). Notes: C = Critically Endangered; E = Endangered; V = Vulnerable; L = Listed as threatened under FFG Act

Page | 33 Kiata Wind Farm – Flora and Fauna Assessment Report No. 13079 (4.2)

4.4.2. Ecological Vegetation Classes

Pre-European settlement vegetation composition Pre–European EVC mapping (DEPI 2013b) indicated that the study area and surrounds would have supported the EVCs below prior to European settlement based on modelling of factors including rainfall, aspect, soils and remaining vegetation. . Shallow Sands Woodland (EVC 882) . Sandstone Ridge Shrubland (EVC 93) . Lowan Sands Mallee (EVC 87) . Lignum Swampy Woodland (EVC 823) . Dunefield Heathland (EVC 89) . Ridged Plains Mallee (EVC 96) . Plains Woodland (EVC 803) . Plains Savannah (EVC 826.

Current vegetation composition Evidence on site assessment and the current DELWP mapping, including floristic composition and soil characteristics, suggested that the following EVCs were present within the assessment areas: . Lower Rainfall Shallow Sands Woodland (EVC 882_62) . Sandstone Ridge Shrubland (EVC 93) The locations of these EVCs are presented in Figures 2 – 7. Benchmarks are provided in Appendix 10. Twelve remnant patches (referred to herein as habitat zones) comprising the abovementioned EVCs were identified in the Wind Farm Assessment Area and 20 were identified in the Construction Access Track Assessment Area. A description of these is provided in Table 3. The habitat hectare results for these habitat zones are presented in Table 4, with the detailed habitat hectare scoring in Appendix 1.

Page | 34 Kiata Wind Farm – Flora and Fauna Assessment Report No. 13079 (4.2)

Table 3: Description of habitat zones

Habitat Zone EVC Description

Wind Farm Assessment Area

Canopy species include Yellow Gum, Yellow Mallee and Slender-leaf Mallee. Lower Rainfall Shallow Sands Understory species diversity was very low. Broombush was the dominant A, B, C, JJ, KK, LL Woodland (EVC 882_62) understorey species. The ground layer was dominated by introduced pasture species. Logs were absent. Large trees were also absent.

Sandstone Ridge Shrubland Canopy species include Yellow Mallee and Slender-leaf Mallee. Understorey D, E, F, G, H, GG dominated by introduced pasture species. Some indigenous grasses scattered in (EVC 93) the understorey. No logs present.

Construction Access Track Assessment Area

Canopy species include Yellow Mallee and Slender-leaf Mallee. Understorey I,J,K,L,M,N,O,P,Q,R,S,T,U,V,CC, Sandstone Ridge Shrubland dominated by introduced pasture species. Some indigenous grasses scattered in DD,EE,FF,HH,II (EVC 93) the understorey. No logs present.

Page | 35 Kiata Wind Farm – Flora and Fauna Assessment Report No. 13079 (4.2)

Table 4: Summary of habitat hectare assessment results

Habitat Habitat Score Habitat EVC Area (ha) Zone (out of 100) Hectares (Hha)

Wind Farm Assessment Area A 0.017 10 0.00

B 0.146 14 0.02

C 0.026 12 0.00 Lower Rainfall Shallow Sands Woodland (EVC 882_62) JJ 0.205 16 0.033

KK 0.155 21 0.033

LL 0.016 10 0.002

D 0.251 16 0.04

E 0.020 14 0.00

F Sandstone Ridge Shrubland 0.048 14 0.01 G (EVC 93) 0.051 16 0.01

H 0.082 16 0.01

GG 0.129 15 0.02

Total 1.146 0.18 Construction Access Track Assessment Area I 1.373 31 0.43

J 0.476 31 0.15

K 1.378 32 0.44

L 0.168 38 0.06

M Sandstone Ridge Shrubland 0.916 41 0.38 N (EVC 93) 0.276 39 0.11

O 0.594 49 0.29

P 0.296 51 0.15

Q 0.978 43 0.42

R 0.977 51 0.39

Page | 36 Kiata Wind Farm – Flora and Fauna Assessment Report No. 13079 (4.2)

Habitat Habitat Score Habitat EVC Area (ha) Zone (out of 100) Hectares (Hha)

S 0.243 22 0.05

T 0.321 48 0.15

U 0.338 40 0.14

V 0.048 20 0.01

CC 0.129 31 0.04

DD 0.269 50 0.13

EE 0.224 36 0.08

FF 0.275 30 0.08

HH 0.237 32 0.076

II 0.012 22 0.003

Total 9.528 3.58

4.4.3. Scattered trees Scattered trees recorded in the Wind Farm Assessment Area and Construction Access Track Assessment Area would have once comprised the canopy component of Lower Rainfall Shallow Sands Woodland (EVC 882_62) and Sandstone Ridge Shrubland (EVC 93). Forty scattered trees were recorded within the Wind Farm Assessment Area and 20 scattered trees were recorded in the Construction Access Track Assessment. Details of the scattered trees recorded can be found in Appendix 3.

4.4.4. Listed ecological communities The following listed ecological communities were initially considered to have potential to occur in the assessment areas: . EPBC Act: o Buloke Woodlands of the Riverina and the Murray-Darling Depression Bioregions. . FFG Act: o Semi-arid Herbaceous Pine-Buloke Woodland Community; o Semi-arid Herbaceous Pine Woodland Community; o Victorian Mallee Bird community; o Victorian Temperate-woodland Bird Community.

Page | 37 Kiata Wind Farm – Flora and Fauna Assessment Report No. 13079 (4.2)

The native vegetation recorded in the Wind Farm and Construction Access Track Assessment Areas did not meet the listed ecological community thresholds, therefore they do not occur within the proposed development area.

4.4.5. Fauna

Habitat assessment Four fauna habitat types occurred within the Wind Farm Assessment Area and Construction Access Track Assessment Area. These are described below. . Agricultural land . Woodland . Aquatic habitat . Mallee habitat. Agricultural land: Cultivated land was the dominant habitat type and primarily comprised dry cereal crops and legumes. This habitat is devoid of native vegetation due to historic clearing for cropping purposes and the introduction of pasture grasses for sheep grazing. Habitat components for ground dwelling fauna, such as leaf litter, rocks and woody debris, were scarce across the study area. Accordingly, this habitat is rated as being of low quality for fauna conservation. Woodland: This habitat type was present in the north-central and eastern sections of the Wind Farm Assessment Area. Species primarily comprised Yellow Gum, Buloke and White-cypress Pine with a sparse understory of shrubs. Hollows that provide habitat for tree-dwelling fauna were present in many large trees. A large raptor nest, home to a Wedge-tailed Eagle pair, was located in this habitat (Figure 4). The ground layer comprised a mixture of weeds and native species. Leaf-litter and fallen timber were present throughout the woodland, which provided suitable habitat for reptiles. Considering the woodland within the Wind Farm Assessment Area and Construction Access Track Assessment Area retains most of its original habitat elements (e.g. fallen logs, leaf litter, large hollow-bearing trees), this habitat has been assessed as being of moderate quality for fauna. Aquatic habitat: Aquatic habitats comprised several shallow, small, constructed dams scattered across the Wind Farm Assessment Area. The majority of farm dams were accessible to stock and supported little to no vegetation. Ephemeral drainage lines throughout the Wind Farm Assessment Area were in poor condition and dominated by weeds. This aquatic habitat was considered to be low quality for fauna, as most of the dams were small in size, isolated and lacked fringing and submerged aquatic native vegetation. Mallee habitat: Linear patches of mallee along roadsides in the Wind Farm Assessment Area and Construction Access Track Assessment Area supported native and introduced plant species. Various mallee eucalyptus species and Broombush with the occasional Desert Stringybark dominated this habitat. It provides foraging opportunities for a number of common and generalist fauna species. Accordingly, this habitat was rated as being of moderate quality for fauna. Connectivity to similar habitats within the landscape, provided by linear strips of mallee habitat, increased the value of habitats to fauna. The Wind Farm Assessment Area and

Page | 38 Kiata Wind Farm – Flora and Fauna Assessment Report No. 13079 (4.2)

Construction Access Track Assessment Area are connected to Little Desert National Park to the south-east and a Conservation Volunteers reserve to the south-west. These large remnant woodland blocks flank the south-east and south-west wind farm boundaries and form a network of wider, regional value which provides dispersal routes for species that may move between habitats. Proposed turbines are located adjacent to but not within these high quality woodland habitats. In addition, Kiata Flora and Fauna Reserve, located less than five kilometres north east of the study area, is home to many threatened fauna species including Western Pygmy Possum, Silky Mouse, Brown Toadlet and Eltham Copper Butterfly. Areas of suitable or potential habitat for threatened species are further described in detail in Table 5.

Fauna Species The review of existing information indicated that 248 fauna species have previously been recorded within the search region within the last 40 years. Based on the current field survey combined with the assessment of habitat suitability, the study area supports or has the potential to support 185 fauna species, including 150 bird, 11 mammal, 18 reptile, five frog species and one invertebrate. Appendix 4 details fauna species that may occur within the study area and lists additional species that were recorded during the field survey (36 birds, one mammal, two reptiles and one frog).

Listed fauna species The review of existing information indicated that within the search region 40 rare or threatened fauna species (29 bird, two mammal, four reptile, two frog, one fish and two invertebrate species) listed under the EPBC Act, FFG Act and/or the DELWP advisory list (DEPI 2013c) may occur (excluding listed marine species). The potential occurrence of these species in the study area was assessed and results are presented in Table 5. This details whether any of these are also listed as migratory under the EPBC Act. Species that have the potential to occur or are likely to occur are highlighted in grey. Species that have the potential to occur or are likely to occur are highlighted in grey. Species considered ‘likely to occur’ are those that have a very high chance of being in the study area based on numerous records in the search region and suitable habitat in the study area. Species considered to have the ‘potential to occur’ are those where suitable habitat exists, but recent records are scarce. Adopting the precautionary approach, these species have the potential to occur. Three threatened species (Bearded Dragon, Brown Treecreeper and Purple-gaped Honeyeater) listed on the DELWP Advisory List were recorded during the surveys. An unconfirmed record of the Southern Bentwing Bat (listed on the EPBC Act) was recorded during bat surveys (detailed in Chapter 6). Based on the DELWP habitat importance maps, no native vegetation supporting habitat for Eltham Copper will be removed. No other habitat for listed DELWP species will be impacted based on the DELWP habitat importance maps.

Page | 39 Kiata Wind Farm – Flora and Fauna Assessment Report No. 13079 (4.2)

Table 5: Listed fauna species and potential to occur in the Wind Farm Assessment Area and Construction Access Track Assessment Area Conservation status Number Potential to occur in Potential to occur in Date of last Common Name Scientific name Habitat of Wind Farm Assessment Construction Access EPBC FFG DELWP record records Area Track Assessment Area Birds Terrestrial wetlands, including a range of wetland types but Aquatic habitat in the No suitable habitat in the prefers permanent water bodies with tall dense vegetation, study area is highly Australasian Bittern Botaurus poiciloptilus EN L EN 3 1/08/1991 study area – unlikely to particularly those dominated by sedges, rush, reeds or cutting modified - unlikely to occur grass (Marchant and Higgins 1990). occur Large and deep permanent bodies of water and aquatic flora abundant. Also occurs on billabongs, watercourses and flood No suitable habitat in the study area – unlikely to Australasian Shoveler Anas rhynchotis VU waters on alluvial plains, freshwater meadows, shallow 1 18/09/1981 occur swamps, reed swamps, wooded lakes, sewage farms and farm dams (Marchant and Higgins 1990). Woodlands, open country and terrestrial wetlands; in arid and semi-arid zones; mainly over open plains and undulating land Black Falcon Falco subniger VU 2 3/04/1993 Suitable habitat - potential to occur with large tracts of low vegetation (Marchant and Higgins 1993). Open woodlands and open shrublands; often those dominated Chrysococcyx Black-eared Cuckoo NT by eucalypts; also often in saltbush or bluebush shrublands 8 22/08/1999 Suitable habitat - potential to occur osculans (Higgins 1999). Terrestrial wetlands and prefers deep permanent, well No suitable habitat in the study area – unlikely to Blue-billed Duck Oxyura australis L EN 1 10/12/1973 vegetated water bodies (Marchant and Higgins 1990). occur Wetlands that include permanent open water and deep No suitable habitat in the study area – unlikely to Brolga Grus rubicunda L VU 3 24/07/1988 freshwater marsh (Marchant and Higgins 1993). occur Woodlands dominated by eucalyptus, especially Stringybarks Suitable habitat exists Brown Treecreeper Climacteris picumnus Recorded in woodland NT or other rough-barked eucalypts usually with open grassy 57 29/09/2007 (scattered trees) – (south-eastern ssp.) victoriae habitat along roadside. understorey (Higgins et al. 2001) likely to occur Habitat suboptimal (too No suitable habitat in dense or lacking in fallen Open woodlands with Grey Box, Yellow Box and/or River Red Bush Stone-curlew Burhinus grallarius L EN 9 6/10/1997 the study area – timber); few recent Gum, with a grassy understorey (Robinson and Johnson 1997). unlikely to occur records – unlikely to occur. Inhabit low shrubby undergrowth in mallee woodlands; also No suitable habitat in Chestnut Quail- Cinclosoma Suitable habitat exists. NT acacia shrublands, dry sclerophyll woodlands and heathlands 3 1/12/1980 the study area – thrush castanotus Potential to occur. in arid and semiarid zones (Higgins and Peter 2002). unlikely to occur M (JAMBA, CAMBA, Inhabits wide range of coastal or inland wetlands with varying No suitable habitat in the study area – unlikely to Common Greenshank Tringa nebularia ROKAMB VU levels of salinity; mainly muddy margins or rocky shores of 1 12/12/1981 occur A, Bonn wetlands (Higgins and Davies 1996). Conventi on (A2H)) Commonly found in box-ironbark forests and woodlands and Stagonopleura Diamond Firetail L NT also occurs along watercourses and in farmland areas (Emison 30 29/09/2007 Suitable habitat - likely to occur guttata et al. 1987; Tzaros 2005). Dromaius Widespread and found in a variety of habitats from timbered Emu NT 38 28/09/2007 Suitable habitat - likely to occur novaehollandiae areas to open country (Marchant and Higgins 1990). Terrestrial wetlands; prefer fresh, densely vegetated waters, No suitable habitat in the study area – unlikely to Freckled Duck Stictonetta naevosa L EN particularly floodwater swamps and creeks vegetated with 1 10/12/1973 occur lignum or cane grass (Marchant and Higgins 1990). Glossy Ibis Plegadis falcinellus M NT Prefer freshwater inland wetlands, in particular, permanent or 1 3/10/1999 No suitable habitat in the study area – unlikely to

Page | 40 Kiata Wind Farm – Flora and Fauna Assessment Report No. 13079 (4.2) Conservation status Number Potential to occur in Potential to occur in Date of last Common Name Scientific name Habitat of Wind Farm Assessment Construction Access EPBC FFG DELWP record records Area Track Assessment Area (CAMBA, ephemeral water bodies and swamps with abundant occur Bonn vegetation (Marchant and Higgins 1990). (A2S)) Inhabits large, deep waters where vegetation is abundant; particularly deep swamps and lakes, pools and creeks. Also occur on freshwater meadows, seasonal swamps with No suitable habitat in the study area – unlikely to Hardhead Aythya australis VU 2 14/07/1979 abundant aquatic flora, reed swamps, wooded lakes and occur swamps, rice fields, and sewage ponds (Marchant and Higgins 1990). Occur mostly in open Grey Box, White Box, Yellow Box, Yellow Melanodryas Gum and Ironbark woodlands with pockets of saplings or taller Hooded Robin cucullata cucullata L NT shrubs, an open shrubby understorey, sparse grasses and 32 1/09/2000 Suitable habitat - potential to occur patches of bare ground and leaf-litter, with scattered fallen

timber (Higgins and Peter 2002; Tzaros 2005). M (JAMBA, Occurs in wide variety of permanent and ephemeral wetlands; CAMBA, it prefers open freshwater wetlands with dense cover nearby, No suitable habitat in the study area – unlikely to Latham's Snipe Gallinago hardwickii N NT 1 1/01/1974 ROKAMB such as the edges of rivers and creeks, bogs, swamps, occur A, Bonn waterholes (Naarding 1983; Higgins and Davies 1996). A2H) Inhabits woodlands, acacia scrub, spinifex and tussock Little Button-quail Turnix velox NT grasslands. It takes readily to cereal crops (Marchant and 2 10/11/1980 Suitable habitat - likely to occur Higgins 1993). Suitable habitat adjacent to the remnant Mainly in semi-arid zones (200–450mm rainfall), but in higher (Conservation Volunteers rainfall area of heath and mallee-heath; rarely arid zones. VU, M Suitable habitat - reserve) mallee - Malleefowl Leipoa ocellata L EN Associated with mallee, particularly floristically rich tall dense 27 31/10/2003 (JAMBA) potential to occur potential to occur briefly mallee of higher rainfall areas (Marchant and Higgins 1993). to forage on roadsides but unlikely to be resident. It inhabits terrestrial wetlands, estuarine habitats and sheltered inland waters. Almost entirely aquatic; preferring No suitable habitat in the study area – unlikely to Musk Duck Biziura lobata VU deep water of large swamps, lakes and estuaries, where 2 6/10/1997 occur conditions are stable and aquatic flora abundant (Marchant and Higgins 1990). This species inhabits native grasslands with sparse cover, No suitable habitat in the study area – unlikely to Pedionomus Plains-wanderer VU L CE preferring grasslands that include Wallaby Grass and Stipa 1 14/08/1990 occur torquatus species (Marchant and Higgins 1993). Inhabits mallee heathlands, but also mallee woodlands and No suitable habitat Recorded in suitable Purple-gaped Lichenostomus VU scrubland growing on coastal areas (Higgins et al. 2001). 10 20/04/1987 within wind farm – mallee habitat along Honeyeater cratitius unlikely to occur roadsides Suitable foraging habitat Prefer eucalypt forests and woodlands but often in adjacent and no suitable nesting acacia or Casuarina woodlands. In Vic., subspecies graptogyne Red-tailed Black Calyptorhynchus EN, M No suitable habitat – habitat. The species is L EN inhabits mostly in or at edge of patches of Brown Stringybark 2 28/08/2000 Cockatoo banksi (JAMBA) unlikely to occur rarely seen north of Little woodlands in pasture or in remnant copses of River Red Gum Desert NP - unlikely to (Higgins 1999). occur regularly Terrestrial wetlands, sheltered marine habitats and wet No suitable habitat in the study area – unlikely to Royal Spoonbill Platalea regia NT grasslands. Foraging limited to shallow waters; often among 3 24/08/1979 occur aquatic or emergent vegetation or submerged logs that shelter

Page | 41 Kiata Wind Farm – Flora and Fauna Assessment Report No. 13079 (4.2) Conservation status Number Potential to occur in Potential to occur in Date of last Common Name Scientific name Habitat of Wind Farm Assessment Construction Access EPBC FFG DELWP record records Area Track Assessment Area prey and favour coastal habitats (Marchant and Higgins 1990). Inhabits low shrublands, densely or sparsely vegetated Calamanthus saltbush, bluebush and samphire shrublands, and often No suitable habitat in the study area – unlikely to Rufous Fieldwren NT 2 19/10/1999 campestris chenopod shrublands, dominated by saltbush or bluebush occur (Higgins and Peter 2002). It prefers open woodlands that do not obstruct low flight, and Spotted Harrier Circus assimilis NT natural and exotic grasslands in arid and semi arid areas 5 31/10/2004 Suitable habitat - potential to occur (Higgins and Davies 1996). Suitable habitat present along roadsides although Little or no suitable Prefers a narrow range of eucalypts in Victoria, including White the wind farm is at the habitat and site is at Box, Red Ironbark and Yellow Gum as well as River Red Gum edge of the species Swift Parrot Lathamus discolor EN L EN None None the edge of species’ when this species supports abundant ‘lerp’ (Emison et al. range and there are no range. Unlikely to 1987; Higgins 1999; Kennedy and Tzaros 2005). records in the search occur. region – Unlikely to occur regularly Absence of historical Although suitable habitat records and suitable exists, there is a absence Psophodes The species inhabits mallee woodlands and shrublands Western Whipbird VU L CE None None habitat, therefore of historical records – nigrogularis (Higgins and Peter 2002). unlikely to occur. unlikely to occur regularly. M Aerial, over all habitats, but probably more over wooded areas, (JAMBA, White-throated Hirundapus including open forest and rainforest. Often over heathland and Suitable habitat present in the study area – CAMBA, VU 3 1/01/1981 Needletail caudacutus less often above treeless areas such as grassland and swamps Potential to occur on a fly-over basis ROKAMB or farmland (Higgins 1999). A) Mammals Sminthopsis Native grasslands associated with rocky areas, rough pastures No suitable habitat in the study area – unlikely to Fat-tailed Dunnart NT 2 6/04/1979 crassicaudata and the edges of stubble paddocks (Menkhorst 1995). occur Suitable habitat along No suitable habitat in roadsides adjacent to Pseudomys Murray Mallee, dry heath, Brown Stringybark scrub and Yellow Silky Mouse NT 3 7/11/1978 the study area – remnant blocks of apodemoides Mallee scrub (Menkhorst 1995). unlikely to occur vegetation – potential to occur. Reptiles Semi-arboreal species and is usually found on fallen timber, Suitable habitat exists Recorded in the wind Bearded Dragon Pogona barbata VU stumps, branches and fence posts (Cogger 2000). The species 7 7/11/1978 and recorded nearby – farm will forage on foliage and flowers. likely to occur Well timbered areas from dry woodland to wet southern forests Lace Goanna Varanus varius EN 5 8/11/2005 Suitable habitat - potential to occur and rainforest (Wilson and Swan 2003). Striped Legless Tussock grasslands on the volcanic plains, often associated Absence of historical records and suitable habitat, Delma impar VU L EN None None Lizard with scattered rocks and cracked soils (Cogger 2000). therefore unlikely to occur. Western Blue- Dry to open sandy areas, supporting shrublands, heaths and Tiliqua occipitalis NT 5 16/01/2011 Suitable habitat - potential to occur tongued Lizard mallee woodlands with spinifex (Wilson and Swan 2003). Frogs Pseudophryne Wet and dry forest, grassy areas besides small creeks, alpine No suitable habitat in the study area – unlikely to Brown Toadlet L EN 8 8/11/1978 bibronii grasslands and mossy bogs (Cogger 2000). occur Permanent, still or slow flowing water with fringing and Absence of historical records and suitable habitat, Growling Grass Frog Litoria raniformis VU L EN emergent vegetation in streams, swamps, lagoons and artificial None None therefore unlikely to occur. wetlands such as farm dams and abandoned quarries

Page | 42 Kiata Wind Farm – Flora and Fauna Assessment Report No. 13079 (4.2) Conservation status Number Potential to occur in Potential to occur in Date of last Common Name Scientific name Habitat of Wind Farm Assessment Construction Access EPBC FFG DELWP record records Area Track Assessment Area (Clemann and Gillespie 2004). Fish Slow flowing turbid water of rivers and streams of low Maccullochella peelii Absence of historical records and suitable habitat, Murray Cod VU L VU elevation; also fast flowing clear upland streams (Allen et al. None None peelii therefore unlikely to occur. 2002). Invertebrates In the Kiata area, this butterfly occurs in sparse dry woodland Small area of habitat of Buloke and Slender Cypress-Pine overstorey; Sweet may be suitable. No suitable habitat in Eltham Copper Paralucia pyrodiscus Bursaria, Grey Mulga, Golden Wattle, Desert Hakea, Flame Potential to occur. L EN 29 5/12/2005 the study area – Butterfly lucida Heath and Mat-rushes. Salisbury population occurs in Yellow However, this area will unlikely to occur Gum-Black Box dominated woodland with similar understorey not be impacted by species (Webster 2003). development Areas that are, or have been native grasslands or grassy No Suitable habitat in No Suitable habitat in the woodlands. It is known to inhabit degraded grasslands with the wind farm Golden Sun Moth Synemon plana CE L CE 20 13/11/1992 construction assessment introduced grasses being dominant, with a preference for the assessment area – area – Unlikely to occur. native wallaby grass being present (DEWHA 2009). Unlikely to occur. Notes: CE = Critically Endangered; EN = Endangered; VU = Vulnerable; NT = Lower risk, near threatened; DD = data deficient; L = Listed as threatened under FFG Act; M = Listed migratory species; (JAMBA) = Japan-Australia Migratory Bird Agreement; (CAMBA) = China-Australia Migratory Bird Agreement; (ROKAMBA) = Republic of Korea- Australia Migratory Bird Agreement; (Bonn) = Bonn Convention

Page | 43 Kiata Wind Farm – Flora and Fauna Assessment Report No. 13079 (4.2)

Birds Based on the assessment of habitat suitability and previous records in the search region (Table 5), 12 listed bird species have the potential to occur in the study area. The majority of these species are found in mallee and woodland habitats. The EPBC Act listed species Swift Parrot and Red-tailed Black Cockatoo are also discussed below. The vulnerability of these species to potential impacts from the proposed development is discussed below. The results of the specific-general offset test indicated that no specific offsets are required for removal of habitat for these species, based on DELWP’s habitat importance mapping and proposed areas of vegetation removal (Appendix 11). . Black-eared Cuckoo (DELWP: near threatened) This species could occur in areas of remnant woodland. The proposed development is not likely to affect this habitat and therefore the Black-eared Cuckoo is unlikely to be impacted. It is also unlikely to be susceptible to collision with moving turbine blades or other stationary wind farm infrastructure (such as anemometer towers, powerlines, Etc), as Black-eared Cuckoo, along with most other woodland birds, would not be expected to fly high enough to enter the turbine Rotor Swept Area (RSA). As for other stationary wind farm infrastructure, the wind farm will be utilising the existing powerline along Coker Dam Road / Janetskis Road and, once installed, the anemometer tower/s would not be expected to pose a collision risk to such an agile species like the Black- eared Cuckoo. . Brown Treecreeper (DELWP: near threatened) Brown Treecreeper was recorded during the current assessment in woodland habitat to the east of Salisbury South Road. This species is likely to occur in the study area due to available woodland habitat along roadsides and scattered trees in paddocks. Brown Treecreeper is unlikely to be impacted by the proposed works due to the availability of alternative habitat in close proximity to the study area. It is also unlikely to be susceptible to collision with moving turbine blades or other stationary wind farm infrastructure for reasons described for Black-eared Cuckoo above. . Chestnut Quail-thrush (DELWP: near threatened) This species may occur in the Conservation Volunteers reserve along Janetskis Road west of Salisbury South Road, where there is suitable habitat. It could therefore occur occasionally in adjacent roadsides that support similar habitat, in the construction access zone. These occurrences are likely to be infrequent and it would be minimally affected by the proposed wind farm because of the much larger extent of habitat in the Conservation Volunteers reserve and in Little Desert National Park, some five kilometres to the south-east. It is also unlikely to be susceptible to collision with moving turbine blades or other stationary wind farm infrastructure, as the species rarely flies.

Page | 44 Kiata Wind Farm – Flora and Fauna Assessment Report No. 13079 (4.2)

. Diamond Firetail (FFG listed, DELWP: vulnerable) This species is likely to occur in the study area due to the available grassy woodland habitat. The proposed development is unlikely to affect a significant area of this habitat. Therefore, significant impacts to Diamond Firetail are unlikely to occur. It is also unlikely to be susceptible to collision with moving turbine blades or other stationary wind farm infrastructure for reasons described for Black-eared Cuckoo above. . Hooded Robin (FFG listed, DELWP: near threatened) Hooded Robin could occasionally occur during dispersive movements, particularly when in transit between larger woodland blocks nearby. The proposed development is unlikely to affect a significant area of this habitat. Therefore impacts to Hooded Robin are unlikely to be significant. It is also unlikely to be susceptible to collision with moving turbine blades or other stationary wind farm infrastructure for reasons described for Black-eared Cuckoo above. . Purple-gaped Honeyeater (DELWP: vulnerable) Purple-gaped Honeyeater was recorded incidentally in woodland vegetation along roadsides during the bird utilisation survey (Chapter 5). This species inhabits mallee woodlands (Higgins et al. 2001) that occur in the study area and surrounding region. Purple-gaped Honeyeater was recorded outside the current disturbance zone, however the species could occasionally utilise habitats in the study area during dispersive movements, particularly when in transit between larger woodland blocks adjacent the study area. The proposed development will not impact on larger remnant woodland blocks and it is also unlikely to be susceptible to collision with moving turbine blades or other stationary wind farm infrastructure for reasons described for Black-eared Cuckoo above. Therefore, the honeyeater is unlikely to be impacted during construction or operation of the wind farm. . Swift Parrot (EPBC: endangered, migratory; FFG listed, DELWP: endangered) This species is unlikely to occur in the study area due to the paucity of woodland habitat dominated by its preferred foraging trees, Yellow Gum, Grey Box, or Red Ironbark (Kennedy and Tzaros 2005). Normally, it occurs to the south in the higher- rainfall box ironbark belt (Emison et al. 1987). The study area and wider region contained numerous scattered eucalypts, such as Yellow Gum, which the Swift Parrot is known to utilise (Higgins 1999; Kennedy and Tzaros 2005). Yellow Gum is a winter- spring flowering tree (Costermans 2003). It is possible that the Swift Parrot may fly over the study area when these trees are flowering in the cooler months. Swift Parrot is highly mobile and would be able to feed in large woodland blocks near the study area. The primary risk to this species is during dispersive movements when they fly at RSA heights. However, the study area is located beyond their usual foraging range, therefore this is unlikely to occur regularly.

Page | 45 Kiata Wind Farm – Flora and Fauna Assessment Report No. 13079 (4.2)

. White-throated Needletail (EPBC: migratory, DELWP: vulnerable) This species is likely to occur in the study area over wooded and open habitats. It is an aerial forager, spending most of its time flying in search of aerial insect prey (Higgins 1999). It could therefore be susceptible to collisions with turbines and other structures. However, given the highly mobile nature of its movements and small extent of country occupied by the proposed wind farm, any impacts on the species’ population are expected to be low. . Emu (DELWP: near threatened) This species could occur in most habitat types throughout the study area. Emus are mobile and abundant suitable habitat is present throughout the surrounding landscape. The species would be able to move to alternative habitat during the construction phase. This species does not fly so is not at risk during wind farm operation. . Malleefowl (EPBC Act: vulnerable, migratory, FFG Act: listed, DELWP: endangered) This species occurs in mallee habitat and may potentially wander onto roadsides adjacent to the study area whilst foraging or moving about its territory. A population currently occurs in mallee woodland of the Conservation Volunteers reserve. This reserve is located along Salisbury South Road, which flanks the western boundary of the wind farm. Given the vast amount of mallee habitat surrounding the study area, it is highly unlikely that the proposed action will significantly impact this species due to habitat removal. However, it is recommended that roadside vegetation remains intact where possible to provide continued habitat linkages for Malleefowl. With regards to the likelihood of a significant impact on Malleefowl due to collision with moving turbine blades or other stationary infrastructure, Malleefowl would not be expected to fly high enough to enter the RSA, as they rarely fly, and are poor short- hop fliers when they do. Stationary wind farm infrastructure is also unlikely to pose a risk to Malleefowl, given their strong preference for walking rather than flying. . Little Button-quail (DELWP: near threatened) Little Button-quail is a summer migrant to Victoria and its distribution varies according to food availability (Emison et. al. 1987). This species is ground-dwelling and mainly occurs in croplands, pastures and open mallee with grassy understory north of the Great Divide (Emison et. al. 1987). This species is unlikely to be impacted by the proposed works due to the ample availability of higher quality habitats in close proximity to the study area.

Raptors Spotted Harrier and Black Falcon (both listed on the DELWP advisory list) are unlikely to be impacted by the proposed works due to the availability of alternative habitat in close

Page | 46 Kiata Wind Farm – Flora and Fauna Assessment Report No. 13079 (4.2)

proximity to the study area and their ability to move away from disturbance. These species, along with White-throated Needletail, are likely to fly at RSA height. Wedge-tailed Eagle was recorded during the assessment and their nest site is shown in Figure 4. The Wedge-tailed Eagle is not threatened but is considered to be a species of concern due to their susceptibility to collide with turbines. It is considered likely that a pair may utilise the area. The presence of the Wedge-tailed Eagle and other raptors is discussed further in Chapter 5, which details the results of the bird utilisation survey.

Red-tailed Black Cockatoo habitat survey (EPBC Act: endangered, migratory, FFG Act: listed, DELWP: endangered) Red-tailed Black-Cockatoo records dating from 2000 are present within five kilometres of the Wind Farm Assessment Area (Figure 8). However, key nesting habitat is absent from the Wind Farm or Construction Access Track Assessment Areas, except for the occasional Yellow Gum and one large Black Box located in the northern section along Salisbury South Road. Red-tailed Black Cockatoo habitat identified during the habitat survey was almost entirely foraging habitat and comprised Buloke and Desert Stringybark (Figure 9).

Page | 47 ^_

^_ ^_

Little Desert NP ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_

^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_^_^_^_^_ ^_ ^_^_ ^_ ^_ ^_

^_

^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_^_ ^_ ^_^_ ^_ ^_^_^_ ^_ ^_^_^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^__ ^_ ^_ ^_^ Sources: Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, USGS, Intermap, iPC, NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom, 2013

Kilometers 0 5 10 20 Legend Figure 8: Red-tailed Black-Cockatoo VBA records Wind farm assessment area Project: Kiata Wind Farm

Roadside assessment area Client: Windlab

50km search radius Project No.: 13079 Date: 23/07/2014 Created By: M. Ghasemi / B. MacDonald ^_ Red-tailed Black-Cockatoo VBA records ¯ *# *#

JANETSKIS ROAD

COKER DAM ROAD

SALISBURY SOUTH ROAD

Legend Metres 0 750 1,500 3,000 Wind farm assessment area and construction access Figure 9: Mapped Red-tailed Black-Cockatoo Habitat Mapped Red-tailed Black-Cockatoo Habitat Project: Kiata Wind Farm Buloke (scattered) Client: Windlab Desert Stringybark Project No.: 13079 Date: 23/07/2014 Created By: M. Ghasemi / P. Lansley *# Potential Red-tailed Black-Cockatoo Nest Site (Black Box) ¯ Kiata Wind Farm – Flora and Fauna Assessment Report No. 13079 (4.2)

Within five kilometres of the wind farm, scattered Buloke occurred north of the Wind Farm Assessment Area along road reserves and Salisbury Bushland Reserve at the south-eastern corner of Western Highway and Salisbury South Road junction. One patch was located at the south end of Salisbury South Road and another patch along northern part of Salisbury South Road. Desert Stringybark was scattered sparsely throughout the wider region. The largest patch of Desert Stringybark was located in the southern ‘mallee’ block south of the crossroads of Salisbury South Road and Coker Dam Road. Red-tailed Black Cockatoo habitat in the Wind Farm Assessment Area and Construction Access Track Assessment Area is considered low quality and suitable for occasional use only. Menkhorst et al. (2006) indicated that the species is normally restricted to areas as far north as the southern boundary of the Little Desert National Park, but occasionally number move north to the Western Highway. For these reasons, this species is considered unlikely to occur in the study area.

Migratory Birds The review of existing information identified 12 listed migratory bird species within the search region. Of these, four species may occur in the study area based on the availability of suitable habitat. . Rainbow Bee-eater (EPBC: migratory) This species may occasionally pass through the study area during migration and may forage at RSA height. It is considered unlikely to be impacted by the proposed development due to the widespread availability of alternative foraging habitat in the wider region. . Fork-tailed Swift (EPBC: migratory) Fork-tailed Swift has the potential to fly over the study area, but is unlikely to show particular preference for certain areas. Given the highly mobile nature of its movements and small extent of country occupied by the proposed wind farm, any impacts on the species’ population are expected to be low. . White-throated Needletail (EPBC: migratory, DELWP: vulnerable) This species was discussed above in the threatened birds section. . Malleefowl (EPBC: migratory, vulnerable, FFG listed, DELWP: endangered) This species was discussed above in the threatened birds section.

Mammals Based on the assessment in Table 5, the Silky Mouse (DELWP: near threatened) has the potential to occur in roadside remnant vegetation that is adjacent to remnant blocks of

Page | 50 Kiata Wind Farm – Flora and Fauna Assessment Report No. 13079 (4.2)

vegetation. The last record of the species in the region is from 1978, suggesting the population in the area is likely to be low or non-existent. DELWP habitat importance mapping did not show any habitat for the species within the development layout. The proposed development is unlikely to impact this species. An unconfirmed call of the Southern Bentwing Bat was recorded during the bat activity surveys, detailed in Chapter 6. It is possible that the call was from a common species attributed to the Southern Bent-wing bat call complex i.e. Little Forest Bat or Chocolate Wattled Bat. The Southern Bentwing Bat is known to fly 40 kilometres from the Naracoorte Cave to edge of the Little Desert National Park, however the proposed Kiata Wind Farm is over 100 kilometres from the Naracoorte Caves, and is considered to be out of the species range. In light of the lack of historical records and suitable roosting habitat, there is a low likelihood of it being Southern Bent-wing bat. Impacts to this species are discussed further in Chapter 6.

Reptiles Based on the assessment in Table 5, three listed reptile species have the potential to occur in the study area. DELWP’s habitat importance mapping showed habitat for Bearded Dragon and Lace Goanna within the development layout, however the results of the specific-general offset test indicated that no specific offsets are required for removal of habitat for these species (Appendix 11). The vulnerability of these species to potential impacts from the proposed development is discussed below. . Bearded Dragon (DELWP: vulnerable) During the current assessment, Bearded Dragon was recorded in woodland habitat beneath a scattered tree in the north-western section of the Wind Farm Assessment Area (Figure 3). This species could also occur in roadside and riparian remnants where coarse woody debris remains in the ground layer. It is unlikely to suffer adverse impacts on its local populations due to the availability of suitable habitat adjacent to the site. . Lace Goanna (DELWP: endangered) This species could occur in riparian woodland in the study area where hollow trees are still present. It is unlikely to suffer adverse impacts on its local population considering the area of potential habitat to be removed is farmed land. Lace Goannas in the area would be able to move away from the source of disturbance to nearby woodland during construction activities. . Western Blue-tongued Lizard (DELWP: near threatened) This species occurs in mallee woodland with spinifex. Given the vast amount of mallee habitat surrounding the study area, it is unlikely that the proposed action will result on a significant impact on this species. DELWP habitat importance mapping did not show any habitat for the species within the development layout.

Page | 51 Kiata Wind Farm – Flora and Fauna Assessment Report No. 13079 (4.2)

Frogs Based on the assessment in Table 5, no listed frog species were considered likely to occur in the study area due to a lack of recent records, despite a small area of damp habitat along a shallow ephemeral drainage line in the north-western section of the study area. Therefore the proposed development is unlikely to impact on any threatened frog species.

Fish Based on the assessment in Table 5, no listed fish species have the potential to occur in the study area due to the lack of suitable aquatic habitat. Therefore the proposed development is unlikely to impact on any threatened fish species.

Invertebrates Eltham Copper Butterfly and Golden Sun Moth were recorded from database searches in the region. The availability of habitat for these species and vulnerability to impacts is discussed below. . Golden Sun Moth (EPBC Act: critically endangered, FFG Act, DELWP advisory list: critically endangered) Suitable habitat for Golden Sun Moth was recorded north of the Wind Farm Assessment Area, albeit, this habitat was degraded and isolated. No suitable habitat was identified within the Wind Farm Assessment Area, therefore, the construction and operation of the wind farm will not impact on this species. . Eltham Copper Butterfly (FFG Act listed, DELWP advisory list: endangered) Suitable habitat for this species may exist along roadside vegetation in the Construction Access Track Assessment Area. Suitable habitat for this species was mapped according to the DELWP habitat importance mapping. Under the current wind farm development layout, there are no impacts on native vegetation in any areas mapped as important habitat for Eltham Copper Butterfly.

Page | 52 Kiata Wind Farm – Flora and Fauna Assessment Report No. 13079 (4.2)

5. BIRD UTILISATION SURVEY

5.1. Introduction The aim of the bird utilisation survey (BUS) was to provide baseline information on bird utilisation of the habitats in the study area prior to the construction of the proposed wind farm. The BUS was undertaken consistent with the requirements for a “Level One” bird risk assessment in accordance with ‘Wind Farms and Birds - Interim Standards for Risk Assessment’ issued by the Australian Wind Energy Association (AusWEA 2005). This approach has been endorsed in the Association’s latest (2013) Best Practice Guidelines.

5.2. Methods An experienced zoologist undertook the survey over six days from the 14th to 19th March 2014.

5.2.1. Locations of survey points Over the survey period, nine fixed survey points were established; seven impact points and two reference points. Impact points were located near proposed turbine locations and reference points were located at least 500 metres away from impact points in areas of similar habitat. The survey points were distributed as evenly as possible (subject to access constraints) across the wind farm to maximise coverage in areas where wind turbines are likely to be sited (Figure 10). Impact points were positioned as far as possible on elevated ground, allowing a clear view in all directions. Habitats present at each survey point are provided in Table 6. Table 6: Habitat associated with each survey point Survey point Habitat Impact points Point located on top of a ridge, pasture/crop and no trees, located in the north- 1 west of the Wind Farm Assessment Area. Point located on top of a ridge in a paddock with grassland/crop and one tree 2 in the survey area. Point located on top of a ridge near a dead tree, some scattered Desert 3 Stringybark trees along the fenceline. Point located in a paddock with grassland/crop and three remnant mallee 4 eucalypt trees in the survey area. Point located in a paddock that was a crop with few scattered remnant mallee 5 eucalypts and Desert Stringybark in survey area. Many ravens foraged in this area. Located in a paddock that was a crop and had few scattered trees. A row of 6 remnant mallee vegetation that attracted woodland birds was located in this survey area. This point was located in a paddock with grassland/crop and few scattered 7 Desert Stringybark trees on top of a ridge. A public road with remnant vegetation was located adjacent to the western section of the survey area. No

Page | 53 Kiata Wind Farm – Flora and Fauna Assessment Report No. 13079 (4.2)

Survey point Habitat native vegetation was located in the survey area. Reference points This point was on top of a ridge in a paddock that was grassland/crop with no R1 trees. Australasian Magpies, Australasian Pipits and Banded Lapwing were observed foraging in the survey area. This point was located in a paddock grassland/crop, on the side of a hill. There R2 is a row of mallee eucalypt trees along a fenceline in the survey area and some of the trees are flowering attracting honeyeaters.

5.2.2. Fixed-point bird count method The fixed-point bird count method involved an observer stationed at a survey point for 15 minutes. The adequacy of using 15 minutes as an interval to record the presence of birds during bird utilisation surveys was investigated in an earlier study at another wind farm site (Brett Lane and Associates Pty. Ltd., unpublished data). This showed that 82 to 100 percent (average 88 percent) of species actually seen in one hour of surveying were seen in the initial 15 minutes of observation. Based on this result, the period of 15 minutes used in the formal bird utilisation surveys was considered adequate to generate representative data on the bird species in the area during the survey. During this period, all bird species and numbers of individual birds observed within 200 metres (survey area) were recorded. The species, the number of birds and the height of the bird when first observed were documented. For species of concern (threatened species, waterbirds and raptors), the minimum and maximum heights were recorded. Flight height is presented as below, at or above rotor swept area height (RSA height). . A = Below RSA (< 30 metres above ground) . B = At RSA (30 – 200 metres above ground) . C = Above RSA (> 200 metres above ground). Table 7 presents the survey schedule. This schedule ensured that all points were visited equally at different times of day to allow for time-of-day differences in bird movements and activity. Every survey point (impact and reference) was visited eight times over the survey period. Table 7: Times when points were counted for each fixed-point bird count survey day

Day 8:30 9:00 9:30 10:00 10:30 11:00 11:30 13:00 13:30 14:00 14:30 15:00 15:30 16:00

1 1 2 3 4 5 6 R1 7 R2 1 2 3 4 5 2 6 R1 7 R2 1 2 3 4 5 6 R1 7 R2 1 3 2 3 4 5 6 R1 7 R2 1 2 3 4 5 6 4 R1 7 R2 1 2 3 4 5 6 R1 7 R2 1 2 5 3 4 5 6 R1 7 R2 1 2 3 4 5 6 R1 6 7 R2

Note: See Figure 1 for survey point locations. The prefix ‘R’ refers to reference points

Page | 54 Kiata Wind Farm – Flora and Fauna Assessment Report No. 13079 (4.2)

5.2.3. Incidental observations In addition to the observations during formalised, fixed-point counts, incidental observations of birds of concern (threatened species, raptors, waterbirds) were made whilst travelling within the Wind Farm Assessment Area. Notes were also made on woodland birds observed in remnant woodlands. Emphasis was placed on birds that were moving through the site at RSA height.

5.2.4. Limitations The bird utilisation survey was undertaken during autumn in 2014. Some summer migrants may have already departed the study area at this time of year. Birds such as magpies and ravens had finished breeding and were flocking. For these reasons, the utilisation rates and species abundances recorded during the current survey are considered to be representative of the site. They are also considered to provide a reasonable basis on which to assess the bird risks associated with the proposed Kiata Wind Farm.

Page | 55 Ref2 ")

BUS1 ")

BUS2 ")

BUS3 ")

BUS4 ")

BUS7 ")

BUS6 ")

BUS5 ")

Ref1 ")

Metres Legend 0 250 500 1,000

Study area Figure 10: Bird Utilisation Survey Points Project: Kiata Wind Farm ") Bird Utilisation Sites Client: Windlab

Project No.: 13079 Date: 23/06/2014 Created By: M. Ghasemi / C. Doughty ¯ Kiata Wind Farm – Flora and Fauna Assessment Report No. 13079 (4.2)

5.3. Results

5.3.1. Species Composition Twenty-five bird species were recorded during the BUS (Table 8). Twenty-two species were recorded at the impact survey points and 16 at the reference survey points. Species recorded were predominantly farmland and woodland species with some records of raptors. The raw data are presented in Appendices 7 and 8. The five most common species at the impact and reference survey points are presented below. Impact site Reference site . Australian Magpie . Australian Magpie . Little Raven . Yellow-rumped Thornbill . Galah . Galah . Australasian Pipit . Banded Plover . Australian Raven . Australasian Pipit These five species comprised 63% of all birds recorded at the impact survey points and 93% at the reference survey points. The total number of birds observed during the surveys varied between 142 at survey point 6, to 35 at survey point 4. Bird diversity and abundance was low and similar between the impact points and reference points.

Page | 57 Kiata Wind Farm – Flora and Fauna Assessment Report No. 13079 (4.2)

Table 8: Number and height distribution of bird species at survey points during surveys at the proposed Kiata Wind Farm site P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 Total Impact Sites R1 R2 Total Reference Sites Grand Total Species A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C Australasian Pipit 3 8 1 2 1 20 1 36 0 0 5 5 0 0 41 Australian Hobby 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 Australian Magpie 56 101 68 1 14 24 22 42 327 1 0 110 40 5 150 5 0 483 Australian Raven 11 2 10 12 11 0 0 0 0 23 Banded Plover 0 0 0 12 12 0 0 12 Crested Pigeon 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 Eastern Rosella 2 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 3 Galah 8 20 4 3 2 37 0 0 15 15 0 0 52 Grey Currawong 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Little Raven 20 2 12 3 7 69 31 2 141 5 0 2 2 0 0 148 New Holland Honeyeater 1 1 0 0 2 2 0 0 3 Noisy Miner 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 Purple-gaped Honeyeater* 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 Red Wattlebird 2 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 3 Red-capped Robin 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Singing Honeyeater 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 Spiny-cheeked Honeyeater 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Tree Martin 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Wedge-tailed Eagle 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 2 White-browed Babbler 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 White-eared Honeyeater 1 1 0 0 3 3 0 0 4 Willie Wagtail 1 1 1 3 0 0 2 2 0 0 5 Yellow Thornbill 2 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 3 Yellow-rumped Thornbill 11 2 13 0 0 31 31 0 0 44 Zebra Finch 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 4 Grand Total 87 2 142 73 4 24 11 101 2 110 52 4 589 23 0 144 1 84 5 228 6 0 846 P = Survey Point, R = Reference point, A=below rotor swept area (RSA) height (<30 m); B= at RSA height (30-200 m); C= above RSA height (>200 m). * listed on the DELWP Advisory List

Page | 71 Kiata Wind Farm – Flora and Fauna Assessment Report No. 13079 (4.2)

5.3.2. Flight heights Bird heights were classified as below (<30 metres), at (30–200 metres), and above (>200 metres) RSA height. Detailed results of the number of birds recorded at the different flight heights are presented in Table 9. The raw data are presented in Appendices 7 and 8. Table 9: Summary of birds recorded at the three flight heights

Impact survey points Reference survey points Flight Height Number of Percentage of Number of Percentage of birds all birds birds all birds

A (below RSA) 589 96.2% 228 97.4%

B (at RSA) 23 3.8% 6 2.6%

C (above RSA) 0 - 0 -

Total birds recorded 612 100 234 100

Species recorded flying at RSA are detailed below from most abundant to least abundant. Impact survey points Reference survey points . Australian Raven . Australian Magpie . Little Raven . Wedge-tailed Eagle. . Zebra Finch . Wedge-tailed Eagle . Australian Hobby . Australian Magpie. Note: Only the two species were recorded flying at RSA height at reference points. These accounted for 3.8% of the total birds observed at impact survey points, and 2.6% at reference survey points. The distribution of birds flying at RSA heights at each of the survey points was random. Furthermore, birds were not prone to flying at RSA heights at one point more than others, indicating that risk to birds is likely to be uniformly distributed over the Kiata Wind Farm.

5.3.3. Notable species

Threatened species The majority of birds found to utilise the proposed wind farm site were common birds. One woodland bird listed on the DELWP Advisory List, the Purple-gaped Honeyeater, was recorded during the formal bird utilisation survey at reference point 2. This area of woodland vegetation is outside of the study area.

Raptors Two raptor species were recorded on one occasion at impact point 5 and one raptor was recorded at reference point 1 (Table 10; raw data presented in Appendices 7 and 8).

Page | 72 Kiata Wind Farm – Flora and Fauna Assessment Report No. 13079 (4.2)

The number of raptors was low in relation to the total number of birds recorded during the survey. Raptors observations comprised approximately 8.6% of birds seen at RSA height (Table 10). Based on the poor utilisation rate by raptors at the impact points, risks to them are likely to be low. Table 10: Raptor species recorded at impact points Flights Flights recorded Total recorded at Flights at RSA Grand Total Raptor RSA compared Raptors A B C at RSA compared with Total at RSA Flights with all bird (%) all bird flights at (%) flights observed RSA (%) (%) Australian 1 1 1 50 100 4.3 0.2 Hobby Wedge- 1 1 1 50 100 4.3 0.2 tailed Eagle Total 2 2 2 100 100 8.6 0.4 Total of all birds 589 23 0 612 23 3.8 100 3.8 observed A=below rotor swept area (RSA) height (<30 m); B= at RSA height (30-200 m); C= above RSA height (>200 m).

Incidental raptor observations Incidental raptor observations are presented in Table 11. The Wedge-tailed Eagle was the most abundant raptor species observed in the Wind Farm Assessment Area (11 of the 12 incidental raptor observations). Flight paths presented in Figure 11 indicate that the observed flights occurred throughout the whole Wind Farm Assessment Area. One resident pair frequently utilised the southern part of the Wind Farm Assessment. The Wedge-tailed Eagle will often fly at RSA heights and 56% of the incidental observations of Wedge-tailed Eagle flights were at RSA height. The Wedge-tailed Eagle is the most vulnerable species to collide with operating turbines because of their soaring habits while foraging. The Wedge-tailed Eagle nest is greater than 400 metres from the nearest proposed turbine. Previous studies have shown that resident Wedge-tailed Eagles can successfully bread and raise young within 300 metres of a turbine.

Page | 74 Kiata Wind Farm – Flora and Fauna Assessment Report No. 13079 (4.2)

Table 11: Incidental raptor observations

Species Observation number Date Number of minutes observed Number of birds Flight height (metres) Comments Wedge-tailed Eagle 1 13/03/2014 8 1 >160 Circling very high Circling over paddock before Wedge-tailed Eagle 2 14/03/2014 7 2 up to 120 gliding SW Being mobbed by Little Wedge-tailed Eagle 3 14/03/2014 1 1 10 to 20 Ravens Wedge-tailed Eagle 4 15/03/2014 1 1 20 Flying along tree line Disturbed by farm ute and Australian Shelduck 5 15/03/2014 1 2 30 returned to dam Not flying, pair sitting in a Wedge-tailed Eagle 6 15/03/2014 2 dead tree in the woodland to the south 1 eagle initially joined by 2 Wedge-tailed Eagle 7 15/03/2014 7 3 20 to 100 other eagles, they circled together to the north-east Seen flying back and forth over paddock to the south Australian Hobby 8 16/03/2014 10 1 10 to 40 then flew quickly in a straight line to the north Seen flying on the edge of Wedge-tailed Eagle 9 16/03/2014 6 2 10 to 20 the study area Observed circling all over south-eastern section and Wedge-tailed Eagle 10 19/03/2014 11 1 10 to 60 landed in a tree where a 2nd eagle was sitting Circling above the study Wedge-tailed Eagle 11 19/03/2014 5 1 20 to 150 area Soaring over reference site Wedge-tailed Eagle 12 19/03/2014 5 1 20 to 150 and over into woodland to the west

Page | 75 1

4

5

7 2

9 10

11 3 12 8

6

Metres Legend 0 500 1,000 2,000 Figure 11: Flight paths of raptors and waterbirds Wind Farm Site Project: Kiata Wind Farm Flight paths Client: Windlab Australian Hobby Project No.: 13079 Date: 24/06/2014 Created By: M. Ghasemi / C. Doughty Australian Shelduck Wedge-tailed Eagle ¯ Kiata Wind Farm – Flora and Fauna Assessment Report No. 13079 (4.2)

Waterbirds No waterbirds were recorded at impact sites during the bird utilisation surveys. This is mainly due to turbines being positioned on top of ridges away from farm dams. The Banded Plover was observed at one of the reference sites in the north of the study area. Flocks of Australian Wood Duck, a pair of Australian Shelduck and a White-faced Heron were incidentally observed at farm dams within the study area. The Australian Wood Duck is a very common farmland waterbird that usually roost along the edges of farm dams and forage in farm dams and open paddocks adjacent to dams during the day and night. They are gregarious birds, known to move and forage in flocks. Flocks of this species were observed at several farm dams throughout the Wind Farm Assessment Area. This species was not regularly observed flying at RSA heights. The pair of Australian Shelduck were roosting and foraging at a wetland in the centre of the Wind Farm Assessment Area. They were observed flying once, when a farm vehicle drove past the dam and disturbed them (Figure 11). A single White-faced Heron was also seen on one day at a farm dam. Many small farm dams were located within the Wind Farm Assessment Area. Dams generally lacked aquatic vegetation with bare and trampled edges. None of the waterbirds observed in the Wind Farm Assessment Area were listed under state or national conservation legislation.

Woodland birds Linear woodland habitats in the Wind Farm Assessment Area were located along roadsides and fence-lines. Woodland birds were observed utilising these habitats as a movement corridor, for foraging and for roosting. Woodland bird species recorded incidentally are presented below. . Black-faced Cuckoo-Shrike . Red-rumped Parrot . Brown-headed Honeyeater . Singing Honeyeater . Grey Currawong . Spiny-cheeked Honeyeater . Jacky Winter . Variegated Fairy-wren . Mallee Ringneck . White-browed Babbler . New Holland Honeyeater . White-eared Honeyeater . Purple-gaped Honeyeater (DELWP listed) . Yellow Thornbill . Red Wattlebird . Yellow-rumped Thornbill . Red-capped Robin Woodland birds generally do not fly above the tree canopy. Therefore, considering trees within the Wind Farm Assessment Area were below five metres, woodland birds are not considered vulnerable to collision risk with wind turbines as these would not fly RSA height.

Page | 77 Kiata Wind Farm – Flora and Fauna Assessment Report No. 13079 (4.2)

5.4. Impacts to birds The study area was largely made of cleared paddocks supporting a low diversity and abundance of birds that were predominantly common, farmland birds. One woodland bird listed on the DELWP Advisory List, the Purple-gaped Honeyeater, was recorded during the formal bird utilisation survey at reference point 2. This area of woodland vegetation is outside of the disturbance zone. Several other woodland bird species were recorded within remnant vegetation along roadsides and in discrete patches of mallee trees. These species are unlikely to be significantly impacted by the proposed wind farm as they would generally not fly at RSA height. A pair of Wedge-tailed Eagle was resident in the southern section of the Wind Farm Assessment Area. Immature eagles were also observed throughout the Wind Farm Assessment Area. One other raptor species was recorded and three waterbird species were observed though no waterbirds were recorded during the formal counts and were generally confined to farm dams. Raptor utilisation rate was calculated as 0.012 birds per hectare per hour. This is very low compared with other wind farm sites in Victoria (BL&A unpublished data). Australian Raven and Little Raven were the most abundant at RSA heights. Wedge-tailed Eagle and Australian Hobby were the only two raptors observed flying at the study area and at RSA heights. Given the above observations, the collision risk to birds, and particularly vulnerable species (i.e. raptors and waterbirds) is assessed as being low.

Page | 78 Kiata Wind Farm – Flora and Fauna Assessment Report No. 13079 (4.2)

6. BAT ASSESSMENT

6.1. Introduction The aim of the bat survey was to provide baseline data on the pre-construction utilisation by bats of the wind farm site.

6.2. Methods The Bat utilisation survey was undertaken consistent with the methodology provided in “Guidelines for Bat Surveys in Relation to Wind Farm Developments” (Lumsden, 2007), and Survey Guidelines for Australian Threatened Bats (DEWHA 2010). Bat surveys were undertaken in optimal weather conditions (relatively mild, dry and with little or no wind). Surveys were undertaken in summer and autumn at five survey points. Survey dates are provided below. . Summer survey: December 12th – 18th 2013 . Autumn survey: March 13th -19th 2014

6.2.1. Survey sites The wind farm is close to Victoria’s Little Desert; near the town Nhill. Generally the sites were open grasslands mostly native and lines of mallee and old scattered eucalypt trees. The wind farm site is adjacent to a large mallee reserve. Survey sites were selected to represent the habitat types within the Wind Farm Assessment Area. These are described below. . Site 1: On a fence in middle of wide and large open grassland paddock (mostly native); no trees in area . Site 2: On an acacia tree in middle of open grassland paddock, only few trees scattered around . Site 3: on eucalypt tree in middle of open paddock with few old and mature eucalypt trees scattered around the recording site . Site 4: On the side of a line of old eucalypt trees with hollows . Site 5: Within a small group of mallee trees and adjacent to open cropped land. Survey sites are presented in Figure 12.

6.2.2. Bat recordings Automated bat detectors that record the species-specific echolocation calls of free-flying bats were used at five sampling points that were representative of the habitats near wind turbine locations on the proposed wind farm site (Figure 12). Anabats (Titley Electronics, Ballina, NSW) were used for the detection of bat calls. The detectors were programmed to commence operation approximately 30 minutes before dusk, and to cease approximately 30 minutes after dawn. Calls from the units were downloaded and examined by Rob Gration for identification. Call identification was based on a key developed by comparing the characteristics of bat calls with reference calls from known species recorded across Australia. Identification is largely based on changes to frequency patterns over time, especially as the characteristic frequency changes. Only those recordings that contained at least two

Page | 79 Kiata Wind Farm – Flora and Fauna Assessment Report No. 13079 (4.2)

definite and discrete calls were classified as bat calls. For most species, a call sequence of several seconds in duration is required before identification can be made confidently, However, when calls were difficult to separate between the species, a species complex is identified that could include possible calls from two or more species. Bat recordings totalled 420 hours or 35 bat nights during the summer survey and similar hours during the autumn survey (total of 840 hours or 70 bat nights).

6.3. Limitations The identification of echolocation calls from microbats in south-eastern Australia is facilitated by the fact that many calls are species-specific. However, a limitation of the method is that not all species can be consistently or reliably identified. There is a large overlap in the call characteristics of some species and many calls are attributable only to species “complexes” and not to single species. A further limitation in the use of this technique is that it is not possible to census bats accurately. That is, the bat recorder unit may record 10 calls of a particular species but it is not known if this represents 10 individuals or one individual flying past 10 times. Therefore, it is not possible to determine utilisation rates as it is for birds.

Page | 80 S1 *#

S2 *#

S4 *#

S3 *#

S5 *#

Metres Legend 0 250 500 1,000

Study area Figure 12: Anabat sites Project: Kiata Wind Farm *# Anabat sites Client: Windlab

Project No.: 13079 Date: 23/06/2014 Created By: M. Ghasemi / C. Doughty ¯ Kiata Wind Farm – Flora and Fauna Assessment Report No. 13079 (4.2)

6.4. Results

6.4.1. Species recorded Seven bats species and three species complexes were recorded during the summer 2013 and autumn 2014 surveys from the five recording sites. The recorded species are listed in Table 12, including their conservation significance and sites at which they were recorded. Of the seven species identified in the Wind Farm Assessment Area six were widespread, common and secured species. One species, the Southern Bentwing Bat is considered as a threatened species on both the national EPBC and the Victorian FFG Acts. In addition to those bats identified to species level, three species complexes were recorded (Table 12). The common bat species were recorded from various sections of the Wind Farm Assessment Area and were not particularly restricted to certain habitats. However, there was a tendency for the bats to be concentrated in sites with more vegetation cover. Similarly, the distribution of bats among the sites was not different between the two seasons of the surveys. Long-eared bats are difficult to distinguish to species level, and hence are grouped under their generic name. The species that are likely to occur at the site are Nyctophilus geoffroyi and N. gouldi. The Freetail Bats are currently under taxonomic revision and a specific name is not yet available. The threatened Southern Bent-wing was recorded once from site number 4; however, the call of the species can vary from region to region and it is possible the call is from a common species attributed to the Southern Bent-wing bat call complex i.e. Little Forest Bat or Chocolate Wattled Bat. In light of the lack of historical records and suitable roosting habitat, there is a low likelihood of it being Southern Bent-wing bat. Due to the unusual nature of the call, it was sent to Lindy Lumsden from Arthur Rylah Institute, who examined the call through the Anascheme software that compares a call to a reference call (recorded call of a known species) of the species in question. The software determined there was a 75% probability of the call being attributed to SBB however Lindy could not definitely say whether it is a Southern Bent-wing bat call or not, as no reference bat calls from the Kiata region were available. This species is known to fly n 40 kilometres from the Naracoorte Cave to edge of the Little Desert National Park. The proposed Kiata Wind Farm is over 100 kilometres from the Naracoorte Caves, so it is out of the species range. Table 12: Bat species recorded

Record location Conservation Common name Scientific name status Summer Autumn common, White-striped Freetail Bat Tadarida australis all sites 1,2,4 widespread common, Southern Freetail Bat Mormopterus sp4 all sites all sites widespread common, Gould's Wattled Bat Chalinolobus gouldi all sites 2,4,5 widespread

Page | 82 Kiata Wind Farm – Flora and Fauna Assessment Report No. 13079 (4.2)

Record location Conservation Common name Scientific name status Summer Autumn common, Chocolate Wattled Bat Chalinolobus morio 3,4,5 2,4 widespread common, Little Forest Bat Vespadelus vulturnus 3,4,5 2,3,4 widespread Miniopterus schreibersii Southern Bentwing Bat – 4 Threatened bassanii common, Long-eared Bat Nyctophilus sp 3 2,4,5 widespread Species Complexes common, Mormopterus spp Mormopterus sp2 & sp4 2,4 4 widespread Gould’s Wattled Bat / Chalinolobus gouldi / common, 1,2,4,5 3.0 Freetail Bat sp Mormopterus sp. widespread Vespadelus darlingtoni / common, Forest Bat sp all sites 2,5 V. Regulus / V. vulturnus widespread

6.4.2. Bat activity A summary of relative bat activity expressed as the total number of calls per site and average calls per night for each species from the five survey sites are presented in Table 13. Details of the number of bat calls from each night of recording are provided in Appendix 9. Bat activity in the Wind Farm Assessment area was comparable to activity in other wind farms with similar habitats. The majority of species were common and widespread. The abundance of bat calls varied for each species and habitat type over the two surveys. Although records of bat calls cannot be taken as measure of absolute activity or abundance, it can be used in a very general sense as reflecting on bat activity and abundance. Bat activity was predominantly evenly distributed over the Wind Farm Assessment Area. However, activity was slightly higher at survey sites comprising more treed vegetation, particularly trees with hollows. Considering open pasture is the dominant habitat type in the Wind Farm Assessment Area and turbines are located in this habitat type, collision risk is assessed as being low. The daily activity of each of the bat species during the 14 autumn and summer surveys varied widely without any obvious trends. This was most likely due to specific site and weather conditions on a given day. Generally the weather during the survey periods was fine. The Southern Freetail Bat was the most common bat during both survey seasons. The number of calls recorded was significantly higher than that of the other species. The second most common species was the Forest Bat group (Little, Large and Southern Forest Bats). The remaining species were less common and their calls varied between the two seasons with Gould’s and Chocolate Wattled bats being more common in autumn than in summer. The White-striped Freetail Bat forages at RSA and is therefore a species of concern. Given the number of records were low compared with that at other wind farms in Australia impacts are expected to be low.

Page | 83 Kiata Wind Farm – Flora and Fauna Assessment Report No. 13079 (4.2)

The threatened Southern Bentwing Bat records were very rare with only one unconfirmed call recorded from site 4. Given that it is unlikely that this call belongs to the Southern Bentwing Bat, potential impacts to this species are considered to be low.

Page | 84 Kiata Wind Farm – Flora and Fauna Assessment Report No. 13079 (4.2)

Table 13: Summary of recorded bat calls

March 2014 Overall Bat species Site 1 Call/n. Site 2 Call/n. Site 3 Call/n. Site 4 Call/n. Site 5 Call/n. Total Av./n. White-striped Freetail Bat 5 0.7 7 1.0 0 0 4 0.6 0 0 16 2.3 Southern Freetail bat 42 6.0 80 11.4 40 5.7 74 10.6 93 13.3 329 47.0 Gould's Wattled Bat 2 0.3 45 6.4 6 0.9 24 3.4 11 1.6 88 12.6 Chocolate Wattled Bat 0 0 0 0 3 0.4 34 4.9 5 0.7 42 6.0 Little Forest Bat 0 0 2 0.3 3 0.4 5 0.7 0 0 10 1.4 Southern Bentwing Bat 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.1 0 0 1 0.1 S. Complexes Mormopterus spp 3 0.4 3 0.4 Gould’s Wattled Bat / Mormopterus sp 4 0.6 4 0.6 Long-eared Bat 12 1.7 1 0.1 2 0.3 15 2.1 Forest Bat sp 10 28 4.0 38 5.4 Summer 2013 White-striped Freetail Bat 3 0.4 1 0.1 4 0.6 12 1.7 5 0.7 25 3.6 Southern Freetail bat 29 4.1 48 6.9 57 8.1 73 10.4 79 11.3 286 40.9 Gould's Wattled Bat 0 0 1 0.1 0 0 5 0.7 3 0.4 9 1.3 Chocolate Wattled Bat 0 0 6 0.9 0 0 2 0.3 0 0 8 1.1 Little Forest Bat 0 0 0 0 1 0.1 2 0.3 8 1.1 11 1.6 Southern Bentwing Bat 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 S. Complexes Mormopterus spp 0 0 7 1.0 0 0 8 1.1 0 0 15 2.1 Gould’s Wattled Bat / Mormopterus sp 5 0.7 9 1.3 0 0 9 1.3 12 1.7 35 5.0 Long-eared Bat 0 0 0 0 5 0.7 0 0 0 0 5 0.7 Forest Bat sp 3 0.4 8 1.1 2 0.3 84 12.0 34 4.9 131 18.7

Page | 85 Kiata Wind Farm – Flora and Fauna Assessment Report No. 13079 (4.2)

7. IMPACTS AND REGULATORY IMPLICATIONS

7.1. Proposed development The proposed development will involve the construction of 13 wind turbines and associated infrastructure, including transmission cabling, substation and construction and maintenance access roads and tracks. The size of the development footprint is: . Thirteen turbine positions, including a 10 metre diameter base construction area and an adjacent 45 x 75 metre construction hardstand; . The 6 metre wide turbine access tracks within the Wind Farm Assessment Area and a one metre width track for cabling; . On-site electrical substation, . Site office, temporary batching plant, construction laydown area (111 metres x 160 metres); and . Local roads, which are wide enough already for construction traffic.

7.2. Design response to mitigate impacts on flora and fauna The project was designed to meet the strategies outlined in the Guidelines through the adoption of the following specific design measures.

7.2.1. Construction access area An initial overview constraints investigation of native vegetation in roadsides along Janetskis and Coker Dam Road and along Salisbury South Road was undertaken, in order to investigate which access track route was the most appropriate with regard to minimising impacts on flora and fauna values (BL&A 2013b). The assessment found that the east-west route utilising Janetskis and Coker Dam Road would result in lower impacts to flora and fauna habitat, when compared to the north- south route along Salisbury South Road. The east-west route is more appropriate for the following reasons: . Higher quality native vegetation and a greater number of listed ecological values were recorded along the north-south route, compared to the east-west route. . The east-west route currently supports a wider and better-formed road passage compared with the north-south route. The east-west route was therefore chosen for the Construction Access track to minimise impacts to flora and fauna. Thus, in August 2015 the construction access design layout was revised so that only a 5.4 kilometre section of Janetskis Road (between Salsbury South Road and Winiam East Road) would be used for construction access, and that the reduction in the upgraded width of that road from 10 metres to six metres would no longer entail any native vegetation removal along that section of road, which vastly reduces the overall area of native vegetation removal for the project.

Page | 86 Kiata Wind Farm – Flora and Fauna Assessment Report No. 13079 (4.2)

7.2.2. Wind farm The wind farm design layout was revised in August 2015 to further avoid native vegetation removal, in particular, native vegetation within areas mapped by DELWP as important habitat for threatened species. Further recommendations to mitigate impacts on flora and fauna are presented in Section 7.6.

7.3. Impacts of proposed development under state provisions Areas of removal of native vegetation and scattered trees are shown in Figures 2 – 7.

7.3.1. Remnant patch vegetation The current development footprint will result in the loss of a total of 0.036 hectares of remnant patch vegetation, which equates to 0.011 Biodiversity Equivalence Units (Table 14). Table 14 Removal from native vegetation patches Area of removal Habitat zone Biodiversity Hectares Habitat hectares Equivalence Units Q 0.006 0.003 0.002 R 0.019 0.009 0.007 HH 0.011 0.004 0.003 Total 0.036 0.016 0.011

7.3.2. Scattered trees Under the current wind farm and construction access design layout, no scattered trees will be removed (or deemed to be removed) as per the criteria in Appendix 5.

7.4. Native Vegetation Information Management system The online Native Vegetation Information Management system (NVIM) provided the information below required for a permit to remove native vegetation from the study area. These concepts are described in more detail in Section 3.1.2.

7.4.1. Risk–based assessment pathway for the site

Location Risk All three areas of proposed native vegetation removal are mapped as Location Risk A.

Extent Risk Under the current wind farm and construction access design layout, 0.036 hectares of remnant patch vegetation will be removed.

Risk-based assessment pathway Based on the criteria outlined in Section 3.1.2, the Guidelines stipulate that the proposal will be assessed under the low risk assessment pathway.

Page | 87 Kiata Wind Farm – Flora and Fauna Assessment Report No. 13079 (4.2)

7.4.2. Strategic biodiversity score The average weighted strategic biodiversity score across the native vegetation proposed to be removed was found to be 0.696 using NVIM.

7.4.3. Habitat importance Under the current wind farm and construction access design layout, no areas of habitat importance for threatened species (as mapped by DELWP) will be impacted.

7.5. Implications for the proposed development

7.5.1. Planning and Environment Act 1987

Local Provisions No provisions in the Local Planning Policy Framework of the Hindmarsh Planning Scheme including overlays relate to native flora and fauna.

State provisions A planning permit under Clause 52.17 of the Hindmarsh Planning Scheme would be required for the removal of any native vegetation.

Offset requirements Offsets required to compensate for the proposed removal of native vegetation from habitat zones have been determined using site-based habitat hectare scores and additional modelled data provided by NVIM via DELWP (Appendix 11). The calculated offset target is 0.016 general biodiversity equivalence units. Offsets must be located within the Wimmera Catchment Management Authority area or the Hindmarsh local government area and must have a minimum strategic biodiversity score of 0.557. Under the Guidelines all offsets must be secured prior to the removal of native vegetation. Offsets cannot occur within 150 metres of any dwellings and associated buildings on the subject land or adjoining properties covered by a BMO or within 50 metres of these structures on all other land. It is likely that the above offset target can be achieved within the study area (with the exception of road reserves) or be available over the counter through BushBroker.

7.5.2. Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

Listed flora species No flora species listed under the EPBC Act were recorded, or considered to potentially to occur, in the Wind Farm Assessment Area. Therefore it is unlikely that the proposed development would result in a significant impact on any EPBC Act listed flora values in that area. While Hairy-pod Wattle, listed under the EPBC Act, was recorded in the Construction Access Assessment Track Area (Figure 6), the amended construction impact footprint will not affect any of these plants, directly or indirectly. No other EPBC Act listed flora species were recorded, or considered to potentially to occur, in the Construction Access Assessment Track Area.

Page | 88 Kiata Wind Farm – Flora and Fauna Assessment Report No. 13079 (4.2)

Listed ecological communities No listed ecological communities were recorded in the assessment areas.

Listed fauna species The review of database searches identified 10 listed fauna species as occurring or potentially occurring in the search region (study area and surrounding 10 kilometres). This included six bird, one reptile, one frog, one fish and one invertebrate species. The likelihood of occurrence of these species in the study area based on the availability of suitable habitat is presented in Table 2. One of these fauna species – Malleefowl (Leipoa ocellata; Vulnerable) was deemed likely to occur in the study area. Although not predicted by the PMST, an unconfirmed record of the Southern Bentwing Bat (Miniopterus orianae bassanii; Critically Endangered) was recorded during bat surveys (detailed below). Details of the survey methods and results of all fauna assessments can be found in Attachment 2. A summary of the survey methodology and findings for Malleefowl and Southern Bentwing Bat are detailed below and potential impacts are discussed in the following section. No other EPBC Act-listed species are likely to occur on the project site or be affected by the project.

Malleefowl This species occurs in mallee habitat and may potentially wander onto roadsides adjacent to the project site whilst foraging or moving between larger habitat remnants. A population currently occurs in mallee woodland of the Conservation Volunteers Reserve to the west of the site. This reserve is located along Salisbury South Road, which flanks the western boundary of the wind farm. This property is protected by a cat proof fence.

Southern Bentwing Bat Seven bat species were recorded during the autumn and summer targeted survey. One unconfirmed record of the Southern Bent-wing Bat was made during the March 2014 survey. The record is considered unconfirmed because there is uncertainty that the call belonged to the Southern Bent-wing Bat as discussed below. The bat call attributed to the threatened Southern Bent-wing was recorded only once on the site. However, the call of the species can vary from region to region and it is possible the call is from a common species attributed to the Southern Bent-wing bat call complex i.e. Little Forest Bat or Chocolate Wattled Bat. Due to the unusual nature of the call, it was sent to Dr. Lindy Lumsden from Arthur Rylah Institute, who examined the call through the Anascheme software to compare a call to a reference call (recorded call of a known species) of the species in question. The software determined there was a 75% probability of the call being attributed to a Southern Bent-wing bat, however Dr. Lumsden could not definitely say whether it is a Southern Bent-wing bat call or not, as no reference bat calls from the Kiata region were available. The two maternity caves for the Southern Bentwing Bat are located at Warrnambool and Naracoorte. The National Recovery Plan for the Southern Bent-wing Bat Miniopterus schreibersii bassanii (Lumsden et al 2015) does not recently record the Southern Bentwing Bat as occurring north-east of the Naracoorte caves. In light of the lack of

Page | 89 Kiata Wind Farm – Flora and Fauna Assessment Report No. 13079 (4.2)

current records and suitable roosting habitat, there is a low likelihood of it being Southern Bent-wing bat. The proposed Kiata Wind Farm is over 100 kilometres from the Naracoorte Caves, so it is considered out of the species range. Given the Naracoorte roosting and maternity caves are over 100 kilometres from the project site, it is possible that the call was part of a bat species complex that includes the Southern Bentwing Bat and that the call actually belonged to another species. In the unlikely event that the call did belong to this species, it is likely to occur in very small numbers as individual vagrants. Nonetheless, a referral under the EPBC Act has been prepared and submitted to the Commonwealth Department of the Environment for potential impacts to the Southern Bentwing Bat.

7.5.3. Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988

Listed flora species No FFG Act listed threatened flora values are susceptible to impacts from the proposed development within the Wind Farm Assessment Area. The following flora families and genera, while not listed as threatened, are listed as protected throughout Victoria under the FFG Act:

Families . Asteraceae - Daisies - all species. . Epacridaceae - Heaths - all species . Orchidaceae - Orchids - all species

Genera . Acacia - Wattles – (excluding Acacia dealbata, Acacia decurrens, Acacia implexa, Acacia melanoxylon, Acacia paradoxa) . Baeckea - Baeckeas - all species . Boronia - Boronias - all species . Calytrix - Fringe-myrtles - all species . Correa - Correas - all species . Darwinia - Darwinias - all species . Eremophila - Emu-bushes - all species . Eriostemon - Wax-flowers - all species . Gompholobium - Wedge-peas - all species . Grevillea - Grevilleas - all species . Prostanthera - Mint-bushes - all species . Sphagnum - Sphagnum mosses - all species . Stylidium - Trigger-plants - all species . Thryptomene - Thryptomenes - all species

Page | 90 Kiata Wind Farm – Flora and Fauna Assessment Report No. 13079 (4.2)

. Thysanotus - Fringe-lilies - all species . Xanthorrhoea - Grass-trees - all species A licence would be required from DELWP to remove the abovementioned listed protected values from public land. Application forms for Protected Flora Licences or Permits can be obtained from DELWP offices or from their customer service centre. Families and genera that are in bold were recorded within the Construction Access Area (i.e. public land). However, due to alterations to the wind farm layout, it is not known which values occur within the three current impact areas (habitat zones Q, R and HH). With regards to orchids, nine un-identified individuals, or clusters, were recorded during targeted surveys adjacent Janetskis Road in habitat zones M and P. During the August 2015 field survey, the majority of these orchids were located and none were found to be at any risk from the proposed upgrade of Janetskis Road, as all plants were located within remnant mallee vegetation, well away from the construction impact area - the closest being approximately three meters away. No other orchids were recorded in the remainder of the Construction Access Area during the targeted surveys. With regard to other protected values in the impact areas, members of the following plants groups have been recorded in the wider affected habitat zones, or are likely to be present there: . Epacridaceae . Baeckea . Acacia . Calytrix These values should therefore be considered to occur in the impact areas and a licence be sought from DELWP for their removal.

Listed fauna species Four fauna species (Diamond Firetail, Hooded Robin, Malleefowl and Eltham Copper) were considered likely to occur in the study area. Malleefowl was discussed in the above section. Mallee woodland habitats exist throughout the study area and provide foraging habitat for threatened woodland bird species and reptiles. Road reserves comprising mallee habitat will be retained to provide linkages to surrounding mallee woodland habitats. Diamond Firetail and Hooded Robin are unlikely to be impacted by the proposed works in the Construction Access Track Assessment Area due to the availability of alternative habitat in close proximity to the study area. These birds mostly fly below RSA height and would be able to move to surrounding woodland habitats during the construction phase.

7.5.4. Environmental Effects Act 1978 A Referral to the state Minister for Planning is unlikely to be required under the EE Act for the aspects covered by the current investigation.

Page | 91 Kiata Wind Farm – Flora and Fauna Assessment Report No. 13079 (4.2)

7.5.5. Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning Threatened Species Advisory List The following flora species from the DELWP Advisory List of Rare and Threatened Plants in Victoria (DEPI 2005) were recorded in the Wind Farm and Construction Access Track Assessment Areas: . Wimmera Mallee-box . Thorny Bitter-pea It is unlikely that either of these species occur in the three impact areas. Three fauna species, Purple-gaped Honeyeater, Brown Treecreeper and Bearded Dragon, listed on the DELWP Advisory List of Threatened Vertebrate Fauna in Victoria (DEPI 2013c) were recorded during the current survey. In addition to the species discussed above under the EPBC Act 1999 and FFG Act 1988, nine listed fauna species are considered to have potential to occur regularly in the study area due to the presence of suitable habitat: . Black Falcon . Black-eared Cuckoo . Chestnut Quail-thrush . Emu . Little Button-quail . Spotted Harrier . Silky Mouse . Lace Goanna . Western Blue-tongued Lizard Under the Guidelines, potential impacts to DELWP listed flora and fauna species are addressed through the general-specific offset test and habitat importance mapping. Under the current in farm layout, no native vegetation will be impacted in areas mapped as important habitat for any threatened species.

7.6. Avoidance and Mitigation Measures The wind farm and construction access track layouts have been designed to minimise the areas of native vegetation habitat and habitat for fauna species, following the results of the preliminary investigations and subsequent field surveys. A very small area of native vegetation is currently proposed for removal for the project. Best-practice development and construction recommendations are provided in Appendix 6. These should be considered to ensure impacts are minimised to flora and/or fauna, and native vegetation.

Page | 92 Kiata Wind Farm – Flora and Fauna Assessment Report No. 13079 (4.2)

8. REFERENCES Allen GR, Midgley, SH and Allen M 2002. 'Field Guide to the Freshwater Fishes of Australia'. Western Australian Museum, Perth. Australian Wind Energy Association (AusWEA) 2005, Wind farms and Birds: Interim Standards for Risk Assessment, Report prepared by: Brett Lane and Associates and AIRA Professional Services, Report No. 2003.35(2.2), July 2005. Australian Wind Energy Association (AusWEA) 2006, Best Practice Guidelines – for implementation for wind energy projects in Australia. December 2006. Barker, WR 1999, 'Scrophulariaceae', in NG Walsh & TJ Entwisle (eds), Flora of Victoria - Volume 4: Dicotyledons Cornaceae to Asteraceae, Inkata Press, Melbourne, pp. 483-528. Brett Lane & Associates (BL&A) 2005, Wind Farms and Birds: Interim Standards for Risk Assessment, Australian Wind Energy Association, Melbourne. Brett Lane & Associates (BL&A) 2013a, Kiata Wind Farm, Fatal Flaw Investigation: Flora and Fauna, Report 13079 (1.0), Melbourne. Brett Lane & Associates (BL&A) 2013b, Kiata Wind Farm, Overview Roadside Investigation, Letter Report 13079 (3.0), Melbourne. Brooker, MIH & Slee, AV 1996, 'Eucalyptus', in NG Walsh & TJ Entwisle (eds), Flora of Victoria - Volume 3: Dicotyledons Winteraceae to Myrtaceae, Inkata Press, Melbourne, pp. 946-1009. Carter, O. 2011, National Recovery Plan for the Hairy-pod Wattle Acacia glandulicarpa, Department of Sustainability and Environment, East Melbourne, Victoria. Clean Energy Council 2013, Best Practice Guidelines for the Australian Wind Industry, Clean Energy Council of Australia, http://www.cleanenergycouncil.org.au/cec/technologies/wind/Best-Practice- Guidelines Clemann N and Gillespie GR 2004. 'Recovery Plan for Litoria raniformis 2004 – 2008. Department of Environment and Heritage, Canberra. Cogger, H 2000, Reptiles and Amphibians of Australia, Reed Books, Australia. Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) 2004, Threatened Biodiversity Survey and Assessment: Guidelines for Developments and Activities. Working Draft. NSW Department of Environment and Conservation, November 2004. Department of Environment and Primary Industries (DEPI) 2005, Advisory List of Rare or Threatened Plants in Victoria. Department of Environment and Primary Industries (then DSE), East Melbourne, Victoria. Department of Environment and Primary Industries (DEPI) 2010, Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 - Threatened List, , Department of Environment and Primary Industries (then DSE), East Melbourne, Victoria, viewed 15th July 2013,

Page | 93 Kiata Wind Farm – Flora and Fauna Assessment Report No. 13079 (4.2)

Industries (then DSE), East Melbourne, Victoria, viewed 15th July 2013, . Department of Environment and Primary Industries (DEPI) 2013b, Biodiversity Interactive Map 2.0. Department of Environment and Primary Industries (then DSE), East Melbourne, Victoria, viewed 15th July 2013, . Department of Environment and Primary Industries (DEPI) 2013c, Advisory List of Threatened Vertebrate Fauna in Victoria. Department of Environment and Primary Industries (then DSE), East Melbourne, Victoria. Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) 2015, Policy and Planning Guidelines for Development of Wind Energy Facilities in Victoria, Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, East Melbourne, Victoria. Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA) 2010, Survey guidelines for Australia’s threatened bats: Guidelines for detecting bats listed as threatened under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, DEWHA 2010. Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA) 2009, ‘Background Paper to EPBC Act Policy Statement 3.12 – Nationally Threatened Species and Ecological Communities. Significant Impact Guidelines for the Critically Endangered Golden Sun Moth (Synemon plana)’. Department of Natural Resources and Environment (DNRE) 1997, Victoria’s Biodiversity – Our Living Wealth. Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Victoria. Department of Natural Resources and Environment (DNRE) 2002, Victoria’s Native Vegetation Management – a Framework for Action, Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Victoria. Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) 2004, Native Vegetation: sustaining a living landscape, Vegetation Quality Assessment Manual – guidelines for applying the Habitat Hectare scoring method (Version 1.3). Department of Sustainability and Environment, East Melbourne, Victoria. Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) 2006, Ministerial Guidelines for Assessment of Environmental Effects under the Environment Effects Act 1978, Department of Sustainability and Environment, East Melbourne, Victoria. Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) 2007, Native Vegetation: Guide for assessment of Referred Planning Permit Applications. Department of Sustainability and Environment, East Melbourne, Victoria. Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) 2010, Native Vegetation – Technical information sheet: Degraded treeless vegetation, Best and remaining habitat determinations, Tree protection/retention requirements, Department of Sustainability and Environment, East Melbourne, Victoria. Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) 2011, Approved Survey Standards: Powerful Owl Ninox strenua, Version 1: 2 May 2011, Department of Sustainability and Environment, East Melbourne, Victoria. Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Populations and Communities (DSEWPC) 2013, Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, Protected Matters Search Tool. Department of Sustainability, Environment,

Page | 94 Kiata Wind Farm – Flora and Fauna Assessment Report No. 13079 (4.2)

Water, Populations and Communities, Canberra, viewed 15th July 2013, . Department of the Environment (DoE) 2013, Matters of National Environmental Significance: Significant Impact Guidelines 1.1, Department of Environment, Canberra. DEWR unpubl., Background and implementation information for the Red-tailed Black Cockatoo recovery plan. Department of Environment and Water, Canberra (via www.environment.gov.au, 9th Sept. 2013). Duncan M, Pritchard A. and Coates F 2009. National Recovery Plan for Fifteen Threatened Orchids in South-eastern Australia. Department of Sustainability and Environment, Victoria. Duretto, MF 1999, 'Sapindaceae', in NG Walsh & TJ Entwisle (eds), Flora of Victoria - Volume 4: Dicotyledons Cornaceae to Asteraceae, Inkata Press, Melbourne, pp. 139-149. Emison, WB, Beardsell, CM, Norman, FI Loyn, RH, & Bennett, SC 1987, Atlas of Victorian Birds. Department of Conservation, Forests and Lands & Royal Australasian Ornithologists Union, Melbourne. Entwisle, TJ 1994, 'Orchidaceae', in NG Walsh & TJ Entwisle (eds), Flora of Victoria - Volume 2: Ferns and Allied Plants, Conifers and Monocotyledons, Inkata Press, Melbourne, pp. 740-901. Entwisle, TJ 1996, 'Casuarinaceae', in NG Walsh & TJ Entwisle (eds), Flora of Victoria - Volume 3: Dicotyledons Winteraceae to Myrtaceae, Inkata Press, Melbourne, pp. 90-101. Entwisle, TJ 1996, 'Thymelaceae', in NG Walsh & TJ Entwisle (eds), Flora of Victoria - Volume 3: Dicotyledons Winteraceae to Myrtaceae, Inkata Press, Melbourne, pp. 912-930. Environment Protection and Heritage Council (EPHC) 2010, Draft National Wind Farm Development Guidelines, NEPC Service Corporation, Adelaide Higgins, PJ & Davies, SJJF (eds) 1996, Handbook of Australian, New Zealand & Antarctic Birds, Volume 3 Snipe to Pigeons, Oxford University Press, Melbourne. Higgins, PJ & Peter, JM (eds) 2002, Handbook of Australian, New Zealand and Antarctic Birds, Volume 6: Pardalotes to Shrike-thrushes, Oxford University Press, Melbourne. Higgins, PJ (ed) 1999, Handbook of Australian, New Zealand and Antarctic Birds, Volume 4: Parrots to Dollarbird, Oxford University Press, Melbourne. Higgins, PJ, Peter, JM & Steele, WK (eds) 2001, Handbook of Australian, New Zealand and Antarctic Birds, Volume 5: Tyrant-flycatchers to Chats, Oxford University Press, Melbourne. Jeanes J and Backhouse G 2006, Wild Orchids of Victoria, Australia, Aquatic Photographics, Seaford, Australia. Jeanes, JA 1996, 'Fabaceae', in NG Walsh & TJ Entwisle (eds), Flora of Victoria - Volume 3: Dicotyledons Winteraceae to Myrtaceae, Inkata Press, Melbourne, pp. 663- 829.

Page | 95 Kiata Wind Farm – Flora and Fauna Assessment Report No. 13079 (4.2)

Jeanes, JA 1999, 'Asteraceae', in NG Walsh & TJ Entwisle (eds), Flora of Victoria - Volume 4: Dicotyledons Cornaceae to Asteraceae, Inkata Press, Melbourne, pp. 652-984. Jones, DL 1994, 'Pterostylis', in NG Walsh & TJ Entwisle (eds), Flora of Victoria - Volume 2: Ferns and Allied Plants, Conifers and Monocotyledons, Inkata Press, Melbourne, pp. 798-831. Jones, DL 2006, A Complete Guide to Native Orchids of Australia Including the Island Territories, Reed New Holland, Sydney. Kennedy, SJ & Tzaros, CL 2005, ‘Foraging ecology of the Swift Parrot Lathamus discolor in the Box-ironbark forests and woodlands of Victoria’, Pacific Conservation Biology 11, 158 – 173. Lumsden L 2007, Guidelines for bat surveys in relation to wind farm developments. Department of Sustainability and Environment, Melbourne Marchant, S & Higgins, PJ (eds) 1990, Handbook of Australian, New Zealand and Antarctic Birds, Volume 1: Ratites to Ducks’, Oxford University Press, Melbourne. Marchant, S & Higgins, PJ (eds) 1993, Handbook of Australian, New Zealand and Antarctic Birds, Volume 2, Raptors to Lapwings, Oxford University Press, Melbourne. Menkhorst, P 1995, Mammals of Victoria, Oxford University Press, Melbourne. Naarding, J.A. 1983. Latham’s Snipe in Southern Australia. Wildlife Division Technical Report 83/1. Tasmania National Parks and Wildlife Service. Northern Grampians Shire Council 2008, Roadside Vegetation Management Plan, Northern Grampians Shire Council, Stawell. Robinson D and Johnson G 1997 ‘Bush Stone Curlew Burhinus grallarius. Flora and Fauna Guarantee Action Statement No 78’. Department of Sustainability and Environment, Melbourne. Tzaros, C 2005, Wildlife of the Box-Ironbark Country. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne. Victorian Biodiversity Atlas (VBA), Department of Environment and Primary Industries (then DSE), East Melbourne, Victoria, viewed 15th August 2013, . Viridans Biological Databases 2013, Victorian Flora Information System, Viridans Pty. Ltd., Bentleigh East, Victoria. Walsh, NG 1994, 'Poaceae', in NG Walsh & TJ Entwisle (eds), Flora of Victoria - Volume 2: Ferns and Allied Plants, Conifers and Monocotyledons, Inkata Press, Melbourne, pp. 356-627. Walsh, NG 1996, 'Amaranthaceae", in NG Walsh & TJ Entwisle (eds), Flora of Victoria - Volume 3: Dicotyledons Winteraceae to Myrtaceae, Inkata Press, Melbourne, pp. 199-215. Walsh, NG 1999, 'Polygalaceae', in NG Walsh & TJ Entwisle (eds), Flora of Victoria - Volume 4: Dicotyledons Cornaceae to Asteraceae, Inkata Press, Melbourne, pp. 130-137. Walsh, NG 1999, 'Senecio', in NG Walsh & TJ Entwisle (eds), Flora of Victoria - Volume 4: Dicotyledons Cornaceae to Asteraceae, Inkata Press, Melbourne, pp. 941-965.

Page | 96 Kiata Wind Farm – Flora and Fauna Assessment Report No. 13079 (4.2)

Weber, JZ & Entwisle, TJ 1994, 'Thelymitra', in NG Walsh & TJ Entwisle (eds), Flora of Victoria - Volume 2: Ferns and Allied Plants, Conifers and Monocotyledons, Inkata Press, Melbourne, pp. 840-854. Webster A 2003. "Action statement no. 39, Eltham Copper Butterfly Paralucia pyrodiscus lucida'. Department of Sustainability and Environment, Melbourne. Wilson, S & Swan G 2003, A Complete Guide to Reptiles of Australia. Reed New Holland, Sydney.

Page | 97 Kiata Wind Farm – Flora and Fauna Assessment Report No. 13079 (4.2)

Appendix 1: Detailed habitat hectare assessment results

Habitat Zone A B C D E F G H I EVC Number 882_62 882_62 882_62 93 93 93 93 93 93 Total area of Habitat Zone (ha) 0.017 0.146 0.026 0.251 0.020 0.048 0.051 0.082 1.373 Large Old Trees /10 0 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Tree Canopy Cover /5 0 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 5

Lack of Weeds /15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Understorey /25 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 10 Recruitment /10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Organic Matter /5 3 3 3 5 3 3 5 5 3

Site Condition Logs /5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 Site condition standardising multiplier* 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 Site Condition subtotal 8 12 10 13 11 11 13 13 29

Patch Size /10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Neighbourhood /10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Context

Landscape Landscape Distance to Core /5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Total Habitat Score /100 10 14 12 15 13 13 15 15 31 Habitat score out of 1 0.10 0.14 0.12 0.15 0.13 0.13 0.15 0.15 0.31 Habitat Hectares in Habitat Zone# 0.002 0.020 0.003 0.038 0.003 0.006 0.008 0.012 0.426 Area of Habitat Zone to be removed (ha) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Habitat Hectares to be removed# 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Page | 98 Kiata Wind Farm – Flora and Fauna Assessment Report No. 13079 (4.2)

Habitat Zone J K L M N O P Q R EVC Number 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 Total area of Habitat Zone (ha) 0.476 1.378 0.168 0.916 0.276 0.594 0.296 0.978 0.977 Large Old Trees /10 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Tree Canopy Cover /5 3 2 3 5 3 5 3 3 3

Lack of Weeds /15 4 0 0 7 4 7 11 4 11 Understorey /25 5 10 10 10 15 15 15 15 15 Recruitment /10 5 6 10 6 6 6 6 6 6 Organic Matter /5 5 5 5 3 5 5 5 5 5

Site Condition Logs /5 4 4 4 4 0 4 4 4 4 Site condition standardising multiplier* 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 Site Condition subtotal 29 30 36 39 37 47 49 41 49

Patch Size /10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Neighbourhood /10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Context

Landscape Landscape Distance to Core /5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Total Habitat Score /100 31 32 38 41 39 49 51 43 51 Habitat score out of 1 0.31 0.32 0.38 0.41 0.39 0.49 0.51 0.43 0.51 Habitat Hectares in Habitat Zone# 0.148 0.441 0.064 0.376 0.108 0.291 0.151 0.421 0.498 Area of Habitat Zone to be removed (ha) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.006 0.019 Habitat Hectares to be removed# 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.010

Page | 99 Kiata Wind Farm – Flora and Fauna Assessment Report No. 13079 (4.2)

Habitat Zone S T U V CC DD EE FF GG EVC Number 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 Total area of Habitat Zone (ha) 0.243 0.321 0.338 0.048 0.129 0.269 0.224 0.275 0.129 Large Old Trees /10 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Tree Canopy Cover /5 N/A 5 5 N/A 3 N/A N/A 3 2

Lack of Weeds /15 0 6 4 0 0 7 4 4 0 Understorey /25 5 15 10 5 10 15 10 5 5 dition Recruitment /10 5 6 6 5 6 10 6 6 0 Organic Matter /5 5 5 5 3 3 3 3 5 5

Site Con Logs /5 0 4 4 0 4 0 2 2 0 Site condition standardising multiplier* 1.36 1.12 1.12 1.36 1.12 1.36 1.36 1.12 1.12 Site Condition subtotal 20 46 38 18 29 48 34 28 13

Patch Size /10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Neighbourhood /10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Context

Landscape Landscape Distance to Core /5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Total Habitat Score /100 22 48 40 20 31 50 36 30 15 Habitat score out of 1 0.22 0.48 0.40 0.20 0.31 0.50 0.36 0.30 0.15 Habitat Hectares in Habitat Zone# 0.053 0.154 0.135 0.010 0.040 0.135 0.081 0.083 0.019 Area of Habitat Zone to be removed (ha) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Habitat Hectares to be removed# 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Page | 100 Kiata Wind Farm – Flora and Fauna Assessment Report No. 13079 (4.2)

Habitat Zone HH II JJ KK LL EVC Number 93 93 882_62 882_62 882_62 Total area of Habitat Zone (ha) 0.237 0.012 0.205 0.155 0.016 Large Old Trees /10 N/A N/A 0 5 0 Tree Canopy Cover /5 4 2 4 4 0

Lack of Weeds /15 0 0 0 0 0 Understorey /25 10 5 5 5 5 Recruitment /10 5 5 0 0 0 Organic Matter /5 3 3 3 3 3

Site Condition Logs /5 5 3 2 2 0 Site condition standardising multiplier* 1.12 1.12 1.00 1.00 1.00 Site Condition subtotal 30 20 14 19 8

Patch Size /10 1 1 1 1 1 Neighbourhood /10 0 0 0 0 0 Context

Landscape Landscape Distance to Core /5 1 1 1 1 1 Total Habitat Score /100 32 22 16 21 10 Habitat score out of 1 0.32 0.22 0.16 0.21 0.10 Habitat Hectares in Habitat Zone# 0.076 0.003 0.033 0.033 0.002 Area of Habitat Zone to be removed (ha) 0.011 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Habitat Hectares to be removed# 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 # = Habitat hectares = habitat score (out of 1) x area in zone; * = Modified approach to habitat scoring - refer to Table 14 of DSE’s Vegetation Quality Assessment Manual (DSE, 2004).

Page | 101 Kiata Wind Farm – Flora and Fauna Assessment Report No. 13079 (4.2)

Appendix 2: Flora species recorded in the study area and threatened species known (or with the potential) to occur in the search region

Conservation Status Origin Common name Scientific name Family Recorded FFG EPBC DELWP A herb Aphanes pentamera Rosaceae V Annual Buttercup Ranunculus sessiliflorus var. pilulifer Ranunculaceae k Annual Spear-grass Austrostipa macalpinei Poaceae r * Annual Veldt-grass Ehrharta longiflora Poaceae X p Bear's-ear Cymbonotus lawsonianus Asteraceae r Black-anther Flax-lily Dianella revoluta s.l. Hemerocallidaceae X p Bow-lip Spider-orchid Caladenia toxochila Orchidaceae L v * Bridal Creeper Asparagus asparagoides Asparagaceae X Broombush Melaleuca uncinata Myrtaceae X Buloke Allocasuarina luehmannii Casuarinaceae L X Bundled Peppercress Lepidium fasciculatum Brassicaceae k p Candy Spider-orchid Caladenia versicolor Orchidaceae L V e * Cape Weed Arctotheca calendula Asteraceae X p Coccid Emu-bush Eremophila gibbifolia Myoporaceae r p Common Beard-heath Leucopogon virgatus var. brevifolius Ericaceae r Common Early Nancy Wurmbea dioica Colchicaceae X Common Fringe-myrtle Calytrix tetragona Myrtaceae X Common Sour-bush Choretrum glomeratum Santalaceae r p Daphne Heath Brachyloma daphnoides Ericaceae X Desert Stringybark Eucalyptus arenacea Myrtaceae X Desert Yellow-gum Eucalyptus leucoxylon subsp. stephaniae Myrtaceae X Diosma Rice-flower Pimelea flava subsp. dichotoma Thymelaeaceae r Dodder Laurel Cassytha spp. Lauraceae X Downy Star-Bush Asterolasia phebalioides Rutaceae L V v Dumosa Mallee Eucalyptus dumosa Myrtaceae X

Page | 102 Kiata Wind Farm – Flora and Fauna Assessment Report No. 13079 (4.2)

Conservation Status Origin Common name Scientific name Family Recorded FFG EPBC DELWP Fine-hairy Spear-grass Austrostipa puberula Poaceae r p Flame Heath Astroloma conostephioides Ericaceae X p Floodplain Rustyhood Pterostylis cheraphila Orchidaceae L V v p Fringed Sun-orchid Thelymitra luteocilium Orchidaceae r p Globe-hood Sun-orchid Thelymitra X chasmogama Orchidaceae v p Gold-dust Wattle Acacia acinacea s.l. Mimosaceae X Golden Pennants Glischrocaryon behrii Haloragaceae X Green-leaf Mallee Eucalyptus phenax Myrtaceae r X Hairy Tails Ptilotus erubescens Amaranthaceae L p Hairy-pod Wattle Acacia glandulicarpa Mimosaceae L V v X Heath-myrtle Micromyrtus ciliata Myrtaceae X * Heron's bill Erodium spp. Geraniaceae X p Jumping-jack Wattle Acacia enterocarpa Mimosaceae L E e p Kite-leaf Grevillea Grevillea ilicifolia subsp. ilicifolia Proteaceae X Lily Arthropodium spp. Anthericaceae X Mallee Fireweed Senecio dolichocephalus Asteraceae k Mat-rush Lomandra spp. Xanthorrhoeaceae X p Metallic Sun-orchid Thelymitra epipactoides Orchidaceae L E e Milkmaids Burchardia umbellata Colchicaceae X Narrow-leaf Phebalium Phebalium stenophyllum Rutaceae r Narrow-lobe Grevillea Grevillea angustiloba subsp. angustiloba Proteaceae e p Nodding Beard-heath Leucopogon woodsii Ericaceae r * Onion Grass Romulea rosea Iridaceae X Oyster Bay Pine Callitris rhomboidea Cupressaceae X Parrot Pea Dillwynia Spp. Fabaceae X Prickly Arrowgrass Triglochin mucronata Juncaginaceae r

Page | 103 Kiata Wind Farm – Flora and Fauna Assessment Report No. 13079 (4.2)

Conservation Status Origin Common name Scientific name Family Recorded FFG EPBC DELWP Raspwort Gonocarpus spp. Haloragaceae X p Rigid Spider-orchid Caladenia tensa Orchidaceae E v * Rye Grass Lolium spp. Poaceae X p Sandhill Greenhood Orchid Pterostylis arenicola Orchidaceae V p Satin Daisy-bush Olearia minor Asteraceae r Scarlet Bottlebrush Callistemon rugulosus Myrtaceae X Scented Sundew Drosera aberrans Droseraceae X Silky Guinea-flower Hibbertia sericea s.l. Dilleniaceae X Slender Cypress-pine Callitris gracilis Cupressaceae X Slender-leaf Mallee Eucalyptus leptophylla Myrtaceae X Small Milkwort Comesperma polygaloides Polygalaceae L v Small-flower Mat-rush Lomandra micrantha s.l. Xanthorrhoeaceae X Small-leaf Goodenia Goodenia benthamiana Goodeniaceae r Small-leaved Clematis Clematis microphylla s.l. Ranunculaceae X * Soursob Oxalis pes-caprae Oxalidaceae X Spear Grass Austrostipa spp. Poaceae X Spiked Sour-bush Choretrum spicatum Santalaceae r Spiny Lignum Muehlenbeckia horrida subsp. horrida Polygonaceae r * Sugar Gum Eucalyptus cladocalyx Myrtaceae X Sundew Drosera spp. Droseraceae X p Swamp Diuris Diuris palustris Orchidaceae L v Swamp Sheoak Casuarina obesa Casuarinaceae L e Sword Sedge Lepidosperma spp. Cyperaceae X Thorny Bitter-pea Daviesia pectinata Fabaceae r X p Three-nerve Wattle Acacia trineura Mimosaceae v Three-wing Bluebush Maireana triptera Chenopodiaceae r

Page | 104 Kiata Wind Farm – Flora and Fauna Assessment Report No. 13079 (4.2)

Conservation Status Origin Common name Scientific name Family Recorded FFG EPBC DELWP Tiny Bog-sedge Schoenus nanus Cyperaceae r Umbrella Grass Digitaria divaricatissima var. divaricatissima Poaceae v Violet Honey-myrtle Melaleuca wilsonii Myrtaceae X Wallaby Grass Rytidosperma spp. Poaceae X p Wallowa Acacia euthycarpa Mimosaceae X p Western Leek-orchid Prasophyllum sp. aff. occidentale C Orchidaceae e Western Water-starwort Callitriche cyclocarpa Veronicaceae L V v Wimmera Mallee-box Eucalyptus wimmerensis Myrtaceae r X Wimmera Rice-flower Pimelea spinescens subsp. pubiflora Thymelaeaceae L C e Wimmera Scentbark Eucalyptus sabulosa Myrtaceae r p Wimmera Spider-orchid Caladenia lowanensis Orchidaceae L E e p Wimmera Wattle Acacia X grayana Mimosaceae r Winged Pepper-cress Lepidium monoplocoides Brassicaceae L E e Wire Grass Aristida spp. Poaceae X Yellow Mallee Eucalyptus costata Myrtaceae X

Page | 105 Kiata Wind Farm – Flora and Fauna Assessment Report No. 13079 (4.2)

Appendix 3: Scattered trees in the study area

Tree No. Common name DBH (cm) Retention/removal status

Wind Farm Assessment Area

1 Yellow Mallee 10 Retained

2 Desert Stringybark 10 Retained

3 Desert Stringybark 10 Retained

4 Slender-leaf Mallee 10 Retained

5 Slender-leaf Mallee 10 Retained

6 Desert Stringybark 10 Retained

7 Desert Stringybark 10 Retained

8 Desert Stringybark 10 Retained

9 Desert Stringybark 10 Retained

10 Slender-leaf Mallee 10 Retained

11 Desert Stringybark 10 Retained

12 Slender-leaf Mallee 10 Retained

13 Slender-leaf Mallee 10 Retained

14 Slender-leaf Mallee 10 Retained

15 Yellow Mallee 10 Retained

16 Slender-leaf Mallee 10 Retained

17 Yellow Mallee 10 Retained

18 Slender-leaf Mallee 10 Retained

19 Slender-leaf Mallee 10 Retained

20 Yellow Mallee 10 Retained

21 Slender-leaf Mallee 10 Retained

22 Slender-leaf Mallee 10 Retained

23 Slender-leaf Mallee 10 Retained

Kiata Wind Farm – Flora and Fauna Assessment Report No. 13079 (4.2)

Tree No. Common name DBH (cm) Retention/removal status

24 Slender-leaf Mallee 10 Retained

25 Yellow Mallee 10 Retained

26 Yellow Mallee 10 Retained

27 Slender-leaf Mallee 10 Retained

28 Desert Stringybark 10 Retained

29 Desert Stringybark 10 Retained

30 Slender-leaf Mallee 10 Retained

31 Desert Stringybark 10 Retained

32 Slender-leaf Mallee 10 Retained

33 Desert Stringybark 10 Retained

34 Desert Stringybark 10 Retained

35 Slender-leaf Mallee 10 Retained

36 Slender-leaf Mallee 10 Retained

37 Slender-leaf Mallee 10 Retained

38 Slender-leaf Mallee 10 Retained

39 Slender-leaf Mallee 10 Retained

66 Narrow-leaf Red Mallee 10 Retained

Construction Access Track Assessment Area

57 Dumosa Mallee 15 Retained

58 Dumosa Mallee 15 Retained

59 Square-fruit Mallee 5 Retained

60 Dumosa Mallee 10 Retained

61 Dumosa Mallee 10 Retained

62 Square-fruit Mallee 10 Retained

63 Dumosa Mallee 10 Retained

Kiata Wind Farm – Flora and Fauna Assessment Report No. 13079 (4.2)

Tree No. Common name DBH (cm) Retention/removal status

64 Square-fruit Mallee 10 Retained

65 Narrow-leaf Red Mallee 10 Retained

67 Wimmera Mallee Box 10 Retained

68 Wimmera Mallee Box 10 Retained

69 Yellow Mallee 10 Retained

70 Dumosa Mallee 10 Retained

71 Dumosa Mallee 10 Retained

72 Square-fruit Mallee 10 Retained

73 Dumosa Mallee 10 Retained

74 Dumosa Mallee 15 Retained

75 Desert Yellow-gum 40 Retained

76 Desert Yellow-gum 50 Retained

77 Desert Yellow-gum 70 Retained

Notes: DBH = Diameter at breast height (130 cm from the ground)

Kiata Wind Farm – Flora and Fauna Assessment Report No. 13079 (4.2)

Appendix 4: Vertebrate terrestrial fauna species that occur or are likely to occur in the study area

Fatal Flaw Common name Scientific name Fauna Assessment Study Birds Australasian Pipit Anthus novaeseelandiae X Australian Hobby Falco longipennis Australian Magpie Gymnorhina tibicen X X Australian Owlet-nightjar Aegotheles cristatus Australian Raven Corvus coronoides X Australian Shelduck Tadorna tadornoides X X Australian White Ibis Threskiornis molucca Australian Wood Duck Chenonetta jubata X X Black Falcon Falco subniger Black Kite Milvus migrans Black-eared Cuckoo Chrysococcyx osculans Black-faced Cuckoo-shrike Coracina novaehollandiae Black-faced Woodswallow Artamus cinereus Black-shouldered Kite Elanus axillaris X Black-tailed Native-hen Gallinula ventralis Brown Falcon Falco berigora X Brown Goshawk Accipiter fasciatus Brown Songlark Cincloramphus cruralis X Brown Thornbill Acanthiza pusilla Brown Treecreeper (south-eastern ssp.) Climacteris picumnus victoriae X Brown-headed Honeyeater Melithreptus brevirostris X

Page | 109 Kiata Wind Farm – Flora and Fauna Assessment Report No. 13079 (4.2)

Fatal Flaw Common name Scientific name Fauna Assessment Study Brush Bronzewing Phaps elegans Buff-rumped Thornbill Acanthiza reguloides Collared Sparrowhawk Accipiter cirrhocephalus Common Blackbird Turdus merula Common Bronzewing Phaps chalcoptera X X Common Starling Sturnus vulgaris X Crested Pigeon Ocyphaps lophotes X X Crested Shrike-tit Falcunculus frontatus Diamond Firetail Stagonopleura guttata Dusky Moorhen Gallinula tenebrosa Dusky Woodswallow Artamus cyanopterus Eastern Rosella Platycercus eximius X Eastern Spinebill Acanthorhynchus tenuirostris Eastern Yellow Robin Eopsaltria australis Emu Dromaius novaehollandiae Eurasian Coot Fulica atra European Goldfinch Carduelis carduelis European Skylark Alauda arvensis Fan-tailed Cuckoo Cacomantis flabelliformis Flame Robin Petroica phoenicea Fork-tailed Swift Apus pacificus Fuscous Honeyeater Lichenostomus fuscus Galah Eolophus roseicapilla X X Gilbert's Whistler Pachycephala inornata

Page | 110 Kiata Wind Farm – Flora and Fauna Assessment Report No. 13079 (4.2)

Fatal Flaw Common name Scientific name Fauna Assessment Study Golden Whistler Pachycephala pectoralis X X Grey Butcherbird Cracticus torquatus Grey Currawong Strepera versicolor X X Grey Fantail Rhipidura albiscarpa X Grey Shrike-thrush Colluricincla harmonica X Grey Teal Anas gracilis Horsfield's Bronze-Cuckoo Chrysococcyx basalis X House Sparrow Passer domesticus Inland Thornbill Acanthiza apicalis Jacky Winter Microeca fascinans X Laughing Kookaburra Dacelo novaeguineae Little Button-quail Turnix velox Little Corella Cacatua sanguinea Little Eagle Hieraaetus morphnoides Little Grassbird Megalurus gramineus Little Lorikeet Glossopsitta pusilla Little Raven Corvus mellori X X Little Wattlebird Anthochaera chrysoptera Long-billed Corella Cacatua tenuirostris Magpie-lark Grallina cyanoleuca Mallee Ringneck Barnardius zonarius barnardi X Malleefowl Leipoa ocellata Masked Lapwing Vanellus miles X Masked Woodswallow Artamus personatus

Page | 111 Kiata Wind Farm – Flora and Fauna Assessment Report No. 13079 (4.2)

Fatal Flaw Common name Scientific name Fauna Assessment Study Mistletoebird Dicaeum hirundinaceum Musk Lorikeet Glossopsitta concinna Nankeen Kestrel Falco cenchroides New Holland Honeyeater Phylidonyris novaehollandiae X X Noisy Miner Manorina melanocephala X X Olive-backed Oriole Oriolus sagittatus Orange Chat Epthianura aurifrons Pacific Barn Owl Tyto javanica Pacific Black Duck Anas superciliosa X Painted Button-quail Turnix varia Pallid Cuckoo Cuculus pallidus Peaceful Dove Geopelia striata Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus Pied Currawong Strepera graculina Pied Honeyeater Certhionyx variegatus Purple Swamphen Porphyrio porphyrio Purple-crowned Lorikeet Glossopsitta porphyrocephala Purple-gaped Honeyeater Lichenostomus cratitius Rainbow Bee-eater Merops ornatus Rainbow Lorikeet Trichoglossus haematodus Red Wattlebird Anthochaera carunculata X Red-capped Robin Petroica goodenovii Red-rumped Parrot Psephotus haematonotus X Restless Flycatcher Myiagra inquieta

Page | 112 Kiata Wind Farm – Flora and Fauna Assessment Report No. 13079 (4.2)

Fatal Flaw Common name Scientific name Fauna Assessment Study Rock Dove Columba livia Rufous Songlark Cincloramphus mathewsi X Rufous Whistler Pachycephala rufiventris X Scarlet Robin Petroica boodang Shining Bronze-Cuckoo Chrysococcyx lucidus Shy Heathwren Calamanthus cautus Silvereye Zosterops lateralis Singing Honeyeater Lichenostomus virescens Southern Boobook Ninox novaeseelandiae Southern Scrub-robin Drymodes brunneopygia Southern Whiteface Aphelocephala leucopsis Spiny-cheeked Honeyeater Acanthagenys rufogularis X X Spotted Harrier Circus assimilis Spotted Nightjar Eurostopodus argus Spotted Pardalote Pardalotus punctatus Straw-necked Ibis Threskiornis spinicollis Striated Fieldwren Calamanthus fuliginosus Striated Pardalote Pardalotus striatus X Striated Thornbill Acanthiza lineata Striped Honeyeater Plectorhyncha lanceolata Stubble Quail Coturnix pectoralis X X Sulphur-crested Cockatoo Cacatua galerita Superb Fairy-wren Malurus cyaneus X X Swamp Harrier Circus approximans

Page | 113 Kiata Wind Farm – Flora and Fauna Assessment Report No. 13079 (4.2)

Fatal Flaw Common name Scientific name Fauna Assessment Study Tawny Frogmouth Podargus strigoides Tawny-crowned Honeyeater Phylidonyris melanops Tree Martin Petrochelidon nigricans X Variegated Fairy-wren Malurus lamberti X Wedge-tailed Eagle Aquila audax X Welcome Swallow Petrochelidon neoxena X X Weebill Smicrornis brevirostris X Western Gerygone Gerygone fusca Whistling Kite Haliastur sphenurus White-backed Swallow Cheramoeca leucosternus White-browed Babbler Pomatostomus superciliosus X X White-browed Woodswallow Artamus superciliosus White-eared Honeyeater Lichenostomus leucotis X White-faced Heron Egretta novaehollandiae White-fronted Chat Epthianura albifrons White-fronted Honeyeater Phylidonyris albifrons White-naped Honeyeater Melithreptus lunatus White-necked Heron Ardea pacifica White-plumed Honeyeater Lichenostomus penicillatus X White-throated Gerygone Gerygone olivacea White-throated Needletail Hirundapus caudacutus White-throated Treecreeper Cormobates leucophaeus White-winged Chough Corcorax melanorhamphos X White-winged Triller Lalage sueurii

Page | 114 Kiata Wind Farm – Flora and Fauna Assessment Report No. 13079 (4.2)

Fatal Flaw Common name Scientific name Fauna Assessment Study Willie Wagtail Rhipidura leucophrys X X Yellow Thornbill Acanthiza nana X X Yellow-billed Spoonbill Platalea flavipes Yellow-faced Honeyeater Lichenostomus chrysops Yellow-plumed Honeyeater Lichenostomus ornatus Yellow-rumped Thornbill Acanthiza chrysorrhoa X X Yellow-tailed Black-Cockatoo Calyptorhynchus funereus Yellow-throated Miner Manorina flavigula Zebra Finch Taeniopygia guttata Mammals Black Wallaby Wallabia bicolor Common Brushtail Possum Trichosurus vulpecula European Hare Lepus europeaus X European Rabbit Oryctolagus cuniculus X X Fat-tailed Dunnart Sminthopsis crassicaudata Gould's Wattled Bat Chalinolobus gouldii House Mouse Mus musculus Red Fox Vulpes vulpes X Short-beaked Echidna Tachyglossus aculeatus Western Grey Kangaroo Macropus fuliginosus X X White-striped Freetail Bat Tadarida australis Reptiles Bearded Dragon Pogona barbata X Bougainville's Skink Lerista bougainvillii

Page | 115 Kiata Wind Farm – Flora and Fauna Assessment Report No. 13079 (4.2)

Fatal Flaw Common name Scientific name Fauna Assessment Study Boulenger's Skink Morethia boulengeri Delicate Skink Lampropholis delicata Eastern Brown Snake Pseudonaja textilis Eastern Striped Skink Ctenotus orientalis Grey's Skink Menetia greyii Lace Goanna Varanus varius Large Striped Skink Ctenotus robustus Marbled Gecko Christinus marmoratus Norris's Dragon Amphibolurus norrisi Obscure Skink Morethia obscura Olive Legless Lizard Delma inornata Painted Dragon Ctenophorus pictus Peters's Blind Snake Ramphotyphlops bituberculatus Sand Goanna Varanus gouldii Stumpy-tailed Lizard Tiliqua rugosa X Western Blue-tongued Lizard Tiliqua occipitalis Frogs Common Froglet Crinia signifera Common Spadefoot Toad Neobatrachus sudelli Mallee Spadefoot Toad Neobatrachus pictus Southern Bullfrog Limnodynastes dumerilii Spotted Marsh Frog Limnodynastes tasmaniensis X X * introduced species Notes: EPBC – Status under EPBC Act; FFG – Status under FFG Act; DELWP – Status from DELWP Advisory List; CE – Critically endangered; EN – Endangered; VU– Vulnerable; NT – Lower risk near threatened; DD - data deficient; L – Listed under FFG Act; X = recorded

Page | 116 Kiata Wind Farm – Flora and Fauna Assessment Report No. 13079 (4.2)

Appendix 5: Guidelines for impacts to trees DELWP guidelines (DSE 2010) provide definitions regarding tree retention and losses. These are outlined below, and it is considered that they should be applied to scattered trees and edges of treed remnant patches when determining the proximity of development to retained native vegetation. Any tree is deemed lost when: . Earthworks encroach on more than 10% of its Tree Retention Zone (TRZ) during construction activities. Tree Retention Zones: o Are defined as the area from the respective tree within a radius of 12 times the DBH of the respective tree, including the area above and below ground, notwithstanding it can be a minimum of two metres and a maximum of 15 metres radius around the respective tree o Extend at least one metre outside the crown projection, if the tree is a Tree Fern (DSE 2010) o Must be securely fenced off with high-visibility temporary fencing and appropriately signed as “Tree Retention Zone – keep out” . Directional drilling within its TRZ occurs at less than 600 millimetres below the surface, or is not confirmed to be appropriate (including considerations concerning bore hole width) by a qualified arborist . Lopping removes more than 1/3 of its crown . Its trunk is damaged . It is likely to pose a risk to safety or property as a result of the proposed development/works (e.g. a dwelling is proposed to be constructed near a tree that a qualified arborist has deemed likely to pose a risk to the dwelling)

Page | 117 Kiata Wind Farm – Flora and Fauna Assessment Report No. 13079 (4.2)

Appendix 6: General development recommendations Consideration should be given to including the measures described below in a construction and operational environmental management plan for the project. . In accordance with the Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994, noxious weed species recorded in the study area, must be controlled using precision methods that minimise off-target kills (e.g. spot spraying). This method of control will be implemented throughout the project. . The proposed development should be designed in a way that does not alter the site’s hydrology in areas that support native vegetation . Construction contractors should be inducted into an environmental management program for construction works. . All environmental controls should be checked for compliance on a regular basis. . Where possible it is recommended that disturbance to roadside vegetation is minimised to maintain important habitat linkages in the wider region. Construction phase: . Environmentally sensitive areas including retained native vegetation should be securely fenced at two metres from the perimeter and appropriately signed. All machinery and earthworks are to be excluded from these areas. . Tree Retention Zones (TRZs) are to be established and maintained around all retained scattered trees for the duration of construction activities. Construction and construction-related activities are to be excluded from the TRZ. Encroachment into the TRZ (including earthworks such as trenching for pipelines or cabling, etc. that disturb the root zone) must not affect more than 10% of the total area of the TRZ. Directional drilling must not be undertaken within TRZs, unless: o The directional drilling bore is at least 600 millimetres deep; AND o A qualified arborist has confirmed in writing that the radius of the bore will not significantly damage the tree causing it to be lost in the future; AND o A qualified arborist has confirmed in writing that the use of directional drilling is appropriate for the specific project/works. . Any tree pruning should be undertaken by an experienced arborist to prevent disease or unnecessary damage to the tree or disturbance to understorey vegetation during tree trimming. . Any stockpiling should occur outside of environmentally sensitive areas. . All machinery should enter and exit works sites along defined routes that do not impact on native vegetation or cause soil disturbance and weed spread. . All machinery brought on site should be weed and pathogen free. This is important for environmental and agricultural protection. Soil borne pathogens such as Cinnamon Fungus and livestock diseases can be easily transported by machinery. . All machinery wash down, lay down and personnel rest areas should be defined (fenced) and located in disturbed areas. . All works must be undertaken in a manner that will minimise soil erosion and adhere to Construction Techniques for Sediment Pollution Control (EPAV 1991).

Page | 118 Kiata Wind Farm – Flora and Fauna Assessment Report No. 13079 (4.2)

Post-construction phase: . Weed control, by an experienced bush regenerator, is to be carried out along disturbed areas after construction to control any weed outbreaks in bushland or wetland areas.

Page | 119 Appendix 7: Raw data for Bird Utilisation Surveys at impact sites Point 1 Point 2 Point 3 Point 4 Point 5 Point 6 Point 7 <30 metres RSA <30 metres <30 metres RSA <30 metres RSA <30 metres RSA <30 metres <30 metres RSA Species/Replicate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 5 6 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 5 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 6 Australasian Pipit 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 7 1 1 3 4 2 1 Australian Hobby 1 Australian Magpie 4 4 11 5 8 6 15 3 9 5 12 9 17 16 16 17 7 6 15 3 12 21 4 1 2 4 6 2 4 4 9 1 4 2 2 3 3 2 3 4 5 7 8 5 7 3 1 5 6 Australian Pipit 1 Australian Raven 11 2 5 5 Banded Plover Crested Pigeon 1 1 Eastern Rosella 2 Galah 8 20 4 3 2 Grey Currawong 1 Little Raven 1 7 10 2 2 2 10 3 2 4 1 15 15 11 3 2 9 14 5 1 1 16 8 2 New Holland Honeyeater 1 Noisy Miner Purple-gaped Honeyeater Red Wattlebird 2 Red-capped Robin 1 Singing Honeyeater 1 Spiny-cheeked Honeyeater 1 Tree Martin 1 Wedge-tailed Eagle 1 White-browed Babbler 5 White-eared Honeyeater 1 Willie Wagtail 1 1 1 Yellow Thornbill 2 Yellow-rumped Thornbill 5 6 2 Zebra Finch 4 Grand Total 12 4 13 12 18 6 17 5 2 12 7 14 31 18 27 16 17 7 6 15 3 14 21 7 1 3 2 1 5 2 7 4 3 11 15 19 16 9 8 6 11 17 1 1 11 16 19 3 4 4 32 21 7 9 5 10 3 4 8 6 4 RSA = Rotor Swept Area Kiata Wind Farm – Flora and Fauna Assessment Report No. 13079 (4.2)

Appendix 8: Bird utilisation survey - raw data at reference sites

Reference 1 Reference 2

<30 metres RSA <30 metres RSA Species/Replicate 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 4 Australasian Pipit 3 2 Australian Hobby Australian Magpie 15 11 4 14 22 42 2 6 7 4 11 7 5 5 Australian Pipit Australian Raven Banded Plover 6 6 Crested Pigeon Eastern Rosella 1 Galah 2 13 Grey Currawong Little Raven 2 New Holland Honeyeater 1 1 Noisy Miner 1 Purple-gaped Honeyeater 1 Red Wattlebird 1 Red-capped Robin Singing Honeyeater 1 Spiny-cheeked Honeyeater Tree Martin Wedge-tailed Eagle 1 White-browed Babbler White-eared Honeyeater 1 1 1 Willie Wagtail 1 1 Yellow Thornbill 1 Yellow-rumped Thornbill 3 12 11 5 Zebra Finch Grand Total 15 11 10 17 30 57 4 1 3 7 21 17 12 14 8 2 5

RSA = 30 – 200 metres.

Page | 121 Kiata Wind Farm – Flora and Fauna Assessment Report No. 13079 (4.2)

Appendix 9: Bat call records from five sites at Kiata Wind Farm Summer Survey 2013

Study site Site 1 Kiata 12/12/1 13/12/1 14/12/1 15/12/1 16/12/1 17/12/1 18/12/1 Species 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Total Number of files 1 20 3 2 6 6 7 45 Identified to species level 1 18 2 0 0 6 5 32 100.00 90.00 66.67 100.00 71.43 61.16 Calls positively identified % % % 0.00% 0.00% % % % White-striped Freetail Bat 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 Tadarida australis Southern Freetail bat 0 16 2 0 0 6 5 29 Mormopterus sp4 Eastern Freetail Bat 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mormopterus sp2 Gould's Wattled Bat 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chalinolobus gouldi Chocolate Wattled Bat 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chalinolobus morio Southern Bent-wing Bat 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Miniopterus schrebersii bassanii Identified to call complex 0 2 1 1 3 0 1 8 10.00 33.33 50.00 50.00 14.29 22.52 Percentage 0.00% % % % % 0.00% % % Mormopterus spp 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mormopterus sp2 & sp4 Goulds Watted Bat / Mormopterus sp 0 0 0 1 3 0 1 5 Chalinolobus gouldi / Mormopterus sp2 & sp4 Long-eared Bat 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nyctophilus sp Forest Bat sp 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 3 Vespadelus darlingtoni / V. Regulus / V. vulturnus

Unidentified (poor quality) 1 3 1 5 50.00 50.00 14.29 16.33 Percentage of calls 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% % % 0.00% % %

Page | 122 Kiata Wind Farm – Flora and Fauna Assessment Report No. 13079 (4.2)

Study site Site 2 Kiata 12/12/1 13/12/1 14/12/1 15/12/1 16/12/1 17/12/1 18/12/1 Species 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Total Number of files 30 30 3 5 5 12 11 96 Identified to species level 25 21 0 1 3 5 1 56 83.33 70.00 20.00 60.00 41.67 40.58 Calls positively identified % % 0.00% % % % 9.09% % White-striped Freetail Bat 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Tadarida australis Southern Freetail bat 25 14 0 0 3 5 1 48 Mormopterus sp4 Gould's Wattled Bat 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Chalinolobus gouldi Chocolate Wattled Bat 0 5 0 1 0 0 0 6 Chalinolobus morio Southern Bent-wing Bat 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Miniopterus schrebersii bassanii Identified to call complex 1 7 2 2 1 2 9 24 23.33 66.67 40.00 20.00 16.67 81.82 35.97 Percentage 3.33% % % % % % % % Mormopterus spp 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 Mormopterus sp2 & sp4 Goulds Watted Bat / Mormopterus sp 0 1 0 0 0 1 7 9 Chalinolobus gouldi / Mormopterus sp2 & sp4 Long-eared Bat 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nyctophilus sp Forest Bat sp 0 5 1 1 0 0 1 8 Vespadelus darlingtoni / V. Regulus / V. vulturnus Unidentified (poor quality) 4 2 1 2 1 5 1 16 13.33 33.33 40.00 20.00 41.67 23.44 Percentage of calls % 6.67% % % % % 9.09% %

Page | 123 Kiata Wind Farm – Flora and Fauna Assessment Report No. 13079 (4.2)

Study site Site 3 Kiata 12/12/1 13/12/1 14/12/1 15/12/1 16/12/1 17/12/1 18/12/1 Species 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Total Number of files 28 18 10 5 9 12 9 91 Identified to species level 24 11 3 2 5 12 5 62 85.71 61.11 30.00 40.00 55.56 100.00 55.56 61.13 Calls positively identified % % % % % % % % White-striped Freetail Bat 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 4 Southern Freetail bat 23 9 3 2 4 11 5 57 Mormopterus sp4 Gould's Wattled Bat 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chalinolobus gouldi Chocolate Wattled Bat 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chalinolobus morio Southern Bent-wing Bat 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Miniopterus schrebersii bassanii Little Forest Bat 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Identified to call complex 0 0 4 0 0 0 3 7 40.00 33.33 10.48 Percentage 0.00% 0.00% % 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% % % Mormopterus spp 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mormopterus sp2 & sp4 Gould’s Wattled Bat / Mormopterus sp 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chalinolobus gouldi / Mormopterus sp2 & sp4 Long-eared Bat 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 5 Nyctophilus sp Forest Bat sp 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 Vespadelus darlingtoni / V. Regulus / V. vulturnus Unidentified (poor quality) 4 7 3 3 4 0 1 22 14.29 38.89 30.00 60.00 44.44 11.11 28.39 Percentage of calls % % % % % 0.00% % %

Page | 124 Kiata Wind Farm – Flora and Fauna Assessment Report No. 13079 (4.2)

Study site Site 4 Kiata 12/12/ 13/12/ 14/12/ 15/12/ 16/12/ 17/12/ 18/12/ 19/12/ Species 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 Total Number of files 57 58 10 98 11 16 9 2 261 Identified to species level 38 43 1 7 3 6 3 1 102 66.67 74.14 10.00 27.27 37.50 33.33 50.00 38.26 Calls positively identified % % % 7.14% % % % % % White-striped Freetail Bat 0 9 0 0 0 3 0 0 12 Tadarida australis Southern Freetail bat 35 29 0 4 2 2 1 0 73 Mormopterus sp4 Gould's Wattled Bat 1 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 5 Chalinolobus gouldi Chocolate Wattled Bat 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 Chalinolobus morio Southern Bent-wing Bat 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Miniopterus schrebersii bassanii Little Forest Bat 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 Identified to call complex 7 5 1 82 3 1 1 1 101 12.28 10.00 83.67 27.27 11.11 50.00 26.15 Percentage % 8.62% % % % 6.25% % % % Mormopterus spp 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 Mormopterus sp2 & sp4 Goulds Watted Bat / Mormopterus sp 6 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 9 Chalinolobus gouldi / Mormopterus sp2 & sp4 Long-eared Bat 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nyctophilus sp Forest Bat sp 0 3 0 81 0 0 0 0 84 Vespadelus darlingtoni / V. Regulus / V. vulturnus Unidentified (poor quality) 12 10 8 9 5 9 5 0 58 21.05 17.24 80.00 45.45 56.25 55.56 35.59 Percentage of calls % % % 9.18% % % % 0.00% %

Page | 125 Kiata Wind Farm – Flora and Fauna Assessment Report No. 13079 (4.2)

Study site Site 5 Kiata 12/12/1 13/12/1 14/12/1 15/12/1 16/12/1 17/12/1 18/12/1 Species 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Total Number of files 38 42 8 10 8 17 58 181 Identified to species level 27 30 4 7 5 15 7 95 71.05 71.43 50.00 70.00 62.50 88.24 12.07 60.76 Calls positively identified % % % % % % % % White-striped Freetail Bat 0 1 0 0 0 2 2 5 Tadarida australis Southern Freetail bat 27 29 3 1 4 10 5 79 Mormopterus sp4 Gould's Wattled Bat 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 Chalinolobus gouldi Chocolate Wattled Bat 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chalinolobus morio Southern Bent-wing Bat 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Miniopterus schrebersii bassanii Little Forest Bat 0 0 1 6 1 0 0 8 Identified to call complex 3 6 1 2 2 1 31 46 14.29 12.50 20.00 25.00 53.45 19.86 Percentage 7.89% % % % % 5.88% % % Mormopterus spp 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mormopterus sp2 & sp4 Goulds Watted Bat / Mormopterus sp 3 3 0 2 1 0 3 12 Chalinolobus gouldi / Mormopterus sp2 & sp4 Long-eared Bat 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nyctophilus sp Forest Bat sp 0 3 1 0 1 1 28 34 Vespadelus darlingtoni / V. Regulus / V. vulturnus Unidentified (poor quality) 8 6 3 1 1 1 20 40 21.05 14.29 37.50 10.00 12.50 34.48 19.39 Percentage of calls % % % % % 5.88% % %

Page | 126 Kiata Wind Farm – Flora and Fauna Assessment Report No. 13079 (4.2)

Autumn Surveys 2014 Site Study site 1 13/3/1 14/3/1 17/3/1 19/3/1 Species 4 4 15/3/14 16/3/14 4 18/3/14 4 Total Number of files 19 11 1 4 21 1 3 60 Identified to species level 18 9 0 0 20 0 2 49 94.74 81.82 95.24 66.67 48.35 Calls positively identified % % 0.00% 0.00% % 0.00% % % White-striped Freetail Bat 1 3 0 0 0 0 1 5 Tadarida australis Southern Freetail bat 17 4 0 0 20 0 1 42 Mormopterus sp4 Gould's Wattled Bat 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 Chalinolobus gouldi Chocolate Wattled Bat 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chalinolobus morio Southern Bent-wing Bat 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Miniopterus schrebersii bassanii Little Forest Bat 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vespadelus vulturnus Identified to call complex 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percentage 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Mormopterus spp 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mormopterus sp2 & sp4 Goulds Watted Bat / Mormopterus sp 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chalinolobus gouldi / Mormopterus sp2 & sp4 Long-eared Bat 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nyctophilus sp Forest Bat sp 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vespadelus darlingtoni / V. Regulus / V. vulturnus Unidentified (poor quality) 1 2 1 4 1 1 1 11 18.18 100.00 100.00 100.00 33.33 51.65 Percentage of calls 5.26% % % % 4.76% % % %

Page | 127 Kiata Wind Farm – Flora and Fauna Assessment Report No. 13079 (4.2)

Site Study site 2 13/3/1 14/3/1 15/3/1 16/3/1 17/3/1 18/3/1 19/3/1 Species 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Total Number of files 27 59 4 6 9 73 17 195 Identified to species level 11 54 1 1 0 57 10 134 40.74 91.53 25.00 16.67 78.08 58.82 44.41 Calls positively identified % % % % 0.00% % % % White-striped Freetail Bat 0 5 0 1 0 1 0 7 Tadarida australis Southern Freetail bat 7 24 0 0 0 40 9 80 Mormopterus sp4 Gould's Wattled Bat 4 25 1 0 0 15 0 45 Chalinolobus gouldi Chocolate Wattled Bat 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chalinolobus morio Southern Bent-wing Bat 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Miniopterus schrebersii bassanii Little Forest Bat 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 Vespadelus vulturnus Identified to call complex 9 2 1 3 4 2 1 22 33.33 25.00 50.00 44.44 23.54 Percentage % 3.39% % % % 2.74% 5.88% % Mormopterus spp 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mormopterus sp2 & sp4 Goulds Watted Bat / Mormopterus sp 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chalinolobus gouldi / Mormopterus sp2 & sp4 Long-eared Bat 0 2 1 3 4 1 1 12 Nyctophilus sp Forest Bat sp 9 0 0 0 0 1 0 10 Vespadelus darlingtoni / V. Regulus / V. vulturnus Unidentified (poor quality) 7 3 2 2 5 14 6 39 25.93 50.00 33.33 55.56 19.18 35.29 32.05 Percentage of calls % 5.08% % % % % % %

Page | 128 Kiata Wind Farm – Flora and Fauna Assessment Report No. 13079 (4.2)

Site Study site 3 13/3/1 14/3/1 16/3/1 17/3/1 18/3/1 19/3/1 Species 4 4 15/3/14 4 4 4 4 Total Number of files 12 4 1 3 6 35 5 66 Identified to species level 11 2 0 2 1 34 2 52 91.67 50.00 66.67 16.67 97.14 40.00 51.73 Calls positively identified % % 0.00% % % % % % White-striped Freetail Bat 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tadarida australis Southern Freetail bat 6 0 0 0 0 32 2 40 Mormopterus sp4 Gould's Wattled Bat 4 1 0 0 0 1 0 6 Chalinolobus gouldi Chocolate Wattled Bat 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 3 Chalinolobus morio Southern Bent-wing Bat 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Miniopterus schrebersii bassanii Little Forest Bat 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 3 Vespadelus vulturnus Identified to call complex 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 66.67 Percentage 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% % 0.00% 0.00% 9.52% Mormopterus spp 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mormopterus sp2 & sp4 Goulds Watted Bat / Mormopterus sp 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 Chalinolobus gouldi / Mormopterus sp2 & sp4 Long-eared Bat 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nyctophilus sp Forest Bat sp 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vespadelus darlingtoni / V. Regulus / V. vulturnus Unidentified (poor quality) 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 10 50.00 100.00 33.33 16.67 60.00 38.74 Percentage of calls 8.33% % % % % 2.86% % %

Page | 129 Kiata Wind Farm – Flora and Fauna Assessment Report No. 13079 (4.2)

Study site Site 4 Species 13/3/14 14/3/14 15/3/14 16/3/14 17/3/14 18/3/14 19/3/14 Total Number of files 53 37 1 8 15 46 12 172 Identified to species level 41 31 0 5 11 45 9 142 Calls positively identified 77.36% 83.78% 0.00% 62.50% 73.33% 97.83% 75.00% 67.11% White-striped Freetail Bat 0 2 0 1 0 0 1 4 Tadarida australis Southern Freetail bat 31 12 0 0 0 27 4 74 Mormopterus sp4 Gould's Wattled Bat 0 12 0 0 0 12 0 24 Chalinolobus gouldi Chocolate Wattled Bat 8 4 0 4 11 5 2 34 Chalinolobus morio Southern Bent-wing Bat 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Miniopterus schrebersii bassanii Little Forest Bat 2 1 0 0 0 1 1 5 Vespadelus vulturnus Identified to call complex 11 5 0 2 3 0 2 23 Percentage 20.75% 13.51% 0.00% 25.00% 20.00% 0.00% 16.67% 13.70% Mormopterus spp 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 3 Mormopterus sp2 & sp4 Goulds Watted Bat / Mormopterus sp 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chalinolobus gouldi / Mormopterus sp2 & sp4 Long-eared Bat 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Nyctophilus sp Forest Bat sp 11 5 0 1 1 0 1 19 Vespadelus darlingtoni / V. Regulus / V. vulturnus Unidentified (poor quality) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 Percentage of calls 1.89% 2.70% 100.00% 12.50% 6.67% 2.17% 8.33% 19.18%

Page | 130 Kiata Wind Farm – Flora and Fauna Assessment Report No. 13079 (4.2)

Site Study site 5 13/3/1 14/3/1 18/3/1 19/3/1 Species 4 4 15/3/14 16/3/14 17/3/14 4 4 Total Number of files 88 24 1 1 1 38 10 163 Identified to species level 58 11 0 0 1 34 5 109 65.91 45.83 100.00 89.47 50.00 50.17 Calls positively identified % % 0.00% 0.00% % % % % White-striped Freetail Bat 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tadarida australis Southern Freetail bat 57 2 0 0 1 30 3 93 Mormopterus sp4 Gould's Wattled Bat 0 9 0 0 0 1 1 11 Chalinolobus gouldi Chocolate Wattled Bat 1 0 0 0 0 3 1 5 Chalinolobus morio Southern Bent-wing Bat 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Miniopterus schrebersii bassanii Little Forest Bat 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vespadelus vulturnus Identified to call complex 23 3 0 0 0 0 4 30 26.14 12.50 40.00 11.23 Percentage % % 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% % % Mormopterus spp 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mormopterus sp2 & sp4 Goulds Watted Bat / Mormopterus sp 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chalinolobus gouldi / Mormopterus sp2 & sp4 Long-eared Bat 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 Nyctophilus sp Forest Bat sp 22 2 0 0 0 0 4 28 Vespadelus darlingtoni / V. Regulus / V. vulturnus Unidentified (poor quality) 7 10 1 1 0 4 1 24 41.67 100.00 100.00 10.53 10.00 38.59 Percentage of calls 7.95% % % % 0.00% % % %

Page | 131 Kiata Wind Farm – Flora and Fauna Assessment Report No. 13079 (4.2)

Appendix 10: EVC Benchmarks Wimmera Bioregion . Sandstone Ridge Shrubland (EVC 93) . Lower Rainfall Shallow Sands Woodland (EVC 882_62)

Page | 132 EVC/Bioregion Benchmark for Vegetation Quality Assessment Wimmera bioregion EVC 93: Sandstone Ridge Shrubland (syn. Broombush Mallee)

Description: Low open mallee to 3 m tall typically with a tall shrubby understorey, or shrubland with scattered emergent mallees. A good field character for this EVC is the dominance or co-dominance of the tall shrub Melaleuca uncinata in shrubland or as an understorey shrub in Mallee vegetation. Confined to the crests of outcropping sandstone ridges.

+ mallee only component (ignore when assessing shrubland areas and standardise final score as appropriate)

Tree Canopy Cover+: %cover Character Species Common Name 15% r Eucalyptus wimmerensis Wimmera Mallee-box Eucalyptus dumosa Dumosa Mallee

Understorey: Life form #Spp %Cover LF code Medium Shrub 6 40% MS Small Shrub 5 20% SS Prostrate Shrub 1 5% PS Large Herb 2 1% LH Medium Herb 5 10% MH Large Tufted Graminoid 1 5% LTG Medium to Small Tufted Graminoid 6 15% MTG Scrambler or Climber 2 1% SC Bryophytes/Lichens na 10% BL Soil Crust na 20% S/C

LF Code Species typical of at least part of EVC range Common Name MS Melaleuca uncinata Broombush MS Babingtonia behrii Broom Baeckea MS Brachyloma daphnoides Daphne Heath MS Calytrix tetragona Common Fringe-myrtle MS Allocasuarina muelleriana ssp. muelleriana Slaty Sheoak SS Hibbertia fasciculata var. prostrata Bundled Guinea-flower SS Hibbertia virgata Twiggy Guinea-flower SS Hibbertia sericea s.l. Silky Guinea-flower SS Micromyrtus ciliata Heath-myrtle PS Astroloma humifusum Cranberry Heath LH Arthropodium strictum s.s. Chocolate Lily LH Linum marginale Native Flax MH Goodenia geniculata Bent Goodenia MH Gonocarpus tetragynus Common Raspwort MH Drosera peltata ssp. peltata Pale Sundew MH Glischrocaryon behrii Golden Pennants LTG Austrostipa mollis Supple Spear-grass MTG Lepidosperma viscidum Sticky Sword-sedge MTG Dianella revoluta s.s. Black-anther Flax-lily MTG Austrodanthonia setacea var. setacea Bristly Wallaby-grass MTG Neurachne alopecuroidea Fox-tail Mulga-grass SC Thysanotus patersonii Twining Fringe-lily SC Billardiera cymosa s.l. Sweet Apple-berry

Ecological Vegetation Class bioregion benchmark EVC 93: Sandstone Ridge Shrubland (syn. Broombush Mallee) - Wimmera bioregion

Recruitment: Episodic/Fire. Desirable period between disturbances is 30 years.

Organic Litter: 20 % cover

Logs: 5 m/0.1 ha+

Weediness: LF Code Typical Weed Species Common Name Invasive Impact MH Hypochoeris glabra Smooth Cat's-ear high low MTG Pentaschistis airoides subsp. airoides False Hair-grass high low MTG Ehrharta calycina Perennial Veldt Grass high high SC Asparagus asparagoides Bridal Creeper high high

Published by the Victorian Government Department of Sustainability and Environment May 2004 © The State of Victoria Department of Sustainability and Environment 2004 This publication is copyright. Reproduction and the making available of this material for personal, in-house or non-commercial purposes is authorised, on condition that: • the copyright owner is acknowledged; • no official connection is claimed; • the material is made available without charge or at cost; and • the material is not subject to inaccurate, misleading or derogatory treatment. Requests for permission to reproduce or communicate this material in any way not permitted by this licence (or by the fair dealing provisions of the Copyright Act 1968) should be directed to the Nominated Officer, Copyright, 8 Nicholson Street, East Melbourne, Victoria, 3002.

For more information contact: Customer Service Centre, 136 186 This publication may be of assistance to you but the State of Victoria and its employees do not guarantee that the publication is without flaw of any kind or is wholly appropriate for your particular purposes and therefore disclaims all liability for any error, loss or other consequence which may arise from you relying on any information in this publication. www.dse.vic.gov.au EVC/Bioregion Benchmark for Vegetation Quality Assessment Wimmera bioregion EVC 882_62: Lower Rainfall Shallow Sands Woodland

Description: Woodland or open-forest to 15 m tall, with a sparse shrub layer of heathy, ericoid shrubs and a species-rich ground cover dominated by grasses and annual herbs. Typically it occurs between the heavier soils of the plains and the deep-sand aeolian dunefields which overlay these plains, but also occurs on broader areas of plains covered by shallow fluvial, outwash or aeolian sands overlaying drainage-impeding clays. Occurs in areas with <500 mm annual rainfall. Large trees: Species DBH(cm) #/ha Eucalyptus spp. 60 cm 15/ha Allocasuarina luehmannii 40 cm Callitris gracilis ssp. murrayensis 40 cm Tree Canopy Cover: % cover Character Species Common Name 20% Eucalyptus leucoxylon Yellow Gum Allocasuarina luehmannii Buloke Callitris gracilis ssp. murrayensis Slender Cypress-pine Understorey: Life form #Spp %Cover LF code Immature Canopy Tree 5% IT Understorey Tree or Large Shrub 1 5% T Medium Shrub 3 10% MS Small Shrub 4 20% SS Prostrate Shrub 2 5% PS Large Herb 1 1% LH Medium Herb 7 15% MH Small or Prostrate Herb 3 5% SH Medium to Small Tufted Graminoid 8 25% MTG Tiny Tufted Graminoid* 2 1% TTG Medium to Tiny Non-tufted Graminoid 3 1% MNG Bryophytes/Lichens na 10% BL Soil Crust na 10% S/C * Largely seasonal life form LF Code Species typical of at least part of EVC range Common Name T Allocasuarina verticillata Drooping Sheoke MS Calytrix tetragona Common Fringe-myrtle MS Acacia pycnantha Golden Wattle SS Hibbertia stricta s.l. Upright Guinea-flower SS Eutaxia microphylla Common Eutaxia SS Pultenaea hispidula Rusty Bush-pea PS Astroloma humifusum Cranberry Heath MH Microseris scapigera spp. agg. Yam Daisy MH Acaena echinata Sheep's Burr MH Wurmbea dioica Common Early Nancy SH Daucus glochidiatus Australian Carrot SH Hydrocotyle laxiflora Stinking Pennywort SH Drosera whittakeri ssp. aberrans Scented Sundew LTG Austrostipa mollis Supple Spear-grass MTG Schoenus apogon Common Bog-sedge MTG Neurachne alopecuroidea Fox-tail Mulga-grass MTG Lomandra nana Dwarf Mat-rush MTG Arthropodium strictum s.l. Chocolate Lily TTG Centrolepis strigosa ssp. strigosa Hairy Centrolepis TTG Centrolepis aristata Pointed Centrolepis TTG Aphelia pumilio Dwarf Aphelia SC Thysanotus patersonii Twining Fringe-lily

Ecological Vegetation Class bioregion benchmark EVC 882_62: Lower Rainfall Shallow Sands Woodland - Wimmera bioregion

Recruitment: Continuous

Organic Litter: 20% cover

Logs: 20m/0.1 ha.

Weediness: LF Code Typical Weed Species Common Name Invasive Impact T Olea europaea Olive high high MS Lycium ferocissimum Boxthorn high high LH Centaurium tenuiflorum Slender Centaury high low MH Hypochoeris radicata Cat's Ear high low MH Hypochoeris glabra Smooth Cat's-ear high low MH Trifolium campestre var. campestre Hop Clover high low MH Trifolium angustifolium var. angustifolium Narrow-leaf Clover high low MH Trifolium arvense var. arvense Hare's-foot Clover high low MH Petrorhagia velutina Velvety Pink high low MTG Briza minor Lesser Quaking-grass high low MTG Briza maxima Large Quaking-grass high low MTG Romulea rosea Onion Grass high high MTG Vulpia bromoides Squirrel-tail Fescue high high MNG Aira elegantissima Delicate Hair-grass high low MNG Ehrharta calycina Perennial Veldt Grass high high MNG Vulpia myuros f. myuros Rat's-tail Fescue high high MNG Juncus capitatus Capitate Rush high low MNG Bromus rubens Red Brome high high SC Asparagus asparagoides Bridal Creeper high high

Published by the Victorian Government Department of Sustainability and Environment February 2005 © The State of Victoria Department of Sustainability and Environment 2005 This publication is copyright. Reproduction and the making available of this material for personal, in-house or non-commercial purposes is authorised, on condition that: • the copyright owner is acknowledged; • no official connection is claimed; • the material is made available without charge or at cost; and • the material is not subject to inaccurate, misleading or derogatory treatment. Requests for permission to reproduce or communicate this material in any way not permitted by this licence (or by the fair dealing provisions of the Copyright Act 1968) should be directed to the Nominated Officer, Copyright, 8 Nicholson Street, East Melbourne, Victoria, 3002.

For more information contact: Customer Service Centre, 136 186 This publication may be of assistance to you but the State of Victoria and its employees do not guarantee that the publication is without flaw of any kind or is wholly appropriate for your particular purposes and therefore disclaims all liability for any error, loss or other consequence which may arise from you relying on any information in this publication. www.dse.vic.gov.au Kiata Wind Farm – Flora and Fauna Assessment Report No. 13079 (4.2)

Appendix 11: Biodiversity assessment report (DELWP/NVIM)

Page | 133