appendix k - part b · dry rainforest : dry rainforest of the south east ... act was found to be...

Appendix K - Part B SKM (2013) Biodiversity Assessment

Upgrade of the Princes Highway Dignams Creek Appendix K Review of Environmental Factors

Upgrade of the Princes Highway, Dignams Creek –Biodiversity Assessment

3.4. Threatened ecological communities

Literature and database review

NGH Environmental (2010) identified one Threatened Ecological Community (TEC) listed under the TSC Act identified in the study area, namely River-flat Eucalypt Forest on C oastal Floodplains. This community is located on the banks of Dignams Creek upstream of the current bridge crossing and south of Dignams Creek to the east of the Princes Highway.

Based on the background review a number of other potentially occurring TECs are noted for the region as listed Table 3-2. Targeted follow-up survey confirmed the presence or absence of these communities and these results are also described in Table 3-2.

Table 3-2 Threatened ecological communities known from the region and recorded in the study area

Broad Community

TSC Act Listed Community EPBC Act Listed Community

Confirmed occurrence in the study area

Riparian Forest

River-Flat Eucalypt Forest on C oastal Floodplains of the New South Wales North Coast, Sydney Basin and South East Corner Bioregions (Endangered)

- Present

Vegetation along Dignams Creek has affinities to this community with the presence of numerous diagnostic species

Dry rainforest

Dry Rainforest of the South East Forests in the South East Corner Bioregion (Endangered)

- Not present.

Although there are areas of dry rainforest in the study area, these are different to the dry rainforest type described under this TEC.

Littoral rainforest

Littoral Rainforest in the New South Wales North Coast, Sydney Basin and South East Corner Bioregions (Endangered)

Littoral Rainforest and Coastal Vine Thickets of eastern Australia (Critically Endangered)

Not present.

Coastal saltmarsh

Coastal Saltmarsh in the New South Wales North Coast, Sydney Basin and South East Corner Bioregions (Endangered)

- Not present.

48


Broad Community

TSC Act Listed Community EPBC Act Listed Community

Confirmed occurrence in the study area

Freshwater Wetlands

Freshwater Wetlands on C oastal Floodplains of the New South Wales North Coast, Sydney Basin and South East Corner Bioregions (Endangered)

- Not present.

Swamp Oak Forest

Swamp Oak Floodplain Forest of the New South Wales North Coast, Sydney Basin and South East Corner Bioregions (Endangered)

- Not present.

Grassy Woodland

Lowland Grassy Woodland in the South East Corner Bioregion (Endangered

- Not present.

Survey results

Existing riparian vegetation along Dignams Creek and Blind Creek is confirmed to be the State-listed threatened ecological community River-flat Eucalypt Forest on Coastal Floodplains of the Sydney Basin and South East Corner Bioregions (River-flat Eucalypt Forest), based on the following factors:

Occurrence on low elevated (1-10 metres AHD) coastal floodplains and drainage lines.

Occurrence on permanent streams.

Areas of South Coast River-flat Forest (p30) have been mapped by Tozer et al. (2010) along Dignams Creek and Blind Creek, which has been identified as belonging to River-flat Eucalypt Forest, (although not identified as threatened in the Biometric vegetation types (DECC 2009a).

The presence of diagnostic canopy and understorey species.

River-flat Eucalypt Forest along Dignams Creek is highly fragmented and di sturbed from agricultural activities including clearing, pastoral improvement and grazing, and therefore supports a high abundance of exotic species with diminished structural and species diversity. Riparian vegetation along Dignams Creek is dominated by River Oak (Casuarina cunninghamiana) which is listed as a diagnostic species under the final determination for River-flat Eucalypt Forest. In addition several other diagnostic species listed under the final determination for River-flat Eucalypt Forest also occur in this vegetation community such as

49


River Peppermint (Eucalyptus elata), Rough-barked Apple (Angophora floribunda), White Sally Wattle (Acacia floribunda) and Tree Violet (Melicytus dentatus). River-flat Eucalypt Forest and other threatened ecological communities occurring on coastal floodplains collectively cover all remaining native vegetation on the coastal floodplains of New South Wales (OEH 2011). The distribution of River-flat Eucalypt Forest in the study area is displayed in Figure 3-1 as Map Unit 5.

Occurrences of Bega Wet Shrub Forest (Map Unit 4) as described by Tozer et al. (2010) on coastal floodplains have been i dentified in the Scientific Committee Final Determination for River-flat Eucalypt Forest as being part of the threatened ecological community. This vegetation type has been identified at the northern end of the study area on a steep slope above the floodplain and is therefore not considered to be part of River-flat Eucalypt Forest, although this community is considered to be highly cleared and regionally significant.

3.5. Groundwater dependant ecosystems

The majority of vegetation communities in the study area are considered to have a low-level of groundwater dependence considering the dry nature of these communities, their occurrence on steep undulating terrain and slopes, and the lack of any evidence of groundwater expression at the base of slopes and/or in drainage lines.

The creek flats around Dignams Creek, Blind Creek and s ome gully areas potentially have some level of groundwater dependence. Flora species in these areas are adapted to localised flooding and soil water logging which would occur during heavy rain periods.

3.6. Threatened species

Threatened flora


The flora surveys conducted by NGH (2010) covered both the northern and southern sections of the study area and c onsisted of both general surveys and t argeted surveys for threatened species. Details on habitat assessment sites were identified as well as list of plants recorded from the different vegetation types. A description of the vegetation communities present is provided, however these have not been mapped. One threatened flora species Square Raspwort (Haloragis exaltata subsp. exaltata) listed as vulnerable under the TSC Act and EPBC Act was found to be fairly common along the banks and bed o f Dignams Creek. Additionally three threatened flora species as having at least a moderate potential to occur in the habitats in the study area were identified comprising Bodalla Pomaderris (Pomaderris bodalla), Chef’s Cap Correa (Correa baeuerlenii) and Tall Knotweed (Persicaria elatior).

50


On the basis of regional records and reports and the presence of suitable habitat, a total of 17 threatened flora species have been previously recorded or listed as having potential to occur in the locality, of these one species is present in the proposal footprint and surrounds, and six species were considered to have a moderate chance of occurring and the remaining 10 have low potential to occur. The full list of flora species considered in this assessment is provided in Appendix E and the distribution of threatened flora species records in the study area is provided in Figure 3-3.

Survey results

The threatened Square Raspwort (Haloragis exaltata subsp. exaltata) (vulnerable under the TSC Act and EPBC Act) was identified in dense clusters along the edges of Dignams Creek within the study area including parts of the proposal footprint. This species has been found patchily along Dignams Creek from about 1.2 kilometres north-west of the existing bridge to where the Dignams Creek enters Wallaga Lake. It is abundant on Snake Island in the Dignams Creek delta, and is scattered around the shoreline of Wallaga Lake, including the lower end of the other major tributary to Wallaga Lake, Narira Creek (Miles and Cameron 2007).

The results of the targeted searches for the threatened Square Raspwort along Dignams Creek are summarized in Table 3-3, comprising data collected during the current study as well as previous surveys in the study area. As can be seen from the results the abundance of this species is very variable and has increased since the original surveys in 2007. It is invariably found at sites where disturbance such as flooding, physical disturbance, or fire has exposed bare soil and created canopy gaps (Miles and Cameron 2007). This includes east and west of the existing highway and Dignams Creek bridge.

Approximately 40 individuals were recorded in the construction footprint within the thin strip of riparian vegetation along Dignams Creek, including several large clumps on the edges of cleared areas (refer to Plate 1). The known distribution of Square Raspwort in the study area is displayed in Figure 3-4.

.

51

PRINCES HIGHWAY

Upgrade of the Princes Highway Dignams Creek - Biodiversity assessment LEGEND

LocalityConcept design

Stage 1 Stage 2Major road

Local road

National park10 km buffer area

NSW Atlas records Threatened flora

Haloragis exalata subsp. exalataZieria tuberculataDistichlis distichophyllaPersicaria elatior Pomaderris bodallaWilsonia backhousei

DATA SOURCESImagery: LPMA 2010 Contextual Data: LPMA 2010 and DoP Project Data: SKM 2011

0 5 Kilometres

BATEMANS BAY

NSW NAROOMA DIGNAMS CREEK

BEGA

Figure 3-3 | Threatened flora recorded within 10 km radius of the study area Path: I:\ENVR\Projects\EN02937\Technical\GIS\Spatial_Directory\ArcGIS\Ecology\EN02937_Ecology_0005c_Threat_flora_Fig3-3.mxd

Newcastle Spatial Team - Prepared by : AL Checked by : VC


Table 3-3 Results of surveys undertaken for Square Raspwort

Survey Results

Miles and Cameron (2007) Several hundred plants were identified scattered along 3 undertook a s urvey of the non-tidal kilometre of creek frontage. An additional 3 k ilometre searched areas of Dignams Creek during immediately upstream had no plants. 2006.

NGH Environmental undertook targeted surveys during 2008 (NGH 2010)

Found to fairly common along banks of Dignams Creek. Not identified along any tributaries of Dignams Creek. Approximately 75 plants were identified in the study area.

Targeted surveys undertaken by SKM during 2011.

Up to 900 plant clumps recorded along Dignams Creek approximately 150 metres to the north and 250 metres to the south of the Princes Highway. Dignams Creek was flooded prior to the surveys being undertaken with many plants partly buried beneath soil, fallen trees and ot her debris, and this disturbance event is likely to encourage further germination of the species. The distribution of Square Raspwort appeared to extend upstream and downstream of the area surveyed.

Surveys in the construction footprint Approximately 50 individuals were recorded in the construction June 2012 footprint within the thin strip of riparian vegetation along Dignams

Creek, including several large clumps on t he edges of cleared areas (refer to Plate 1)

Opportunistic observations surrounding the construction footprint during June 2012.

Observed along all areas of Dignams Creek during the surveys including the proposed offset site adjacent to the concept design. It was observed to be abundant at most locations colonising most habitats along Dignams Creek from the water’s edge to the top of the creek bank and ex tending onto the surrounding flats at several locations.

53

DIGNAMS CREEK ROAD

PRINC

ES HIGHWAY

DIGNA

MS CREEK

Upgrade of the Princes Highway, Dignams Creek - Biodiversity assessment LEGEND

Haloragis exaltata subsp.!( exaltata

Haloragis exaltata subsp. exaltata (suitable habitat)Construction footprint Dignams Creek andLGA boundaryMajor roadLocal roadTrack

National ParksGulaga National ParkKooraban National Park

DATA SOURCESLPMA 2010SKM 2011

° 0 300

Metres

EUROBODALLA SHIRE COUNCIL

!(!(!!!(((!(!!!(((

!(

!!(!(

!!!(((

!(!(!(( !!! !

!!!!(( !((((((!!(((

!(!(!!(( !!!

!((((

!!!!(((( !!!!((((!(

!!!

!!!!

(((

((((

!!((!( !(

((((((((((!!!!!!(

(!!!!!!!!!((((((!!( !!(!((!!((!( !

!!!!!!!!!! ! (

!!!!!!!(((((((((

!!(!!(!(((!!(

!(!(((((((( (

!(!(!( !(

! (!!

( !( (

!(

KoorabanNati lona

Park

!(

!(

!(

!(Gul BEGA VALLEY SHIRE COUNCILNa

agational

Park

!BATEMANS BAY

NSW !NAROOMADIGNAMS CREEK

!BEGA

Figure 3-4 | Distribution of Haloragis exaltata subsp. exaltata 19/06/2013 | I:\ENVR\Projects\EN02937\Technical\GIS\Spatial_Directory\ArcGIS\Ecology\Final_V2\EN02937_Ecology_0007c_Haloragis_Fig3-4.mxd

Newcastle Spatial Team - Prepared by : ALChecked by : JC


Plate 1: A large clump of Square Raspwort (Haloragis exaltata, subsp. exaltata) on the edge of riparian vegetation and cleared paddock areas in the construction footprint.

Threatened fauna


On the basis of regional records, reports and t he presence of suitable habitat, a t otal of 49 threatened fauna species have been i dentified from the broader regional area, which encompasses a range of habitats up to 10 kilometres from the study area (Figure 3-5). These species are listed in Appendix E along with an assessment of their potential to occur in the proposal study area based on t he suitability of the fauna habitats identified. Many of these species occur within habitats that are not represented at Dignams Creek, or have a distributional range which does not include the study area, these were considered unlikely to occur or have a low chance. From the review, 14 species were considered to have a moderate chance of occurring and 10 species a high chance of occurring in the study area. The species recorded from the site surveys and those considered to have a m oderate to high chance of occurring near the proposal area are described in Table 3-4.

55

!(

PRINCES HIGHWAY

""))(

__ *^̂ _! #

###))))^ *""**""^̂((((( *## ___!!!!! * ^ ##** "")) !!((")

^ ####**_ **""** )) )##**" _̂

## ####

** ** *") #####**** #* !("""))) _̂")"")) !!(((( ((!! !! _̂(!

""))" ##^̂ ** !̂) __ ____(̂̂___

"))" ^̂̂̂!!((!!!!! !!((((( (( !!(( _̂"")) ") ") _̂ !!(( _̂ _̂ _̂

##** "")) *#" ))"_ "^ )!( !!((")")_̂

! _̂_̂("")) ") )_ " " " )")

" "" !( " ^ """ ) ) " ) )

))

)))) )))) )) ) " " """ " )))"" )"

)" ") )

""" ) I" "D""")))GNAMS CREEK# ""))))(( )))_ ( "̂ ! ") )" )"

""* """"!! ^ ! )̂__ ( "))" ") )" " ") ") """))) "))))"))))"") ")"")) ""))""")))"""") ")*# _))) ^""" )" _̂"")) " """) ))) """"""""))))))))")

") (! _̂_̂!(!̂!!!!" " _̂_) )(((((_̂ !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( _̂") ") *#(! "))" !_(""))̂ _̂") ")")

^ """"))))") ^̂!_ __("""""))))) )" *#( !!! ""))(()) ")") #*"" !( !(COBARGO ^̂!!"__(() #__"")) "

(!

")

""

""))

)) _̂

""))

)"*̂̂ )

_""̂______(((((*))))#̂̂̂̂̂̂!!!!!"""" ")

# )!!) (! "* (( )") ") ")##** _̂ ")"")) )" )" " "" "")) )) ") ) ^̂̂̂______!!((((((!!!!_̂_̂"")) ") "")) ^̂

" """ ") )" _ ))) ))) ^ ""^

( _# ))̂^"_" _(*̂ ""__ !! )

"")))̂**####**)"##))**""" ") **!! #)" ))

^̂____)"**####((#### ######** *")" ") _̂ ""))̂̂))**""**)" ****

" "" ) ))" "") )) ")((((̂!!!!_ """))) ))))___ BERMAGU""""̂̂̂ )" )" ") !( I

"""(((( "")))))!!!!"""))) )" ###!!!((( ") )" ")***)))### """### ""*** "")) ))")""")))*** ))" """))) ######****** ###*** )" #̂_(*!)" _̂!(""))"""))! ""^̂̂ ))(___") #*

####(( """"****)))) )" """!! )))") !(!( #*(!"""""""""""))))))))))) ))"" ^̂̂̂____

Upgrade of the Princes Highway, Dignams Creek - Biodiversity assessment LEGEND ! Loca ity( l

Concept designNSW Atlas records Stage 1Threatened fauna Stage 2") Giant Burrowing Frog Major road") Koala Local road") Long-nosed Potoroo

National park" ( tern subsp.)) Brown Treecreeper eas) Brush-tailed Phascogale" 10 km buffer area ) Bush Stone-curlew ") Comb-crested Jacana "

") Curlew Sandpiper " tern Bentwing-bat) Eas) Eastern False Pipistrelle "") Eastern Ground Parrot ) Eastern Osprey"") Eastern Pygmy-possum !( Flame Robin !( Gang-gang Cockatoo ! lossy Black-Cockatoo( G( Golden-tipped Bat ! t t !( Grea er Broad-nosed Ba! ter Gl der popu ation, Eurobodal a LGA( Grea i l l! l ing-fox( Grey-headed F y!( Hooded Plover DATA SOURCES( L! ittle Eagle Contextual Data: LPMA 2010 and DoP ( Little Lorikeet Project Data: SKM 2011 ! i tle Tern OEH Atlas of NSW Wildlife 2012!( L t! ittl john's Tree Frog( L e! l( Masked Ow_ Olive Whistler _̂ Pied Oystercatcher ^

° _ Powerful Owl^ 0 5^ t Honeyeater_ Regen_ Scarlet Robin Kilometres^_ Sooty Owl _̂ Sooty Oystercatcher ^

_ Spotted Harrier _̂ Spotted-tailed Quoll ^

_ Squirrel Glider ^ i t Parrot ^_ Sw f_ Varied Sittella^_ White-fronted Chat # Yellow-bellied Glider ^*

Figure 3-5 | Threatened fauna recorded within 10 km radius of the study area

!BATEMANS BAY


!BEGA

Path: I:\ENVR\Projects\EN02937\Technical\GIS\Spatial_Directory\ArcGIS\Ecology\Final_V2\EN02937_Ecology_0006d_Threatfauna_Fig3-5.mxdNewcastle Spatial Team - Prepared by : KM

Checked by : RV


Table 3-4 Threatened fauna species recorded or considered to have a moderate to high likelihood of occurring

Species Status Potential to occur in the study area

EPBC Act

TSC Act

Large-eared Pied Bat (Chalinolobus dwyeri) V V Moderate

Eastern False Pipistrelle (Falsistrellus tasmaniensis) V Recorded*

Eastern Bent-wing Bat (Miniopterus schreibersii) V Recorded*

Eastern Freetail Bat (Mormopterus norfolkensis) V Recorded*

Southern Myotis (Myotis macropus) V Moderate

Spotted-tailed Quoll (Dasyurus maculatus) E V High

Yellow-bellied Glider (Petaurus australis) V Recorded

Brush-tailed Phascogale (Phascogale tapoatafa) V Moderate

Koala (Phascolarctos cinereus) V V Moderate

Long-nosed Potoroo (Potoroo tridactylus) V V Moderate

Grey-headed Flying-fox (Pteropus poliocephalus) V V High

Yellow-bellied Sheathtail-bat (Saccolaimus flaviventris)

V High

Greater Broad-nosed Bat (Scoteanax rueppellii) V Recorded*

Square-tailed Kite (Lophoictinia isura) V Moderate

Gang-gang Cockatoo (Callocephalon fimbriatum) V Recorded

Glossy Black-Cockatoo (Calyptorhynchus lathami) V Recorded

Barking Owl (Ninox connivens) V Moderate

57


Powerful Owl (Ninox strenua) V High

Sooty Owl (Tyto tenebricosa) V Moderate

Masked Owl (Tyto novaehollandiae) V Moderate

Pink Robin (Petroica rodinogaster) V Moderate

White-footed Dunnart (Sminthopsis leucopus) V Moderate

Stuttering Frog(Mixophyes balbus) V E Moderate

Giant Burrowing Frog (Heleioporus australicus) V V Moderate

V- vulnerable; E – endangered; * species recorded in the proposal area by NGH (2010)

Survey results

Species confirmed

The Glossy Black-Cockatoo (Calyptorhynchus lathami) was recorded in Kooraban National Park by NGH (2010). Parts of Kooraban and Gulaga National Parks carry dense stands of post-logging or post-fire Allocasuarina regrowth of which is likely to provide feeding resources for the local Glossy Black-cockatoo population. An individual was also recorded several hundred metres to the west of the proposal corridor in Kooraban National Park during the Koala scat searches for the current assessment. Foraging resources for this species are patchy along the proposal alignment and no evidence of a regular feeding tree was recorded in the corridor from the targeted habitat resource survey.

An individual Gang-Gang Cockatoo (Callocephalon fimbriatum) was recorded in northern end of the proposal corridor to the west of the highway. This is a wide-ranging species that could potentially forage in all habitat types identified in the study area.

Yellow-bellied Gliders were recorded during spotlighting and c all playback at two locations during the current survey, firstly to the south of Dignams Creek Road around 200 metres within riparian habitat on pr ivate land and s econdly within Kooraban National Park at the furthest southern end of the proposal also within riparian forest.

A number of threatened microchiropteran bat species were confirmed in the NGH (2010) survey including the Eastern Freetail-bat (Mormopterus norfolkensis), Eastern False Pipistrelle (Falsistrellus tasmaniensis), Eastern Bent-wing Bat (Miniopterus schreibersii oceanensis) and the Greater Broad-nosed Bat (Scoteanax rueppellii). All four species are listed as vulnerable

58


under the TSC Act and were detected via Anabat call recording and analysis. The location of these records is shown in Figure 3-6.

Habitat trees

The habitat tree survey identified a higher density of hollow-trees on the western side of the highway than the eastern side and a higher density within Kooraban National Park than other parts of the study corridor. This included observation of an important Yellow-bellied Glider sap feeding tree a Rough-barked Apple (Angophora floribunda) and a number of possible den trees in this location at the south western end of the proposal (refer Table 3-5). Two yellow-bellied gliders were observed on the sap tree and this tree is expected to be an important feature in the home range of at least one family group of gliders. The habitat to the west of the highway in Kooraban NP is of better quality than on t he ridge to the east of the highway in Gulaga NP which is considered marginal.

The habitat tree survey was conducted along the length of the proposal centred on the proposal footprint with particular emphasis in areas where Yellow-bellied Gliders were observed to identify sap feed trees and potential den trees. A total of 51 habitat trees were recorded from a combination of the current survey and t he previous investigation (NGH 2010) and t his information used to refine the road design and to inform the impact assessment, refer Table 3-5.

The locations of threatened fauna recorded from the survey and m apped habitat trees are shown on Figure 3-6 .

Table 3-5 Characteristics of habitat trees recorded in the study area

ID Source Species Description East GDA

North GDA

1 SKM Silver-top Ash

3 stags ex Silvertop Ash (Eucalyptus sieberi), small hollow limbs and decorticating bark

766554 5971372

2 SKM Stringybark Top dead centre chimney 15m - small hollow limbs

766571 5971375

3 SKM Dead Large stag with trunk hollow 766624 5971436

4 SKM Dead Large stag with trunk hollow 766642 5971449

5 SKM Dead Large stag with small hollow limbs and decorticating bark

766653 5971454


Large tree with 3 medium hollow limbs 766693 5971469

59



North GDA


Large tree with burnt out centre and hollow trunk

766714 5971488

8 SKM Dead Large tree with burnt out centre and 2 medium hollow limbs

766744 5971486

9 SKM Dead Stag with burnt out centre on track edge 766849 5971479


Large tree with 3 medium hollow limbs 766739 5971459

11 SKM Monkey Gum Young tree with broken off limb and s mall trunk hollow

766976 5971385


Large branch hollow, potential YBG den 767290 5972586


Large trunk hollow 766511 5971552

14 SKM Dead Small and medium hollows, cracks and fissures

766494 5971517


Dead branch medium hollow 766488 5971515

16 SKM Stringybark Broken off 8 metres from ground splits in trunk

766479 5971484

17 SKM Dead Medium branch hollow 766461 5971487

18 SKM Stringybark Large branch hollow, potential YBG den 766454 5971461

19 SKM Dead small and medium hollows, cracks and fissures

766433 5971475


Large branch hollow, potential YBG den 766399 5971451

21 SKM Dead Medium branch hollow 766394 5971438


Trunk hollow 766381 5971441

23 SKM Rough-barked Apple

Medium trunk hollow 766352 5971438

24 SKM Dead Large trunk hollow, potential YBG den 766300 5971376


Medium branch hollow 766294 5971363

26 SKM Rough- YBG sap tree heavily littered with chew 766245 5971353

60



North GDA

barked Apple

marks


Large tree 1.4 m DBH trunk and br anch hollows potential den for Yellow-bellied Glider

766257 5971334

28 SKM Grey Gum Large tree 1.6 m DBH large branch hollows potential den for Yellow-bellied Glider

766221 5971346


766151 5971355


766270 5971305

31 SKM Stringybark Medium trunk hollow 766326 5971319





34 SKM Rough-barked Apple


35 SKM Stringybark Split trunk, cracks 766750 5971624


37 SKM Dead Medium trunk hollow 768433 5972801


39 NGH Unknown Tree with hollows (in zone 56) 230813 5973195

40 NGH Rough-barked Apple

Angophora large spout on gu lly on east paddock 767695 5972377

41 NGH Dead Stag in gully 769203 5972321

42 NGH Dead Stag on driveway west 768462 5972803

43 NGH Dead Stag on driveway west 768437 5972834

44 NGH Rough-barked Apple Angophora HBT 768309 5972892

45 NGH Monkey gum E. cypellocarpa HBT 768300 5972908

46 NGH Rough-barked Apple Angophora HBT 768258 5972925

47 NGH Bangalay E. botryoides HBT Gully 768103 5972980

61



North GDA

48 NGH Monkey Gum E. cypellocarpa and Angophora HBTs 768092 5972937

49 NGH Monkey Gum E. cypellocarpa HBT 768256 5972840

50 NGH Unknown 3 or 4 small hollows 768314 5972730

51 NGH Various Group of several old growth eucalypt emergents in hollows in a range of sizes (southern section). E. botryoides x E. Saligna 766719 5971334

Species tentatively identified

The Long-nosed Potoroo (Potorous tridactylus) was tentatively identified from conical diggings that were reported in the study area, however it is not possible to distinguish these diggings from those of the common Long-nosed Bandicoot (Perameles nasuta) which was observed. The habitats in the study area are not suited to the endangered Southern Brown Bandicoot (Isoodon obesulus). The Long-nosed Potoroo was targeted in the follow-up survey for the REF however this species presence was not confirmed. As a precautionary measure the Long-nosed Potoroo has been considered a potential subject species.

Results of the targeted Koala survey

No Koala scats were recorded from the survey of 600 trees on both sides of the highway within the length of the study area (refer Appendix H). Any Koala activity in the study area is considered to be v ery low and t he survey results suggest that the habitats adjoining the proposal corridor may only be us ed occasionally by dispersing individuals rather than supporting a portion of an important population or the home range of an individual.

Important Koala populations (EPBC Act)

In a r ecent Koala surveys conducted by Allen (2011) in Kooraban and G ulaga National Park only 8 per cent of the grid-sites assessed had evidence of Koalas in the Kooraban/Gulaga area. Compared with most areas where this kind of survey is undertaken in the southern forests (Allen et al 2010), this success rate is very low. These results suggest probably only 5-15 Koalas are surviving in the approximately 6,000 hectares of forests assessed. No Koala activity was reported close the current study area.

62

DIGNAMS CE EK ROAD

PRIN

CES HI GHWAY

DIGNA

MSCR

EEK

Upgrade of the Princes Highway Dignams Creek - Biodiversity assessment

KoorabanNati lona

Park

!(

k !(

!(

#*

k

!(

!!((

!(

!!!!(((( !!((!(!(!!((

!(!!((!(!!(!(( !(

( (!!(! !!k.(!!((

! !! !( (( (

!(!!(( k!(

LEGEND Dignams CreekLGA boundaryMajor road

Local road

Track

Construction footprint National Parks

Gulaga National ParkKooraban National Park

Threatened fauna (SKM July 2012) k Gang Gang Cockatoo k Glossy Black-cockatoo k Yellow-bellied Glider

Threatened fauna (NGH 2010) ! Eastern Bent-wing bat k Eastern False Pipistrelle

k Eastern Freetail-bat k Greater Broad-nosed Bat

Habitat survey (SKM 2012,NGH 2010) # l ocasuarina resources* A l#* Conical diggings

! i at tree( Hab t! Ye l l i l der eed ree. l ow-be l ed G i f t

DATA SOURCESImagery: LPMA 2010Contextual Data: LPMA 2010 ° Project Data: SKM 2011, 2012,

NGH 2012

0 600 Metres

#*

R

!(

EUROBODALLA SHIRE COUNCIL !( !( ((!! k!(

! !!((( !(!(

! k( k! k

BEGA VALLEY SHIRE COUNCIL

k

Na aga

tionaPark

Gul l

k

!BATEMANS BAY


!BEGA

Figure 3-6 | Threatened fauna and habitat trees recorded from the survey Path: I:\ENVR\Projects\EN02937\Technical\GIS\Spatial_Directory\ArcGIS\Ecology\EN02937_Ecology_0010b_HabitatTrees_SurveyedFauna_Fig3-6.mxd

Newcastle Spatial Team - Prepared by : ALChecked by : JC


The two areas in the Kooraban National Park where Koalas (the Sam’s Ridge and J immy’s Creek areas) are persisting are those where Koalas had been i dentified previously both in anecdotal reports and in previous surveys. The continued persistence in these areas over at least several decades indicates some stability with these two breeding associations (Allen 2011).

By the 1960’s Koalas were known to be persisting to the east of the Princes Highway and south of Dignams Creek in what was to become the Wallaga Lake, and then in 2000, was incorporated in the Gulaga National Park. The species was also known from Dignams Hill, immediately to the west of this area which is incised by the Princes Highway. The evidence reported by Allen (2011) and i n recent surveys of the regional area indicates that two small populations occur to the west of the proposal study area. These populations would be considered important in the context of the interim referral advice provided by DSEWPaC (2012).

Habitat critical to the survival of Koalas (EPBC Act)

According to the DSEWPaC Interim Koala Referral Advice for Proponents (2012), “habitat critical to the survival of the Koala is currently considered to be areas of forest or woodland where:

primary Koala food tree species comprise at least 30% of the overstorey trees, or

primary Koala food tree species comprise less than 30% of the overstorey trees, but together with secondary food tree species comprise at least 50% of the overstorey trees or,

primary food tree species are absent but secondary food tree species alone comprise at least 50% of the overstorey trees, or

the above qualities may be absent in a forest or woodland but other essential habitat features are present and adjacent to areas exhibiting the above qualities, or

a relatively high density of Koalas is supported, regardless of the presence of food tree species. Koala population densities vary across their range and regional data should be used to judge relative density”.

These criteria have been applied to the field data to identify the proportion of Koala habitat for Koalas situated within the study area. The data used in this assessment includes detailed descriptions gathered for the vegetation community types and f loristic composition and t he vegetation community mapping for the proposal and other broad-scale mapping of the region as reported in Tozer et al (2010).

In addition to this recent research in the south coast region (DECCW 2010c) has established that eucalypt communities in which Woollybutt (Eucalyptus longifolia), White Stringybark

64


(Eucalyptus globoidea), Yellow Stringybark (Eucalyptus muelleriana), Monkey Gum (Eucalyptus cypellocarpa), Coast Grey Box (Eucalyptus bosistoana), Red Ironbark (Eucalyptus tricarpa), Blue Stringybark (Eucalyptus agglomerata), Rough-barked Apple (Angophora floribunda), Silvertop Ash (Eucalyptus sieberi) and B lack She-oak (Allocasuarina littoralis) occur sustains the known Koala populations in this part of the region.

The Australian Koala Foundation (AKF) also identifies additional tree species as primary or secondary species. In the Bega Valley and Eurobodalla LGA the AKF (2012) identifies Monkey Gum (Eucalyptus cypellocarpa) as a primary feed tree species and the majority of the species listed above have been identified as secondary species (refer to Table 3-6). Eucalyptus botryoides (Bangalay) was also identified in the report as a secondary feed tree.

These feed trees are locally important and as sociated with frequent Koala activity (DECCW, 2010c), and the majority of these are also recognised in the south coast area as secondary and supplementary Koala food trees in the Recovery Plan for the Koala (DECC 2008). There are no recognised primary feed tree species from the south coast region as defined in the Recovery Plan for Koala (DECC 2008) recorded in the study area and a low abundance of secondary feed tree species is present comprising Monkey Gum (Eucalyptus cypellocarpa), Yertchuk (Eucalyptus consideniana), Woollybutt (Eucalyptus longifolia), Coast Grey Box (Eucalyptus bosistoana) and Blue Box (Eucalyptus baueriana). The feed tree species identified in this biodiversity assessment occur within Map Units 1, 2, 3 in the study area (refer Table 3-6).

65


Table 3-6 Proportion of primary and secondary food tree species in the overstorey and assessment of habitat critical to the survival of Koalas (EPBC Act) and category of Koala habitat (DECC 2008)

Map Unit Vegetation types identified in the study area

Food tree species south coast region (DECC 2008) (% cover)

Important food trees south coast region (DECCW 2010c) additional to DECC (2008)

Primary food trees Bega Valley and Eurobodalla LGA (AKF 2012) additional to DECC (2008) and DECCW (2010c)

Habitat critical to Koala survival based on DSEWPaC (2012)

Habitat category, Callaghan unpublished in DECC (2008) Primary Secondary Supplementary Primary Other

MU 1 Silvertop Ash – Stringybark dry open forest

None Monkey Gum (E.cypellocarpa) (<5%),

Yertchuk (E.consideniana ) (<5%),

Coast Grey Box (E. bosistoana) (<5%)

Blue-leaved Stringybark (E.agglomerata) (>30%),

White Stringybark (E.globoidea) (10%),

Yellow Stringybark (E.muelleriana) (5%)

Silvertop Ash (E.seiberi) (>30%),

Red Ironbark (E.tricarpa) (<5%),

Rough-barked Apple (Angophora floribunda) (20%)

Black She-oak (Allocasuarina littoralis) (mid-storey 5-20%)

Monkey Gum (E.cypellocarp a) (<5%)

No Secondary habitat (class B)

MU2 White Stringybark dry open forest

None Monkey Gum (E.cypellocarpa) (10%),

Coast Grey Box

Yellow Stringybark (E.muelleriana) (>30%),

Silvertop Ash (E.seiberi), (5%),

Rough-barked Apple (Angophora


No Secondary habitat (class C)

66

DSEWP C

(2008)






Habitat critical to Koala survival based on

Habitat category, Callaghan unpublished in DECC

(E. bosistoana) (<5%),

Woollybutt (E.longifolia) (<5%),

Blue Box (E.baueriana) (<5%)

White Stringybark (E.globoidea) (>30%),

Blue-leaved Stringybark (E.agglomerata) (5%)

floribunda) (20%),

Black She-oak (Allocasuarina littoralis) (mid-storey 5-20%)

MU3 Bangalay/ Blue Gum sheltered forest

None Monkey Gum (E.cypellocarpa) (<5%)

Yellow Stringybark (E.muelleriana) (>30%),

White Stringybark (E.globoidea) (10%)

Rough-barked Apple (Angophora floribunda) (20%)


Bangalay (E.botryoid es) (>30%) occurs as a hybrid with Sydney Blue Gum (Eucalyptus saligna)

No Secondary habitat (class C)

MU4 River Peppermint – Rough-

None None None Rough-barked Apple (Angophora floribunda) (5%)

Bangalay (E.botryoid es) (10%)

No Tertiary habitat

67

DSEWP C

(2008)






Habitat critical to Koala survival based on

Habitat category, Callaghan unpublished in DECC

barked Apple moist shrubby forest

occurs as a hybrid with Sydney Blue Gum (Eucalyptus saligna)

MU5 Riparian forest

None None None Rough-barked Apple (Angophora floribunda) (5%)

Bangalay (E.botryoid es) (5%) occurs as a hybrid with Sydney Blue Gum (Eucalyptus saligna)

No Tertiary habitat

68


Based on t he presence and proportion of eucalypt food tree species, none of the vegetation types fit the definition for habitat critical to the survival of Koalas, According to DECC (2008) Map unit 1 is secondary habitat (class B), map units 2 and 3 are secondary habitat (class C) and the riparian habitat is classed as tertiary habitat.

In relation to dot point 4 of the interim advice

the above qualities may be absent in a forest or woodland but other essential habitat features are present and adjacent to areas exhibiting the above qualities, or

The presence of two small Koala populations known from Kooraban National Park and surrounding contiguous areas and the presence of important food tree species reported from DECC (2010) suggests that essential habitat features are present and the study area may occur in an important corridor for dispersal of Koalas to currently unoccupied habitats. Therefore as a precautionary measure the habitat is classed as critical to the survival of Koalas in the Dignams Creek area.

Threatened fish

No threatened fish were recorded from the targeted field surveys. The Australian Grayling (Prototroctes maraena) is listed as vulnerable under the EPBC Act and is sparsely distributed in coastal rivers between the Grose River in the Sydney area and the Hopkins River in Western Victoria. It has known records in disconnected waterways south of the study area in the Bega River and Brogo River (NSW DPI Records Viewer 2012) however it has not been recorded within the Dignams Creek system. Australian Grayling occur in freshwater, moderate to fast flowing, clear gravelly streams as well as estuarine areas. Such habitat is present within the upstream sections of Dignams Creek. Once hatched, the larvae of the Australian Grayling are swept out to sea. The larvae and young juveniles have a marine stage prior to returning to freshwater rivers (diadromous). The rest of their life cycle is spent in freshwater. The presence of the weir downstream as well as intermittently open Wallaga Lake downstream makes Dignams Creek an unlikely habitat for the Australian Grayling as barriers to fish passage disrupt the diadromous life cycle, preventing both juveniles being swept downstream to marine waters, and juveniles migrating back upstream to adult freshwater habitat (Morris et al. 2001).

The Freshwater Catfish (Tandanus tandanus) is not listed under NSW legislation but should be considered ecologically significant. The Murray Darling Basin population of the Freshwater Catfish is listed as endangered under the Fisheries Management Act 1994, whilst the coastal populations are not listed. Due to these species’ reduced numbers, and unclear taxonomy, NSW Fisheries (1999) recommends that species and t heir habitats be g iven special consideration in planning decisions throughout their NSW distribution. Tandanus tandanus was

69


identified during the aquatic field surveys indicating that suitable habitat is available within the study area.

3.7. Migratory species

Previous occurrences and likelihood of occurrence

A total of 15 migratory fauna species were identified in the EPBC Act Protected Matters Report as potentially occurring in the broader study area. Of the 15 species identified as potentially occurring three have been identified has having high potential to be present in habitats of the study area, eight have a moderate potential two species are considered to have a low potential and two species are considered unlikely to occur based on the absence of suitable habitat. These migratory species, along with their preferred habitat requirements and a preliminary assessment of their likely presence in the study area are listed in Appendix E.

Further assessment was conducted in considering the significance of potential impacts from the proposal on l isted migratory species via consideration of the significant impact guidelines 1.1 provided in DEWHA (2009). According to the guidelines an action is likely to have a significant impact on a migratory species if there is a real chance or possibility that it will:

Substantially modify (including by fragmenting, altering fire regimes and nutrient cycles or; altering hydrological cycles), destroy or isolate an area of important habitat for a migratory species;

Result in an invasive species that is harmful to the migratory species becoming established in an area of important habitat for the migratory species, or

Seriously disrupt the lifecycle (breeding, feeding, migration or resting behaviour) of an ecologically significant proportion of the population of a migratory species.

The 11 species considered to have a high or moderate potential to occur were considered as potential subject species due to the presence of suitable habitat (refer to Table 3-7). Large areas of suitable habitat is present including natural and modified habitats, such as open cleared and ag ricultural land in the case of Egret species and woodland and f orest habitats, particularly moister forest types in the case of the Rufous Fantail and Black-faced Monarch.

There is no evidence to suggest that an area of important habitat exists or that the study area is occupied by an ecologically significant proportion of the populations of these migratory species. It is therefore considered unlikely that the proposal would reduce populations of these migratory species or substantially reduce the extent of potential habitat available to these species in the study area.

70


Table 3-7 Migratory species listed under the EPBC Act recorded or considered to have a moderate to high likelihood of occurring

Common Name

Species Preferred habitat Likelihood of occurrence

Black-faced Monarch

Monarcha melanopsis

Rainforests, eucalypt forests and coastal scrubs Moderate

Cattle Egret Ardea ibis Grasslands, woodlands and wetlands, and is not common in arid areas. It also uses pastures and croplands, especially where drainage is poor. Often seen with cattle.

High

Fork-tailed Swift

Apus pacificus The species breeds in Asia and migrate to Australia in the summer from which they spend their entire life-cycle on the wing, hunting, resting and sleeping.

High

Great Egret Ardea alba Prefers shallow water, particularly when flowing, but may be seen on any watered area, including damp grasslands.

High

Latham’s snipe

Galliago hardwickii

Wetlands, wet meadows, flooded grassy paddocks, open grassland and drainage areas

Moderate

Rufous Fantail Rhipidura rufifrons

Predominantly rainforest and forests Moderate

Rainbow Bee-eater

Merops ornatus Predominantly woodland and timbered plains Moderate

Satin Flycatcher

Myiagra cyanoleuca

Predominantly forests, in particular t hick vegetation in gullies

Moderate

Spectacled Monarch

Monarcha trivirgatus

Prefers a t hick understorey in rainforests, wet gullies and waterside vegetation, as well as mangroves.

Moderate

White-bellied Sea Eagle

Haliaeetus leucogaster

Predominantly ocean shores and estuaries, occasionally inland rivers and streams.

Moderate

71


Common Name

Species Preferred habitat Likelihood of occurrence

White-throated Needletail

Hirundapus caudacutus

An aerial foraging species which occupies a range of habitats from open m odified landscapes to woodland and forest.

Moderate

3.8. General flora and fauna

A complete list of flora and fauna including common and threatened species and aquatic species identified from the field surveys is provided in Appendices B-D. Data is presented on the field collection methods and results.

Native floral species richness was relatively high within the naturally vegetated portions of the study area. As can be expected the grazed open pasture areas of the site were relatively low in native species diversity and r ichness due pr imarily to the long term effects of continued agriculture/grazing. A total of 330 flora species were recorded within the study area. This total comprised one cycad species, one conifer species, 14 species of fern, 233 species of dicotyledons and 80 species of monocotyledons. Of the total species recorded, 49 species of introduced flora were identified, representing approximately 15 per cent of the total species.

A total of 49 bi rd species, 17 m ammal species including two introduced species, two frog species and five reptile species were recorded in the study area from a c ombination of all surveys including NGH (2010) and surveys for the REF.

A total of 122 individuals from seven species of fish and aquatic reptiles were collected from the two aquatic survey sites sampled. Smelt was the most abundant fish recorded with over 86 individuals present. Common Jollytail & Flathead Gudgeon were also recorded in higher abundances with 11 and 13 individuals recorded respectively.

3.9. Critical habitat

No areas of declared critical habitat under the TSC Act or EPBC Act are present in the study area.

3.10. Wildlife connectivity corridors

As the existing highway bisects two large areas of forest and a riparian corridor, the potential for impacts to fauna movements is high, for both terrestrial and arboreal species. The riparian corridor along Dignams Creek is not separated by the existing highway as the vegetation

72


continues underneath the existing bridge As identified in the assessment a di versity of fauna species has been identified and the current highway would have a barrier effect on the life-cycle of a range of arboreal and terrestrial mammals, including threatened species such as the Koala and Yellow-bellied Glider. The study area forms part of an important Koala movement corridor linking two known Koala populations (refer further to Section 3-6) , associated with Kooraban National Park to the west of the Princes Highway and Gulaga National Park to the east of the existing Princes Highway. The movement corridor has been considered for the design of the upgrade and a number of fauna connectivity measures have been included to address this as discussed in Chapter 4.

3.11. State Environmental Planning Policy No.44 – Koala Habitat Protection SEPP 44

Consideration of SEPP 44 is not required under the provisions of Part 5 of the EP&A Act. The Koala is however listed as vulnerable under the Commonwealth EPBC Act and in NSW under the TSC Act and hence targeted surveys were conducted for this species and further consideration given throughout the report on the potential impacts of the proposal.

73


4. Potential Impacts 4.1. Loss of vegetation and habitat

The loss of vegetation communities and habitats in the study area is summarised in Table 4-1. The construction footprint would impact on ar ound 20.6 hectares of remnant vegetation in various condition states with the remaining areas in cleared and modified lands. Impacts to threatened ecological communities are limited to approximately 0.2 hectares of moderate and high condition vegetation (Map Unit 5). This loss of native vegetation is a K ey Threatening Process listed as ‘Clearing of native vegetation’ under Schedule 3 of the TSC Act and listed as ‘Land Clearance’ under the EPBC Act.

Table 4-1 Direct impacts on vegetation and fauna habitat

Vegetation Community Type

Fauna Habitat Type

Biometric Vegetation Type

Conservation Status/Percentage Cleared (Tozer 2010)

Condition Area (ha)

Map Unit 1: Silvertop Ash -Stringybark Dry Open Forest

Dry Open Forest

Silvertop Ash - Blue-leaved Stringybark - Woollybutt shrubby open forest on coastal foothills central South East Corner

5% of original extent estimated to be cleared

High 4.2

Map Unit 2: White Stringybark Forest

Wet Sclerophyl l Forest

Coast Grey Box - Mountain Grey Gum - Stringybark moist shrubby open forest in coastal gullies, southern South East Corner


High 10.3

Moderate 0.6

Low 1.3

Map Unit 3: Bangalay/Blue Gum Sheltered Forest


Mountain Grey Gum -Yellow Stringybark moist shrubby open forest in gullies of the coastal ranges, northern South East Corner


High 3.5

Map Unit 4: River Peppermint -Rough-barked Apple moist shrubby forest


River Peppermint - Rough-barked Apple moist open forest on s heltered sites, southern South East Corner


Moderate 0.5

74


Vegetation Community Type

Fauna Habitat Type

Biometric Vegetation Type

Conservation Status/Percentage Cleared (Tozer 2010)

Condition Area (ha)

Map Unit 5: Riparian Forest

Riparian habitats

River Peppermint - Rough-barked Apple - River Oak herb/grass riparian forest of coastal lowlands, southern Sydney Basin and South East Corner

Endangered (River-flat eucalypt forest on coastal floodplains) (TSC Act)


High 0.1

Moderate 0.1

TOTAL 20.6 hectares

Threatened ecological communities

Impacts to threatened ecological communities include around 0.2 hectares of River-flat Eucalypt Forest on Coastal Floodplains listed under the TSC Act (Map Unit 5). Impacts include about 0.1 hectares of moderate condition vegetation along Dignams Creek comprising a thin strip of riparian vegetation, and about 0.1 hectares of high condition vegetation along Blind Creek. There is around 76,767 hectares of vegetation consistent with River-flat Eucalypt Forest on Coastal Floodplains within 10 k ilometres of the construction footprint (Tozer et al. 2010). The potential impacts for the proposed upgrade represent less than 0.002 per cent of the distribution in the region.

Threatened flora

The threatened flora species Square Raspwort (Haloragis exaltata subsp. exaltata) listed as vulnerable under the TSC Act and t he EPBC Act was identified in relatively high abundance along the edges of Dignams Creek within the study area. Approximately 50 individuals were recorded in the construction footprint within the thin strip of riparian vegetation along Dignams Creek, including several large clumps on the edges of cleared areas. Impacts to habitat for this species adjacent to the proposal are likely to be of medium to short-term and riparian habitats following construction are likely to support suitable habitat for the species considering this species favours disturbance events. There is a high likelihood that the species would colonise disturbed areas along the proposal, based on observations in the study area.

The local population is conservatively estimated to consist of greater than 1,000 plant clumps in the locality (Miles and Cameron, 2007). The proposal would result in impacts to less than 5 per

75


cent of the local population. The impacts may only be of short to medium term duration as the species has been observed in the study area to readily colonise disturbed areas and could be reasonably expected to regenerate in adjacent areas disturbed along the corridor.

Threatened fauna

Loss of foraging habitat

As discussed the proposal would result in the clearing of about 20 hectares of native vegetation, thereby affecting areas of habitat for fauna, including the threatened species Koala and Yellow-bellied Glider. There would also be impacts to areas of cleared land with some value for fauna although mostly common species such as macropods and bi rds adapted to agricultural areas and with limited habitat value for threatened species except as foraging habitat for microchiropteran bats. This loss of habitat comprises around 4.2 hectares of dry open forest mainly along ridge and upper slope areas and 16.4 hectares of wet sclerophyll forest mainly in lower slopes and sheltered slopes and gullies. The condition of these habitats varies from low to high as shown in Table 4-1 and comprises foraging habitat for a wide diversity of fauna species particularly folivores and nectarivores such as gliders and a diversity of common and threatened bird species as discussed below. Yellow-bellied gliders rely on seasonal food resources, which are obtained from nectar (flowering eucalypts) and sap from a number of tree species which are incised. A wide variety of eucalypt species used for sap feeding have been reported throughout the range of the species (Kavanagh 1987a, b, Goldingay 1986, 1989), but at any one location only a small number of eucalypt species are used. Some species which are used extensively at one location may be completely ignored at another location in the presence of another species (Kavanagh 1987a, b). Goldingay (1986) also recorded honeydew as an important food source in Bombala and E den on the south coast, from which it was mostly obtained from Monkey Gum (Eucalyptus cypellocarpa).

Evidence of sap feeding in the study area was recorded on a Rough-barked Apple (Angophora floribunda) and this species has not been reported previously in this region. The species is a component of all five vegetation communities described in the study area and i s widespread and common. Sap feeding, honeydew and nec tar feeding in the Eden area was observed by Kavanagh (1987b) predominantly on Monkey Gum (Eucalyptus cypellocarpa) as well as River Peppermint (Eucalyptus elata). Both are common in the current study area and present in vegetation community 3 and 4. The important aspects of the Kavanagh (1987b) study and observations from the current assessment highlight that different eucalypt and non -eucalypt species and different locations are used seasonally by the species, and access to a range of habitats is important.

76


The loss of habitat is a Key Threatening Process listed as ‘Clearing of native vegetation’ under Schedule 3 of the TSC Act.

Loss of hollow-bearing trees

Hollow-bearing trees are a critical habitat feature for a number of threatened species (Gibbons and Lindenmayer 2002), providing breeding and/or sheltering habitat. Gibbons and Lindenmayer (2002) found that hollow bearing trees were more common in older stands, gullies, vegetation that has not been logged previously, and on flat terrain on fertile soils.

Hollow-bearing trees are present in habitats to be cleared by the proposal footprint and the loss of hollow-bearing trees is listed as a key threatening process under the TSC Act.

In NSW, terrestrial vertebrate species that are reliant on t ree hollows for shelter and nes ts include at least 46 m ammals, 81 bi rds, 31 reptiles and 16 f rogs (Gibbons and Li ndenmayer 1997, 2002). Of these, 15 listed threatened species (TSC Act or EPBC Act) have either been identified within the study area or considered likely to occur as discussed previously, these are shown in Table 4-2.

Table 4-2 Threatened species potentially affected by loss of hollow-bearing trees and considered to occur in the study area

Common name Species TSC Act EPBC Act

Glossy Black-cockatoo Calyptorhynchus lathami V -

Gang-gang Cockatoo Callocephalon fimbriatum V -

Brown Treecreeper (eastern subsp.)

Climacteris picumnus picumnus V -

Powerful Owl Ninox strenua V -

Masked Owl Tyto novaehollandiae V -

Barking Owl Ninox connivens V -

Large-eared Pied Bat Chalinolobus dwyeri V

Spotted-tailed Quoll Dasyurus maculatus V V

Eastern False Pipistrelle Falsistrellus tasmaniensis V -

77


Eastern Freetail-bat Mormopterus norfolkensis V -

Eastern Bent-wing Bat Miniopterus schreibersii oceanensis V -

Southern Myotis Myotis macropus V -

Yellow-bellied Glider Petaurus australis V -

Yellow-bellied Sheathtail-bat Saccolaimus flaviventris V -

Greater Broad-nosed Bat Scoteanax rueppellii V -

As discussed previously the location of an important Yellow-bellied Glider sap feeding tree was recorded near the proposal footprint in addition to several hollow-bearing trees proving potential glider den s ites. This data was used to refine the proposal footprint in order the avoid direct impacts on these features, in particular the sap feeding tree and thereby avoiding impacts on foraging resources for this family group of the Yellow-bellied Glider.

Koala Habitat

There was no ev idence of the Koala in the proposal footprint and a djacent habitat recorded during the targeted survey. However there are known populations in contiguous forest areas to the south of Bermagui in several State Forests and National Park areas (DECC 2009) and the species was recorded at five sites in Kooraban National Park from surveys conducted by NPWS in 2005 (reported in DECC 2009). Recent Koala surveys conducted by Allen (2011) in Kooraban and Gulaga National Park suggest probably only 5-15 Koalas are surviving in the approximately 6,000 hectares of forests assessed across these two reserves.

The DECCW (2010c) report for the Bermagui-Mumbulla area to the south of the study area indicates that the tree species under which Koala faecal pellets were most commonly found were Woollybutt (Eucalyptus longifolia), White Stringybark (Eucalyptus globoidea) and Y ellow Stringybark (Eucalyptus muelleriana). While Monkey Gum (Eucalyptus cypellocarpa), Coast Grey Box (Eucalyptus bosistoana), Red Ironbark (Eucalyptus tricarpa) and Silvertop Ash (Eucalyptus sieberi) were less frequently encountered, a r elatively high proportion of these species also had Koala pellets underneath them Monkey Gum (Eucalyptus cypellocarpa) is also listed in the NSW Koala Recovery Plan (DECC 2008) as a secondary food tree species for the south coast region and the AKF identifies this species as a primary feed species in the Bega Valley and Eurobodalla LGA. Eucalyptus.botryoides (Bangalay) was also identified by the AKF as a secondary feed tree.

78


In addition to this recent research in the south coast region (DECCW 2010c) has established that eucalypt communities in which Woollybutt (Eucalyptus longifolia), White Stringybark (Eucalyptus globoidea), Yellow Stringybark (Eucalyptus muelleriana), Monkey Gum (Eucalyptus cypellocarpa), Coast Grey Box (Eucalyptus bosistoana), Red Ironbark (Eucalyptus tricarpa), Blue Stringybark (Eucalyptus agglomerata), Rough-barked Apple (Angophora floribunda), Silvertop Ash (Eucalyptus sieberi) and B lack She-oak (Allocasuarina littoralis) occur sustains the known Koala populations in this part of the region.

White Stringybark, Monkey Gum and Silvertop ash are all components of the vegetation map units 1 and 2 and 3 identified in the study area, and on this basis these habitats are considered habitat critical to the survival of Koalas as per the advice in DSEWPaC (2012) and the proposal would remove around 19.9 hectares. Apart from the loss of habitat, Koalas may also be impacted by alteration to movements and vehicle strike. Currently connectivity for the Koala is restricted by the existing highway and t here are no s uitable underpasses. The proposed upgrade when completed would aim to facilitate the natural movements of Koala across the proposal corridor with suitable underpasses including a bridge structure over Dignams Creek.

Summary of impacts on threatened species

The potential impacts from the proposal on t hreatened flora and fauna subject species are discussed in Table 4-3. Species are discussed individually, however where a group of species share similar habitat requirements and l ife-cycle strategies, these are discussed together (e.g. hollow-roosting microchiropteran bats and l arge forest owls). Where there is insufficient information on the size and extent of the population in order to make an informed decision regarding the significance of the impact, the potential impact is based on the precautionary principle. There is potential to minimise the likely impacts discussed through appropriate and targeted mitigation and management actions during construction and operation and this is discussed in Chapter 5.

79


Table 4-3 Summary of impacts to threatened species and ecological communities

Threatened Species / community

Status Potential Impacts Potential to occur in the study area EPBC Act TSC Act

River-flat Eucalypt Forest

- E Impacts include approximately 0.1 hectares of moderate condition vegetation along Dignams Creek comprising a thin strip of riparian vegetation, and approximately 0.1 hectares of high condition vegetation along Blind Creek. There is approximately 76767 hectares of vegetation consistent with River-flat Eucalypt Forest on Coastal Floodplains within 10 kilometres of the construction footprint (Tozer et al. 2010). The potential impacts for the proposed upgrade represent less than 0.002% of the distribution in the locality.

Known

Square Raspwort (Haloragis exaltata subsp. exaltata)

V V This species was identified in relatively high abundance along the edges of Dignams Creek within the study area. Approximately 50 individuals were recorded in the construction footprint within the thin strip of riparian vegetation along Dignams Creek, including several large clumps on the edges of cleared areas. Impacts to habitat for this species in the construction footprint are likely to be short to medium term in duration. As riparian habitats following construction are likely to support suitable habitat for the species, as it favours disturbance events and was shown to proliferate in the currently disturbed area adjoining the exiting highway and bridge.

The local population is conservatively estimated to consist of greater than 1,000 plant clumps in the locality. The proposal would result in impacts to less than 5% of the local population.

Known

Grey-headed Flying-fox

(Pteropus poliocephalus)

V V Removal of approximately 7.40 hectares of potential foraging habitat. There are no roost camps within the locality, however the dry sclerophyll forests provide potential foraging habitat for this species at different times of the year. Flying-foxes are found in a variety of habitats, including rainforest, mangroves, paperbark swamps, wet and

High

80




Koala V

(Phascolarctos cinereus)

V

dry sclerophyll forests and cultivated areas. Potential foraging habitat is common and widespread.

There was no ev idence of Koala activity recorded in the proposal footprint and High adjacent habitat from the targeted surveys. However there are known populations in contiguous forest areas to the south of Bermagui in several State Forests and National Park areas (DECC 2009) and the species was recorded at five sites in Kooraban National Park from surveys conducted by NPWS in 2005 (reported in DECC 2009). Recent Koala surveys conducted by Allen (2011) in Kooraban and Gulaga National Park suggest probably only 5-15 Koalas are surviving in the approximately 6,000 hectares of forests assessed across these two reserves.

The DECC (2009) report for the Bermagui-Mumbulla area to the south of the study area indicates that the tree species under which Koala faecal pellets were most commonly found were Eucalyptus longifolia (Woollybutt), E. globoidea (white stringybark), and E. muelleriana (yellow stringybark). While E. cypellocarpa (monkey gum), E. bosistoana (coastal greybox), E. tricarpa (red ironbark) and E. sieberi (silvertop ash) were less frequently encountered, but a relatively high proportion of these species also had Koala pellets underneath them. E. cypellocarpa (monkey gum) is also listed in the NSW Koala Recovery Plan (DECC 2008) as a secondary food tree species for the south coast region.

The Australian Koala Foundation (AKF) also identifies additional tree species as primary or secondary species. In the Bega Valley and E urobodalla LGA the AKF (2012) identifies Monkey Gum as a primary feed tree species and the majority of the species listed above have been identified as secondary species (refer to Table 6-5). Eucalyptus.botryoides (Bangalay) was also identified in the AKP (2012) report as a

81




secondary feed tree.

The proposal would involve the removal of around 19.6 hectares of potential Koala habitat. Potential impacts to the species associated with the proposal include loss, modification and fragmentation of habitat, and road kill. Currently connectivity for the Koala is restricted by the existing highway and there are no suitable underpasses. The proposed upgrade would aim to facilitate the natural movements of Koala across the proposal corridor with suitable underpasses including a large bridge structure.

Spotted-tailed Quoll E V Impacts would be associated with the removal of around 20 hectares of potential High

(Dasyurus maculatus) habitat for this wide-ranging species which may include sheltering and breeding habitat. Also potential barrier impact from the highway, however this threat currently exists and the upgrade would aim to facilitate natural movements of fauna across the proposal corridor.

The Spotted-tailed Quoll is a cryptic species that occurs in a variety of habitats including rainforests, open woodlands, coastal heath and inland riparian forests. The species is known to den in hollow logs, caves and rocky ledges. Females occupy home ranges up to about 750 hectares and males up to 3500 hectares. They usually traverse their ranges along densely vegetated creek lines and edges of cleared farmland. The proposal would remove only a very small portion of potential habitat for this species compared to the extent of available habitat in the locality. The quality of the habitat increases with increasing distance from the existing road, including higher quality habitat structure, feeding resources and potential denning habitat. The habitat along the road edge is unlikely to be critical for this species and the provision of a fauna underpass structure would in fact improve the current connectivity.

82




Brush-tailed Phascogale (Phascogale tapoatafa)

- V Impacts would be associated with the removal of habitat associated with map units 1 and 2 and around 16.4 hectares of potential habitat which may include sheltering and breeding habitat. The remaining dense wet sclerophyll forest habitats are considered marginal for the phascogale. Also there is a potential barrier impact from the highway upgrade, however this threat currently exists and t he upgrade would aim to facilitate natural movements of fauna across the proposal corridor. The size and extent of local populations is not known and the species is expected to be widespread in a range of habitats.

Moderate

Long-nosed Potoroo (Potoroo tridactylus)

V V The species was not confirmed in the study area although is considered to have potential to occur. Conical diggings were noted in several locations however these are not distinguishable from the Long-nosed Bandicoot which was observed. The northern end of the proposal corridor, north of Dignams Creek provides suitable habitat for the species given that the soil type and dense understorey compared to the remainder of the study area. Based on known habitat preferences, habitats in the national park areas of the southern section would be considered marginal for this species.

Moderate

Yellow-bellied Glider

(Petaurus australis)

- V Yellow-bellied Gliders were recorded at two locations, firstly to the south of Dignams Creek Road approximately 200 m within riparian habitat on pr ivate land and secondly within Kooraban National Park at the furthest southern end of the proposal also within riparian forest.

The hollow tree survey identified a higher density of hollow-trees on the western side of the highway than the eastern side and a hi gher density within Kooraban National Park than other parts of the study area. This included observation of an important Yellow-bellied Glider sap feeding tree (refer to Figure 3-6) and a number

Known

83




of possible den t rees in this location. Two yellow-bellied gliders were observed on the sap tree and this tree is expected to be an important feature in the home range of at least one family group of gliders. The habitat to the west of the highway in Kooraban NP is of better quality than on the ridge to the east of the highway in Gulaga NP which is considered marginal. .

The location of the sap feeding tree was considered in the design of the upgrade such that it would be protected from direct impacts. There may be indirect impacts from traffic noise and lights. The location of actual den sites is not known, and a several habitat trees would be removed. The proposal is likely to impact on the extent of food and shelter resources available for the species in this location and movements across the highway.

The Yellow-bellied Glider feeds primarily on plant and insect exudates, including nectar, sap, honeydew and manna with pollen and insects providing protein.

White-footed Dunnart V Of the habitat within the proposal study area, the dry sclerophyll forest along the Moderate (Sminthopsis leucopus) upper slopes and ridges of Gulaga and Kooraban National Park (Map Unit 1

Silvertop Ash open forest) would be considered suitable although marginal. The proposal would directly impact on around 4.6 hectares of this habitat type mainly in edge affected habitats along the existing highway. The remaining wet sclerophyll vegetation types and particularly gullies and slower slopes with dense understorey are not optimum habitat and their dominance in the study area may suggest that there are minimal opportunities for populations of the dunnart. There are very few records in the locality, with the majority occurring in more coastal areas dominated by dry forests and heath.

84




Giant burrowing Frog V The Giant Burrowing Frog was not recorded during the field surveys. Moderate (Heleioporus australicus)

Potential habitat was noted along Blinds Creek which is a t ributary of Dignams Creek and also the upper reaches of Dignams Creek outside of the study area are also suitable. The lower portions of Dignams Creek impacted by the proposal appear to be too deep and rapid flowing to be suited as breeding sites for this species and are considered only very marginal. Breeding habitat of this species is generally soaks or pools within first or second order streams. They are also commonly recorded from 'hanging swamp' seepage lines and where small pools form from the collected water. As such the areas of potential breeding habitat noted are outside of the proposed proposal footprint and upstream of the activity outside of the zone of influence.

Some areas of non-breeding habitat near Blinds Creek may be impacted particularly on the south-side of Dignams Creek Road in loamy and sandy soils. The impact area would equate to less than 2-3 hectares.

Stuttering Frog E E The species is found in rainforest and wet, tall open forest in the foothills and Moderate (Mixophyes balbus) escarpment on t he eastern side of the Great Dividing Range. Suitable habitat is

widespread in the region particularly to the west of the study area in the more contiguous wet forests along the range and only considered marginal in the study area.

If present in the locality the preferred areas of habitat would occur in the upper reaches of Dignams Creek and Blind Creek upstream of the proposal corridor and outside of the zone of influence. The proposal is unlikely to impact on the habitat or life-cycle of the species.

The clearing for the proposal would not isolate areas of breeding or non-breeding

85




habitat which would be retained outside of the construction zone. Important breeding areas of habitat may occur within the region in the upper reaches of the Dignams and Blind Creek ecosystems, however not within the study area.

Cave-roosting Microbats

Eastern Bent-wing Bat

(Miniopterus schreibersii oceanensis)

- V These bats inhabit a range of habitats from tropical mixed woodland and wet sclerophyll forest, and Melaleuca swamps to drier forests, and woodlands. All roost in domes in the roofs of caves as well as in rock cracks and crevices, and in mines. Some also roost in culverts and under bridges and occasionally tree hollows.

Clearing of foraging habitats and loss of roosting areas is a threat. The likely impact of the proposal would include disturbance to foraging habitat only as there are no caves or potential roosting locations within the actual proposal footprint. The disturbance would be t emporary only, and l ong-term impacts on prey availability of movements are not expected.

An inspection of the Dignams Creek bridge did not detect any roosting bats or potential bat roosting habitats.

Moderate

Large-eared Pied Bat

(Chalinolobus dwyeri)

V V Moderate

Southern Myotis

(Myotis macropus)

- V Moderate

Tree-roosting Microbats

Eastern False Pipistrelle

(Falsistrellus tasmaniensis)

- V These bats occupy a wide range of habitats from rainforest, floodplains, tall open forest, savannah woodlands and grasslands. Some exhibit preferences for riparian zones, others are known to frequent coastal scrub and sand dunes.

Recorded

Eastern Freetail-bat - V Recorded

86




(Mormopterus norfolkensis)

However, all rely on the presence of mature trees with hollows, or other fissures, cracks and crevices in living or dead vegetation for roosting. Clearing of roosting and foraging habitats is a threat.

Likely impacts from the proposal include permanent loss of a small area of habitat containing potential roost trees and temporary disturbance to foraging habitat and habitat for insect prey species in the study area, potentially leading to a short-term reduction in habitat and feeding resources across the study area for these species.

Yellow-bellied Sheathtail-bat

(Saccolaimus flaviventris)

- V High

Greater Broad-nosed Bat

(Scoteanax rueppellii)

- V Recorded

Birds

Glossy Black-cockatoo

(Calyptorhynchus lathami)

- V While this widespread species could potentially utilise much of the forest habitat in the study area for roosting, the distribution and extent of food resources (Allocasuarina spp) is restricted and no evidence of foraging, as shown by chewed cones, was noted. Tree hollows potentially suitable as nesting habitat are present as identified in the habitat tree survey and there is potential for the feeding and nesting life-cycle activities of the species to be impacted.

Recorded

Gang-gang Cockatoo

(Callocephalon fimbriatum)

- V A wide-ranging and locally nomadic species. All forested areas in the corridor could contain food resources for this species which favours a v ariety of seeds and fruits and apparently favours old growth forests for roosting and nesting. This would include Map units 1, 2, 3 and 5. The proposal would remove

Recorded

87




Square-tailed Kite - V (Lophoictinia isura)

Pink Robin (Petroica V rodinogaster)

potential foraging habitat including trees with hollows potentially suitable as nesting habitat. Tree hollows potentially suitable as nesting habitat are present as identified in the habitat tree survey and there is potential for the feeding and nesting life-cycle activities of the species to be impacted.

Found in a variety of timbered habitats including dry Moderate woodlands and open forests. Shows a particular preference for timbered watercourses and appears to occupy large hunting ranges of more than 100 km2. No nest site for the species was located in the proposal area at the time of the survey. This was determined from a traverse of the entire proposal footprint for the habitat resource survey. I f present, the proposal would involve the removal of potential prey habitat as the species is a specialist hunter of birds, especially honeyeaters and insects in the tree canopy. Potential habitat is common and widespread.

The Pink Robin inhabits rainforest and tall, open eucalypt Moderate forest, particularly in densely vegetated gullies. Suitable habitat is marginal is some of the wetter gullies, particularly to the north of Dignams Creek on t he western side of the highway and at the far southern end of the proposal on the eastern side of the highway there is a small area of potential habitat just outside the proposal footprint.

The impacts to potential habitat would equate to less than 4

88




hectares of habitat for prey species and would contribute to fragmentation of habitat in the study area for very small bird species. However the longer distance migratory behaviour of this species suggests that it is adapted to moving across fragmented landscapes.

There would be no impact on breeding habitat and the study area would not be considered important for the species.

Large Forest Owls

Powerful Owl

(Ninox strenua)

- V Habitat for Powerful Owl occurs across the entire proposal corridor, and i s particularly associated with the moist gullies and adjacent slopes (MU 1-3) rather than the open and cleared modified lands around Dignams Creek. This is similar for the Sooty Owl which prefers moist gullies and tall mature forest, while the Masked Owl would favour open forest on the ridge tops and adjoining edges of cleared farmland. The proposal would remove potential hunting habitat and may remove potential roost and or nesting habitat associated with map units 1-3. These species require very large tree hollows for nesting and these feature were found to be very scarce given the previous logging history of the study area.

High

Masked Owl

(Tyto novaehollandiae)

- V Moderate

Sooty Owl (Tyto tenebricosa)

- V Moderate

Barking Owl

(Ninox connivens)

V Moderate

89


4.2. Wildlife connectivity and habitat fragmentation

Roads can decrease the amount and quality of habitat available to wildlife, and can fragment populations leading to genetic isolation. These smaller isolated populations experience higher risk of local extinction from significant disturbance events such as bushfire. Fragmented habitats are prone to edge effects which affect the quality of the habitat for species that are sensitive to disturbance, and/or require particular microhabitat features found in forested areas.

The existing Princes Highway is typically a t wo-lane road, with one northbound and on e southbound lane. Steep cuttings are present in some areas along the existing highway alignment which includes the study area, creating an existing barrier to fauna movements. The proposal would incorporate a wider corridor, hence habitats in the study area would be further fragmented by the proposed upgrade because it would create a wider barrier between habitats on either side of the highway and create a completely new barrier from the existing highway.

The proposed Dignams Creek upgrade would include mitigation measures to facilitate wildlife connectivity through the provision of a bridge over Dignams Creek, four fauna underpasses and canopy rope-bridge to encourage fauna passage. Barriers to fauna movement such as median barriers would not be i ncluded in the design. In addition the proposal would involve future revegetation of obsolete sections of the existing highway in the study area to facilitate fauna movements.

Connectivity loss and habitat fragmentation

The proposal would have some potential impacts on w ildlife connectivity in particular by increasing the area of vegetation clearing from the existing highway and therefore increase the distance for any wildlife crossing the road. There would also be s everal large cuttings and retaining walls which would add to the existing barriers and further impede terrestrial fauna and glider movements. The main fauna species potentially impacted from the increased width of the road and the retaining walls / cuttings would be terrestrial species such as Spotted-tailed Quoll and Long-nosed Potoroo, reptiles and macropods, as well as arboreal species such as Koala, and Yellow-bellied Glider. The proposed mitigation measures (see Section 5) would ameliorate some of the potential impacts to wildlife connectivity.

The study area lies between the Kooraban and Gulaga National Parks which combine with other regional reserves to form an important east-west link of conserved lands connecting the coast to the tablelands, and nor th-south along the escarpments forests from the Illawarra to East Gippsland in Victoria (NPWS 2006). The proposal lies adjacent to and overlays the existing road corridor and would result in impacts to connectivity. However the proposal would not result in extensive fragmentation of habitat. The existing habitat fragmentation in the northern part of

90


the proposal has been created previously through clearing of the creek flats and adjacent slopes surrounding Dignams Creek for grazing land.

Edge effects

Edge effects are zones of changed environmental conditions (i.e. altered light levels, wind speed, temperature and noise) occurring along the edges of habitat fragments. These new environmental conditions along the edges can promote the growth of different vegetation types (including weeds), allow invasion by pest animals specialising in edge habitats, and/or change the behaviour of resident animals (Moenting and Morris 2006). Edge zones may also be subject to higher levels of predation by introduced mammalian predators and native avian predators.

Species with excellent dispersal abilities, capable of invading and colonising disturbed habitats, are attracted to edges, and move into the core of natural habitat if a road or utility corridor carries the edge into a previously undisturbed area (Andrews 1990). The edge experiences a different wind and r adiation effect, leading to a different microclimate. If habitats become too fragmented such that the ratio of edge to interior favours edges, the habitat would no longer be suitable for the interior species (Ranney et al. 1981).

Edge effects have been r ecorded at distances greater than 1000 metres from road surfaces (Forman et al. 2000). However in a comparison of edge effects in a variety of different habitat types, Bali (2000; 2005) estimated that average edge effects generally occur up to 50 metres away from the road edge.

There is an ex isting edge effect evident along both sides of the existing highway through the study area associated with increased weed abundance, rubbish and areas of soil disturbance and erosion. The proposal would involve widening the existing road in some sections and creation of a new road alignment in other areas, thereby increasing the extent of the edge effect within the national park areas and particularly in map units 1-3. Edge effects are expected to be less pronounced in the cleared and modified habitats between Dignams Creek Road and northern end of the proposal.

4.3. Injury and mortality

Fauna injury or death can occur during the clearing phase of construction via the removal of habitat trees, as well as throughout the life-time of the road operation as a result of collision with vehicles. There is also potential for increased fauna injury and mortality as a result of further habitat fragmentation, degradation and loss.

There is potential for injury and mortality to fauna species during vegetation clearing activities. The most vulnerable species are those who take refuge in trees (e.g. hollows, under bark, in

91


nests, and in fallen logs) and in the ground, and/or have low agility. A range of ground-dwelling mammals, microbats, possums, reptiles, birds (particularly fledglings) and frogs are likely to be affected. Macropods, larger reptiles and adult birds are least likely to be affected by vegetation clearing activities because they are able to flee to unaffected areas of suitable habitat.

The two dedicated fauna underpasses and the combined fauna underpass/drainage culvert (F) would all include fauna fences as they are located in areas of remnant native vegetation adjacent to two National Parks and the fencing is intended to guide animals towards the crossing structure and prevent fauna accessing the road. Fauna fencing is proposed in all areas of bushland in the southern part of the proposal along the alignments for stage 1 and s tage 2. Fauna fencing is not required at the tops of cut batters.

As there are currently limited fauna crossing structures on the existing highway through the study area, implementation of the proposed wildlife connectivity mitigation measures may assist in reducing the number of fauna injuries and/or mortality associated with vehicle collisions.

Construction impacts

While some diurnal and mobile species, such as birds and large reptiles, may be able to move away from the path of clearing, other species that are less mobile or those that are nocturnal, or have smaller home ranges and/or strong site fidelity, are less inclined to move rapidly or disperse large distances away from the activity. This includes species such roosting microchiropteran bats, arboreal mammals, small reptiles and f rogs. The RMS has developed biodiversity guidelines to protect and manage biodiversity on RMS projects (RTA 2011). Further details on the procedures to be implemented are outlined in Chapter 5.

Operation impacts

Mortality due t o vehicle strike during operation of the upgraded highway has the potential to affect fauna species at the sub-population level. In general, rates of vehicle strike mortality are likely to be directly proportional to the distance of native vegetation/fauna habitat crossed by the proposal (Forman et al. 2000). However, other factors such as the design of the road (e.g. through cut or fill, presence of adjacent fences, safety barriers, fauna exclusion fences or fauna crossing structures), vegetation in close proximity to the road, cleared areas where grazing animals forage such as macropods also influence vehicle strike mortality rates. Estimates of road mortality in Australia, based on a s ingle pass survey, have suggested that one bird is lost every 13 k ilometre and one m ammal lost every 30 k ilometre (Disney and Ful lagar 1978; Vestjens 1973). Burgin and Brainwood (2008) reported a roadkill frequency of 6.32 animals per 100 kilometre in central western NSW and 3.39 animals per 100 kilometres in peri-urban Sydney. These authors reported more mammals being killed than birds, and i dentified

92


significantly higher numbers of animals killed on medium traffic volume roads such as major secondary roads and minor highways than on hi gh volume major highways (Burgin and Brainwood 2008).

However, simple counts of road mortality fail to consider the impacts that such mortality can have in the wider populations through lost breeding (Forman et al. 2000; Taylor and Goldingay 2004) and the impacts on discrete populations where recruitment is reliant on breeding rather than influx of more animals from adjacent populations.

Threatened fauna that could be potentially affected by vehicle strike in this location are species that are regularly reported as road kill and i nclude Koala (Canfield 1991) and S potted-tailed Quoll (Beckers 2008).

4.4. Weeds

Of the total 330 s pecies of flora recorded, 49 introduced flora species were identified, representing approximately 15 per cent of the total species. Of these 49 species two noxious species were recorded (refer to Table 4-4).

Table 4-4 Noxious weed species identified at the geotechnical investigation sites (Bega Valley Local Government Area)

Species Prevalence on Site Noxious Class

Patterson’s Curse

(Echium plantagineum)

Recorded in low abundance on disturbed roadside areas.

Class 4: The growth and spread of the plant must be c ontrolled according to the measures specified in a management plan published by the local control authority and the plant may not be sold, propagated or knowingly distributed

Blackberry

(Rubus fruticosus)

Recorded in moderate to high abundance in unmaintained road easements and disturbed areas of remnant vegetation

There are currently five Key Threatening Processes listed under the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (NSW) (TSC Act) that relate to the invasion and establishment of weeds. Each of these has potential to be exacerbated by construction and operation of the proposal, and includes the following:

Invasion and establishment of exotic vines and scramblers.

Invasion of native plant communities by Bitou Bush and Boneseed.

Invasion of native plant communities by exotic perennial grasses.

Invasion of native plant communities by African Olive (Olea europaea L. subsp. cuspidata).

93


Invasion, establishment and spread of Lantana (Lantana camara).

The noxious species recorded in the study area, Paterson’s Curse and Blackberry, are relatively common in roadside habitats and paddock areas, and all are known to occupy disturbed areas. During construction there is potential to disperse weed seeds and plant material into adjoining areas of remnant vegetation, including the National Parks, where weed species do not currently occur. The most likely causes of weed dispersal are associated with clearing of vegetation and stockpile of contaminated mulch and t opsoil during earthworks, and movement of soil and attachment of seed (and other propagules) to construction vehicles and machinery.

There is a r isk these species could be s pread during construction of the proposal. However, mitigation measures in accordance with those outlined in the RMS Biodiversity Guidelines (RTA, 2011) would be i mplemented to limit the spread and g ermination of noxious weeds (refer to Section 5.2). Landscaping of surrounding disturbed areas including weed management would limit the establishment and spread of weed species during operation.

4.5. Pests and pathogens

Pests

There are currently five Key Threatening Processes listed under the TSC Act and three under the EPBC Act that relate to the invasion and establishment of pests. Each of these has potential to be exacerbated by construction and operation of the proposal, which includes:

Competition and grazing by the feral European Rabbit (TSC Act and EPBC Act).

Competition from feral honeybees (TSC Act).

Predation by feral cats (TSC Act and EPBC Act).

Predation by the European Red Fox (TSC Act and EPBC Act).

Predation by the Plague Minnow (Gambusia holbrooki) (TSC Act).

Feral honeybees are introduced bees which originally escaped from hives and hav e subsequently established in the wild. While the proposal would not directly increase bee numbers, the removal of hollow-bearing trees would indirectly increase competition for hollows by native fauna because the loss of tree hollows via occupation by feral honeybees reduces the number of hollows available for native animals to breed and shelter. This is of particular concern for species which are threatened and include tree-roosting microbats, and several bird, reptile and frog species.

94


The proposal may contribute to increased levels of predation on native fauna from foxes and cats, through the impact of habitat removal leading to displacement of resident fauna. There is some evidence of foxes preying on bandicoots at purpose built fauna underpasses that were placed in disturbed habitats (Harris et al. 2010). However, these authors consider this is less likely where multiple structures are used, as proposed, possibly minimising the potential for predation.

The clearing of vegetation may increase the value of the habitat for rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus) in the study area over the long-term. As rabbits tend to colonise more disturbed and modified open habitats, any increase in the population of this pest species is more likely to impact on native fauna tolerant of modified habitats. Following construction of the proposal, revegetation of redundant sections of the Princes Highway areas would assist in reducing potential habitat for rabbits in the proposal area.

Pathogens

Pathogens are agents that cause disease in flora and fauna and are usually living organisms such as bacterium, virus or fungus. Several pathogens known from NSW have potential to impact on bi odiversity as a r esult their movement and i nfection during construction of the proposal. Of these three are listed as a key threatening process under either the EPBC Act and/or TSC Act including:

Dieback caused by Phytophthora (Root Rot; EPBC Act and TSC Act).

Infection of frogs by amphibian chytrid fungus causing the disease chytridiomycosis (EPBC Act and TSC Act).

Introduction and establishment of exotic Rust Fungi of the order Pucciniales on plants of the family Myrtaceae (TSC Act).

There is potential for pathogens to occur during construction and should be t reated as a r isk during construction. The risk is especially high in construction areas affecting waterways (refer to Table 4-5).

Table 4-5 Pathogens that may affect flora and fauna during construction

Pathogen Description Potential disease transmission

Phytophthora (Phytophthora cinnamomi)

A soil-borne fungus that causes tree death (dieback). Attacks the roots of a wide range of native plant species.

Spores can be d ispersed over relatively large distances by surface and sub-surface water flows. Infected soil/root material may be

95


Pathogen Description Potential disease transmission

dispersed by vehicles (e.g. earth moving equipment)

Myrtle rust

(Uredo rangelli)

An introduced fungus that attacks the young leaves, short tips and stems of Myrtaceous plants eventually killing the plant.

Myrtle rust is an air-borne fungus that may be spread by moving infected plant material, contaminated clothing, equipment and vehicles.

Chytrid fungus (Batrachocytrium dendrobatidis).

A soil and water-borne fungus which attacks keratin in frog skin and organs, causing death.

Chytrid is a water-borne fungus that may be spread as a result of handling frogs or through cross contamination of water bodies by vehicles and workers.

4.6. Changed hydrology

The proposed construction of the bridge over Dignams Creek is not expected to alter the current stream flow regime or velocities or the depths of the waterway around the bridge structure. The structure would aim to span the creek channel and av oid the placement of piles within the waterway.

4.7. Groundwater-dependent ecosystems

The majority of vegetation communities in the study area are considered to have a low-level of groundwater dependence considering the dry nature of these communities, their occurrence on steep undulating terrain and slopes, and the lack of any evidence of groundwater expression at the base of slopes and/or in drainage lines.

The creek flats around Dignams Creek, Blind Creek and s ome gully areas potentially have some level of groundwater dependence. Species in these areas are adapted to localised flooding and soil water logging which would occur during heavy rain periods.

Hydrological regimes including groundwater levels and flooding regimes are unlikely to be substantially altered from the proposal. Intersection of the water table in cut areas on elevated lands is considered unlikely and potential groundwater dependence of vegetation communities surrounding cut areas is considered low. Construction works in floodplain areas will be largely

96


limited to fill batters with minor excavations required for the bridge piers. It is considered unlikely that there will be any groundwater drawdown as a result of the proposal.

Considering groundwater levels are unlikely to be altered as a result of the proposal, potential groundwater-dependant ecosystems on floodplains and riparian areas are considered unlikely to be impacted.

4.8. Aquatic impacts

The construction and operation of the proposal has the potential to impact aquatic ecosystems due to habitat loss, in stream barriers and changes in water quality.

Removal of Woody debris

The removal of large woody debris or snags is listed under Schedule 6 of the FM Act as a key threatening process. Woody debris plays an important role in freshwater and m arine ecosystems by providing essential habitat for aquatic organisms, providing a r efuge from predation and a resting place away from the main flow of the waterway and providing important refuge and breeding habitat for fish including threatened species. Woody debris also provides habitat for a number of fauna such as frogs and turtles, plants, algae, microorganisms and invertebrates. Tree trunks and fallen branches are also structurally important for stabilising stream beds and banks.

Woody debris is an i mportant component of aquatic habitat throughout Dignams creek. Construction of the proposal may reduce the presence and availability of woody debris and snags if not managed appropriately.

Obstruction and displacement of fish passage

Installation and operation of in-stream structures and other mechanisms that alter the natural flow regimes of rivers is listed as a Key Threatening Process under Schedule 6 of the FM Act. The bridge construction would need to be in accordance with the Fish passage requirements for waterway crossing detailed in Fairfull and Witheridge (2003). Where feasible, bridge works would be undertaken from the banks and would not block fish passage. It is unlikely the proposal would result in extensive changes to the hydrology of the Dignams Creek that would alter flow velocities, water way depth or the natural flow regimes of the waterway.

Impacts to water quality

There is the potential for increased sedimentation and erosion during construction of the new bridge. Potentially polluting activities associated with construction of the proposal include earthworks, placement of road surface, disposal of wastewater, equipment and chemical

97


storage areas and e rosion from exposed ground and s tockpiles. Increased suspended solids can impact fish and macroinvertebrate abundance through clogging gill structures and benthic smothering. Increased particulates in the water column can also reduce water infiltration which may limit plant growth and influence predator foraging behaviour. Increased turbidity can result in a r eduction of light penetration and i n turn reduce the number of aquatic macrophytes or algae, altering the existing aquatic habitat.

The main operational activity that would impact Dignams Creek is traffic use, which may lead to pollutant load in the road run-off during periods of heavy rain; however water quality controls including one permanent water quality basin, five biofiltration basins and two constructed wetlands will mitigate some of these indirect impacts. Road run-off can contain a variety of pollutants, which may impact negatively on the aquatic environment and in turn reduce commercial and r ecreational fishing viability, including aquaculture present in the study area. Pollutants can include litter, nutrients, heavy metals, pesticides, herbicides and pet roleum hydrocarbons. However the volume of traffic is not expected to increase from the current situation following the upgrade and existing water quality basins would account for pollutant run-off.

The Dignams Creek crossing is located upstream of the Dignams Creek Sanctuary Zone which is part of the Batemans Marine Park. It is important that water quality conditions are not degraded by the proposal and monitored to ensure potential impacts to the Dignams Creek Sanctuary Zone and i ts habitats are minimised. A Water Quality Monitoring Plan (Table 5-3) would be i mplemented to manage these conditions. Management and mitigation measures would be des igned to minimise potential impacts to water quality within Dignams Creek to minimise potential impacts to aquatic habitats (refer to Section 5.2.6).

4.9. Noise, vibration and light

Considering the existing levels of noise, vibration and l ight from the Princes Highway it is unlikely there would be a significant increase to the existing levels which would result in any significant impacts to native fauna species. There is potential for impacts to local fauna from noise and vibration during construction, which may result in fauna temporarily avoiding habitats adjacent to the proposal.

The light levels beneath the proposed bridge structure would be relatively low and may limit the growth of any plantings associated with landscaping activities. The low light levels are not envisaged to substantially deter fauna movements or foraging activities in this area, however noise from passing vehicles may deter some species. An unsealed property access track would be included under the bridge however vehicle movements are anticipated to occur infrequently

98


and vehicles would be travelling slowly due to the tight bends and as such there would be low potential for impacts to fauna movements or for vehicle strike.

4.10. Impact on relevant key threatening processes

Key threatening processes listed under the TSC Act and EPBC Act and considered likely to be increased by the proposal are listed in Table 4-6. Key threatening processes identified as being impacted by the proposal comprise those associated with habitat degradation including vegetation clearing, bushrock removal and r emoval of hollow-bearing trees and f allen timber. Mitigation measures would be implemented to minimise the extent of vegetation clearing and habitat disturbance (refer to Section 5.2), and relocate important fauna habitats.

There is also potential for other key threatening processes to be increased (e.g. weed invasion, introduction of pests and diseases and alteration of hydrological regimes). There is some potential for the proposal to exacerbate tree dieback associated with over-abundant psyllids and Bell Minor (Manorina melanophrys) birds along gullies and c reek lines as a r esult of indirect impacts to these areas. However, where these are predictable, mitigation measures would be implemented to minimise their effect.

Table 4-6 Enacting of key threatening processes

Threatening Process Relevant legislation

Increased by the proposal?

Proposed Mitigation

Habitat Degradation

Bushrock removal TSC Act Yes Section 5.2

Land clearance/Clearing of native vegetation EPBC Act, TSC Act

Yes

Loss of hollow-bearing trees TSC Act Yes

Removal of dead wood and dead trees TSC Act Yes

Forest Eucalypt dieback associated with over-abundant psyllids and bell miners

TSC Act Potential

Feral Invertebrate Fauna

Competition from feral honey bees (Apis mellifera) TSC Act Potential

Feral Vertebrate Fauna

Predation by feral cats / Predation by the feral cat (Felis catus)

EPBC Act, TSC Act

Unlikely Section 5.2

Predation, Habitat Degradation, Competition and Disease Transmission by Feral Pigs / Predation, habitat

EPBC Act, TSC Act

Unlikely

99




Proposed Mitigation

degradation, competition and disease transmission by feral pigs (Sus scrofa)

Competition and land degradation by rabbits / Competition and grazing by the feral European rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus)

EPBC Act, TSC Act

Potential

Predation and hybridisation of feral dogs (Canis lupus familiaris)

TSC Act Unlikely

Herbivory and environmental degradation caused by feral deer

TSC Act Unlikely

Predation by European red fox / Predation by the European red fox (Vulpes vulpes)

EPBC Act, TSC Act

Unlikely

Hydrology and Riparian Zones

Alteration to the natural flow regimes of rivers and streams and their floodplains and wetlands

TSC Act Unlikely Section 5.2

The degradation of native riparian vegetation along NSW water courses

FM Act Unlikely Section 5.2

Removal of large woody debris from NSW rivers and streams

FM Act Unlikely Section 5.2

Installation and operation of Instream structures and other mechanisms that alter natural flow regimes of rivers and streams

FM Act Potential Section 5.2

Pathogens

Infection of amphibians with chytrid fungus resulting in chytridiomycosis/Infection of frogs by amphibian chytrid causing the disease chytridiomycosis

EPBC Act, TSC Act

Potential Section 5.2

Dieback caused by the root-rot fungus (Phytophthora cinnamomi)/Infection of native plants by Phytophthora cinnamomi

EPBC Act, TSC Act

Potential

Introduction and Establishment of Exotic Rust Fungi of the order Pucciniales pathogenic on plants of the family Myrtaceae

TSC Act Potential

Weeds

Loss and degradation of native plant and animal habitat by invasion of escaped garden plants, including aquatic plants

EPBC Act Potential Section 5.2

100




Proposed Mitigation

Invasion of native plant communities by exotic perennial grasses

TSC Act Potential

Invasion and establishment of exotic vines and scramblers

TSC Act Potential

Invasion of native plant communities by African Olive (Olea europaea L. subsp. cuspidata)

TSC Act Potential

Invasion, establishment and spread of Lantana camara TSC Act Potential

Climate Change

Loss of terrestrial climatic habitat caused by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases

EPBC Act Potential n/a

Anthropogenic climate change TSC Act Potential n/a

4.11. Cumulative impacts

The proposal would increase the existing area of disturbance created by the Princes Highway in the Dignams Creek area and ot her local roads in the area. There would also be cumulative impacts from potential future upgrades.

There would be a potential for a long-term net increase in vegetation and habitat in the study area associated with revegetation and rehabilitation as part of the offset strategy.

101


5. Avoidance and mitigation measures The RMS Corporate Plan: Blueprint Update (2011) states RMS ‘will reduce the impact of road projects on the natural and social environment’. The RMS Biodiversity Guidelines (RTA 2011) respond to the RMS’ corporate commitments by addressing biodiversity management. In managing biodiversity, RMS aims to:

Avoid and minimise impacts first.

Mitigate impacts where avoidance is not possible.

Offset where residual impacts cannot be avoided.

5.1. Avoid and minimise

The proposal has been designed to minimise vegetation clearing where possible and minimise potential impacts to specific threatened species and ec ological communities present in the study area. Specific avoidance and m inimisation measures associated with the design and route selection of the proposal comprise:

Avoidance of identified areas of habitat currently occupied by the Yellow-bellied Glider, including an important sap feeding tree and several hollow-bearing habitat trees.

Minimising impacts to areas of high quality habitat for the Koala and other threatened fauna where possible relating to the northern and southern ends of the proposal, by keeping the route as close to the existing highway as possible.

Minimising vegetation/habitat clearing where possible to reduce impacts to a nu mber of threatened fauna species which potentially utilise these habitats.

Minimising impacts to the threatened ecological community through appropriate road design to avoid this area.

Avoidance of barriers to fauna movement such as median barriers on the highway and bridge piers in the waterway.

5.2. Construction mitigation measures

The proposed mitigation measures specified below are consistent with the Biodiversity Guidelines: Protecting and managing biodiversity on RTA projects (RTA 2011).

102


5.2.1. Vegetation and habitat removal

Pre-clearing

A flora and fauna management plan would be prepared as part of the construction environmental management plan (CEMP). It would be pr epared in accordance with the RMS Biodiversity Guidelines: Protecting and managing biodiversity on RTA projects (RTA 2011) (Biodiversity Guidelines). The plan would include a clearing procedure, which in turn would specify the requirements for pre-clearing.

Pre-clearing surveys would be under taken by an ex perienced ecologist to identify the location and extent of important habitats in the construction footprint. Items to be salvaged for reuse/relocation, such as bushrock, hollow trees and w oody debris would also be identified.

Prior to clearing the Square Raspwort from the construction footprint, individuals to be retained would be protected (i.e. flagged and identified to construction staff) where possible.

Identify and mark habitat features to be protected during construction in retained areas, particularly habitat trees.

An ecologist would check for the presence of threatened flora and fauna species on site two to three months prior to construction. This includes a t argeted survey for Koalas in the works corridor and i mplementation of fauna protection procedures as detailed in RTA (2011).

Identify nearby habitats on bot h sides of the existing highway along the length of the proposal suitable for the release of fauna that may be encountered during the pre-clearing process or habitat removal.

Develop planning and procedures for a staged habitat removal process to consider the safe and ethical handling of fauna as outlined in the RMS Biodiversity Guidelines (RTA 2011).

Ensure that the location of any threatened flora and/or fauna species, threatened ecological communities and habitat are mapped and identified in the CEMP.

Follow the unexpected threatened species finds procedure as outlined in the RMS Biodiversity Guidelines (RTA 2011).

Ensure no parking of vehicles and/or machinery and the stockpile or storage of equipment under the dripline of any trees as outlined in the RMS Biodiversity Guidelines.

The nest box strategy would require the installation of 70 per cent of nest boxes at least 3-6 months prior to the removal of any vegetation.

103


Exclusion zones

The location of exclusion zones would be det ermined and es tablished to avoid damage to native vegetation and fauna habitats and prevent the distribution of pests, weeds and disease. Basic temporary fencing would be i nstalled to indicate the limits of clearing. The location of exclusion fencing to be installed would be identified on plans in the CEMP and the function and importance of the exclusion zones communicated to construction personnel. For further information regarding the establishment of exclusion zones refer to the RMS Biodiversity Guidelines – Guide 2 Exclusion Zones (RTA 2011).

Staged habitat removal

A staged habitat removal process would be i mplemented consistent with the procedures identified in the RMS Biodiversity Guidelines (RTA 2011). The staged habitat removal process would be incorporated into the CEMP and communicated to construction personnel. The staged habitat removal procedure is summarised in Table 5-1.

Table 5-1 Staged habitat removal process (adapted from RTA 2011)

Stage Details

1. Contact vet and/or wildlife carers

Vet and/or wildlife carers need to be c ontacted prior to construction commencing to ensure they are willing to assist in treating injured animals if necessary. Their contact details would be included in the CEMP, be given to the site manager and c learly displayed in the site office.

2. An experienced and An experienced and licensed wildlife carer and/or ecologist would be licensed wildlife carer present on site during all habitat removal activities to capture and and/or ecologist would relocate fauna that may be encountered. be present

3. Remove non-habitat Progressive habitat removal would take place around habitat identified vegetation first and marked during the pre-clearing process. Remove non-hollow-

bearing trees, undergrowth, feed-trees, regrowth and grass. Do not fell trees towards exclusion zones.

4. Leave habitat for a Identified habitat (e.g. hollow-bearing trees) would be left for at least 24 minimum of 24 hours hours after removing non-habitat vegetation to allow fauna to escape. A

licensed wildlife carer and/or ecologist would check hollow-bearing trees are not being used by fauna before felling. If necessary, fauna may need to be trapped and relocated to pre-determined habitat identified for fauna release.

104


Stage Details

5. Remove habitat Fell habitat trees as carefully as possible to avoid injury to any fauna still remaining in trees. Use equipment that would allow the habitat trees to be lowered to the ground with minimal impact (e.g. claw extension). Do not fell trees towards exclusion zones.

6. Inspect habitat An experienced and licensed wildlife carer and/or ecologist would inspect habitat once it is removed e.g. after a tree is felled). Animals that emerge would be captured, inspected for injury then relocated to pre-determined habitat identified for fauna release.

7. Relocate habitat All hollows have the potential to support fauna and would be placed in adjacent habitat until the following day for further inspection by a licensed wildlife carer and/or ecologist to verify no fauna is present.

If possible, the hollows would be permanently relocated in adjacent areas in accordance with the RMS Biodiversity Guidelines (RTA 2011).

Inspect woody debris for fauna immediately before chipping to avoid injury or death to fauna that may be present.

8. Reporting The construction project manager and/or environment manager would ensure that the outcomes of the clearing process are recorded. Reporting is usually the responsibility of an ec ologist or environment officer. Reports are to be s ubmitted to relevant personnel (e.g. environment manager or RMS regional environment staff).

Minimising fauna injury and mortality

To prevent injury and mortality of fauna during the clearing of vegetation and drainage of farm dams an experienced and licensed wildlife carer and/or ecologist would be present to supervise vegetation clearing and capture and relocate fauna where required. Further details regarding fauna handling and v egetation clearing procedures are provided in the RMS Biodiversity Guidelines (RTA 2011). The following would be implemented to avoid injury and m ortality of fauna:

Allow fauna to leave an area without intervention as much as possible.

In circumstances where the handling of fauna is completely unavoidable, best practice methods need to be followed as outlined in the RMS Biodiversity Guidelines – Guide 9 Fauna Handling (RTA 2011).

Include the procedures in project inductions for construction staff to implement if fauna is found or injured on s ite and al so the importance of not feeding any wildlife that may be encountered on construction sites.

105


Never deliberately kill a snake as all snakes are protected under the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974.

Keep records of fauna captured and relocated.

Report any injury to or death of a threatened species to the RMS environmental staff.

5.2.2. Weed management

A weed management plan would be developed as part of the CEMP, the RMS Biodiversity Guidelines (RTA 2011) and the Introductory Weed Management Manual (Natural Heritage Trust 2004) provide guidance for developing weed management plans. As part of the weed management plan a s ite assessment by an ec ologist or person trained in weed identification and management would be required to assess the extent and severity of weed species in the construction footprint with particular emphasis on noxious weed species.

The weed management plan would include descriptions and m apping of major weed infestations during pre-clearing surveys and appropriate management actions to be undertaken for each infestation. The details of the weed management plan would vary for each site but would include:

Taxa and potential sources of the weed species.

Weed management priorities and objectives.

Sensitive environmental areas within or adjacent to the site.

Location of weed infested areas.

Mechanical weed control methods such as slashing or mowing, as well as a r ange of herbicides to avoid the development of herbicide resistance.

Measures to prevent the spread of weeds.

A monitoring program to measure the success of weed management.

Strategic management with adjacent landowners.

Appropriate disposal of weed infested materials and soils to be identified in the CEMP.

Communication strategies to improve contractor awareness of weeds and weed management.

5.2.3. Pest and disease management

No pests and diseases are currently known from the proposal footprint but could potentially be present. There have been reports of Myrtle Rust spreading from the coast to more western

106


districts. Measures to prevent the introduction and/or spread of pests and disease causing agents such as bacteria and fungi need to be incorporated into the CEMP for the proposal.

Measures to confirm the presence of pathogens/disease causing agents such as bacteria and fungi would be undertaken prior to construction. A background search of government-maintained websites for the most recent known locations of contamination and for the most up-to-date hygiene protocols for each pathogen would be undertaken. If risks are identified in the vicinity of the proposal, testing from a National Association of Testing Authorities (NATA) approved laboratory may be required to confirm the presence of pathogens in the soil and/or water.

If pathogens/disease causing agents are found to present, measures to prevent the introduction and/or spread of these pathogens/disease causing agents would be incorporated into the Pest and Disease Management Plan developed as part of the CEMP for the proposal. If pathogens are identified exclusion zones with fencing and signage to restrict access into contaminated areas would be r equired. The pest and di sease management plan would be dev eloped in accordance Guide 7 of the Biodiversity Guidelines (RTA 2011)

Detailed prevention methods are provided in the RMS Biodiversity Guidelines – Guide 7 Pathogen Management (RTA 2011) and include:

Provide vehicle and boot wash down facilities and ensure vehicles and footwear is free of soil before entering or exiting the site.

The risk of spreading pathogens and the mitigation measures required on s ite would be regularly communicated to staff and contractors during inductions and toolbox talks.

Construction works would be pr ogrammed to move from uninfected areas to any known infected areas.

Restrict vehicles to designated tracks, trails and parking areas.

5.2.4. Habitat re-establishment

Re-establishment of native vegetation

A landscape management plan would be developed as part of the CEMP which provides specific details for the re-establishment of native vegetation on batters, cut faces, surrounding sediment basins and other areas disturbed during construction. This would include details for the appropriate restoration of Dignams Creek and revegetation of obsolete sections of the existing highway. The landscape management plan would need to consider a range of constraints and opportunities associated with the proposed upgrade including collection and

107


propagation of local seed, salvage and reuse of topsoil, leaf litter and woody debris, threatened species habitat, wildlife connectivity zones and local vegetation community composition.

Detailed guidelines for the re-establishment of native vegetation on road projects are provided in the RMS Biodiversity Guidelines- Guide 3 ( RTA 2011) and supporting documentation, and includes the following:

Ecologists and l andscape architects would work together on t he preparation of the landscape management plan that clearly identify the locations and composition of revegetation activities.

Collect local native topsoil and leaf litter which is free of invasive weed species and store for use in revegetation works.

Allow sufficient time to prepare the ground for revegetation.

Soils in areas to be r evegetated would match surrounding soil conditions as closely as possible unless adjacent areas are weedy or contaminated.

Ensure areas to be revegetated have an appropriate level of natural drainage.

Avoid compaction of soils in areas identified for revegetation and w here compaction has occurred, the soil would be loosened.

When planting consider seasonal risks of frost, drought, flooding and sun exposure to avoid damaging plants and to encourage growth.

Adhere to relevant specifications and g uidelines including but not limited to the RTA Landscape Planting QA Specification R179, RTA Seed Collection QA Specification R176, the Florabank Guidelines, Model Code of Practice and C onstruction Quality Technical Direction 007, Quality Alert 7 – Hydro-seeding, hydro-mulching and other slope stabilisation methods.

Inspection, monitoring and m aintenance of revegetated areas would be c onducted biannually for a minimum of 2 years following the completion of construction in accordance with the landscape management plan. Outline the roles and r esponsibilities in landscape management and r evegetation plans including the schedule for monitoring and maintenance activities.

Re-use of woody debris and bushrock

Woody debris and bushrock would be re-used on site for habitat improvement where applicable and would be detailed in the landscape management plan/CEMP. Suitable areas for re-use may include the approaches to fauna underpasses, beneath the proposed bridge structure at

108


Dignams Creek and rehabilitation areas. Guidelines for the re-use of woody debris and bushrock are provided in the RMS Biodiversity Guidelines (RTA 2011), and require:

Implementing the removal, stockpiling, transportation and relocation of woody debris and/or bushrock in a manner that minimises disturbance to native vegetation or bushrock.

Engaging an ecologist in the pre-clearing phase of the proposal to provide advice on the re-use of woody debris and bushrock including potential negative impacts and positioning of woody debris and bushrock at the relocation areas.

When relocating woody debris, placing it evenly across the site whilst keeping topsoil disturbance to a minimum.

Avoiding the spread of any weeds or pathogens that may be i n the soil when relocating woody debris and bushrock from stockpiles.

Mulching would include only native vegetation and s eparate stockpiles need t o be established for weedy vegetation and the native vegetation to be mulched. Manage stockpiles in accordance with RTA’s Stockpile Site Management Guideline, RTA Environmental Protection (Management System) QA Specification G36 and RTA Vegetation QA Specification R178.

Preparing a mulch tannin management plan for the proposal where tannins are likely to be generated.

Nest boxes

As there would be removal and loss of hollow-bearing trees by the proposal, it is recommended that nest boxes be installed to compensate for this loss. Guidance regarding the dimensions of nest boxes, installation and m aintenance are provided in the RMS Biodiversity Guidelines-Guide 8 Nest Boxes (RTA 2011).

A nest box management strategy would be developed as part of the CEMP. The number and type of nest boxes required would be determined during the pre-clearance surveys based on the number, quality and size of the hollows that would be removed. The nest box management plan would detail the specifications for nest box dimensions, installation requirements, locations of nest boxes and ongoing monitoring and maintenance. The nest box strategy would require the installation of 70 pe r cent of nest boxes at least 3-6 months prior to the removal of any vegetation.

5.2.5. Wildlife connectivity

The proposal provides for a range of wildlife crossing structures, including two dedicated fauna underpasses with fauna furniture, two combined drainage culvert/fauna underpasses, one

109


canopy rope bridge at the southern end of the proposal and a new bridge over Dignams Creek at the northern end of the proposal which allows fauna passage on both sides of the creek (refer to Table 5-2). An unsealed property access track would be included under the bridge however vehicle movements are anticipated to occur infrequently and vehicles would be travelling slowly due to the tight bends and as such there would be low potential for impacts to fauna movements or for vehicle strike. Fauna fencing is also proposed in all areas of bushland in the southern part of the proposal along the alignments for stage 1 and s tage 2 and w ill funnel fauna towards wildlife crossing structures. Fauna fencing is not required at the tops of cut batters.

Table 5-2 Proposed fauna connectivity measures

Stage Reference Chainage Type Target species Comment

1 A 95585 Drainage culvert/fauna underpass

Koala, Long-nosed Potoroo, Spotted-tail Quoll

Box culvert, (3 metres x 3 metres) used for drainage and fauna crossings.

1 B 95860 and 95895

Bridge Koala, Long-nosed Potoroo, Spotted-tail Quoll

The vegetated riparian area on bo th sides of Dignams Creek under the bridge currently provides fauna passage. A small area of riparian vegetation (around 0.01 hectares of map unit 5) may be impacted during construction of the proposal for the temporary creek crossing. Following construction of the proposal any clearing in this area would be revegetated to ensure fauna passage is maintained. An unsealed property access track would be included although vehicle movements are

110


Stage Reference Chainage Type Target species Comment

anticipated to occur infrequently and vehicles would be travelling slowly due to the tight bends and as such there would be low potential for impacts to fauna movements or for vehicle strike.

1 C 96625 Dedicated fauna underpass


Dedicated fauna crossing that would be 3 metres by 3 metres and would contain fauna furniture.

2 D 97075 Dedicated fauna underpass


Dedicated fauna crossing that would be 2.4 metres by 2.4 metres and would contain fauna furniture.

2 E 97700 Canopy rope bridge

Yellow-bellied Glider, Squirrel Glider

A rope canopy bridge that is designed for glider use to be located within the National Parks adjacent to the Yellow bellied Glider habitat.

2 F 97910 -97890

Drainage culvert/fauna underpass


Box culvert (2.4 m x 2.4 m) to be us ed for drainage and fauna crossings.

These measures would improve wildlife connectivity allowing a gr eater diversity of fauna species to move across the highway avoiding injuries and mortalities. The design principles for the proposed wildlife connectivity mitigation measures are detailed in Table 5-3. The proposed

111


locations of wildlife connectivity mitigation measures are shown in Figure 5-1, however the design and location of these would potentially change during detailed design.

Table 5-3 Design principles for the proposed wildlife connectivity mitigation measures

Structure Details

Bridge The bridge would be designed with a natural substrate at the abutment, such as dirt or structure over vegetation, where possible, with refuge areas (scattered rocks, logs) and landscaping Dignams of the habitat corridor approaches. Creek (Stage Where possible, the design is to avoid placing piers in water channels and on stream 1 only) banks, to minimise alteration to water flow and/or damage to stream bank vegetation.

Bridge is to be designed to allow unimpeded water flow, stream bank and r iparian vegetation, preferably on both sides of the water course.

Large woody debris is to be retained within the watercourse and/or re-use of salvaged woody debris, where possible.

Large rocks salvaged during construction would be used for scour protection as well as functioning as habitat for retiles/amphibians.

Bridge design (height, carriageway separation) is to consider maximum light and moisture penetration to encourage growth of vegetation under the structure for maintenance of connectivity along Dignams Creek.

Construction activities would not impede the creek, leaving at least a one metre buffer where possible. The area of the piling pad and temporary crossings would be minimised as much as possible.

Underpass structures (Stage 1 an d 2)

Plan for maximum culvert size within the identified wildlife corridor locations between the two national parks. This is dependent on available fill heights and the sensitivity of additional areas of vegetation/habitat that may be impacted.

As a m inimum design principle, all dedicated underpasses would be designed to a minimum of 2.4 x 2.4 metres where fill heights allow, taking into consideration the presence of sensitive vegetation. If possible, structures would be 3 x 3 metres for Koala passage as documented in AMBS (2011).

Maximum openness is to be pr ovided where the length of the fauna underpasses is greater than 50 metres. In order to achieve a maximum length of 50 metres for fauna underpasses, the structure would be placed higher in the fill, where fill heights allow.

Dedicated fauna underpasses to have a natural substrate, such as dirt or mulch. Sandy loam is preferable to prevent the generation of a mud substrate.

Provide a mix of shelter and/or openness within culvert, specific to the target species, including larger species such as kangaroos and wallabies are likely to prefer more open structures, while small mammals require shelter to encourage use of culvert and reduce the risk of predation.

112


Structure Details

In order to achieve dry passage in dedicated underpasses they would be located above flow lines, gullies and depressions

Relocation or adjustment of the stream bed is to be avoided where possible.

Furniture Fauna furniture is to be i ncorporated into dedicated structure design and around the entrance, but scattered only and with an adequate setback to prevent any obstruction

Provide a dry ledge or similar within dedicated underpasses to maintain dry passage if required.

Place horizontal logs for passage as high above the base of the opening as practical, allowing 0.6 metre ceiling clearance for fauna passage.

Vertical logs are secured to the invert of the concrete base slab and soffit of the culvert ceilings by attachment brackets

Interconnecting logs can provide a dry passage for Koalas whilst also providing refuge from predators.

Outside and within the culvert: refuge poles (200 mm diameter) may provide some refuge where introduced predators may attack Koalas.

It is important to ensure that the poles are located at least three metres away from fauna exclusion fencing.

Canopy A canopy rope bridge is recommended for stage 2 to link habitat between the two Bridges national parks. Habitat for Yellow-bellied Glider is present to the east and west of the (Stage 2) proposed alignment and there are a number of records to the west in Gulaga National

Park. It is evident from the distribution of regional records and the presence of suitable habitat that Yellow-bellied Glider movements and dispersal are likely to occur east and west of the highway.

A canopy bridge is a r ope or pole suspended above the traffic, either from vertical poles or from trees to provide canopy connectivity. This structure is used by arboreal and scansorial (climbing) species including the Yellow-bellied Glider and Common Brushtail Possum both recorded in the study area.

Dimensions: Generally the sag of the connecting rope would be a minimum 9 metres above the ground for sufficient height above traffic and traffic noise. Generally the greater the distance between the canopy bridge and traffic the more effective the structure.

The canopy bridge is to be attached to suitable poles located at a safe distance from the road edge. The exact location of the poles is to be determined at the design stage.

If support poles are used in the median metal guards would be used to prevent animals descending support poles to the ground in median strips.

Canopy bridges must be linked to adjacent habitat for target species e.g. (habitat trees) via ropes or ladders tied off from the poles into surrounding trees. Nearby trees are

113


Structure Details

essential to link the canopy bridge into the surrounding vegetation.

Consider potential conflict with adjacent power lines and other service infrastructure.

Comply with safety requirements when structural supports are placed in the road median or road edge. These may need safety barrier or guardrail protection.

Research indicates rope ladder design preferred over rope tunnel or single rope as this attracts more species than other types of canopy bridge structures.

Fauna Fencing (Stage 1 an d 2)

Fauna fencing is required as part of the proposal given the alignment is within an identified regional fauna corridor and situated between two national parks. A number of threatened species including the federally listed Koala, Long-nosed Potoroo and Spotted-tailed Quoll are expected to occur.

Fauna fencing is proposed in all areas of bushland in the southern part of the proposal along the alignments for stage 1 an d stage 2 an d will funnel fauna towards wildlife crossing structures. Fauna fencing is not required at the tops of cut batters.

Fauna fencing must be integrated with crossing structures by guiding animals towards the crossing structure and preventing access to the road.

Fencing is typically constructed on both sides of the road; otherwise animals are easily trapped on the road.

Fencing is to extend at least 100 m etres either side of the structure, although this is dependent on topography and vegetation. Steep batters in cuttings may be used as natural barrier.

Fencing would be continuous and at their ends have a ‘return area’ to guide animals back into habitat rather than onto the road.

Fence height must prevent animals from jumping over (e.g. at least 1.8 m for kangaroos).

The size of the mesh must prevent the target species from climbing through. A fence with large mesh for large animals can include fine mesh at the base to prevent small species from climbing through.

The fence must prevent animals from digging underneath. Construct metal flaps at the base of fencing where the fence crosses drainage lines to ensure fauna cannot pass under the fence at these points.

Fencing may need a f loppy-top or overhang to prevent animals from climbing over. Koala fences need a floppy top.

Fauna fencing must not endanger wildlife (e.g. barbed wire must not be used as birds, bats and gliders become entangled and die).

Barbed wire is to be avoided on stock fencing near crossing zones, particularly near glider crossing points or alternatively cover the wire with poly pipe.

Escape mechanisms must be provided to allow animals to exit the road corridor. Large tree stumps, built earthen berms or escape poles on the roadside of exclusion fencing

114


Structure Details

can be utilised to allow fauna to escape the road corridor.

Maintenance Fencing would require regular inspection and m aintenance. A vehicle access track adjacent to the fence would facilitate rapid inspection and repair. Where overgrown vegetation that breaches the fence is likely, the vehicle track would also permit maintenance of vegetation.

Maintenance of fencing is critical to identify and repair breaches, periodic inspections are likely to be required.

Vegetation / Landscaping (Stage 1 an d 2)

Riparian corridors to be protected during construction works and any areas of riparian vegetation impacted by construction are to be rehabilitated.

Revegetation actions around crossing structures would consider the height and density of vegetation so as not to screen the structure from view, but also aim to provide some cover for fauna approaching and exiting the structure.

It is important for landscaping at entrances not to obscure and shadow the window of the entrances, to allow maximum light penetration and provide a clear line of sight for fauna entering the structure.

Landscaping would use locally indigenous species and would target key fauna food resources to encourage usage either side of the structure and thus provide the habitat linkage to the structure.

.

115

PR NI C ES HIGHWAY

DIGNAMS CE EK ROAD

DIGN

AMS

CEE

K

Upgrade of the Princes Highway Dignams Creek - Biodiversity assessment LEGEND Concept design

Stage 1 Stage 2Potential construction access track Private access track Dignams CreekLGA boundaryMajor roadLocal roadTrack Fauna underpass (A-E)

National Parks Gulaga National Park Kooraban National Park

DATA SOURCESImagery: LPMA 2010 Contextual Data: LPMA 2010 Project Data: SKM 2011

° 0 600

Metres

KoorabanNational

Park

C

D

E

F

R EUROBODALLA SHIRE

A

B

BEGA VALLEY SHI

GulNa

aga tional

Park

COUNCIL

RE

R

COUNCIL

!BATEMANS BAY

NSW !NAROOMA DIGNAMS CREEK

!BEGA

Figure 5-1 | Proposed fauna connectivity structures Path: I:\ENVR\Projects\EN02937\Technical\GIS\Spatial_Directory\ArcGIS\Ecology\Final_V2\EN02937_Ecology_0009b_Fauna_Structures_Fig3-6.mxd

Newcastle Spatial Team - Prepared by : AL Checked by : VC


5.2.6. Aquatic habitats and riparian zones

Aquatic habitats and riparian zones are to be managed in accordance with the Biodiversity Guidelines: Guideline 10 – Aquatic habitats and riparian zones (RTA 2011). Additional measures to be adop ted to minimise the potential impact of the proposal on g eneral aquatic values of construction and operation are provided in Table 5-3.

Table 5-4 Mitigation measures for protection of fish and riparian habitat

Mitigation measures

Description

Water quality Construction traffic would be r estricted to access tracks, fenced prior to the start of management construction and maintained until construction is complete. and Ensure chemicals and fuels are appropriately stored and bunded. prevention / If construction works result in the temporary isolation of pools for any period of time and minimisation they become susceptible to drying or poor water quality then any resident native fish that of in-stream are trapped are to be relocated to areas not being disturbed away from impacts. barriers Piles or piers would not be placed in the waterways to avoid interruption to fish passage.

Appropriate sediment and erosion control measures would be pu t in place during the construction process and may include sediment and erosion control curtains in Dignams Creek to control turbidity generated during the construction and restoration process.

No turbid water generated from the construction corridor or construction area is to be discharged into any waterway.

A Water Quality Monitoring Plan would be prepared to monitor water quality impacts

All waterway crossing construction materials (rocks and gravel) are to be clean prior to being used for construction to minimise turbidity.

Riparian and Prior to any disturbance on the banks a thorough inspection for aquatic fauna such as aquatic turtle nests would be conducted. habitat Minimise instream and r iparian disturbance and minimise the removal of sediment, management woody snags or debris from a s tream or stream channel. Trimming or ‘lopping’ of

branches and logs would be considered as a first option before moving

Minimise the risk of instream and riparian weeds through the implementation of a vegetation clearing and revegetation management strategy

Sedimentation All standard sediment and erosion control measures for downstream water quality and erosion management would be implemented. management Develop and conduct water quality monitoring.

Instream Large woody debris would be retained to the greatest extent possible woody debris Any instream woody debris removed during construction is to be replaced at the

117


Mitigation measures

Description

management completion of the works within the same waterways from which it was removed. This would ensure that there is no net loss of instream structural habitat.

5.2.7. Design considerations

Instream structures such as bridges and culverts are to be designed and managed to minimise any potential impact to flow regimes and fish passage. The preferred structure for crossing waterways would be consistent with Witheridge (2002). Dignams Creek is a Class 2 (Moderate fish habitat) and will be crossed by a bridge, thereby minimising the impact to flow regimes and fish passage.

The following design and management measures would be c onsidered with respect to the construction of the Dignams Creek bridge crossing:

Piles or piers would not be placed in the waterway to avoid interruption to fish passage.

Would be designed to maximise light and habitat features within the passage. To achieve this design of the bridge would encourage the deposition of sediment creating similar bed substrate to the adjacent creek and the planting of specific plant species.

Water quality and pollution control measures would be implemented to prevent water from the pavement directly entering the surrounding waterways.

Natural stream flow and velocity are maintained as closely as possible.

Stockpiles would be located above the 1:100 year flood level with appropriate management control measures in place such as bunding.

During detailed design the size of the batter and the temporary construction sediment basin at chainage 97880 along the alignment for the Stage 2 works would be minimised to avoid direct impacts to the identified Yellow-Bellied Glider sap feeder tree identified at Easting 766245 Northing 5971353.

118


5.3. Biodiversity offset strategy

Although the mitigation and m anagement measures would be i ncorporated in the proposal, there are some residual impacts that cannot be adequately mitigated such as:

A loss of native vegetation (20.6 hectares).

A loss of habitat for native flora and fauna including threatened species and habitat.

Offset ratios

The residual impacts on biodiversity would be ameliorated through the development of a biodiversity offset strategy that aims to maintain or improve biodiversity values in the proposal area in the long-term. The results of the Biobanking assessment methodology to determine habitat condition, were used to determine the biodiversity loss (or debits) resulting from the proposal. The Biobanking methodology establishes two classes of biodiversity credits that may be created through undertaking management actions at a Biobanking site. The two classes of biodiversity credits are:

Ecosystem credits: these are created or required for all impacts on bi odiversity values (including threatened species that can be reliably predicted by habitat surrogates), except the threatened species or populations that require species credits.

Species credits: these are created or required for impacts on threatened species that cannot be reliably predicted to use an area of land based on habitat surrogates.

The method provides a m easure of these biodiversity credits based on an objective, scientifically valid, transparent and repeatable methodology. These credits were used to calculate the amount of offsets required to achieve an outcome consistent with a neutral or net beneficial objective.

119


Table 5-5 Ecosystem credits calculated

Biometric vegetation type Area removed (ha)

Credits required for the Dignams Creek Upgrade

Silvertop Ash - Blue-leaved Stringybark - Woollybutt shrubby open forest on c oastal foothills central South East Corner (E32A)

4.23 277

Mountain Grey Gum - Yellow Stringybark moist shrubby open forest in gullies of the coastal ranges, northern South East Corner (N183)

3.57 183

Coast Grey Box - Mountain Grey Gum - Stringybark moist shrubby open forest in coastal gullies, southern South East Corner (E34)

12.16 654

River Peppermint - Rough-barked Apple moist open forest on sheltered sites, southern South East Corner (E19)

0.53 21

River Peppermint - Rough-barked Apple - River Oak herb/grass riparian forest of coastal lowlands, southern Sydney Basin and South East Corner (P30)

0.25 9

TOTAL 20.74 1,144

The threatened species component of the Biobanking assessment tool allows for species credits to be created for threatened species that cannot be reliably predicted (refer to Table 5-5) and/or are likely to be i mpacted by the proposal. This includes consideration of habitat type, condition, location, and specific habitat features. It is evident that the proposal would impact on the habitat of one threatened flora species and at least 23 threatened fauna species. Several other threatened species that can be reliably predicted are covered under ecosystem credits and therefore are not listed in Table 5-5. Additional species are potentially impacted from the proposal and these are listed in Appendix A.

Table 5-6 Species credits calculated for threatened species

Species Credits required for the Dignams Creek Upgrade

Barking Owl (Ninox connivens) 565

Brush-tailed Phascogale (Phascogale tapoatafa) 373

Eastern False Pipistrelle (Falsistrellus tasmaniensis) 461

120


Species Credits required for the Dignams Creek Upgrade

Eastern Freetail Bat (Mormopterus norfolkensis) 461

Gang-gang Cockatoo (Callocephalon fimbriatum) 373

Giant Burrowing Frog (Heleioporus australiacus) 51

Glossy Black-cockatoo (Calyptorhynchus lathami) 192

Greater Broad-nosed Bat (Scoteanax rueppellii) 461

Koala (Phascolarctos cinereus) 225

Large-footed Myotis (Myotis adversus) 518

Little Eagle (Hieraaetus morphnoides) 252

Long-nosed Potoroo (Potorous t. tridactylus) 249

Masked Owl (Tyto novaehollandiae) 628

Pink Robin (Petroica rodinogaster) 101

Powerful Owl (Ninox strenua) 565

Sooty Owl (Tyto tenebricosa) 565

Spotted-tailed Quoll (Dasyurus maculatus) 533

Square Raspwort (Haloragis exaltata subsp. exaltata) 909

Square-tailed Kite (Lophoictinia isura) 252

Stuttering Barred Frog (Mixophyes balbus) 96

Varied Sittella (Daphoenositta chrysoptera) 565

White-footed Dunnart (Sminthopsis leucopus) 491

Yellow-bellied Glider (Petaurus australis) 433

TOTAL 9,319

Based on a pr eliminary analysis of the proposal utilising the Biobanking assessment methodology, it is expected that the RMS would need to secure improved biodiversity outcomes in the order of 125 hec tares of intact (good to moderate condition) vegetation with similar vegetation communities to those that are being impacted. Alternatively a mix of intact forest and cleared land that would be rehabilitated would provide an i mproved biodiversity outcome, for example approximately 100 hectares of good to moderate vegetation and rehabilitation of around 25 hectares of cleared land back to forest. Management measures on land would also improve biodiversity (e.g. fencing and vermin control).

121


RMS has purchased a pr operty adjacent to the proposal which can satisfy the offset requirements and are finalising an agreement with OEH for an appropriate offset package.

122


6. Significance Assessments Significance assessments have been c onducted for threatened biodiversity that have been positively identified or that have a moderate or high likelihood of occurring in the study area.

6.1. NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979

For threatened species and ecological communities listed under the NSW TSC Act, this section details the heads of consideration as listed under Section 5a of the EP&A Act in assessing the significance of the impacts.

Species with similar taxonomy or ecological requirements have been assessed together, for example tree-roosting microchiropteran bats. Full details of assessment of significance under the EP&A Act are presented in Appendix F. The conclusions of the EP&A Act are provided in Table 6-1, which indicates that a significant impact is considered unlikely on any biota listed under the TSC Act.

Table 6-1 Summary of EP&A Act assessments of significance

Species Status (TSC Act)

Sect 5a EP&A Act (heads of consideration*)

Likely Significant Impact

Potential to occur in the Study area

a b c d e f g

Endangered Ecological Communities

River-flat Eucalypt Forest V N X X N X N Y No Moderate

Flora

Square Raspwort

(Haloragis exaltata subsp. exaltata)

V N X X N X N Y No Moderate

Fauna

White-footed Dunnart (Sminthopsis leucopus)


Spotted-tailed Quoll

(Dasyurus maculatus)

V N X X N X N Y No High

Yellow-bellied Glider

(Petaurus australis)

V N X X Y X N Y No High

Brush-tailed Phascogale V N X X N X N Y No Moderate

123






a b c d e f g

(Phascogale tapoatafa)

Koala (Phascolarctos cinereus)


Long-nosed Potoroo

(Potoroo tridactylus)


Grey-headed Flying-fox (Pteropus poliocephalus)

V N X X N X N Y No High

Square-tailed Kite

(Lophoictinia isura)


Gang-gang Cockatoo (Callocephalon fimbriatum)

V N X X N X N Y No Confirmed

Glossy Black-Cockatoo (Calyptorhynchus lathami)

V N X X N X N Y No Confirmed

Pink Robin

(Petroica rodinogaster)


Giant Burrowing Frog (Heleioporus australicus)


Stuttering Frog

(Mixophyes balbus)

E N X X N X N Y No Moderate

Large forest Owls

Barking Owl (Ninox connivens)


Powerful Owl (Ninox strenua) V High

Masked Owl

(Tyto novaehollandiae)

V Moderate

Sooty Owl (Tyto tenebricosa) V Moderate

Cave-roosting microbats

Large-eared Pied Bat (Chalinolobus dwyeri)


124






a b c d e f g

Eastern Bent-wing Bat

(Miniopterus schreibersii oceanensis)

V High

Southern Myotis

(Myotis macropus)

V Moderate

Tree-roosting microbats

Eastern False Pipistrelle

(Falsistrellus tasmaniensis)

V N X X N X X Y No High

Eastern Freetail-bat

(Mormopterus norfolkensis)

V High

Yellow-bellied Sheathtail-bat (Saccolaimus flaviventris)

V High

Greater Broad-nosed Bat (Scoteanax rueppellii)

V High

* Y= Yes (negative impact), N = No (no or positive impact), X = not applicable,

Significance Assessment Questions (heads of consideration) as detailed in S.5a of the EP&A Act

a in the case of a threatened species, whether the action proposed is likely to have an adverse effect on the life cycle of the species such that a viable local population of the species is likely to be placed at risk of extinction,

b in the case of an endangered population, whether the action proposed is likely to have an adverse effect on the life cycle of the species that constitutes the endangered population such that a viable local population of the species is likely to be placed at risk of extinction,

c in the case of an en dangered ecological community or critically endangered ecological community, whether the action proposed:

(i) is likely to have an adverse effect on the extent of the ecological community such that its local occurrence is likely to be placed at risk of extinction, or

(ii) is likely to substantially and adversely modify the composition of the ecological community such that its local occurrence is likely to be placed at risk of extinction,

d in relation to the habitat of a threatened species, population or ecological community:

(i) the extent to which habitat is likely to be removed or modified as a result of the action proposed, and

(ii) whether an area of habitat is likely to become fragmented or isolated from other areas of

125






a b c d e f g

habitat as a result of the proposed action, and

(iii) the importance of the habitat to be removed, modified, fragmented or isolated to the long-term survival of the species, population or ecological community in the locality,

e whether the action proposed is likely to have an adverse effect on critical habitat (either directly or indirectly),

f whether the action proposed is consistent with the objectives or actions of a r ecovery plan or threat abatement plan,

g whether the action proposed constitutes or is part of a key threatening process or is likely to result in the operation of, or increase the impact of, a key threatening process.

6.2. Commonwealth EPBC Act, 1999

6.2.1. Threatened species

Full details of the assessment of significance for threatened species under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 are presented in Appendix F. The conclusions of the EPBC Act assessment of significance are provided in Table 6-2 which indicates that a significant impact is considered unlikely for any Matter of National Environmental Significance (MNES).

Table 6-2 Summary of Commonwealth EPBC Act assessments of significance

Species/Ecological Community

*Assessment of significance questions (EPBC Act) 1


Important Population +

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Vulnerable Flora

Square Raspwort (Haloragis exaltata subsp. exaltata)

N N N N N N N N N No No

Vulnerable fauna

Grey-headed Flying-fox

(Pteropus poliocephalus)


Koala N N N N N N N N N No Yes

126


Species/Ecological Community

*Assessment of significance questions (EPBC Act) 1


Important Population +

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

(Phascolarctos cinereus)

Large-eared Pied Bat

(Chalinolobus dwyeri)


Long-nosed Potoroo

(Potorous tridactylus)


Giant Burrowing Frog (Heleioporus australicus)


Stuttering Frog

(Mixophyes balbus)


Endangered fauna

Spotted-tailed Quoll

(Dasyurus maculatus)

N N N N N N N N N No n/a

* Assessment of significance questions 1) Lead to a long-term decrease in the size of a population; 2) Reduce the area of occupancy of the species; 3) Fragment an existing population into two or more populations; 4) Adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of a species; 5) Disrupt the breeding cycle of a population; 6) Modify, destroy, remove, isolate or decrease the availability or quality of habitat to the extent that the species is likely to

decline; 7) Result in invasive species that are harmful to a critically endangered or endangered species becoming established in the

endangered or critically endangered species’ habitat; 8) Introduce disease that may cause the species to decline; or 9) Interfere with the recovery of the species.

+ Important Population as determined by the EPBC Act is a population of a vulnerable species that: is likely to be key source populations either for breeding or dispersal is likely to be necessary for maintaining genetic diversity is at or near the limit of the species range.

6.2.2. Migratory species

Full details of the assessment of significance under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 are presented in Appendix F. The conclusions of the assessments of significance on migratory species are provided in Table 6-3 and indicate that the proposal is considered unlikely to significantly impact on any MNES.

127


Table 6-3 Summary of Commonwealth significance assessment for migratory species

Migratory species EPBC Act status Important population in project area

Likely significant impact

Black-faced Monarch (Monarcha melanopsis)

Marine; Migratory (BONN) No No

Cattle Egret (Ardea ibis) Marine; Migratory (CAMBA, JAMBA) No No

Fork-tailed Swift

(Apus pacificus)

Marine; Migratory (CAMBA, JAMBA, ROKAMBA)

No No

Great Egret (Egretta alba) Marine; Migratory (CAMBA, JAMBA) No No

Latham’s Snipe

(Galliago hardwickii)

Marine; Migratory (CAMBA, JAMBA, ROKAMBA)

No No

Rainbow Bee-eater

(Merops ornatus)

Marine; Migratory (JAMBA) No No

Rufous Fantail (Rhipidura rufifrons)


Satin Flycatcher

(Myiagra cyanoleuca)


Spectacled Monarch

(Monarcha trivirgatus)


White-bellied Sea-Eagle

(Haliaeetus leucogaster)

Marine; Migratory (CAMBA) No No

White Throated Needletail (Hirundapus caudacutus)

Marine; Migratory(CAMBA, JAMBA, ROKAMBA)

No No

1. Important Population as determined by the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, is one t hat for a vulnerable species:

a is likely to be key source populations either for breeding or dispersal b is likely to be necessary for maintaining genetic diversity c is at or near the limit of the species range.

128


7. Conclusion The biodiversity assessment identifies the following impacts associated with the proposal:

The removal of around 20 hectares of remnant vegetation, a portion of which occurs in Kooraban National Park but which have undergone revocation by the National Parks and Wildlife Amendment (Adjustment of Areas) Bill 2012. A s such 18.3 hectares of the Kooraban National Park impacted by the proposal would be transferred to RMS for the purposes of developing a road reserve. The proposal would include a land and biodiversity offset package to be negotiated between RMS and OEH.

The remnant vegetation to be removed provides potential habitat for 24 threatened fauna species and 11 migratory species confirmed to occur in the study area or considered highly likely to occur based on local records and habitat preferences.

The proposal would include the removal of approximately 0.2 hectares of the endangered ecological community River-Flat Eucalypt Forest of Coastal Floodplain listed as endangered under the TSC Act.

The proposed crossing of Dignams Creek would impact on less than 5 per cent of a local population of the threatened plant species Square Raspwort (Haloragis exaltata subsp. exaltata) (listed as vulnerable under TSC Act and EPBC Act).

The proposal would potentially contribute to the barrier effect of the highway within an important wildlife corridor connecting the two national parks and t he broader east-west landscape.

The proposal would remove 19.9 hectares of habitat that meets the criteria for habitat critical to the survival of Koalas in accordance with DSEWPaC (2012). This is considered a relatively small loss of habitat in this locality given the presence of over 6,000 hectares of similar forests across these two reserves. Further the proposed inclusion of targeted crossing structures for the Koala (refer to Table 5-2) would improve the existing poor connectivity between the reserves. The assessment concludes that the proposal is unlikely to lead to a l ong-term decrease in the size of an i mportant population known from the locality.

Key mitigation measures to minimise and avoid biodiversity impacts include but are not limited to:

Pre-clearing surveys.

Avoidance and minimisation of vegetation removal where possible.

129


Improvement of wildlife connectivity with Stage 1 of the proposal including one dedicated fauna underpass which contains fauna furniture and one drainage culvert/fauna underpass. Stage 2 o f the proposal includes one dedi cated fauna underpass which contains fauna furniture and one drainage culvert/fauna underpass.

Connectivity structures would be specifically targeted to maintain a link between Kooraban National Park and Gulaga National Park.

A biodiversity offset strategy has been developed to compensate for the proposed impacts from the proposal. RMS has purchased a property adjacent to the proposal which can satisfy the offset requirements and are finalising an agreement with OEH for an appropriate offset package.

.Provided the mitigation measures detailed in Chapter 5 are adequately implemented, the proposal is unlikely to have a s ignificant impact on any threatened species or ecological communities listed under the TSC Act; therefore a Species Impact Statement is not required. Further to this, no significant impacts on a m atter of national environmental significance under the EPBC Act have been identified and a r eferral is not required. However given the presence of an important Koala population in the region and the expected impacts on habitat critical to the survival of Koalas, a referral to the DSEWPaC has been prepared. If the proposal is determined by the DSEWPaC to be a controlled action, the approval of the Australian Government Minister for the Environment is required.

130


8. References Allen, C., Saxon, M. and McDougall, K. (2010). Summary report on surveys conducted in 20072009 for Koalas in the coastal forests of the Bermagui/Mumbulla area. NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water.

Allen, C. (2011). Koala survey Kooraban and Gulaga National Parks and adjacent lands 20102011. Unpublished report prepared by the NSW NPWS for volunteer and local aboriginal land council participants.

Andrews, A. (1990). Fragmentation of habitat by roads and utility corridors: A review. Australian Zoologist 26, 130-141.

Australian Koala Foundation (AKF) (2012). Australian Koala Foundation’s National Koala Tree Protection List; Recommended Tree Species for Protection and Planting of Koala Habitat. Prepared by Dave Mitchell 04/09/2012.

Australian Museum Business Services. (1995). Fauna Impact Statement for the Gloucester and Chichester Management Areas. Report prepared for State Forests of NSW.

Bali, R. (2005). Discussion Paper – Compensating for Edge Effects. Unpublished report prepared for the Roads and Traffic Authority, Sydney.

Beckers, D. (2008). Good from bad: is there an upside to roadkills? Pp. 103-104 in Too Close for Comfort: contentious issues in human-wildlife encounters, edited by Daniel Lunney, Adam Munn and Will Meikle. 2008. Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales, Mossman, NSW, Australia.

Blackhouse, G., O'Connor, J. & Jackson, J. (2008a) National Recovery Plan for the Australian Grayling Prototroctes maraena. Department of Sustainability and Environment, Melbourne.

Blakers, M., Davies, S. J. J. F. & Reilly, P. N. (1984). The Atlas of Australian Birds. Royal Australasian Ornithologists Union and Melbourne University Press

Braun-Blanquet, J. (1965). Plant Sociology: The Study of Plant Communities. London: Hafner.

Burgin, S. Brainwood, M.A. (2008). Comparison of road kills in peri-urban and regional areas of New South Wales (Australia) and factors influencing death. In: Too close for comfort: Contentious issues in human-wildlife encounters, Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales, pp. 137-144

131


Canfield, P.J. (1991). A survey of Koala road kills in NSW. Journal of wildlife diseases, 27(4): 657-660.

Craig, S. A. (1985). Social Organisation, Reproduction and Feeding Behaviour of a Population of Yellow-bellied Gliders, Petaurus australis (Marsupalia: Petauridae) Aust. Wildl. Res. 12 : 1 -18.

Debus, S. J. S. (1993). The Mainland Masked Owl Tyto novaehollandiae : a review in Aust. Bird Watcher, 15(4)., pp. 168 - 191.

Debus, S. J. S. & Chafer, C. J. (1994). The Powerful Owl Ninox strenua in New South Wales. Aust. Birds 28 (supplement), pp. 21 - 40.

Debus, S. J. S. & Rose, A. B. (1994). The Masked Owl Tyto novaehollandiae in New South Wales in Aust. Birds 28 supplement., pp. 40 - 64.

Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) (2004). Threatened Biodiversity Survey and Assessment: Guidelines for Developments and Activities – Working Draft. Department of Environment and Conservation, Hurstville.

Department of Environment and Climate Change (DECC) (2008). Recovery Plan for the Koala (Phascolarctos cinereus). Department of Environment and Climate Change NSW. Sydney.

Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (DECCW) (2007). Threatened species assessment guidelines: The assessment of significance. OEH, Hurstville.

Department of Environment and C limate Change and Water (DECCW) (2008). BioBanking Assessment Methodology. BioBanking Methodology and Credit Calculator Operation Manual. Assessed online at http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/biobanking/09181bioopsman.pdf

Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (NSW DECCW) (2010a). Draft National Recovery Plan for the Grey-headed Flying-fox Pteropus poliocephalus. Prepared by Woodhead, A. & P. Eby. Sydney: NSW DECCW.

Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (2010c). Summary report on surveys conducted in 2007-2009 for Koalas in the coastal forests of the Bermagui/Mumbulla area. Office of Environment and Heritage, Southern Zone. PO Box 2115 Queanbeyan NSW 2620.

Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and t he Arts (DEWHA) (2010a). Survey Guidelines for Australia’s Threatened frogs: Guidelines for detecting frogs listed as threatened under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

132

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/biobanking/09181bioopsman.pdf


Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and t he Arts (DEWHA) (2010b). Survey Guidelines for Australia’s Threatened bats: Guidelines for detecting bats listed as threatened under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA) (2010c). Survey Guidelines for Australia’s Threatened birds: Guidelines for detecting birds listed as threatened under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and t he Arts (DEWHA) (2011a). Survey Guidelines for Australia’s Threatened fish: Guidelines for detecting fish listed as threatened under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and t he Arts (DEWHA) (2011b). Survey Guidelines for Australia’s Threatened mammals: Guidelines for detecting mammals listed as threatened under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA) (2011c). Survey Guidelines for Australia’s Threatened reptiles: Guidelines for detecting reptiles listed as threatened under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

Department of Sustainability, Environment, Population and C ommunities (SEWPaC) (2012). Interim Koala referral advice for proponents. June 2012

Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and C ommunities (DSEWPaC) (2012a). Census of Australian Vertebrate Species: Biocodes (CAVS). Accessed online at http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity//abrs/online-resources/fauna/cavs/index.html

Disney, H.J.de S., & P.J. Fullagar. (1978). A note on road kills. Corella 2: 89.

Dwyer, P. D. (1995). Common Bent-wing Bat. pp. 494 - 495 in The Mammals of Australia by Strahan, R. (ed). Australian Museum and Reed Books, Sydney.

Eby, P. (1996). Interactions between the Grey-headed Flying-fox Pteropus poliocephalus (Chiroptera: Pteropodidae) and its diet plants-seasonal movements and seed dispersal. Ph.D. Thesis. Armidale, NSW: University of New England.

Eby, P. (1998). An analysis of diet specialization in frugivore Pteropus poliocephalus in Australian subtropical rainforest. Australian Journal of Ecology. 23:443-456.

Eby, P. (2002). National Count of Grey-headed Flying foxes July 27 & 28, 2002. A report to Environment Australia, Canberra.

133

http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/abrs/online-resources/fauna/cavs/index.html


Eby, P. & D. Lunney (2002). Managing the Grey-headed Flying-fox as a threatened species in NSW. In: Proceedings of the Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales. Mosman, Sydney: Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales.

Edgar, R. & Belcher, C. (1995). Spotted-tailed Quoll, pp. 67 - 69 in The Mammals of Australia. ed. R. Strahan, Australian Museum and Reed, Sydney.

Forman, R.T. and Deblinger, R.D. (2000). The ecological road-effect zone of a Massachusetts (USA) suburban highway. Conservation Biology 14, 36-46.

Garnett, S. (1992) Threatened and Extinct Birds of Australia. RAOU Report No.82. Royal Australasian Ornithologists Union / Australian NPWS.

Gibbons, P., and Li ndenmayer, D. B. (2002). Tree Hollows and Wildlife Conservation in Australia’ (CSIRO Publishing: Melbourne.)

Goldingay, R. L. & Kavanagh, R. P. (1991). The Yellow-bellied Glider: a Review of its Ecology and Management Considerations. pp. 365 - 375 in Conservation of Australian Forest Fauna, ed. D. Lunney. Royal Zool. Soc. of NSW, Mosman.

Goldingay, R. L. & Kavanagh, R. P. (1993). Home-range Estimates and Habitat of the Yellow-bellied Glider (Petaurus australis) at Waratah Creek, New South Wales. Wildl. Res. 20 : 387 -404.

Goldingay, R.L. 1986. Feeding behaviour of the yellow-bellied glider Petarus australis (Marsupialla: Petauridae) at Bombala, New South Wales. Aust Mammal 9: 17-25.

Harden, G.J. (ed.) (1992). Flora of New South Wales Vol.3. Royal Botanic Gardens. NSW University Press, Sydney.

Harden, G.J. (ed.) (1993). Flora of New South Wales. Vol.4. Royal Botanic Gardens. NSW University Press, Sydney.

Harden, G.J. (ed.) (2000). Flora of New South Wales Vol .1. Royal Botanic Gardens. NSW University Press, Sydney.

Harden, G.J. (ed.) (2002). Flora of New South Wales Vol.2. Royal Botanic Gardens. NSW University Press Sydney.

Harris, I.M., Mills, H.R. & Bencini, R., (2010). Wildlife Research, 37(2), p.127-133.

Hoye, G. A. & Richards, G. C. (1995). Greater Broad-nosed Bat. pp. 527 - 528 in The Mammals of Australia by Strahan, R. (ed). Australian Museum and Reed Books, Sydney.

134


Jackie Miles and Stuart Cameron (2007) Observations on the ecology and conservation status of Haloragis exalata subsp. exalata (Haloragaceae) in southern New South Wales. Cunninghamia 10(2): 263-272.

Kavanagh, R.P. 1987. Forest phonology and its effect on foraging behaviour and selection of habitat by the yellow-bellied glider, Petaurus australis. Aust. Wild. Res. 14: 371-84.

Kavangh, R.P. 1987b. Foraging behaviours of the yellow-bellied glider, Petaurus australis, near Eden New South Wales. Aust. Mammal. 10:37-39.

Kavanagh, R. P. & Murray, M. (1996). Home range, habitat and behaviour of the Masked Owl Tyto novaehollandiae near Newcastle, New South Wales in Emu 96., pp. 250 - 257.

Keith D.A. and B enson D.H. (1988). The natural vegetation of the Katoomba 1:100,000 map sheet. Cunninghamia 2:107-143.

Keith, D. (2004). Ocean shores to desert dunes: the native vegetation of New South Wales and the ACT. Department of Environment and Conservation. Hurstville. NSW.

Lee, A. & Martin, R. (1988). The Koala - a natural history. Australian Natural History Series. NSW University Press.

Lumsden, L. F. & Menkhorst, P. W. (1996). Yellow-bellied Sheathtail Bat. pp. 161 - 162 in Mammals of Victoria - distribution, ecology and conservation by Menkhorst, P. W. (ed.). Oxford University Press, Melbourne

Martin, R. W. & Handasyde, K. A. (1995). Koala. pp. 196 - 198 in The Mammals of Australia by Strahan, R. (ed). Australian Museum and Reed Books, Sydney

Moenting, A. E. and Morris, D. W. (2006). Disturbance and habitat use: is edge more important than area?. Oikos 115: 23_32.

Morris, A. K., McGill, A. R. & Holmes, G. (1981). Handlist of Birds in New South Wales. NSW Field Ornithologists Club.

Morris, S.A., Pollard, D. A., Gehrke, P. and Pogonoski, J.J. (2001). Threatened and Potentially Threatened Freshwater Fishes of Coastal New South Wales and the Murray-Darling Basin. Prepared for: Commonwealth Government's Fisheries Action Program / World Wide Fund for Nature. NSW Fisheries Office of Conservation, NSW.

Natural Heritage Trust (2004). Introductory weed management manual, Department of the Environment and Heritage & CRC Weed Management.

135


Nelson, J.E. (1965). Movements of Australian flying foxes (Pteropodidae: Megachiroptera). Australian Journal of Zoology. 13:53-73.

NSW Parliament Environmental Planning & Assessment Act (1979). NSW Government Information Service, Sydney

NSW Parliament Threatened Species Conservation Act (1995). NSW Government Information Service, Sydney.

Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) (2013). Threatened Species Profile Database. Accessed online at: http://www.threatenedspecies.environment.nsw.gov.au/index.aspx

Office of Environment and H eritage (OEH) (2012a). Vegetation types database (Biometric). Assessed online at: http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/biobanking/vegtypedatabase.htm

Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) (2011). Register of Critical Habitat in NSW. http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/criticalhabitat/CriticalHabitatProtectionByDoctype.htm

Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) (2011) River-flat eucalypt forest on coastal floodplains of the NSW North Coast, Sydney Basin and South East Corner bioregions endangered ecological community listing. NSW Scientific Committee - final determination. NSW Office of Environment and Heritage

Parnaby, H. A. (1992). An Interim Guide to Identification of Insectivorous Bats of South-eastern Australia. Technical Report No. 8. Australian Museum, Sydney.

Phillips, S and H opkins, M. 2007. The utility of regularised, grid-based sampling for the purposes of identifying areas being utilised by Koalas (Phascolarctos cinereus) in the southeast forests of NSW – a Pilot Study. Report to the NSW Department of Environment and Conservation. Biolink Ecological Consultants.

Phillips, S. And Callaghan, J. 2011. The Spot Assessment Technique: a t ool for determining localised levels of habitat use by Koalas (Phascolarctos cinereus). Australian Zoologist 35(3) 774-780.

Pizzey G. and Knight F. (1997). The Grah Pizzey and Frank Knight Field Guide to the Birds of Australia. Angus and Robertson. Sydney.

Phillips, W. R. (1990). Koalas - the little Australians we would all hate to lose.

Phillips, W. & Inwards, S. J. (1985). The Tasmanian Pipistrelle: Pipistrellus tasmaniensis Gould 1858: Annual activity and breeding cycles in Macroderma. 1., pp. 2 - 11.

136

http://www.threatenedspecies.environment.nsw.gov.au/index.aspx

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/biobanking/vegtypedatabase.htm

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/criticalhabitat/CriticalHabitatProtectionByDoctype.htm


Rhodes, M. P. & Hall, L. S. (1997). Observations on Yellow-bellied Sheathtail Bats Saccolaimus flaviventris (Peters, 1867) (Chiroptera: Emballonuridae) in Aust. Zool. 30(3)., pp. 351 - 359.

Richards, G. C. (1995). Large-footed Myotis. pp. 521 - 522 in The Mammals of Australia, ed. Strahan, R. Australian Museum and Reed Books, Sydney.

Road and Traffic Authority (2011). Biodiversity Guidelines: Protecting and managing biodiversity on RTA projects. Revision 0/September 2011.

Robson, S. K. (1984). Myotis adversus (Chiroptera : Vespertilionidae) : Australia's Fish-eating Bat. Aust. Mamm. 7., pp. 51 - 52.

Russell, R. (1995). Yellow-bellied Glider. pp. 226 - 228 in The Mammals of Australia, ed. Strahan, R. Australian Museum and Reed Books, Sydney.

Specht, R.L., Roe, E.M. and Boughton, V.H. (1974). Conservation of Major Plant Communities in Australia and Papua New Guinea. Australian Journal Botany. Supp. Series, No. 7. CSIRO Editorial and Publishing Unit, Melbourne.

Specht, R.L. (1981). Foliage projection cover and standing biomass. In Gillison, A.N. and Anderson, D.J. (Eds.), Vegetation Classification in Australia. CSIRO and ANU Press, Canberra.

Taylor, B. D., and R . L. Goldingay. (2004). Wildlife road-kills on t hree major roads in north-eastern NSW. Wildlife Research 31:83–91.

Thackway, R. and Cresswell, I.D. (1995). An interim biogeographic regionalisation for Australia: a framework for setting priorities in the National Reserves System Cooperative Program, Version 4.0. Australian Nature Conservation Agency, Canberra.

Tidemann, C.R. (1998). Grey-headed Flying-fox, Pteropus poliocephalus, Temminck, 1824. In: Strahan, R., ed. The Mammals of Australia. Frenchs Forest: New Holland Publishers Pty Ltd.

Tozer, M., Turner, K., Simpson, C., Keith, D., Beukers, P., MacKenzie, B., Tindall, D. and Pennay, C (2010). Native vegetation of south-east NSW: a revised classification and map for the coast and eastern tablelands. Prepared for the NSW Department of Environment and Conservation and the NSW Department of Natural Resources.

Vestjens, W.J.M. (1973). Wildlife mortality on a road in New South Wales. Emu. 73: 107-112.

Webb, N. & C. Tidemann (1995). Hybridisation between black (Pteropus alecto) and grey-headed (P.poliocephalus) flying-foxes (Megachiroptera: Pteropodidae). Australian Mammalogy. 18:19-26.

137


Worth, G 2001, ‘Studies on t he persistence of Koala scats under different environmental circumstances’, Proceedings from the Conference on the Status of the Koala in 2001, Australian Koala Foundation, Brisbane.

138

appendix k - part b · dry rainforest : dry rainforest of the south east ... act was found to be...

Documents