1. No category

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
Referral of proposed action
What is a referral?
The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (the EPBC Act) provides for the
protection of the environment, especially matters of national environmental significance (NES). Under the
EPBC Act, a person must not take an action that has, will have, or is likely to have a significant impact on
any of the matters of NES without approval from the Australian Government Environment Minister or the
Minister’s delegate. (Further references to ‘the Minister’ in this form include references to the Minister’s
delegate.) To obtain approval from the Environment Minister, a proposed action should be referred. The
purpose of a referral is to obtain a decision on whether your proposed action will need formal assessment
and approval under the EPBC Act.
Your referral will be the principal basis for the Minister’s decision as to whether approval is necessary and, if
so, the type of assessment that will be undertaken. These decisions are made within 20 business days,
provided that sufficient information is provided in the referral.
Who can make a referral?
Referrals may be made by or on behalf of a person proposing to take an action, the Commonwealth or a
Commonwealth agency, a state or territory government, or agency, provided that the relevant government
or agency has administrative responsibilities relating to the action.
When do I need to make a referral?
A referral must be made for actions that are likely to have a significant impact on the following matters
protected by Part 3 of the EPBC Act:
World Heritage properties (sections 12 and 15A)
National Heritage places (sections 15B and 15C)
Wetlands of international importance (sections 16 and 17B)
Listed threatened species and communities (sections 18 and 18A)
Listed migratory species (sections 20 and 20A)
Protection of the environment from nuclear actions (sections 21 and 22A)
Commonwealth marine environment (sections 23 and 24A)
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (sections 24B and 24C)
The environment, if the action involves Commonwealth land (sections 26 and 27A), including:
actions that are likely to have a significant impact on the environment of Commonwealth land
(even if taken outside Commonwealth land);
actions taken on Commonwealth land that may have a significant impact on the environment
generally;
The environment, if the action is taken by the Commonwealth (section 28)
Commonwealth Heritage places outside the Australian jurisdiction (sections 27B and 27C)
You may still make a referral if you believe your action is not going to have a significant impact, or if you are
unsure. This will provide a greater level of certainty that Commonwealth assessment requirements have
been met.
To help you decide whether or not your proposed action requires approval (and therefore, if you should
make a referral), the following guidance is available from:
the Policy Statement titled Significant Impact Guidelines 1.1 – Matters of National Environmental
Significance. Additional sectoral guidelines are also available.
the Policy Statement titled Significant Impact Guidelines 1.2 - Actions on, or impacting upon,
Commonwealth land, and actions by Commonwealth agencies.
001 Referral of proposed action v May 12
JFO_112143_1188403
1
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
the interactive map tool (enter a location to obtain a report on what matters of NES may occur in that
location).
Can I refer part of a larger action?
In certain circumstances, the Minister may not accept a referral for an action that is a component of a larger
action and may request the person proposing to take the action to refer the larger action for consideration
under the EPBC Act (Section 74A, EPBC Act). If you wish to make a referral for a staged or component
referral, read ‘Fact Sheet 6 Staged Developments/Split Referrals’ and contact the Referral Business Entry
Point (1800 803 772).
Do I need a permit?
Some activities may also require a permit under other sections of the EPBC Act or another law of the
Commonwealth. Information is available on the Department’s web site.
Is your action in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park?
If your action is in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park it may require permission under the Great Barrier Reef
Marine Park Act 1975 (GBRMP Act). If a permission is required, referral of the action under the EPBC Act is
deemed to be an application under the GBRMP Act (see section 37AB, GBRMP Act). This referral will be
forwarded to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (the Authority) for the Authority to commence its
permit processes as required under the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Regulations 1983. If a permission is
not required under the GBRMP Act, no approval under the EPBC Act is required (see section 43, EPBC Act).
The Authority can provide advice on relevant permission requirements applying to activities in the Marine
Park.
The Authority is responsible for assessing applications for permissions under the GBRMP Act, GBRMP
Regulations and Zoning Plan. Where assessment and approval is also required under the EPBC Act, a single
integrated assessment for the purposes of both Acts will apply in most cases. Further information on
environmental approval requirements applying to actions in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park is available
from http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/ or by contacting GBRMPA's Environmental Assessment and Management
Section on (07) 4750 0700.
The Authority may require a permit application assessment fee to be paid in relation to the assessment of
applications for permissions required under the GBRMP Act, even if the permission is made as a referral
under the EPBC Act. Further information on this is available from the Authority:
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority
2-68 Flinders Street PO Box 1379
Townsville QLD 4810
AUSTRALIA
Phone: + 61 7 4750 0700
Fax: + 61 7 4772 6093
www.gbrmpa.gov.au
Do I have to pay for my referral or assessment / what are the fees?
Currently the department does not impose fees for environmental impact assessments referred and assessed
under the EPBC Act. However, new fees are proposed as part of cost recovery reforms to the EPBC Act from
1 December 2012. Final cost recovery arrangements will be subject to an amending Bill being passed by
Parliament and the making of regulations. Fees for environmental impact assessments are proposed to apply
to:
all proposed actions referred after 8 May 2012 that are still undergoing assessment, decision on
approval or that may be subject to post approval management plans after 1 December 2012 (fees will
only apply to the work undertaken by the department after 1 December 2012); and
all referrals on or after 1 December 2012.
For projects that are referred after 8 May 2012, that may be subject to fees, the department will inform
proponents of their liability for potential fees prior to the introduction of cost recovery arrangements on
1 December 2012. Further details on the proposed cost recovery arrangements can be found here
http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/publications/consultation-draft-cost-recovery.html.
001 Referral of proposed action v May 12
JFO_112143_1188403
2
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
What information do I need to provide?
Completing all parts of this form will ensure that you submit the required information and will
also assist the Department to process your referral efficiently. If a section of the referral
document is not applicable to your proposal enter N/A.
You can complete your referral by entering your information into this Word file.
Instructions
Instructions are provided in green text throughout the form.
Attachments/supporting information
The referral form should contain sufficient information to provide an adequate basis for a decision on the
likely impacts of the proposed action. You should also provide supporting documentation, such as
environmental reports or surveys, as attachments.
Coloured maps, figures or photographs to help explain the project and its location should also be submitted
with your referral. Aerial photographs, in particular, can provide a useful perspective and context. Figures
should be good quality as they may be scanned and viewed electronically as black and white documents.
Maps should be of a scale that clearly shows the location of the proposed action and any environmental
aspects of interest.
Please ensure any attachments are below two megabytes (2mb) as they will be published on
the Department’s website for public comment. To minimise file size, enclose maps and figures
as separate files if necessary. If unsure, contact the Referral Business Entry Point for advice.
Attachments larger than two megabytes (2mb) may delay processing of your referral.
Note: the Minister may decide not to publish information that the Minister is satisfied is
commercial-in-confidence.
How do I submit a referral?
Referrals may be submitted by mail, fax or email.
Mail to:
Referral Business Entry Point
Environment Assessment Branch
Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities
GPO Box 787
CANBERRA ACT 2601
If submitting via mail, electronic copies of documentation (on CD/DVD or by email) are appreciated.
Fax to: 02 6274 1789
Faxed documents must be of sufficiently clear quality to be scanned into electronic format.
Address the fax to the mailing address, and clearly mark it as a ‘Referral under the EPBC Act’.
Follow up with a mailed hardcopy including copies of any attachments or supporting reports.
Email to: [email protected]
Clearly mark the email as a ‘Referral under the EPBC Act’.
Attach the referral as a Microsoft Word file and, if possible, a PDF file.
Follow up with a mailed hardcopy including copies of any attachments or supporting reports.
What happens next?
Following receipt of a valid referral (containing all required information) you will be advised of the next steps
in the process, and the referral and attachments will be published on the Department’s web site for public
comment.
The Department will write to you within 20 business days to advise you of the outcome of your referral and
whether or not formal assessment and approval under the EPBC Act is required. There are a number of
possible decisions regarding your referral:
001 Referral of proposed action v May 12
JFO_112143_1188403
3
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
The proposed action is NOT LIKELY to have a significant impact and does NOT NEED approval
No further consideration is required under the environmental assessment provisions of the EPBC Act and the
action can proceed (subject to any other Commonwealth, state or local government requirements).
The proposed action is NOT LIKELY to have a significant impact IF undertaken in a particular
manner
The action can proceed if undertaken in a particular manner (subject to any other Commonwealth, state or
local government requirements). The particular manner in which you must carry out the action will be
identified as part of the final decision. You must report your compliance with the particular manner to the
Department.
The proposed action is LIKELY to have a significant impact and does NEED approval
If the action is likely to have a significant impact a decision will be made that it is a controlled action. The
particular matters upon which the action may have a significant impact (such as World Heritage values or
threatened species) are known as the controlling provisions.
The controlled action is subject to a public assessment process before a final decision can be made about
whether to approve it. The assessment approach will usually be decided at the same time as the controlled
action decision. (Further information about the levels of assessment and basis for deciding the approach are
available on the Department’s web site.)
The proposed action would have UNACCEPTABLE impacts and CANNOT proceed
The Minister may decide, on the basis of the information in the referral, that a referred action would have
clearly unacceptable impacts on a protected matter and cannot proceed.
Compliance audits
If a decision is made to approve a project, the Department may audit it at any time to ensure that it is
completed in accordance with the approval decision or the information provided in the referral. If the project
changes, such that the likelihood of significant impacts could vary, you should write to the Department to
advise of the changes. If your project is in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and a decision is made to
approve it, the Authority may also audit it. (See “Is your action in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park,” p.2,
for more details).
For more information
call the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Populations and Communities Community
Information Unit on 1800 803 772 or
visit the web site www.environment.gov.au/epbc
All the information you need to make a referral, including documents referenced in this form, can be
accessed from the above web site.
001 Referral of proposed action v May 12
JFO_112143_1188403
4
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
Referral of proposed action
Project title:
Hills Plain Subdivision, Tamworth NSW
1 Summary of proposed action
1.1
Short description
Marloelle Pty Ltd proposes to develop a staged residential subdivision that will provide approximately 850 residential
lots at Moore Creek Road, Tamworth, NSW. It also consists of approximately 2.5ha of land to facilitate the
development of a community precinct (shops and other uses) and approximately 9ha of parklands. Approximately
23.7ha of land, (identified in 1.6 of this Referral) contains White Box – Yellow Box – Blakely’s Red Gum Grassy
Woodlands and Derived Native Grasslands (Box-Gum Grassy Woodlands and Derived Grasslands) which are to be
protected under a positive covenant. An additional 4.8ha of land, comprising White Cypress Pine / White Box Woodland
(2.7ha), a derived grasslands component of Box-Gum Grassy Woodlands and Derived Grasslands (1.9ha) and heavily
disturbed pasture requiring rehabilitation (0.2ha), will also be protected under a separate positive covenant.
1.2
Latitude and longitude
Seconds
Longitude
Degrees Minutes
Seconds
02
33
150
53
42
31
02
39
150
54
24
31
02
57
150
54
21
31
02
59
150
54
33
31
03
02
150
54
33
31
03
00
150
54
19
SE
31
03
16
150
54
18
SW
31
03
13
150
53
52
31
02
60
150
53
55
31
02
59
150
53
49
Location
Point
NW
NE
1.3
Latitude
Degrees
Minutes
31
Locality and property description
The project area is located between Moore Creek Road (via Verdelho Drive) and Browns Road, 7km north-west of
Tamworth. The location of the property is provided in Attachment 1.
1.4
Size of the development footprint or work area (hectares)
104.5ha Land.
Approximately 76ha of the site is proposed for residential subdivision, with approximately 28.5ha proposed for
conservation held within two lots (albiet interconnected), one being approximately 4.8ha and the other approximately
23.7ha.
1.5
Street address of the site
Moore Creek Road,
Tamworth, 2340
001 Referral of proposed action v May 12
JFO_112143_1188403
Page 1 of 28
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
1.6
Lot description
The overall development site incorporates Lot 64 on DP1170614, Lot 120 on DP 1170614 and Lot 31 on DP1125850.
1.7
Local Government Area and Council contact (if known)
The site is located within the Tamworth Regional Council LGA
1.8
Time frame
The residential development will be constructed and be released in stages dependant entirely upon demand, however
based on current conservative estimates the development is expected to be completed within 15 years upon receiving
approval under the Environmental Protection Biodiversity and Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act).
1.9
Alternatives to proposed
action
No
Yes, you must also complete section 2.2
1.10
Alternative time frames
etc
No
Yes, you must also complete Section 2.3. For each alternative,
location, time frame, or activity identified, you must also complete
details in Sections 1.2-1.9, 2.4-2.7 and 3.3 (where relevant).
1.11
State assessment
No
Yes, you must also complete Section 2.5
1.12
1.13
1.14
1.15
Component of larger
action
No
Related
actions/proposals
No
Australian Government
funding
No
Great Barrier Reef Marine
Park
No
Yes, you must also complete Section 3.1 (h), 3.2 (e)
Yes, you must also complete Section 2.7
Yes, provide details:
Yes, provide details:
2 Detailed description of proposed action
2.1 Description of proposed action
The development is a staged residential subdivision that will provide approximately 850 residential lots (Attachment 2).
It also consists of approximately 2.5ha of land to facilitate the development of a community precinct (shops and other
supporting uses) and approximately 9ha of parklands. The development is consistent with the local government zoning
vision for the area and as such fits into the future vision for the locality.
76ha of the Land identified in 1.6 (the Land) proposed for development it occurs as a 'derived grassland' component of the
White Box – Yellow Box – Blakely’s Red Gum Grassy Woodlands and Derived Native Grasslands (Box-Gum Grassy
Woodlands and Derived Grasslands) community. Approximately 23.7ha of the Land containing the highest quality Box-Gum
Grassy Woodlands and Derived Grasslands are to be conserved under a positive covenant within a single lot. An additional
4.8ha of land, comprising White Cypress Pine / White Box Woodland (2.7ha), a derived grasslands component of Box-Gum
001 Referral of proposed action v May 12
JFO_112143_1188403
Page 2 of 28
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
Grassy Woodlands and Derived Grasslands (1.9ha) and heavily disturbed pasture requiring rehabilitation (0.2ha), will also
be protected under a separate positive covenant. Connectivity will be maintained between the two lots as part of the
covenant.
510 native endemic trees with a Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) of 5cm or greater were recorded, in specific areas on the
Land, although the proposed development portion is practically clear of any significant trees. Specifically, the trees recorded
were 468 Eucalyptus albens (White Box), 17 Brachychiton populneus (Kurrajong), 14 Angophora floribunda (Rough-barked
Apple) and 11 dead stags. Tree surveys did not include Callitris glaucophylla (White Cypress Pine) due the high number and
density in particular areas of the site. The action proposes to remove only one E. albens tree, with the remaining 509 trees
protected within conservation areas.
The referral relates predominately to the potential impacts upon the EPBC Act listed White Box – Yellow Box – Blakely’s Red
Gum Grassy Woodlands and Derived Native Grasslands (Box-Gum Grassy Woodlands and Derived Grasslands) from the
proposed action. Potential impacts upon Lobed Blue-grass (Bothriochloa biloba), Regent Honeyeater (Anthochaera phrygia),
Lathamus discolor (Swift Parrot), Nyctophilus timoriensis (Greater Long-eared Bat) and Chalinolobus dwyeri (Large-eared
Pied Bat) have also been considered.
There has been a previous referral [EPBC 2005/2432], over a broader area inclusive of Land. Since that referral was
lodged two changes occurred that lead to its withdrawal. A land swap was made between Council and the proponent with
some of the original referral site being provided to Council for community uses. In exchange, land not part of the original
referral was given to Marloelle and now forms part of this referral Land. The area now owned by Council occurs to the
immediate north-east of the site.
Between November 2008 and 26 July 2011, Marloelle Pty Ltd constructed stages 1-4 of the Windmill Hill development,
which was positioned in cleared paddocks to the immediate south-east of the current site area (see Attachment 3). It was
later determined that these works may have removed approximately 4.5ha of Box-Gum Grassy Woodlands and Derived
Grasslands.
Without conceding that it has breached the EPBC Act or any other Act, but acknowledging that its activities had resulted in
the loss of habitat for a nationally listed threatened ecological community, Marloelle Pty Ltd entered into an Enforceable
Undertaking with the Department, for the purposes of s 486DA of the EPBC Act, to do certain actions at its cost, being:
a management of weeds in the area identified in Attachment 3 as the Southern Conservation Lot by an implemented a
weed management plan, over 10 years (to the satisfaction of the Department).
to fund a suitably qualified research or conservation entity (CSIRO) to undertake research into the ecological
community in the next two(2) years;
rehabilitation of a portion of the ecological community at the site.
Provide for:
Initial temporary signage to protect and identify the ecological community during rehabilitation actions; and
Permanent signage to educate and advise of the importance of the ecological community on the Land. This
signage must be in place within three (3) months of the commencement of approval for further development
of Windmill Hill Estate adjoining the ecological community.
temporary fencing to protect the ecological community at the site from ongoing impacts.
This referral now takes into account the amended land areas from those actions and Marloelle's now greater understanding
of the ecological community and referral process.
It is noted that the development design provided in Attachments 2 and Attachment 3 is indicative only and may be
subject to change as the future stages of the development are considered at the relevant times. However, the overall size
and location of the development footprint will not change. Additionally, those commitments detailed within this referral,
with regard to size and location of conservation areas, surface water management and woodland rehabilitation and
management, will not be altered by future possible changes to the development design within the designated footprint. For
clarity stages 1-4 of the Windmill Hill development are also not part of this referral, however are referred to where
relevant, in regard to the management of conservation areas.
2.2 Alternatives to taking the proposed action
The alternative to the proposed action is the 'do nothing' option. The Land is predominately cleared land with a long history
of agricultural land use. As discussed in the condition report (Attachment 4), the cleared land is commensurate with the
'derived grasslands' component of the Box-Gum Grassy Woodlands and Derived Grasslands. Derived grasslands are
representative of much of the rural lands in the region and locality.
001 Referral of proposed action v May 12
JFO_112143_1188403
Page 3 of 28
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
Along the northern facing slopes of the Land, past land cultivation was evident during surveys undertaken in 2006 (see
Attachment 4 for a description of the site's conditions in the area between 2006 and 2012). The condition report in
Attachment 4 supersedes previous conditions reports (HSO 2006 & RPS 2010), which were produced to inform the
previous referral [EPBC 2005/2432]. The feasible alternative to the proposed action would be a continuation of agricultural
practices over the entire site, including the re-cultivation over the low gradient, north-facing slopes, which is the majority of
land proposed for residential development. The proposed action will instead manage approximately 25.8ha of Box-Gum
Grassy Woodlands and Derived Grasslands for conservation with an additional 3.2ha, to be improved to qualify as Box-Gum
Grassy Woodlands and Derived Grasslands. If agriculture was practiced as an alternative to the proposed action, this area
would most likely also be used for grazing, as was the case historically or remain unmanaged. Development of those areas
that were once shown to have been used for cultivation, with conservation of the less disturbed past grazing lands is
considered the most practical and feasible outcome for the Land.
If the Land was not to be used for property development or a continuation of agricultural practices, there is evidence to
suggest that the area would be increasingly invaded by Callitrus glaucophylla (White Cypress Pine). Whilst native, C.
glaucophylla is capable of growing in thick stands. Where this species becomes a dominant feature of an area of
vegetation, this vegetation no long qualifies as the listed community. Therefore if the site was not managed, the Box
Woodland and derived grasslands has the potential to be lost altogether over time. Therefore, the do nothing approach
may pose a greater risk to all or part of the Box Gum Woodland than if the proposed action as was undertaken.
2.3 Alternative locations, time frames or activities that form part of the referred action
There are no alternative locations or timeframes that form part of the proposal. An alternative use of the Land would be the
continuation of agricultural uses, which may lead to the continued degradation of the vegetation and habitat therein. The
proposed action includes the conservation and protection of approximately 28.5ha of existing and potential Box-Gum
Grassy Woodlands and Derived Grasslands, instead.
2.4 Context, planning framework and state/local government requirements
The proposal will be subject to the legislative requirements of the Commonwealth and State, as well as local planning and
environmental frameworks.
NSW State Legislation
•
•
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act (1979); and
Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995.
2.5 Environmental impact assessments under Commonwealth, state or territory legislation
A flora and fauna assessment was undertaken as part of the Development Application approval process for the rezoning of
the study site by E.A. Systems in 2004. This report considered potential impacts of a previous version of the proposed
development in relation to any threatened species, populations or Endangered Ecological Communities (EECs) listed within
the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act). The report recognised the relevant requirements of the
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) as amended by the Environmental Planning and Assessment
Amendment Act 1997 (EP&AA Act). Consideration of potential constraints was also undertaken in relation to the
Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act).
One EPBC Act listed threatened species was recorded on site during flora and fauna surveys namely; B. biloba (Lobed Bluegrass) as well as one endangered ecological community (EEC), namely -Gum Grassy Woodlands and Derived Grasslands.
The report concluded that the proposed development may have a significant impact on the Box-Gum Grassy Woodlands
and Derived Grasslands, which prompted Council to recommend that a referral be made under the EPBC Act 1999.
As discussed in Section 2.1, a previous referral [EPBC 2005/2432] was made over a broader area inclusive of the Land. To
help inform the decision on whether this previous action was to be a controlled action the, Department of Environment and
Heritage (now SEWPaC) requested additional information to further investigate the delineation of the Box-Gum Grassy
Woodlands and Derived Grasslands as mapped by EA Systems (2004). A condition report of the Box-Gum Grassy
Woodlands and Derived Grasslands was written by Harper Somer O'Sullivan in June 2006 to help inform the decision on this
previous Referral (HSO 2006). A revised report was also produced by RPS in 2010, which further investigated the site's
condition at that time (RPS 2010). The revised 2012 condition report, provided as Attachment 4, supersedes HSO (2006)
and RPS (2010) and includes the results of these previous condition reports.
2.6 Public consultation (including with Indigenous stakeholders)
Public consultation (including with Indigenous stakeholders) was considered unnecessary and has not been undertaken.
No consultation was undertaken with indigenous stakeholders as the Land is freehold with a long history of use.
001 Referral of proposed action v May 12
JFO_112143_1188403
Page 4 of 28
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
2.7 A staged development or component of a larger project
The proposed action is to be developed through a staged development process, however all stages are described within
this referral document.
001 Referral of proposed action v May 12
JFO_112143_1188403
Page 5 of 28
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
3 Description of environment & likely impacts
3.1 Matters of national environmental significance
3.1 (a) World Heritage Properties
The site is not a World Heritage area, and does not adjoin any such area.
3.1 (b) National Heritage Places
The site is not a National Heritage Place, and does not adjoin any such area.
3.1 (c) Wetlands of International Importance (declared Ramsar wetlands)
The site is not part of any RAMSAR Wetland area and is not in close proximity to any such area.
3.1 (d) Listed threatened species and ecological communities
Description
A number of threatened species nationally listed under the EPBC Act 1999 are considered of various levels of relevance to the
proposed action. Those terrestrial fauna and flora under consideration based of on-site habitats present are listed as follows:
Bothriochloa biloba
Lobed Blue-grass;
Anthochaera phrygia
Regent Honeyeater;
Lathamus discolour
Swift Parrot;
Phascolarctos cinereus
Koala;
Chalinolobus dwyeri
Large-eared Pied Bat (South-eastern form); and
Nyctophilus timoriensis
Greater Long-eared Bat.
One threatened ecological community has been recorded within the Land, namely White-Box-Yellow Box-Blakely’s Red Gum Grassy
Woodland and Derived Native Grassland. This community is listed as Critically Endangered under the EPBC Act 1999.
Nature and extent of likely impact
The above listed species and community have been considered below, with reference to the EPBC Act Significant Impact Guidelines.
Lobed Blue-grass (Bothriochloa biloba)
B. biloba occurs in woodland vegetation and grasslands, usually on brown clay and black Baltic soils. It can also occur on cleared
roadsides. Widespread on the New England Tablelands and North West Slopes and Plains, particularly in western areas. This
species is listed as Vulnerable under the EPBC Act 1999. B. biloba is not listed under the TSC Act 1995, having being removed from
its listing as Vulnerable as it is now believed to be more widely distributed within NSW than previously believed.
B. biloba is listed as Vulnerable under the EPBC Act 1999. Under the EPBC Act 1999 significant impact guidelines, a population of a
Vulnerable species must be considered to be an 'important population' to require further assessment of impact. An important
population is defined as a population that is necessary for a species’ long-term survival and recovery. This may include populations
identified as such in recovery plans, and/or that are:
key source populations either for breeding or dispersal;
populations that are necessary for maintaining genetic diversity; and/or
populations that are near the limit of the species range.
001 Referral of proposed action v May 12
JFO_112143_1188403
Page 6 of 28
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
B. biloba was found to occur predominately over those areas that had previously been cultivated. This species is common and
widespread within the region and commonly occurs in pastures, roadsides and other disturbed areas. Due to the occurrence of a
large stable population within the region the portion of the population to be removed by the action is not considered important.
Therefore the proposed action is not considered to constitute a significant impact upon this species.
Swift Parrot (Lathamus discolor)
During winter Lathamus discolor (Swift Parrot) inhabits mainland Australia from Adelaide (S.A.) through Victoria, and up the east
coast to South-East Queensland, as well as visiting the South and Central Western Slopes and the Riverina in NSW. The Swift
Parrot returns to eastern Tasmania in spring to breed. In NSW, the Swift Parrot occurs in a range of habitat types from coastal
forests and heaths to dry open woodlands on the western slopes (Swift Parrot Recovery Team, 2001). On the western slopes of
New South Wales, E. sideroxylon (Mugga Ironbark) and E. albens (White Box) are its favoured feed trees. The Swift Parrot is listed
as Endangered under the EPBC Act 1999.
Given that the Swift Parrot is a migratory species dependent on the availability of winter foraging resources, their distribution is
largely influenced by environmental conditions. This means that in any one year this species may be solely dependent on resources
(such as nectar and/or lerps) within a particular region. The Swift Parrot has a high level of site fidelity and is known to return to
sites that have previously been used.
Significant Impact Criteria
An action is likely to have a significant impact on a Endangered species if there is a real chance or possibility that it will:
a)
Lead to a long-term decrease in the size of a population;
E. albens is the dominant tree species within the Land and is a suitable winter flowering feed tree for the Swift Parrot. 468 individual
E. albens trees have been recorded across the Land. The proposed action will conserve all but one E. albens tree. The southern
proposed conservation area is noted to have signs of natural regeneration of White Box. Given that nearly all habitat resources for
the Swift Parrot will be maintained and improved, it is considered that the action will not lead to a long-term decrease in the size of
a population of a species.
b)
Reduce the area of occupancy of the species;
Given that nearly all foraging habitat will be retained and the site will be managed to increase the number of E. albens trees, it is
not considered that the action will reduce the potential area of occupancy for Swift Parrots.
c)
Fragment an existing population into two or more populations;
Given that nearly all foraging habitat will be retained and the site will be managed to increase the number of E. albens trees, it is
not considered that the action will fragment habitat for Swift Parrots.
d)
Adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of a species;
The habitat within the site is considered to not be critical to the survival of the Swift Parrot. Notwithstanding most potential habitat
resources will be conserved within the site.
e)
Disrupt the breeding cycle of a population;
The Swift Parrot breeds in Tasmania. Therefore, action will not disrupt the breeding cycle of Swift Parrots.
f)
Modify destroy, remove or isolate or decrease the availability or quality of habitat to the extent that the species is
to decline;
likely
Given that the areas to be modified by the development are already completely cleared, the loss of those areas is unlikely to cause
a decline in Swift Parrots.
g)
Result in invasive species that are harmful to a vulnerable species becoming established in the vulnerable species’
habitat;
The Action will not result in an invasive species, which may be harmful to Swift Parrots, in becoming established in this area.
001 Referral of proposed action v May 12
JFO_112143_1188403
Page 7 of 28
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
h)
Introduce disease that may cause the species to decline; or
The Action is unlikely to result in the introduction of a disease that may cause Swift Parrots to decline.
i)
Interfere with the recovery of the species.
Given that nearly all foraging habitat will be retained and the site will be managed to increase the number of E. albens trees, the
action is unlikely to significantly interfere with the recovery of the species. The retention of the E. albens trees, with the majority
occurring within areas showing signs of natural regeneration may aid in the recovery of this species, if a population was to utilise
the site in the future.
Conclusion
Based on consideration of the above factors it is concluded that the proposed action is unlikely to have a significant impact on Swift
Parrots.
Regent Honeyeater (Anthochaera phrygia)
Anthochaera phrygia (Regent Honeyeater) is a medium-sized, unique honeyeater. It is nomadic, although it does seem to return to
nesting areas sporadically. Small flocks regularly, sometimes annually, visit the northern tablelands, the north-western and central
western slopes of NSW in the spring and summer. Individuals also appear on the NSW coast at most times of year but primarily in
winter. The Regent Honeyeater occurs in temperate woodlands and open forest, including forest edges. Once commonly observed
in flocks of hundreds, it is thought that the current population may not number more than 1000 individuals. Regent Honeyeaters
are now seldom seen west of Bendigo, Victoria and are only occasionally observed in southern Qld.
Seasonal movements appear to be dictated by the flowering of various species of Eucalypt that are characteristic of the dry forests
and woodlands of South-Eastern Australia. Regent Honeyeaters prefers to forage on large-flowered Eucalypts (e.g. Eucalyptus
sideroxylon, E. melliodora, E. albens, E. leucoxylon) and also Corymbia maculata (Spotted Gum) particularly where these trees grow
in more productive areas and yield plentiful and predictable nectar flows. Regent Honeyeaters also forage on mistletoe and Banksia
flowers, and arthropods. In parts of coastal NSW they are also attracted to stands of Eucalyptus robusta (Swamp Mahogany).
Although coastal E. robusta stands are only visited spasmodically, these habitats may be used at times when usual resources are
low, and may be critical to the maintenance of the current population during these times. The decline of the Regent Honeyeater
appears to be due to a steady reduction in the extent and quality of its habitat. Many of the remaining stands of the key Eucalypt
species have suffered in the past from harvesting of timber and the very slow growth rates of replacement trees. Lack of
regeneration due to grazing by stock and hence a lack of new trees to replace dying trees in farmland is also a serious concern. The
Regent Honeyeater is listed as Endangered under the EPBC Act 1999.
Significant Impact Criteria
An action is likely to have a significant impact on a Endangered species if there is a real chance or possibility that it will:
a)
Lead to a long-term decrease in the size of a population;
E. albens is the dominant tree species within the Land and is a suitable winter flowering feed tree for the Regent Honeyeater. 468
individual E. albens trees have been recorded across the Land. The proposed action will conserve all but one E. albens trees within
the areas proposed for conservation. The proposed southern conservation area is noted to have signs of natural regeneration of E.
albens. Given that all habitat resources for the Regent Honeyeater will be maintained and improved, it is considered that the action
will not lead to a long-term decrease in the size of a population of a species.
b)
Reduce the area of occupancy of the species;
Given that nearly all foraging habitat will be retained and the site will be managed to increase the number of E. albens trees, it is
not considered that the action will reduce the potential area of occupancy for Regent Honeyeaters.
c)
Fragment an existing population into two or more populations;
Given that nearly all foraging habitat will be retained and the site will be managed to increase the number of E. albens trees, it is
considered that the action will not fragment habitat for Regent Honeyeaters.
d)
Adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of a species;
The habitat within the site is considered to not be critical to the survival of the Regent Honeyeater. Notwithstanding all potential
001 Referral of proposed action v May 12
JFO_112143_1188403
Page 8 of 28
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
habitat resources will be conserved within the site.
e)
Disrupt the breeding cycle of a population;
Whilst no records of breeding by the Regent Honeyeater is known from the area, all potential breeding opportunities, in the form of
Eucalypt woodlands will be retained and conserved. Therefore the proposed action would not disrupt the breeding cycle of a
population of the Regent Honeyeater.
f)
Modify destroy, remove or isolate or decrease the availability or quality of habitat to the extent that the species is
to decline;
likely
Given that the areas to be modified by the development are already cleared, the loss of those areas is unlikely to cause a decline in
Regent Honeyeaters.
g)
Result in invasive species that are harmful to a vulnerable species becoming established in the vulnerable species’
habitat;
The Action will not result in an invasive species, which may be harmful to Regent Honeyeaters, in becoming established in this area.
h)
Introduce disease that may cause the species to decline; or
The Action is unlikely to result in the introduction of a disease that may cause Regent Honeyeaters to decline.
i)
Interfere with the recovery of the species.
Given that nearly all foraging habitat will be retained and the site will be managed to increase the number of E. albens trees, the
action is unlikely to significantly interfere with the recovery of the species. The retention of all E. albens trees, with the majority
occurring within areas showing signs of natural regeneration may aid in the recovery of this species, if a population was to utilise
the site in the future.
Conclusion
Based on consideration of the above factors it is concluded that the proposed action is unlikely to have a significant impact on
Regent Honeyeaters.
Koala
Phascolarctos cinereus (Koala) occurs along the east coast of Australia and extends into Woodland, Mulga and River Red Gum
forests west of the Great Dividing Range. The range of the Koala covers all such suitable areas of NSW. In drier forested areas,
Koalas are generally observed as individuals in low densities. They are more abundant in coastal woodland and in open forest,
where they have been found in densities as high as ten individuals per hectare. They are rare or absent in wet forests in the
southern part of their range above 600 m which may be due more to distribution of Eucalypt species than climate, as the Koala is
limited to areas where there are acceptable food trees.
The diet is generally restricted to that of Eucalypt leaves. On occasion, non-Eucalypt foliage is eaten. The foliage of Eucalyptus
camaldulensis (River Red Gum), E. microcorys (Tallowwood), E. tereticornis (Forest Red Gum), E. punctata (Grey Gum), E. viminalis
(Ribbon Gum) and E. robusta (Swamp Mahogany) are some of the preferred Eucalypt species. Koalas use a wide variety of tree
sizes, and do not preferentially use large or tall trees in NSW forests, although this has been listed as a habitat preference in areas
where trees are generally small, stunted or nutrient deprived.
Koalas are known to occur within the Tamworth region, however over four survey periods, no Koalas have been recorded within the
site. Within the Land, E. albens is the dominant tree species and is a known Koala feed tree.
The Koala is listed as Vulnerable under the EPBC Act 1999. Under the significant impact guidelines, a Vulnerable species must be
considered to be an 'important population' to require further assessment. An important population is defined as a population that is
necessary for a species’ long-term survival and recovery. This may include populations identified as such in recovery plans, and/or
that are:
key source populations either for breeding or dispersal;
populations that are necessary for maintaining genetic diversity; and/or
populations that are near the limit of the species range.
001 Referral of proposed action v May 12
JFO_112143_1188403
Page 9 of 28
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
There is little information known of the Koala population, which may be present in the locality of the site. Wildlife Atlas records
indicate that a viable Koala population may predominately occur in the Hills to the east of Tamworth. There may also be potential
for Koalas to occur within the crown lands to the west of the site. As it cannot be determined whether a local population, if present,
would be considered an important population, further consideration under the EPBC Act has been afforded to this species.
Significant Impact Criteria
An action is likely to have a significant impact on a Vulnerable species if there is a real chance or possibility that it will:
a)
Lead to a long-term decrease in the size of an important population of a species;
E. albens is the dominant tree species within the Land and is a suitable feed tree for the Koala. 468 individual E. albens trees have
been recorded across the Land. The proposed action will conserve all but one E. albens tree within the areas proposed for
conservation. The southern proposed conservation area is noted to have signs of natural regeneration of E. albens. Given that the
significant majority of habitat resources for the Koala will be maintained and improved, it is considered that the action will not lead
to a long-term decrease in the size of a population of a species.
b)
Reduce the area of occupancy of an important population;
A high proportion of Koala feed trees will be retained, with good connectivity to higher quality areas of potential habitat maintained
to the south and south-west. The areas proposed for development contain just one tree, with the remaining land completely absent
of mature trees or any signs of regeneration and are therefore unlikely to be important for Koalas. The proposed action is therefore
considered to not reduce the potential area of occupancy for Koalas.
c)
Fragment an existing important population into two or more populations;
The area proposed for residential development is almost completely treeless and is bordered by open farmland to the east and
north. Connectivity between those areas proposed for retention and large areas of higher quality potential habitat to the south and
south-west, will be maintained. Therefore the proposed action will not fragment an existing population into two or more
populations.
d)
Adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of a species;
Koalas have not been recorded within the Land over the four survey periods undertaken since 2004 and records within the locality
are scarce. The habitat within the site is therefore unlikely to be critical for the survival of a potentially occurring local population of
Koalas. Notwithstanding, a significant proportion of suitable feed trees are proposed for retention, thus any potential habitat will not
be affected.
e)
Disrupt the breeding cycle of an important population;
Due to the proposed conservation of the significant majority of potential habitat within the site and the maintenance of connectivity
to higher quality areas of potential habitat, the proposed action is unlikely to disrupt the breeding cycle of a local Koala population.
f)
Modify destroy, remove or isolate or decrease the availability or quality of habitat to the extent that the species is
to decline;
likely
The proposed action will increase and improve all available Koala habitats within the site.
g)
Result in invasive species that are harmful to a vulnerable species becoming established in the vulnerable species’
habitat;
The Action will not result in an invasive species, which may be harmful to Koalas, in becoming established in this area.
h)
Introduce disease that may cause the species to decline; or
The Action is unlikely to result in the introduction of a disease that may cause Koalas to decline.
i)
Interfere with the recovery of the species.
Given that the significant majority of foraging habitats will be retained, the action is unlikely to significantly interfere with the
recovery of the species. The retention of most E. albens trees, with the majority occurring within areas showing signs of natural
001 Referral of proposed action v May 12
JFO_112143_1188403
Page 10 of 28
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
regeneration, may aid in the recovery of this species, if a population was to utilise the site in the future.
Conclusion
Based on consideration of the above factors it is concluded that the proposed action is unlikely to have a significant impact on
Koalas.
Large-eared Pied Bat (Chalinolobus dwyeri)
Chalinolobus dwyeri (Large-eared Pied Bat) is a small to medium sized bat with long, prominent ears and distinguishable glossy
black fur. Its black fur extends onto the tail membrane; it is dark grey below with white fur along the flanks forming a V-shape in
the pubic region. This species is similar to Chalinolobus picatus (Little Pied Bat) with the main differences being larger ears and
longer forearms. As this species is one of the wattled bats, it has small lobes of skin between the ears and corner of the mouth.
The Large-eared Pied Bat is mainly found in areas with extensive cliffs and caves, from Rockhampton in Queensland south to
Bungonia in the NSW Southern Highlands. Records of this species exist in dry sclerophyll forest and woodland, both to the east and
west of the Great Divide. Recordings of this species have also been made in subalpine woodland and at the ecotone of rainforest
and wet Eucalypt forest.
It roosts in caves, crevices in cliffs, old mine workings and in the disused, bottle-shaped mud nests of the Fairy Martin (Hirundo
ariel), frequenting low to mid-elevation dry open forest and woodland close to these features.
The physiology of the bat suggests that it feeds primarily on small insects below the canopy. They fly relatively slowly with rapid but
shallow wing beats. Females give birth in November, commonly to twins, and the young are independent by late February. They
leave the cave soon after and the females remain another month before abandoning the roost in late March for the winter. It is
thought that during the cooler winter months the colony disperses for individual hibernation.
The Large-eared Pied Bat is listed as Vulnerable under the EPBC Act 1999. Under the significant impact guidelines, a Vulnerable
species must be considered to be an 'important population' to require further assessment. An important population is defined as a
population that is necessary for a species’ long-term survival and recovery. This may include populations identified as such in
recovery plans, and/or that are:
key source populations either for breeding or dispersal;
populations that are necessary for maintaining genetic diversity; and/or
populations that are near the limit of the species range.
The national recovery plan for the Large-eared Pied Bat states that within NSW, based on available records, the largest
concentration of populations appears to be in the sandstone escarpments of the Sydney basin and northwest slopes of NSW. Much
of this habitat occurs within state reserves. The species has also been recorded from a few locations in the sandstone escarpments
of the Morton National Park at the southern end of its range. The recovery plan notes that further survey is required throughout its
known range to determine the size and distribution of existing populations.
The Large-eared Pied Bat is a cave dwelling species. Areas containing cliffs, with caves and fertile wooded valley habitat within close
proximity of each other are considered habitat critical to the survival of the Large-eared Pied Bat by the national recovery plan. No
caves or similar structures exist within the site, however potential for suitable caves exists within the greater locality. Therefore the
site may be used for foraging by the Large-eared Pied Bat. Within the region, inhabited caves are known to exist near Barraba,
Coonabarabran and Ulan (Department of Environment and Resource Management, 2011). These sites respectively occur to the
north, west and south-west of the Land. Therefore a local population, which may use the Land for foraging may be important for
dispersal. As a precautionary approach, further assessment of the Large-eared Pied Bat has been undertaken using the EPBC Act
1999 significant impact guidelines.
Significant Impact Criteria
An action is likely to have a significant impact on a Vulnerable species if there is a real chance or possibility that it will:
a)
Lead to a long-term decrease in the size of an important population of a species;
It is possible that this species utilises the woodland habitats of the Land for foraging. All woodland habitat present is proposed to be
retained and therefore the proposed action will not lead to a long term decrease in a population of this species.
001 Referral of proposed action v May 12
JFO_112143_1188403
Page 11 of 28
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
b)
Reduce the area of occupancy of an important population;
No potential roost habitat exists on site. Due to the retention of suitable feeding habitat and the high mobility of the Large-eared
Pied Bat, the proposed action will not reduce the area of occupancy of this species.
c)
Fragment an existing important population into two or more populations;
No potential roost habitat exists on site. Due to the retention of suitable feeding habitat and the high mobility of the Large-eared
Pied Bat, the proposed action will not fragment an existing population into two or more populations.
d)
Adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of a species;
The small amount of potential foraging habitat present on site is considered not to be habitat critical to the survival of the Largeeared Pied Bat. Notwithstanding, the foraging habitat available will be protected and improved.
e)
Disrupt the breeding cycle of an important population;
The breeding cycle of the Greater Long-eared Bat will not be disrupted by the proposed action. This species utilised caves and
similar structures as maternity sites, which do not exist within the site.
f)
Modify destroy, remove or isolate or decrease the availability or quality of habitat to the extent that the species is
to decline;
likely
The Large-eared Pied Bat prefers areas containing a canopy for foraging purposes. The action will mainly develop within those areas
that are completely absent of treed areas, with only one tree to be removed by the proposal. All potential foraging habitat will be
conserved. The proposed action is considered to not modify destroy, remove or isolate or decrease the availability or quality of
habitat for this species, but instead will protect, increase and improve the potential foraging habitat for this species.
g)
Result in invasive species that are harmful to a vulnerable species becoming established in the vulnerable species’
habitat;
The Action will not result in an invasive species, which may be harmful to Large-eared Pied Bats, in becoming established in this
area.
h)
Introduce disease that may cause the species to decline; or
The Action is unlikely to result in the introduction of a disease that may cause Large-eared Pied Bats to decline.
i)
Interfere with the recovery of the species.
The proposed action does not interfere with any of the objectives proposed in the national recovery plan. The conservation of all of
the site's available foraging habitat will provide a positive conservation outcome for the Large-eared Pied Bat.
Conclusion
Based on consideration of the above factors it is concluded that the proposed action is unlikely to have a significant impact on the
Large-eared Pied Bat.
Greater Long-eared Bat (Nyctophilus timoriensis)
The Greater Long-eared Bat is known to utilise River Red Gum forest, semi-arid woodlands and savannahs. It also occurs in
box/ironbark/Callitris open forests and Buloke woodland in northern New South Wales and inland south-east Queensland. In South
Australia it is confined to tall mallee shrublands north of the Murray River and is known to roost in hollows in Eucalyptus gracilis.
Victorian records are from E. gracilis mallee, Buloke and Black Box woodlands. They forage on flying insects and fly very close to
vegetation, often weaving through the gaps. They forage at least 3 km from the roost. Tree hollows are used as maternity sites
(Churchill, 2008).
The Greater Long-eared Bat is listed as Vulnerable under the EPBC Act 1999. Under the significant impact guidelines, a Vulnerable
species must be considered to be an 'important population' to require further assessment. An important population is defined as a
population that is necessary for a species’ long-term survival and recovery. This may include populations identified as such in
recovery plans, and/or that are:
key source populations either for breeding or dispersal;
001 Referral of proposed action v May 12
JFO_112143_1188403
Page 12 of 28
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
populations that are necessary for maintaining genetic diversity; and/or
populations that are near the limit of the species range.
Little information exists with regard to specific important populations of the Greater Long-eared Bat. This species has been recorded
within the Attunga State Forest, approximately 13km to the north of the Land. As a precautionary approach, further assessment of
the Greater Long-eared Bat has been undertaken using the EPBC Act 1999 significant impact guidelines.
Significant Impact Criteria
An action is likely to have a significant impact on a Vulnerable species if there is a real chance or possibility that it will:
a)
Lead to a long-term decrease in the size of an important population of a species;
51 trees containing hollows of a size suitable for use by the Greater Long-eared Bat were recorded within the Land (see
Attachment 3 and Section 3.2 of Attachment 4). It is therefore possible that this species utilises the woodland habitats of the
Land for foraging and roosting. All woodland habitat present, including all hollow-bearing trees, is proposed to be retained and
therefore the proposed action will not lead to a long term decrease in a population of this species.
b)
Reduce the area of occupancy of an important population;
Due to the retention of suitable feeding and roosting habitat and the high mobility of the Greater Long-eared Bat, the proposed
action will not reduce the area of occupancy of this species.
c)
Fragment an existing important population into two or more populations;
Due to the retention of suitable feeding and roosting habitat and the high mobility of the Greater Long-eared Bat, the proposed
action will not fragment an existing population into two or more populations.
d)
Adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of a species;
Due to the retention of suitable feeding and roosting habitat and the high mobility of the Greater Long-eared Bat, if this species is
present, the proposed action will not adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of this species.
e)
Disrupt the breeding cycle of an important population;
Due to the retention of suitable feeding and roosting habitat, the proposed action will not disrupt the breeding cycle of a population
of the Greater Long-eared Bat, if present.
f)
Modify destroy, remove or isolate or decrease the availability or quality of habitat to the extent that the species is
to decline;
likely
The Greater Long-eared Bat prefers vegetated areas in which to weave through, hunting for insects. The action will mostly develop
within those areas that are completely absent of preferred vegetated areas, with only one E. albens tree proposed to be removed.
All potential foraging and roosting habitat will be conserved. The proposed action is considered to not modify destroy, remove or
isolate or decrease the availability or quality of habitat for this species.
g)
Result in invasive species that are harmful to a vulnerable species becoming established in the vulnerable species’
habitat;
The Action will not result in an invasive species, which may be harmful to Greater Long-eared Bats, in becoming established in this
area.
h)
Introduce disease that may cause the species to decline; or
The Action is unlikely to result in the introduction of a disease that may cause Greater Long-eared Bats to decline.
i)
Interfere with the recovery of the species.
The proposed action does not interfere with any of the objectives proposed in the national recovery plan. The conservation of all of
the site's available foraging habitat will provide a positive conservation outcome for the Greater Long-eared Bat.
001 Referral of proposed action v May 12
JFO_112143_1188403
Page 13 of 28
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
Conclusion
Based on consideration of the above factors it is concluded that the proposed action is unlikely to have a significant impact on the
Greater Long-eared Bat.
White Box – Yellow Box – Blakely’s Red Gum Grassy Woodlands and Derived Native Grasslands
White Box – Yellow Box – Blakely’s Red Gum Grassy Woodlands and Derived Native Grasslands (Box-Gum Grassy Woodlands and
Derived Grasslands) is found on relatively fertile soils on the tablelands and western slopes of NSW and generally occurs between
the 400 and 800 mm isohyets extending from the western slopes, at an altitude of c. 170m to c. 1200 m, on the northern
tablelands. The community occurs within the NSW North Coast, New England Tableland, Nandewar, Brigalow Belt South, Sydney
Basin, South Eastern Highlands and NSW South Western Slopes Bioregions. Less than 5% of this community remains in good
condition, and much of this occurs in small, isolated patches.
Box-Gum Grassy Woodlands and Derived Grasslands is listed as Critically Endangered under the EPBC Act 1999.
Significant Impact Criteria
An action is likely to have a significant impact on a critically endangered or endangered ecological community if there is a real
chance or possibility that it will:
a)
Reduce the extent of an ecological community;
The vegetation mapping over the site identified a number of variances (see Section 3.1.5, Attachment 4).
The proposed development and conservation areas are summarised in the below table:
Vegetation Community
White Box-Yellow Box-Blakely's Red Gum Grassy
Woodland and Derived Native Grassland
(woodland area) (CEEC)
White Box-Yellow Box-Blakely's Red Gum Grassy
Woodland and Derived Native Grassland (derived
grasslands) - moderate diversity (CEEC)
White Box-Yellow Box-Blakely's Red Gum Grassy
Woodland and Derived Native Grassland (derived
grasslands) - low diversity (CEEC)
White Cypress Pine / White Box Woodland
White Cypress Pine / White Box Regenerating
Woodland (derived grasslands) - low diversity
(CEEC)
Cleared / Modified Land
Total
Development
Area (ha)
Southern
Conservation Area
(ha)
Western
Conservation Area
(ha)
0.0
9.0
0
9.0
0.3
13.7
0
14.0
66.8
0.7
0
67.5
0.1
0.0
2.7
2.8
2.0
0.0
1.9
3.9
6.8
0.3
0.2
7.3
76
23.7
4.8
104.5
Total
(ha)
The majority of the proposed development footprint (66.8ha) has been identified as low quality derived grassland only, such that if
this area is assessed in isolation from surrounding areas of higher quality vegetation, it would not have sufficient species diversity to
qualify as the listed community. This 66.8ha is completely treeless and was used for the growing of wheat as recently as 2004 (see
Attachment 5 for an Aerial view of the site at the time of acquisition by the proponent). A small portion (0.3ha) along the edge of
the area mapped as moderate diversity derived grassland has been captured within the proposed footprint. However, this is due to
the proposed only large lot being at one of the highest points of the site and incorporating this small proportion of the grassland
vegetation within the proposed lot boundary. This 0.3ha will be managed as gardens and an asset protection zone. The 2.0ha of the
low diversity White Cypress Pine / White Box Regenerating Woodland (derived grasslands), occurs at the western edge of the
development footprint. This area contains the only E. albens tree proposed to be removed. This area has been managed by
removing C. glaucophylla. If this management was not occurring, it is likely that the C. glaucophylla would be at a density high
enough to warrant the vegetation as not compliant as the derived grasslands component of the Box-Gum Grassy Woodlands and
001 Referral of proposed action v May 12
JFO_112143_1188403
Page 14 of 28
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
Derived Grasslands.
These modified derived grassland examples are widely represented in the locality and region. Vegetation mapping for the local areas
suggests that the site's derived grasslands represents as little as 0.05% of the total available just within Tamworth, Manilla and
Cobbadah 1:100,000 scale map sheets (see Section4.3, Attachment 4). Hence the extent of reduction is minimal in contrast to
the area occupied by this community in the wider area. Additionally, the significant majority (66.8ha) of the area proposed to be
used for development is highly modified and of particular low diversity. Therefore the conservation value of the area proposed for a
reduction in the extent is considered low.
b)
Fragment or increase fragmentation of an ecological community, for example by clearing vegetation for roads or
transmission lines;
The proposed development footprint is bounded by Moore Creek Road to the east and Browns Road to the north. Beyond these
roads are active pastoral and cropping lands. The proposed development footprint will be bounded by the proposed conservation
lands to the west and south. Strong connectivity between the conserved woodlands and commensurate vegetation offsite to the
south will be maintained and improved by the proposed action. Therefore the proposal will not fragment or increase fragmentation
of the ecological community.
c)
Adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of an ecological community;
Past disturbances associated with land clearing for agriculture have already significantly impacted the extent of this community in
the impact area. The habitat of the area proposed to be developed is widely represented in the locality and region and is not
considered critical to the survival of the ecological community or biodiversity. The southern woodland area proposed for
conservation contains the highest species and structural diversity of the entire site (see Section 4.2, Attachment 4). Conserving
this southern area will ensure an ongoing positive contribution to the survival of this community locally.
d)
Modify or destroy abiotic (non-living) factors (such as water, nutrients, or soil) necessary for an ecological community’s
survival, including reduction of groundwater levels, or substantial alteration of surface water drainage patterns;
The proposed activities will not impact abiotic factors necessary for the survival of the Box Woodland. The development has been
designed such that all surface water drainage will be directed north away from the conserved woodland areas, which is the existing
drainage pattern for the area. A management plan has been produced (Attachment 6) to provide guidance for maintaining and
improving the ecological integrity of the sites conserved areas.
e)
Cause a substantial change in the species composition of an occurrence of an ecological community, including
causing a decline or loss of functionally important species, for example through regular burning or flora or fauna
harvesting;
The proposed action has been designed to impact upon those areas with the lowest species diversity and ecological value, namely
pass cropping lands. All native flora and fauna species recorded within the development area are also well represented within the
higher quality areas that are to be conserved. A management plan has been produced (Attachment 6) to provide guidance for
maintaining and improving the ecological integrity of the sites conserved areas. Therefore the action will not cause a substantial
change in the species composition of the woodland community and any changes over time, such as Eucalypt recruitment will
improve the conservation value of the area.
f)
Cause a substantial reduction in the quality or integrity of an occurrence of an ecological community,
including, but
not limited to:
assisting invasive species, that are harmful to the listed ecological community, to become established, or
Guidelines have be put in place prevent the spread and invasion of weeds into this community and will reduce the presence of such
001 Referral of proposed action v May 12
JFO_112143_1188403
Page 15 of 28
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
weeds already present in the study area (see Attachment 6).
causing regular mobilisation of fertilisers, herbicides or other chemicals or pollutants into the ecological community
which kill or inhibit the growth of species in the ecological community; or
The proposed activities will not cause regular mobilisation of fertilisers, herbicides or other chemicals or pollutants into the
ecological community.
g)
Interfere with the recovery of an ecological community.
DECCW (2010) has prepared a (draft) national recovery plan for this CEEC. The primary objective of the recovery plan is
to minimise the risk of extinction of this CEEC through:
Achieving no net loss in extent and condition of the ecological community throughout its geographic distribution;
Increasing protection of sites in good condition;
Increasing landscape functionality of the ecological community through management and restoration of degraded
sites;
Increasing transitional areas around remnants and linkages between remnants; and
Bringing about enduring changes in participating land manager attitudes and behaviours towards environmental
protection and sustainable land management practices to increase extent, integrity and function of Box-Gum Grassy
Woodlands and Derived Grasslands.
The proposed action will result in the loss of approximately 69.1ha of the derived grasslands component of Box-Gum Grassy
Woodlands and Derived Grasslands, with the remaining 6.9ha not qualifying as the listed community. The area within the proposed
development footprint is of low quality, both in terms of structure and biodiversity. In the absence of this proposed action, this area
would most likely be subject to ongoing grazing and cultivation (as indicated by past practices), which is a major contributing factor
to the loss of this ecological community over its range. In line with the objectives of the national recovery plan, the proposed action
will aim to protect the highest quality areas of the site and improve the functionality of this community through implementing
adequate management practices. The proposed action will enable an increase in connectivity to the neighbouring crown reserve,
also containing Box-Gum Grassy Woodlands and Derived Grasslands. Therefore the proposed action is largely consistent with the
objectives of the national recovery plan.
Conclusion
Based on consideration of the above factors it is concluded that the proposed action are unlikely to have a significant impact on the
White Box Yellow Box Blakely’s Red Gum Woodland.
3.1 (e) Listed migratory species
A number of migratory species that are listed under the EPBC Act have been recorded or have the potential to occur within a
10 km radius of the sites (EPBC Protected Matters Report 08/08/2012). Marine migratory species are highly unlikely to be
affected by the proposed action as no marine habitats occur within a 10km radius of the site. Those terrestrial migratory
species under consideration based of on-site habitats present are listed as follows:
Apus pacificus
Fork-tailed Swift;
Anthochaera phrygia
Regent Honeyeater;
Ardea alba
Great Egret;
Ardea ibis
Cattle Egret;
Hirundapus caudacutus
White-throated Needletail; and
Merops ornatus
Rainbow Bee-eater.
001 Referral of proposed action v May 12
JFO_112143_1188403
Page 16 of 28
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
Both the Fork-tailed Swift and White-throated Needletail are almost exclusively aerial and can occur over most habitat types.
None of these species breed in Australia and foraging takes places aerially. Due to these factors, it is considered unlikely that
the action will have a significant impact on roosting and/or breeding opportunities for these species.
The Great Egret has a widespread distribution across Australia and has been recorded in a wide range of wetland habitats
such as freshwater and saline, coastal and inland, permanent and ephemeral. Both foraging and breeding takes place within
or near these habitats. One small dam exists (approximately 30m x 20m) within the site. This dam occurs in close proximity to
the proposed perimeter road and may be affected by the development. A series of stormwater retention ponds and wetland
areas will however be created by the development, which would represent equivalent habitat for the Great Egret. Additionally,
the small dam present on site would be considered to be low quality habitat for the Great Egret and its potential loss would
not significantly affect this species.
The Cattle Egret forages away from water commonly within farm areas that contain livestock. However, this species generally
roosts in trees near water bodies such as lakes and swamps. The distribution of this species spans across Australia through a
wide range of habitats. There is potential for the Cattle Egret to exist on site, however due to its widespread distribution and
habitat requirements as well as the small amount of potential habitat to be removed, it is considered unlikely that the proposal
would pose any significant impacts on this species.
The Rainbow Bee-eater is distributed across the mainland of Australia in a wide range of habitats such as woodlands,
shrublands, cleared or semi-cleared habitats and heathlands. This species excavate long burrows where it nests and commonly
returns to the same breeding area each year. There is potential for this species to occur on site. However, due to its
widespread distribution and habitat requirements as well as the small amount of potential habitat to be removed, it is
considered unlikely that the proposal would pose any significant impacts on this species.
As discussed previously in Section 3.1d, no significant impacts are expected on the Regent Honeyeater as a result of the
proposed action.
3.1 (f) Commonwealth marine area
This section is not applicable as the site is not in the vicinity of any Commonwealth marine area.
3.1 (g) Commonwealth land
Crown Land occurs to the south of the site. This land will be bordered by the proposed conservation area of the site.
Therefore the proposed action will assist in protecting the neighbouring crown land and no impacts to this area are expected.
3.1 (h) The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park
Not applicable
3.2 Nuclear actions, actions taken by the Commonwealth (or Commonwealth
agency), actions taken in a Commonwealth marine area, actions taken on
Commonwealth land, or actions taken in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park
3.2 (a)
Is the proposed action a nuclear action?
No
Yes (provide details below)
If yes, nature & extent of likely impact on the whole environment
3.2 (b)
Is the proposed action to be taken by the
Commonwealth or a Commonwealth
agency?
001 Referral of proposed action v May 12
JFO_112143_1188403
No
Yes (provide details below)
Page 17 of 28
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
If yes, nature & extent of likely impact on the whole environment
3.2 (c)
Is the proposed action to be taken in a
Commonwealth marine area?
No
Yes (provide details below)
If yes, nature & extent of likely impact on the whole environment (in addition to 3.1(f))
3.2 (d)
Is the proposed action to be taken on
Commonwealth land?
No
Yes (provide details below)
If yes, nature & extent of likely impact on the whole environment (in addition to 3.1(g))
3.2 (e)
Is the proposed action to be taken in the
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park?
No
Yes (provide details below)
If yes, nature & extent of likely impact on the whole environment (in addition to 3.1(h))
3.3
Other important features of the environment
3.3 (a) Flora and fauna
The ecological value and condition of the Land, as it related to species and communities listed under the EPBC Act is
described in detail in Attachment 4. A general description of the site has been provided below.
The habitats present throughout the site can be classified into two distinct habitat types, being Woodland and Cleared
Areas. Collectively these habitat types provide suitable resources for a range of native flora and fauna species, including
potential habitat for threatened species. The woodland areas within the site contain mature trees with hollows, which offer
potential roosting and nesting opportunities for locally occurring fauna. The majority of the woodland within the site occurs
as a linear remnant, running along the southern drainage line. This woodland is connected at its western end to
commensurate areas of woodland offsite.
The fauna species recorded throughout the site during these investigations are considered typical of the habitats present on
the site and in the vicinity of Tamworth. Species recorded were predominantly restricted to common avifauna. Two
introduced mammals Oryctolagus cuniculus (European Rabbit) and Vulpes vulpes (Red Fox) were detected within the site
by secondary indications and two native mammal Macropus giganteus (Eastern Grey Kangaroo) and Macropus robustus
(Common Wallaroo) were observed.
No arboreal mammals or forest owls were recorded during nocturnal surveys by E.A. Systems (2004), but three species of
microchiropteran bat were detected. A number of TSC Act threatened fauna species have been recorded within the locality
during previous flora and fauna surveys, including Scoteanax rueppellii (Greater Broad-nosed Bat), Stagonopleura guttata
(Diamond Firetail), Neophema pulchella (Turquoise Parrot) and Miniopterus schreibersii (Eastern Bent-wing Bat) (HSO pers.
obs, EA Systems 2004).
The absence of ongoing cultivation over the northern areas of the site has enabled native vegetation to re-establish in
these areas. The dominant species recorded were Dichanthium sericeum subsp. sericeum (Queensland Bluegrass) and B.
macra. Dominant stands of Bothriochloa biloba (Lobed Blue Grass) were also recorded throughout the previously cultivated
areas. The above three species appear to be disturbance responsive and have been able to establish and dominate before
the various weed species.
3.3 (b) Hydrology, including water flows
The site is located within the Namoi catchment and is drained by several intermittent drainage lines. The majority of the
site is drained by the drainage line running in a north-westerly direction through the site. The southern part of the site is
drained by drainage lines running through a series of gullies which flows into the stormwater system at Oxley Vale (E.A.
Systems 2004).
001 Referral of proposed action v May 12
JFO_112143_1188403
Page 18 of 28
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
The proposed development has been designed such that all surface water flows from the footprint will run north. This will
ensure that the conserved areas of the site will neither receive stormwater or have a reduction in flows over its extent.
3.3 (c) Soil and Vegetation characteristics
Three soil landscapes have been mapped over the site by Banks (2001), namely 'The Forest', 'Parnell' and 'Fullwoods Hill'.
The Forest soil type occurs on the ridge and northern north-facing slope of the site. It is described in Banks (2001) as
being dominated by very deep to giant moderately well drained to poorly drained Red Chromosols (red-brown Earths) with
lower footslope areas having deep to giant imperfectly drained Red Ferrosols (Euchrozems). Some lower footslope and
drainage plain areas have very deep to giant imperfectly drained Red Vertosols (Red Clays).
The Parnell soil type occurs over the wooded areas of the site in the south and west. It is described as being dominated by
moderately deep moderately well drained Red Chromosols (Non-calcic Brown soils), rocky crests and outcrop areas by
shallow moderately well drained loamy Tenosols and Rudosols (Lithosols) and mid to lower slopes by moderately deep
moderately well drained Red Chromosols (Non-calcic Brown Soils) or moderately deep imperfectly drained Brown Vertosols
(Brown Clays) depending on dominant geology (Banks, 2001).
The Fullwoods Hill soil type occurs along the very eastern edge and in the north-west corner of the site. These soils can be
locally highly variable over tens of metres or homogenous depending on variability in underlying geology. Generally crests
are dominated by moderately deep moderately well drained Haplic Red Chromosols (Non-calcic Brown Soils) and
sideslopes are dominated by shallow moderately well drained Vertic Red Chromosols (Red-brown Earths), with very deep
poorly drained Yellow and Brown Sodosols (Solodic Soils) on some lower slopes. Some areas where soils are derived from
more clay mineral rich rocks have deep well drained Red Ferrosols (Euchrozems) grading into very deep moderately well
drained Black and Brown Vertosols (Black Earths and Brown Clays) (Banks, 2001).
The vegetation characteristics of the Land are described in detail in Attachment 4.
3.3 (d) Outstanding natural features
The landscape is largely uniform apart from changes in vegetation communities, and has no outstanding natural features.
3.3 (e) Remnant native vegetation
Of the 104.5ha Land, approximately 9ha occurs as remnant native woodland (Box-Gum Grassy Woodlands and Derived
Grasslands). An additional 85.4ha has been recorded as the derived grassland component of the Box-Gum Grassy
Woodlands and Derived Grasslands community. Along the steeper slope to the west is Callitrus glaucophylla (White Cypress
Pine) woodland occurs, with E. albens occurring as a lesser component. Juvenile C. glaucophylla also occurs throughout the
grassland immediately adjacent to the western most woodland. The C. glaucophylla woodland occupies approximately
2.8ha of the site.
3.3 (f) Gradient (or depth range if action is to be taken in a marine area)
The landform is best described as gently undulating slopes with a gradient of approximately 2% on the central and
northern areas rising to approximately 17% on gully slopes. The site ranges between 540 and 555 metres above sea level
(E.A. Systems 2004).
3.3 (g) Current state of the environment
The site has a past landuse history of agriculture, namely grazing within the half of the site with a southern aspect and
cultivation and grazing along the northern facing slopes. The absence of ongoing cultivation since 2006 has enabled native
grasslands to re-establish in these areas. The dominant species recorded were Dichanthium sericeum subsp. sericeum
(Queensland Bluegrass) and Bothrichloa macra (Red Grass) and Bothrichloa biloba. The above three species appear to be
disturbance responsive and have been able to establish and dominate.
The southern areas, which have been subject to past grazing only, are also predominately cleared, with some canopy trees
along the drainage lines, forming an open woodland structure. This area has higher native species diversity, than those
areas previously subjected to cultivation, particularly along the drainage lines.
001 Referral of proposed action v May 12
JFO_112143_1188403
Page 19 of 28
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
The vegetation within the western area has been managed to limit the dominance of White Cypress and maintain open
areas, however this species is still the dominant species overall.
A high occurrence of weeds was noted throughout the site also weed management practices have now commenced
pursuant to the undertakings made with the Department by the Respondent.
3.3 (h) Commonwealth Heritage Places or other places recognised as having heritage values
There are no Commonwealth Heritage Places or other places recognised as having heritage values located within or in close
proximity to the site.
3.3 (i) Indigenous heritage values
There are no known Indigenous heritage values located within or in close proximity to the site.
3.3 (j) Other important or unique values of the environment
The site is adjacent to a crown reserve, containing Box-Gum Grassy Woodlands and Derived Grasslands.
3.3 (k) Tenure of the action area (eg freehold, leasehold)
Freehold land.
3.3 (l) Existing land/marine uses of area
The site is not currently being used for any purpose. Cultivation of particularly parts of the site finished in 2004 and grazing
has ceased since 2006 when Stage 1-4 were commenced.
3.3 (m) Any proposed land/marine uses of area
No additional uses of the land are proposed.
001 Referral of proposed action v May 12
JFO_112143_1188403
Page 20 of 28
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
4 Measures to avoid or reduce impacts
The significant majority of the site has been identified as Box-Gum Grassy Woodlands and Derived Grasslands. Hence, it is
impossible to completely avoid development over this community within the site. Most of this listed community occurs as
the derived grassland component. This example of the community is common place and dominant within the local area and
it would be equally difficult to find an alternative location to the site, which would have the same locality benefits (i.e. close
to the schools and the city of Tamworth itself) without resulting in commensurate impacts elsewhere. A detailed desktop
investigation of the occurrence of the Box-Gum Grassy Woodlands and Derived Grasslands, including those areas mapped
as the derive grassland component, is provided in Section 4.3 of Attachment 4.
Areas that occur within the locality which do not contain the Box-Gum Grassy Woodlands and Derived Grasslands, are
generally rocky sites with steep slopes that would not be suitable for property development. The other locally occurring
sites not containing Box-Gum Grassy Woodlands and Derived Grasslands are on intensively farmed land, where a canopy
and native ground layer no longer exists. It is noted that this was the scenario when the site was first acquired by the
proponent, with approximately 55ha under wheat production and an additional 19ha showing signs of cultivation in the
recent past. The use of these areas for cultivation are clearly visible in the aerial photograph provided in Attachment 5.
Hence the current existence of the derived grasslands over this 74ha area is a direct result of the elimination of agricultural
uses due to the change in ownership and future intended use of the site as residential subdivision. This 74ha makes up
97% of the development footprint. Therefore the development has been appropriately sited to avoid those lesser disturbed
areas both with respect to the overall site and locality.
The areas of highest ecological value, as identified in Attachment 4 have been proposed for conservation and will be
protected under positive environmental covenants. This measure will avoid any potential significant impacts upon the BoxGum Grassy Woodlands and Derived Grasslands by protecting the most valuable examples of the woodland on site,
including with regard to biodiversity and structural diversity. In addition, the proposed avoidance strategy will ensure that
the most valuable areas maintain strong connectivity to areas of commensurate value offsite.
The two parcels of land to be protected by a positive covenant will be owned and the management of these areas
implemented by the proponent. The positive covenant will remain as part of each lot in the event that ownership of any of
the lots changes. Additional mitigation measures have been implemented within the design of the development. Whilst
detailed lot layout design may be subject to change, particular design features are herewith committed to:
The footprint of the development, as stipulated in this Referral will not change.
No surface water runoff (with the exception of the one large lot) will flow from the development area to the
conservation areas. The project design ensures that all surface water flows north in accordance with existing
drainage lines.
The design will maintain a majority interface of road adjacent to the conservation area to provide a manageable
boundary and passive surveillance.
Specific management strategies will also be implemented to ensure the ongoing survival of the conserved habitats:
The proposed vegetation management plan (Attachment 7) provides a template in order to implement
management of the conserved areas of the Box-Gum Grassy Woodlands and Derived Grasslands and the other
areas of high conservation value, and improve these areas over time. These measures can commence immediately
if the proposed action is granted approval.
The Vegetation Management Plan (Attachment 7) includes proposed additional tree plantings to enhance
connectivity between the conservation areas.
The management plan will continue to reduce the density of White Cypress Pine to maintain a less than 50%
canopy cover within the western conservation areas, such that that additional area of Box-Gum Grassy Woodlands
and Derived Grasslands will be created.
The site is a declared 'non cat' development by the Local Government, which will assist in the protection of the
site's biodiversity.
001 Referral of proposed action v May 12
JFO_112143_1188403
Page 21 of 28
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
5 Conclusion on the likelihood of significant impacts
5.1 Do you THINK your proposed action is a controlled action?
No, complete section 5.2
Yes, complete section 5.3
5.2 Proposed action IS NOT a controlled action.
Reference is herewith made to the listing advice (TSSC 2006) and ID guidelines (DEWHA 2006). In 2006 the description of
the Box-Gum Grassy Woodlands and Derived Grasslands was changed to afford stronger protection to the derived
grassland component of the listed community. To ensure this, specific guidelines (DEWHA 2006) were produced and
supported by the descriptions within the final determination and advice to the minister. These revisions serve an important
purpose by highlighting 'the important contribution of the understorey to the biodiversity and function of this ecological
community' (TSSC 2006). The revisions have therefore afforded greater protection to the areas of grassland where these
grasslands contain sufficient diversity to require protection. The advice to the minister summarises the level of required
diversity as follows:
...in order to be the listed ecological community, an understorey patch, in the absence of overstorey
trees, must have a high level of native floral species diversity, but only needs to be 0.1 hectares or
greater in size. A patch in which the perennial vegetation of the ground layer is dominated by native
species, and which contains at least 12 native, non-grass understorey species (such as forbs, shrubs,
ferns, grasses and sedges) is considered to have a sufficiently high level of native diversity to be the
listed ecological community. At least one of the understorey species should be an important species
(e.g. grazing-sensitive, regionally significant or uncommon species; such as Kangaroo Grass or orchids)
in order to indicate a reasonable condition (TSSC 2006).
The majority of the proposed development site (66.8ha of the total 76ha development footprint) was used for wheat
production up to 2004 or showed signs of recent cultivation. This area has been recorded as highly modified, completely
treeless and of low species diversity, such that if it were to be considered in isolation from the surrounding grasslands,
despite its large size, would not have the required native species diversity or structure required to qualify as the listed
ecological community. The approximate nine years since the 66.8ha of land was last cultivated has enabled the
establishment of a limited number native grass species and has therefore been considered as part of the larger native
understorey patch that covers the majority of the site. Notwithstanding, it can be argued that the 66.8ha area has incurred
a loss of suites of understorey plant species and soil crusts, such that the ecological function within the ecological
community has been lost or significantly reduced. Additionally, this 66.8ha area is positioned between Moore Creek Road
and Browns Road, beyond which is similar cleared grazing and cultivated lands. Hence, this patch is not strategically a
habitat linkage for the ecological community or flora and fauna. Due to the lack of contribution of the understorey to the
biodiversity and function of this ecological community within this 66.8ha, the conservation significance of this highly
modified grassland area should therefore be considered as very low. Hence, the loss of this area of the listed community is
not considered significant.
The remaining 9.2ha of the proposed development footprint is mostly comprised of highly disturbed land, predominately as
a result of the initial stages of the development (6.8ha). The development footprint will also include approximately 0.3ha of
the edge of an area of grassland found to contain a moderate level of native species diversity, due to the past less intensive
agriculture over this area. This 0.3ha is part of the large lot yard area and therefore will remain mostly vegetated. The
remaining of the development footprint is a small proportion of White Cypress Pine / White Box Woodland (0.1ha), which is
not part of the CEEC and 2ha of derived grassland, which has been able to persist in this state due to ongoing White
Cypress Pine management. Whilst low, this 2ha area may have sufficient native groundcover species diversity to qualify as
the listed community. This 2ha also contains the only tree proposed to be removed by the proposal.
The loss of the 2.4ha of derived grasslands not modified by past cultivation will be offset by the ongoing conservation and
management of 28.5ha containing the higher quality Box-Gum Grassy Woodlands and Derived Grasslands. The majority of
this area is immediately adjacent to a crown reserve also containing the listed community. Hence, strategically it is the
most appropriate area to conserve to ensure habitat connectivity within the landscape. Whilst the area of the Box-Gum
Grassy Woodlands and Derived Grasslands to be removed is greater than that of the proposed conservation area, those
conservation areas represent all of the species diversity within the site, compared to very little within the proposed
development footprint. Hence, the action as proposed will maintain, improve biodiversity and function of this ecological
community to ensure its ongoing survival.
001 Referral of proposed action v May 12
JFO_112143_1188403
Page 22 of 28
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
The protection of 467 from 468 recorded white Box trees, as well as the protection of all other recorded trees (with the
exception of White Cypress Pine) will ensure that potential habitat for EPBC listed species is maintained. The proposed
management, including appropriate planting and allowing natural regeneration will further enhance these areas for the
species considered.
As the proposed action will provide protection of the high value areas of habitat for all EPBC listed threatened species and
ecological communities addressed and are not likely to have a significant impact on any matter protected under the EPBC
Act.
5.3 Proposed action IS a controlled action
Matters likely to be impacted
World Heritage values (sections 12 and 15A)
National Heritage places (sections 15B and 15C)
Wetlands of international importance (sections 16 and 17B)
Listed threatened species and communities (sections 18 and 18A)
Listed migratory species (sections 20 and 20A)
Protection of the environment from nuclear actions (sections 21 and 22A)
Commonwealth marine environment (sections 23 and 24A)
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (sections 24B and 24C)
Protection of the environment from actions involving Commonwealth land (sections 26 and 27A)
Protection of the environment from Commonwealth actions (section 28)
Commonwealth Heritage places overseas (sections 27B and 27C)
001 Referral of proposed action v May 12
JFO_112143_1188403
Page 23 of 28
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
6 Environmental record of the responsible party
Yes
6.1
No
Does the party taking the action have a satisfactory record of responsible
environmental management?
Provide details
The proponent prior to the issues that resulted in the development of Stage 1-4 of the Windmill
Hill Subdivision held an exemplary record of environmental management. Marloelle relied at all
times on environmental advice from retained consultants in its actions. Upon identifying its
issues, Marloelle immediately 'self reported' and resolved matters with the Department. I
remains committed to the undertaking
6.2
Has either (a) the party proposing to take the action, or (b) if a permit has been
applied for in relation to the action, the person making the application - ever been
subject to any proceedings under a Commonwealth, State or Territory law for the
protection of the environment or the conservation and sustainable use of natural
resources?
If yes, provide details
6.3
If the party taking the action is a corporation, will the action be taken in accordance
with the corporation’s environmental policy and planning framework?
Marloelle is committed to undertaking the action in an environmentally responsible manner and
in accordance with the commitments described in this referral.
If yes, provide details of environmental policy and planning framework
6.4
Has the party taking the action previously referred an action under the EPBC Act, or
been responsible for undertaking an action referred under the EPBC Act?
EPBC Reference 2005/2432
Provide name of proposal and EPBC reference number (if known)
001 Referral of proposed action v May 12
JFO_112143_1188403
Page 24 of 28
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
7 Information sources and attachments
(For the information provided above)
7.1 References
Banks, R.G. (2001) Soil landscapes of the Tamworth 1:100 000 Sheet Report, department of Land and Water Conservation,
Sydney
Churchill, S. (1998) Australian Bats. Reed New Holland, Sydney.
Department of Environment and Resource Management. 2011. National recovery plan for the large-eared pied bat
Chalinolobus dwyeri. Report to the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities,
Canberra.
DEWHA (2006) White Box - Yellow Box - Blakely's Red Gum Grassy Woodlands and Derived Native Grasslands - Nationally
Threatened Species and Ecological Communities Information Guide, Department of the Environment and Heritage.
DSEWPC (2013). Phascolarctos cinereus in Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of Sustainability,
Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat.
Accessed Sun, 10 Feb 2013 16:10:35 +1100.
Duncan, A., Baker, G.B. and Montgomery, N. (Editors) (1999) The Action Plan for Australian Bats. Environment Australia,
Canberra.
EA Systems (2004) Threatened Species Assessment – ‘Hills Plain’ Lots 285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 290 DP3100 and
government controlled land described by crown plan 111 – 3100, Moore Creek Road, Tamworth, E.A. Systems Pty Limited,
Armidale, NSW.
HSO (2006) Condition and Extent of the ‘White Box – Yellow Box – Blakely’s Red Gum Grassy Woodlands and Derived
Native Grasslands’ Over Land Proposed for an Urban and Commercial Development at Moore Creek Rd Tamworth, Harper
Somer O'Sullivan, Broadmeadow, NSW
Hoye, G.A. and Dwyer, P.D. (1995) Large-eared Pied Bat Chalinolobus dwyeri. Pp 510-1 in The Mammals of Australia.
Strahan, R. (Editor) (1995) Reed Books Australia, Chatswood.
Menkhorst, P., Schedvin, N. and Geering, D. (1999) Regent Honeyeater Recovery Plan 1999-2003.
OEH (2013) Koala - Profile, Office of Environment and Heritage, NSW,
http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/threatenedspeciesapp/profile.aspx?id=10616 Accessed 10/02/2013
TSSC (2006) Advice to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage from the Threatened Species Scientific Committee
(TSSC) on Amendments to the List of Ecological Communities under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity
Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act), Department of the Environment and Heritage.
RPS (2010) Condition and Extent Assessment of the ‘White Box – Yellow Box – Blakely’s Red Gum Grassy Woodlands and
Derived Native Grasslands’ Windmill Hill, Moore Creek Rd, Tamworth, RPS, Broadmeadow, NSW
7.2 Reliability and date of information
Information has been derived through data collected in the field by RPS or as specified by references provided. Where
available, dates of collection of data and production of figures have been stated in the relevant attachments. Collection of
flora data was undertaken between 2006 and 2012 and each data set for each survey has been clearly represented in
Attachment 4. Tree data was collected during the 2010 and 2012 surveys.
The conclusions regarding the identification of areas that are commensurate with White Box - Yellow Box - Blakely's Red
Gum Grassy Woodlands and Derived Native Grasslands (CEEC) have been made through written and verbal consultation
with SEWPaC.
001 Referral of proposed action v May 12
JFO_112143_1188403
Page 25 of 28
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
7.3 Attachments
attached
You must attach
figures, maps or aerial photographs
showing the project locality (section 1)
figures, maps or aerial photographs
showing the location of the project in
respect to any matters of national
environmental significance or important
features of the environments (section 3)
If relevant, attach
Title of attachment(s)
Attachment 1: Site
Locality
Attachment 2:
Development Layout
Attachment 3:
Development and
Constraints plan
copies of any state or local government
approvals and consent conditions (section
2.5)
copies of any completed assessments to
meet state or local government approvals
and outcomes of public consultations, if
available (section 2.6)
copies of any flora and fauna investigations
and surveys (section 3)
Attachment 4:
Condition and Extent
Assessment of the
‘White Box – Yellow
Box – Blakely’s Red
Gum Grassy Woodlands
and Derived Native
Grasslands, Windmill
Hill, More Creek Road,
Tamworth
Attachment 5: Aerial
view of the site
showing land use for
cultivation
technical reports relevant to the
assessment of impacts on protected
matters that support the arguments and
conclusions in the referral (section 3 and 4)
Attachment 6:
Vegetation
Management Plan
report(s) on any public consultations
undertaken, including with Indigenous
stakeholders (section 3)
001 Referral of proposed action v May 12
JFO_112143_1188403
Page 26 of 28
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
REFERRAL CHECKLIST
NOTE: This checklist is to help ensure that all the relevant referral information has been provided. It is not a part of the
referral form and does not need to be sent to the Department.
HAVE YOU:
Completed all required sections of the referral form?
Included accurate coordinates (to allow the location of the proposed action to be
mapped)?
Provided a map showing the location and approximate boundaries of the project
area?
Provided a map/plan showing the location of the action in relation to any matters
of NES?
Provided complete contact details and signed the form?
Provided copies of any documents referenced in the referral form?
Ensured that all attachments are less than two megabytes (2mb)?
Sent the referral to the Department (electronic and hard copy preferred)?
001 Referral of proposed action v May 12
JFO_112143_1188403
Page 28 of 28
Attachment 4: Condition and Extent
Assessment of the ‘White Box – Yellow Box
– Blakely’s Red Gum Grassy Woodlands and
Derived Native Grasslands'
Windmill Hill, More Creek Road, Tamworth
Prepared by:
Prepared for:
RPS AUSTRALIA EAST PTY LTD
MARLOELLE PTY LTD
241 Denison Street
Broadmeadow NSW 2292
288 Peel Street
Tamworth NSW 2340
T:
F:
E:
T:
F:
+61 2 4940 4200
+61 2 4961 6794
[email protected]
(02) 6766 1477
(02) 6766 1499
Client Manager: Paul Hillier
Report Number: PR103228
Version / Date: Final / March 2013
rpsgroup.com.au
Attachment 4: Condition and Extent Assessment of the ‘White Box – Yellow Box – Blakely’s Red Gum
Grassy Woodlands and Derived Native Grasslands'
Windmill Hill, More Creek Road, Tamworth
IMPORTANT NOTE
Apart from fair dealing for the purposes of private study, research, criticism, or review as permitted under the Copyright
Act, no part of this report, its attachments or appendices may be reproduced by any process without the written consent
of RPS Australia East Pty Ltd. All enquiries should be directed to RPS Australia East Pty Ltd.
We have prepared this report for the sole purposes of Marloelle Pty Ltd (“Client”) for the specific purpose of only for
which it is supplied (“Purpose”). This report is strictly limited to the purpose and the facts and matters stated in it and
does not apply directly or indirectly and will not be used for any other application, purpose, use or matter.
In preparing this report we have made certain assumptions. We have assumed that all information and documents
provided to us by the Client or as a result of a specific request or enquiry were complete, accurate and up-to-date. Where
we have obtained information from a government register or database, we have assumed that the information is
accurate. Where an assumption has been made, we have not made any independent investigations with respect to the
matters the subject of that assumption. We are not aware of any reason why any of the assumptions are incorrect.
This report is presented without the assumption of a duty of care to any other person (other than the Client) (“Third
Party”). The report may not contain sufficient information for the purposes of a Third Party or for other uses. Without the
prior written consent of RPS Australia East Pty Ltd:
(a)
this report may not be relied on by a Third Party; and
(b)
RPS Australia East Pty Ltd will not be liable to a Third Party for any loss, damage, liability or claim arising out of
or incidental to a Third Party publishing, using or relying on the facts, content, opinions or subject matter
contained in this report.
If a Third Party uses or relies on the facts, content, opinions or subject matter contained in this report with or without the
consent of RPS Australia East Pty Ltd, RPS Australia East Pty Ltd disclaims all risk and the Third Party assumes all risk
and releases and indemnifies and agrees to keep indemnified RPS Australia East Pty Ltd from any loss, damage, claim
or liability arising directly or indirectly from the use of or reliance on this report.
In this note, a reference to loss and damage includes past and prospective economic loss, loss of profits, damage to
property, injury to any person (including death) costs and expenses incurred in taking measures to prevent, mitigate or
rectify any harm, loss of opportunity, legal costs, compensation, interest and any other direct, indirect, consequential or
financial or other loss.
Document Status
Version
Purpose of Document
Orig
Review
Review Date
Draft
For Client Review
PH
31/01/2013
Final
Final for Submission
PH
19/03/2013
Approval for Issue
Name
Signature
Paul Hillier
PR103228; Final / March 2013
Date
19/03/2013
Page ii
Attachment 4: Condition and Extent Assessment of the ‘White Box – Yellow Box – Blakely’s Red Gum
Grassy Woodlands and Derived Native Grasslands'
Windmill Hill, More Creek Road, Tamworth
Contents
1.0
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................1
2.0
METHODOLOGY ...............................................................................................................................3
2.1
Desktop Studies ......................................................................................................................3
2.2
Vegetation Surveys .................................................................................................................3
2.3
3.0
2.2.1
Quadrat Surveys ........................................................................................................4
2.2.2
Random Meander.......................................................................................................4
Habitat Surveys .......................................................................................................................4
RESULTS ........................................................................................................................................... 6
3.1
Vegetation ...............................................................................................................................6
3.1.1
Background ................................................................................................................6
3.1.2
Review of 2006 Survey Results ..................................................................................6
3.1.3
Review of 2010 Survey Results ..................................................................................8
3.1.4
Current Site Condition (2012 surveys) ........................................................................9
3.1.5
Vegetation Community Results Summary ................................................................. 15
3.2
Tree Survey Results .............................................................................................................. 18
3.3
Photo Point Surveys ............................................................................................................. 20
3.3.1
Northern Paddock .................................................................................................... 20
3.3.2
North-facing upper slope and ridgeline...................................................................... 21
3.3.3
Southern Open Paddocks......................................................................................... 22
3.3.4
Southern Woodland.................................................................................................. 25
4.0 CONSERVATION VALUE OF THE SITE'S WHITE BOX - YELLOW BOX - BLAKELY’S RED GUM
GRASSY WOODLAND AND DERIVED NATIVE GRASSLAND ................................................................. 28
4.1
Size of Patch.......................................................................................................................... 28
4.2
Diversity of Patch .................................................................................................................. 28
4.3
Local Availability ................................................................................................................... 29
4.4
Linkages and Isolation .......................................................................................................... 34
4.5
Threatened Species .............................................................................................................. 35
4.6
Community Variability........................................................................................................... 35
4.7
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 36
5.0
CONCLUSION.................................................................................................................................. 37
6.0
BIBLIOGRAPHY .............................................................................................................................. 38
PR103228; Final / March 2013
Page iii
Attachment 4: Condition and Extent Assessment of the ‘White Box – Yellow Box – Blakely’s Red Gum
Grassy Woodlands and Derived Native Grasslands'
Windmill Hill, More Creek Road, Tamworth
Tables
Table 1 2006 Quadrat Survey Results ...........................................................................................................7
Table 2 2010 Quadrat survey results for ground cover species ......................................................................8
Table 3 2010 Random meander results for delineated areas ......................................................................... 9
Table 4 2012 Quadrat survey results for ground cover species .................................................................... 14
Table 5 EPBC Act Box Gum Woodland Listing Criteria................................................................................ 15
Table 6 Vegetation Community Areas ......................................................................................................... 16
Table 7 Recorded Tree Features................................................................................................................. 18
Table 8 Diversity Assessment of Box-Gum Woodland Diagnostic Understorey Species............................... 28
Table 9 White-Box Woodland and Derived Grasslands mapping areas in OEH (2009) ................................ 30
Table 10 White-Box Woodland and Derived Grasslands mapped areas in DEC (2004) ............................... 32
Figures
Figure 1 Aerial Photograph and Site Location................................................................................................2
Figure 2 Quadrat Survey Locations ...............................................................................................................5
Figure 3 Vegetation Map ............................................................................................................................. 17
Figure 4 Tree Location Map ........................................................................................................................ 19
Figure 5 Box-Gum Woodland Types (OEH, 2009) ....................................................................................... 31
Figure 6 Box-Gum Woodland Types (DEC, 2004) ....................................................................................... 33
Plates
Plate 1 Western C. glaucophylla Woodland within top of drainage line......................................................... 10
Plate 2 Western C. glaucophylla Woodland showing attempted tree thinning ............................................... 10
Plate 3 Western 'derived grassland' (facing east) showing C. glaucophylla encroachment ........................... 11
Plate 4 Area showing the establishment of shrubs along the steeper slopes of the woodland. ..................... 11
Plate 5 Area of woodland showing encroachment of C. glaucophylla between 2006 and 2012. .................... 12
Plate 6 Area of woodland showing encroachment of C. glaucophylla, not present in 2006. .......................... 13
Plate 7 Site boundary showing contrast between the neighbouring grazed lands compared to the site's ungrazed land. ................................................................................................................................................ 14
Plate 8 Photo Location 1 - Northern Paddock (2006) ................................................................................... 20
Plate 9 Photo Location 1 - Northern Paddock (2012) ................................................................................... 20
Plate 10 Photo Location 2 - North-facing slope (2006) ................................................................................. 21
Plate 11 Photo Location 2 - North-facing slope (2010) ................................................................................. 21
Plate 12 Photo Location 2 - North-facing slope (2012) ................................................................................. 22
Plate 13 Photo Location 3 - Southern Open Paddocks (2006) ..................................................................... 22
PR103228; Final / March 2013
Page iv
Attachment 4: Condition and Extent Assessment of the ‘White Box – Yellow Box – Blakely’s Red Gum
Grassy Woodlands and Derived Native Grasslands'
Windmill Hill, More Creek Road, Tamworth
Plate 14 Photo Location 3 - Southern Open Paddocks (2010) ..................................................................... 23
Plate 15 Photo Location 3 - Southern Open Paddocks (2012) ..................................................................... 23
Plate 16 Photo Location 4 - Southern Open Paddocks (2006) ..................................................................... 24
Plate 17 Photo Location 4 - Southern Open Paddocks (2010) ..................................................................... 24
Plate 18 Southern White Box Woodland (2006)........................................................................................... 25
Plate 19 Southern White Box Woodland (2010)........................................................................................... 25
Plate 20 Southern White Box Woodland (2012)........................................................................................... 26
Plate 21 Southern White Box Woodland within drainage line (2006) ............................................................ 26
Plate 22 Southern White Box Woodland within drainage line (2010) ............................................................ 27
Plate 23 Southern White Box Woodland within drainage line (2012) ............................................................ 27
Plate 24 Condition of Box-Gum Grassy Woodland and Derived Grasslands in neighbouring Crown Lands .. 34
Plate 25 Plate 1: Boundary between the southern woodland and the Crown Lands ..................................... 35
Plate 26 Plate 2: Sothern Woodland showing sign of canopy regeneration .................................................. 36
Appendices
Appendix 1
Flora Quadrat Results
PR103228; Final / March 2013
Page v
Attachment 4: Condition and Extent Assessment of the ‘White Box – Yellow Box – Blakely’s Red Gum
Grassy Woodlands and Derived Native Grasslands'
Windmill Hill, More Creek Road, Tamworth
1.0
Introduction
RPS Australia East Pty Ltd (RPS) has undertaken botanical and habitat surveys within ‘Windmill Hills’, Moore
Creek Road, Tamworth (hereafter referred to as the ‘site’). These surveys have been undertaken over three
survey periods in July 2006, October 2010 and April 2012. The surveys have been undertaken to ascertain
the existence, condition and extent of the Critically Endangered Ecological Community (CEEC) ‘White Box –
Yellow Box – Blakely’s Red Gum grassy woodlands and derived native grasslands’ (Box-Gum Grassy
Woodlands and Derived Grasslands), as well as the potential for providing habitats for various flora and
fauna species.
Refer to Figure 1 for an aerial photograph of the study area.
PR103228; Final / March 2013
Page 1
Attachment 4: Condition and Extent Assessment of the ‘White Box – Yellow Box – Blakely’s Red Gum
Grassy Woodlands and Derived Native Grasslands'
Windmill Hill, More Creek Road, Tamworth
2.0
Methodology
2.1
Desktop Studies
A literature review was undertaken to assist in identifying previous records, distributions and suitable
habitats of threatened species and ecological communities to further inform the outcomes of this report.
Information sources included:
Review of the Extant and potential natural vegetation of Tamworth, Manilla and Cobbadah 1:100,000
scale map sheets, NSW (OEH, 2009);
Review of the Nandewar Biodiversity Surrogates, Vegetation, (DEC, 2004);
Review of EA Systems (2004) Threatened Species Assessment – ‘Hills Plain’ Lots 285, 286, 287, 288,
289, 290 DP3100 and government controlled land described by crown plan 111 – 3100, Moore Creek
Road, Tamworth, E.A. Systems Pty Limited, Armidale, NSW.
Review of fauna and flora records contained in the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) Atlas of
NSW Wildlife (last accessed January 2013) within a 10km radius of the site;
Department of Sustainability, Environment, Population and Communities (SEWPAC) EPBC Act 1999
Protected Matters Search (accessed January 2013) within a 10km radius of the site;
OEH Threatened Species, Populations and Ecological Communities website
(http://www.threatenedspecies.environment.nsw.gov.au/tsprofile/);
A review of Geographic Information System (GIS) data including (but not limited to) aerial photography,
topographic maps, Soil Landscapes; and
Collective knowledge gained from extensive work in the area.
2.2
Vegetation Surveys
The subject site has been subjected to various past disturbance regimes across its extent. The various land
use has led to differences in the vegetation structure and floristic composition across the site. The aim of the
floristic surveys was to identify and describe the various unique areas over the site and ascertain their
ecological value based on best available information. The unique areas identified were:
the northern paddocks, which were subject to cultivation up to 2006;
the north-facing upper slope and ridgeline, which was subject to cultivation prior to 2006;
the southern open paddocks, which were subject to grazing up to 2006;
the southern wooded areas, which were subject to grazing up to 2006; and
the western woodlands and open areas, which are subject to White Cypress Pine tree management and
grazing.
The site was first visited by RPS on 10 and 11 May 2006, whereby initial quadrat and random meander
surveys were undertaken to describe and map the vegetation within the site. Due to the long time since the
2006 surveys and a recognition that interpretation of the 2006 results were not consistent with the
identification guidelines for the Box-Gum Grassy Woodlands and Derived Grasslands (DEWHA 2006),
additional surveys were undertaken on 11-13 October 2010. The site was again revisited on 24 - 26 of April
2012 to further survey the vegetation and identifies any changes to the site, which may have occurred since
2010.
PR103228; Final / March 2013
Page 3
Attachment 4: Condition and Extent Assessment of the ‘White Box – Yellow Box – Blakely’s Red Gum
Grassy Woodlands and Derived Native Grasslands'
Windmill Hill, More Creek Road, Tamworth
2.2.1
Quadrat Surveys
The percentage cover of groundcover species was sampled within 10x10m quadrats in 2006 and 40m x 40m
quadrats in 2010 and 2012. Eight quadrats were surveyed in 2006, eight in 2010 and ten in 2012. The main
purpose of quadrat sampling was to gain data on species percentage covers within the specific areas of the
site as described above in Section 2.2.
The locations of the quadrats are illustrated in Figure 2.
2.2.2
Random Meander
Intensive random meanders were undertaken over the three days in October 2010. The timing of surveys
was chosen in order to have optimal opportunities to detect as many species as possible that are indicative
of the Box-Gum Grassy Woodlands and Derived Grasslands ecological community. Fieldwork consisted of a
random meander throughout the north facing upper slope and ridgeline, the southern open paddocks and the
southern woodland areas, with a full species list collected for each of these areas. The random meander was
also used to gauge a perspective of species compositions and dominance throughout the subject site. This
was supplemented by photographing representative areas of the study area to give a clear picture of the
vegetation and landform features. The photo point surveys have been repeated at selected locations for
each year of survey undertaken.
2.3
Habitat Surveys
Habitat surveys consisted of a tree features survey over the entire site. Trees recorded include all species
and included any tree with a Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) of 5cm or greater. Callitris glaucophylla (White
Cypress Pine) was not recorded within the west of the site due to the high density of this species therein.
Each individual tree was recorded using a differential GPS with sub-metre accuracy. The features for each
tree recorded include:
Species;
DHB range (5-40cm, 41-60cm, 61-80cm, 81-100cm and >100cm); and
Number of hollows for each size class by diameter, being small (2-10cm), Medium (11-20cm) and large
(>20cm).
PR103228; Final / March 2013
Page 4
Attachment 4: Condition and Extent Assessment of the ‘White Box – Yellow Box – Blakely’s Red Gum
Grassy Woodlands and Derived Native Grasslands'
Windmill Hill, More Creek Road, Tamworth
3.0
Results
3.1
Vegetation
3.1.1
Background
Box-Gum Grassy Woodlands and Derived Grasslands can still exist without an overstorey where sufficient
diversity in the understorey persists. The listing advice states:
In order to be the listed ecological community, an understorey patch, in the absence of
overstorey trees, must have a high level of native floral species diversity, but only needs
to be 0.1 hectares or greater in size. A patch in which the perennial vegetation of the
ground layer is dominated by native species, and which contains at least 12 native, nongrass understorey species (such as forbs, shrubs, ferns, grasses and sedges) is
considered to have a sufficiently high level of native diversity to be the listed ecological
community. At least one of the understorey species should be an important species (e.g.
grazing-sensitive, regionally significant or uncommon species; such as Kangaroo Grass
or orchids) in order to indicate a reasonable condition.
The results for the surveys undertaken between 2006 and 2012 have been interpreted with consideration of
the above.
3.1.2
Review of 2006 Survey Results
The 2006 survey identified the notable differences in vegetation throughout the site. The northern paddocks
were almost completely devoid of vegetation, with the exception of a drainage line and were subject to
intensive grazing pressure. Recent cultivation, in the form of furrows was very evident. This paddock was
reportedly used for wheat at the time of purchase by the proponent.
The north facing upper slope and ridge line was dominated by Bothriochloa decipiens and Bothriochloa
macra. It is suspected that this flora assemblage is attributed to past cultivation of these areas, which have
favoured these plant species. Together, these two Bothriochloa species provided up to 30% of the ground
cover within this community. Furrows within the soil were evident over this community.
The cleared lands to the south were dominated by tussocks of Austrostipa verticillata (Tall Wire Grass) and
Aristida ramosa var speciosa (Wire Grass). The pasture species Pennisetum clandestinum (Kikuyu) and
weeds, particularly Arctotheca calendula (Capeweed), Carthamus lanatus (Saffron Thistle) and Centaurea
solstitialis (St Barnaby's Thistle) were also dominant.
The southern woodland areas generally follow the ephemeral drainage line that runs across the site. Due to
past clearing and grazing, these areas had suffered from severe scouring of the slopes, resulting in a series
of steep and highly eroded gullies. The soils over a large extent of the treed areas were shallow, with a large
proportion of the understorey found to be completely bare, thus exposing the slopes to ongoing erosion
problems.
The dominant grass species were quite similar to those found along the slopes within the south of the study
area, namely A. verticillata and A. ramosa var speciosa. The abovementioned weed species are also
dominant therein. Other notable species of this assemblage included Hydrocotyle laxiflora (Stinking
Pennywort) and Cheilanthes sieberi ssp. seeberi (Poison Rock Fern).
PR103228; Final / March 2013
Page 6
Attachment 4: Condition and Extent Assessment of the ‘White Box – Yellow Box – Blakely’s Red Gum
Grassy Woodlands and Derived Native Grasslands'
Windmill Hill, More Creek Road, Tamworth
Also found within all areas of the study area that had undergone previous cultivation was the nationally listed
threatened species Bothriochloa biloba (Lobed Red Grass). As with the other Bothriochloa species, it is
considered that land use practices have contributed to the increase in numbers of B. biloba within the study
area, which is known to fare well in recently disturbed areas such as tilling, grading or slashing (NSW
Scientific Committee 2004). Within those areas that have not undergone past cultivation, B. biloba is left to
compete with other species and exists in much lower numbers or is completely absent.
The western woodland area was not surveyed in 2006 as this area was not proposed to be included as part
of the development at that time.
Quadrat Survey
The use of six quadrats, each 100m2 in size was used to calculate the flora species percentage cover for
representative vegetation assemblages throughout the site. A summary of the results that are applicable to
determining whether the site’s vegetation qualifies as Box-Gum Grassy Woodlands and Derived Grasslands
is presented in Table 1 below. It is noted herewith that whilst Quadrat 6 occurs within the northern paddock
extent, it more specifically exists within a narrow drainage line that was not subject to cultivation.
Table 1 2006 Quadrat Survey Results
Southern
Woodland
Southern Open
Areas
North facing
upper slope
Northern
Paddock
Quadrat
1
Quadrat
2
Quadrat
3
Quadrat
4
Quadrat 5
Quadrat 6
Native perennial
grasses (%)
30
35
35
55
36
23
Non-grass native
perennials (%)
1
9
2
2
1
1
Exotic perennials (%)
16
20
32
7
3
27
All annuals (%)
18
21
11
16
55
49
Bare earth (%)
35
15
20
20
5
0
Native grasses
2
2
1
2
4
5
Non-grass native
species
1
3
1
2
1
1
Exotic species
7
4
7
5
4
7
'Important species'
0
0
0
1
0
0
Percentages
Counts
A comparison between the native perennial grasses and the non-native perennial flora species shows that all
area that were surveyed in 2006 had the potential to qualify as Box-Gum Grassy Woodlands and Derived
Grasslands, with the exception of the northern paddock. Just five non-grass native species were recorded
across the site during the 2006 survey, however this was limited by both seasonality and sample size.
PR103228; Final / March 2013
Page 7
Attachment 4: Condition and Extent Assessment of the ‘White Box – Yellow Box – Blakely’s Red Gum
Grassy Woodlands and Derived Native Grasslands'
Windmill Hill, More Creek Road, Tamworth
3.1.3
Review of 2010 Survey Results
The 2010 survey sought to intensively survey the site in a manner that would allow the results to be
interpreted by the identification guidelines for Box-Gum Grassy Woodlands and Derived Grasslands
(DEWHA 2006).
The study area had been left unmanaged and ungrazed during the period since the 2006 survey. This has
had the effect of allowing weed species to expand within the study area. It is noted however, that many
annual weeds and species in general that were recorded for this 2010 survey may have been previously
missed due to seasonality, whereby the 2006 surveys recorded a large percentage of bare ground across
the study area. The absence of livestock had enabled some degree of stabilisation to the scoured drainage
line, through the establishment of vegetation including trees and shrubs.
Quadrat results revealed that A. verticillata was found to be less dominant throughout the study area than
was found in 2006. Additionally, the Bothriochloa species were less dominant over the northern upper slope,
however these species were still found in much higher number than elsewhere within the study area.
Quadrat Survey
The use of eight quadrats, each 1600m 2 were used to calculate the flora species percentage cover for three
of the areas within the study area. Quadrats were undertaken in the areas of the site as defined in Section 21, except within the areas defined as the 'northern paddocks' and the 'western woodlands and open areas'.
All areas were however revisited during the 2012 survey.
A summary of the results that are applicable to determining whether those areas surveyed qualify as BoxGum Grassy Woodlands and Derived Grasslands is presented in Table 2 below.
Table 2 2010 Quadrat survey results for ground cover species
North facing upper
slope
Southern Woodland
Southern Open Areas
Quadrat
1
Quadrat
2
Quadrat
3
Quadrat
4
Quadrat
5
Quadrat
6
Quadrat
7
Quadrat
8
Native perennial
grasses (%)
20
10
15
5
20
15
20
15
Native non-grass
perennials (%)
<5
<5
15
10
15
5
30
35
Native non-grass
annuals (%)
<5
<5
<5
<5
0
0
0
0
Exotic perennials (%)
<5
<5
5
<5
5
<5
<5
<5
Exotic annuals (%)
70
40
50
40
20
60
30
60
The above results show that all delineated areas have a perennial groundcover that is predominately native.
Whilst overall, the communities are dominated by exotic annual species, this is not a consideration when
determining whether or not the vegetation qualifies as the listed community. This decision is therefore reliant
on the diversity of each community found within the study area.
PR103228; Final / March 2013
Page 8
Attachment 4: Condition and Extent Assessment of the ‘White Box – Yellow Box – Blakely’s Red Gum
Grassy Woodlands and Derived Native Grasslands'
Windmill Hill, More Creek Road, Tamworth
Random Meander
Full species lists were collected for the three delineated communities within the study area. A summary of
the results that are applicable to determining whether the study area’s vegetation qualifies as Box-Gum
Grassy Woodlands and Derived Grasslands is presented in Table 3 below. Quadrat results from the 2006
survey have also been included.
Table 3 2010 Random meander results for delineated areas
North facing upper
slope
Southern
Woodland
Southern Open
Areas
Number of Native non-grass understorey
species
8
27
18
Number of Important understorey species
4
12
6
Over the entire area surveyed in 2010, 34 native non-grass groundcover species were recorded during the
2006 / 2010 survey and 14 important understorey species were also recorded. Based on the identification
guidelines (DEWHA 2006) the site would qualify as the Box-Gum Grassy Woodlands and Derived
Grasslands. The results above show that when analysed by area, only the woodland and the southern open
areas have over 12 native non-grass groundcover species, which is required to qualify as the listed
community.
Eight native non-grass groundcover species were recorded over the north facing upper slopes. This area has
less floristic diversity and if tested against the assessment guideline and the final determination, this area
would not have sufficient diversity to qualify as the listed community in the absence of the areas to the south.
3.1.4
Current Site Condition (2012 surveys)
Due to seasonality, many annual species were not detectable during the 2012 survey. The assessment
therefore focused on dominant perennial flora species. The site had continued to be left unmanaged and
ungrazed since 2010. The lack of grazing pressure, in combination with favourable weather had resulted in a
greater establishment of weed species across the site.
Surveys undertaken within Lot 382 (Western Area) revealed the dominant canopy species to be Callitris
glaucophylla (White Cypress Pine) with Eucalyptus albens (White Box) existing as a sub-dominant species.
The understorey was found to be generally dominated by native grasses. This area has received ongoing
management with the removal of the majority of C. glaucophylla trees, thus retaining an open woodland
character. Without the ongoing removal of C. glaucophylla, this area would most likely have a greatly
reduced understory. The identification guidelines state that at least one of the most common overstorey
species must be White Box, Yellow Box or Blakely's Redgum. As C. glaucophylla is the most common
overstorey species within this area, despite management of this species, it can be argued that this area does
not constitute the listed community. Notwithstanding, the interface between the C. glaucophylla dominated
areas and the derived grasslands to the east can be considered to constitute Box-Gum Grassy Woodlands
and Derived Grasslands as the density of C. glaucophylla become low to absent.
PR103228; Final / March 2013
Page 9
Attachment 4: Condition and Extent Assessment of the ‘White Box – Yellow Box – Blakely’s Red Gum
Grassy Woodlands and Derived Native Grasslands'
Windmill Hill, More Creek Road, Tamworth
Plate 1 Western C. glaucophylla Woodland within top of drainage line
Plate 2 Western C. glaucophylla Woodland showing attempted tree thinning
PR103228; Final / March 2013
Page 10
Attachment 4: Condition and Extent Assessment of the ‘White Box – Yellow Box – Blakely’s Red Gum
Grassy Woodlands and Derived Native Grasslands'
Windmill Hill, More Creek Road, Tamworth
Plate 3 Western 'derived grassland' (facing east) showing C. glaucophylla encroachment
The Southern Woodland area, which occurs within the deep drainage line of the study area showed
regeneration of the shrub layer, as shown in Plate 4. In addition, one photo point location showed a regrowth
stand of C. glaucophylla within White Box - Dominated Woodland, which was just one tree in 2006 (Plate 5
and Plate 6). This stand has the potential to spread and dominate the parts of the site if left unmanaged, thus
potentially transitioning parts of the site to no longer qualify as the Box-Gum Grassy Woodlands and Derived
Grasslands in the future.
Plate 4 Area showing the establishment of shrubs along the steeper slopes of the woodland.
PR103228; Final / March 2013
Page 11
Attachment 4: Condition and Extent Assessment of the ‘White Box – Yellow Box – Blakely’s Red Gum
Grassy Woodlands and Derived Native Grasslands'
Windmill Hill, More Creek Road, Tamworth
2006
2010
2012
Plate 5 Area of woodland showing encroachment of C. glaucophylla between 2006 and 2012.
PR103228; Final / March 2013
Page 12
Attachment 4: Condition and Extent Assessment of the ‘White Box – Yellow Box – Blakely’s Red Gum
Grassy Woodlands and Derived Native Grasslands'
Windmill Hill, More Creek Road, Tamworth
Plate 6 Area of woodland showing encroachment of C. glaucophylla, not present in 2006.
The absence of ongoing cultivation over the northern areas of the site has enabled native vegetation to reestablish in these areas. The dominant species recorded were Dichanthium sericeum subsp. sericeum
(Queensland Bluegrass) and B. macra. Dominant stands of Bothriochloa biloba (Lobed Blue Grass) were
also recorded throughout the previously cultivated areas. The above three species appear to be disturbance
responsive and have been able to establish and dominate before the various weed species. It is also likely
that this area, when considered separately to the adjacent grasslands, would not have sufficient native
species diversity to qualify as the Box-Gum Grassy Woodlands and Derived Grasslands. However, based on
the identification guidelines, due to this area being dominated by native perennial grasses and connected to
areas containing sufficient floristic diversity, the area that was mapped as cultivated lands it 2006 has now
regenerated to constitute the listed community.
Some areas in the east of the site were found to be disturbed, being largely absent of groundcover. These
areas have been mapped as 'cleared land'. In addition, it was noted that intensive land management and
grazing had occurred within the lot to the west of the site. The use of this site neighbouring site provides a
significant contrast between land used for grazing and that left ungrazed.
PR103228; Final / March 2013
Page 13
Attachment 4: Condition and Extent Assessment of the ‘White Box – Yellow Box – Blakely’s Red Gum
Grassy Woodlands and Derived Native Grasslands'
Windmill Hill, More Creek Road, Tamworth
Plate 7 Site boundary showing contrast between the neighbouring grazed lands compared to the site's ungrazed land.
Additional photos showing site condition are provided in Section 4.
Quadrat Survey
A summary of the results that are applicable to determining whether those areas surveyed in 2012 qualify as
Box-Gum Grassy Woodlands and Derived Grasslands is presented in Table 4 below.
Table 4 2012 Quadrat survey results for ground cover species
Quadrat
1
Quadrat
2
North
facing
upper
slope
Quadrat
3
Native
perennial
grasses (%)
44
28
43
85
69
33
50
50
57
35
Native nongrass
perennials (%)
22
28
13
0
0
0
18
23
11
19
Native nongrass annuals
(%)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Exotic
perennials (%)
13
14
4
0
0
22
0
5
4
0
Exotic annuals
(%)
22
31
39
15
31
44
23
9
11
19
Southern open
areas
Northern paddocks
Western
Woodland
Western open areas
Quadrat
4
Quadrat
5
Quadrat
6
Quadrat
7
Quadrat
8
Quadrat
9
Quadrat
10
The above results show that all delineated areas continue to have a perennial groundcover that is
predominately native. Notably, for those areas surveyed, the proportion of exotic species is lower than that
recorded in 2010. This is likely due to seasonality, not to dramatic changes to the vegetation composition
over this period. This is also likely to account for the absence of native annual species, which were
PR103228; Final / March 2013
Page 14
Attachment 4: Condition and Extent Assessment of the ‘White Box – Yellow Box – Blakely’s Red Gum
Grassy Woodlands and Derived Native Grasslands'
Windmill Hill, More Creek Road, Tamworth
consistently low during all survey periods. In combination with the native species diversity recorded in the
southern areas of the site in 2010, all areas that have or were likely to be dominated by E. albens and have a
perennial groundcover that is dominated by native grasses are commensurate with Box-Gum Grassy
Woodlands and Derived Grasslands. This is further considered in Section 3.1.5 below.
3.1.5
Vegetation Community Results Summary
The criteria for a woodland to qualify as Box Gum Woodland and Derived Grassland Critically Endangered
Ecological Community (CEEC) under the EPBC Act have been considered herewith. Under the EPBC Act,
remnants can exist in one of three states:
An overstorey of Eucalypt trees exists, but there is no substantial native understorey.
A native understorey exists, but the trees have been cleared.
Both a native understorey and an overstorey of Eucalypts exist in conjunction (DEH 2006).
The Threatened Species Scientific Committee considers that areas in which an overstorey exists without a
substantially native understorey are degraded and are no longer a viable part of the ecological community.
Although some native species may remain, in most of these areas the native understorey is effectively
irretrievable. In order for an area to be included in the listed ecological community, a patch must have a
predominantly native understorey (DEH 2006).
Vegetation communities with the potential to be the locally occurring Box Gum Woodland and Derived
Grassland EPBC Act listed Critically Endangered Ecological Community, were analysed in detail. Table 5
investigates the site as a whole for its potential to qualify as the Box-Gum Woodland and Derived Grassland.
Table 5 EPBC Act Box Gum Woodland Listing Criteria
Description
Does the study area meet
the criteria?
Is or was previously, at least one of the most
common overstorey species White Box, Yellow
Box or Blakely’s Red Gum (or Western Grey Box
or Coastal Grey Box in the Nandewar Bioregion)?
Yes - E. albens is or was
considered the most common
overstorey species for the
whole site, apart from the
western area, where C.
glaucophylla is most common.
Criteria
1
Outcome
Does the ‘patch’ have a predominately native
understorey?
2
A patch is defined as a continuous area of the
ecological community where it contains five or
more trees in which no tree is greater than 75m
from another tree or the area over which the
understorey is predominately native.
Yes - where E. albens is or
was considered the most
common overstorey species,
the area is continuous and has
a predominately native
understorey.
A predominately native ground layer is defined as
one where at least 50% of the perennial
vegetation cover is made up of native species.
3
Is the patch 0.1 ha or greater in size?
PR103228; Final / March 2013
Yes - the area defined as the
patch above is approximately
103.5ha
Page 15
Attachment 4: Condition and Extent Assessment of the ‘White Box – Yellow Box – Blakely’s Red Gum
Grassy Woodlands and Derived Native Grasslands'
Windmill Hill, More Creek Road, Tamworth
Criteria
Description
Does the study area meet
the criteria?
Are there 12 or more native understorey species
present (excluding grasses)?
Yes - the 2010 surveys
recorded 27 non-grass native
understorey species within the
woodland areas. As the patch
is continuous over the entire
site (excluding the western
area), this criteria applies to
the entire patch.
4b
Does the study area contain at least one
important species?
Yes - the 2010 surveys
recorded 12 important species
within the woodland areas. As
the patch is continuous over
the entire site (excluding the
western area), this criteria
applies to the entire patch.
5
Is shrub cover less than 30% across the entire
remnant?
Yes
4a
Outcome
Outcome
Yes
6
Where sites do not meet the criteria 4a and 4b, is
the patch 2 ha or greater in size?
NA
7
Does the 2 ha patch have 40 or more trees with a
DBH >40cm? (i.e. 20 per hectare)
NA
Outcome
7b
NA
In the 2 ha area, are there mature trees and
natural generation (>5cm DBH) of dominant
overstorey Eucalypts (WB, YB, BRG)?
NA
Outcome
NA
In consideration of the above criteria, the Box Gum Woodland identified in the site fits the EPBC Act criteria
for White Box-Yellow Box-Blakely's Red Gum Grassy Woodland and Derived Native Grassland, with the
exception of the western areas of the site, where C. glaucophylla is dominant.
The results of the flora surveys have to have been used to map the vegetation within the site (Figure 3). The
results areas of the site are summarised in Table 6 below.
Table 6 Vegetation Community Areas
Vegetation Community
Area (ha)
White Box-Yellow Box-Blakely's Red Gum Grassy Woodland and Derived Native
Grassland
9
White Box-Yellow Box-Blakely's Red Gum Grassy Woodland and Derived Native
Grassland (derived grasslands) - low diversity
77
White Box-Yellow Box-Blakely's Red Gum Grassy Woodland and Derived Native
Grassland (derived grasslands) - moderate diversity
14
White Cypress Pine / White Box Woodland
3
White Cypress Pine / White Box Regenerating Woodland (derived grasslands) low diversity
4
Cleared Modified Land
7
Total
PR103228; Final / March 2013
114
Page 16
Attachment 4: Condition and Extent Assessment of the ‘White Box – Yellow Box – Blakely’s Red Gum
Grassy Woodlands and Derived Native Grasslands'
Windmill Hill, More Creek Road, Tamworth
3.2
Tree Survey Results
The results of the tree survey recorded a total of 519 trees. The majority of which were E. albens (469). All
trees occur within the south and west of the site. Table 7 summarises the results of the tree features
recorded across the site. The locations of all recorded trees are shown on Figure 4.
Table 7 Recorded Tree Features
Tree Feature
Key Habitat Notes
5-40cm DBH
Number within the
site
333
41-60cm DBH
111
A larger DBH is generally representative of greater habitat
potential for arboreal mammals and birds, particularly with
regard to nectar production and hollow forming potential.
61-80cm DBH
81-100cm DBH
51
13
>100cm DBH
10
Total
518
Roosting/nesting potential for hollow dependent birds and
mammals.
Hollow Bearing Trees
Number of Hollows
51
Roosting/nesting potential for:
2-10cm
Micro-bats.
86
11-20cm
Small-medium arboreal mammals, bats and hollow dependent
birds.
32
>20cm
Large forest owls.
1
PR103228; Final / March 2013
Page 18
Attachment 4: Condition and Extent Assessment of the ‘White Box – Yellow Box – Blakely’s Red Gum
Grassy Woodlands and Derived Native Grasslands'
Windmill Hill, More Creek Road, Tamworth
3.3
Photo Point Surveys
The following sections provide a photographic overview of the site condition, including changes overtime.
The below plates show a major transition in the vegetation over the six year period, to an evidently improved
condition. The 2006 photos also provide an indication of the potential condition of the site if ever re-used for
agriculture.
3.3.1
Northern Paddock
Plate 8 Photo Location 1 - Northern Paddock (2006)
Plate 9 Photo Location 1 - Northern Paddock (2012)
PR103228; Final / March 2013
Page 20
Attachment 4: Condition and Extent Assessment of the ‘White Box – Yellow Box – Blakely’s Red Gum
Grassy Woodlands and Derived Native Grasslands'
Windmill Hill, More Creek Road, Tamworth
3.3.2
North-facing upper slope and ridgeline
Plate 10 Photo Location 2 - North-facing slope (2006)
Plate 11 Photo Location 2 - North-facing slope (2010)
PR103228; Final / March 2013
Page 21
Attachment 4: Condition and Extent Assessment of the ‘White Box – Yellow Box – Blakely’s Red Gum
Grassy Woodlands and Derived Native Grasslands'
Windmill Hill, More Creek Road, Tamworth
Plate 12 Photo Location 2 - North-facing slope (2012)
3.3.3
Southern Open Paddocks
Plate 13 Photo Location 3 - Southern Open Paddocks (2006)
PR103228; Final / March 2013
Page 22
Attachment 4: Condition and Extent Assessment of the ‘White Box – Yellow Box – Blakely’s Red Gum
Grassy Woodlands and Derived Native Grasslands'
Windmill Hill, More Creek Road, Tamworth
Plate 14 Photo Location 3 - Southern Open Paddocks (2010)
Plate 15 Photo Location 3 - Southern Open Paddocks (2012)
PR103228; Final / March 2013
Page 23
Attachment 4: Condition and Extent Assessment of the ‘White Box – Yellow Box – Blakely’s Red Gum
Grassy Woodlands and Derived Native Grasslands'
Windmill Hill, More Creek Road, Tamworth
Plate 16 Photo Location 4 - Southern Open Paddocks (2006)
Plate 17 Photo Location 4 - Southern Open Paddocks (2010)
PR103228; Final / March 2013
Page 24
Attachment 4: Condition and Extent Assessment of the ‘White Box – Yellow Box – Blakely’s Red Gum
Grassy Woodlands and Derived Native Grasslands'
Windmill Hill, More Creek Road, Tamworth
3.3.4
Southern Woodland
Plate 18 Southern White Box Woodland (2006)
Plate 19 Southern White Box Woodland (2010)
PR103228; Final / March 2013
Page 25
Attachment 4: Condition and Extent Assessment of the ‘White Box – Yellow Box – Blakely’s Red Gum
Grassy Woodlands and Derived Native Grasslands'
Windmill Hill, More Creek Road, Tamworth
Plate 20 Southern White Box Woodland (2012)
Plate 21 Southern White Box Woodland within drainage line (2006)
PR103228; Final / March 2013
Page 26
Attachment 4: Condition and Extent Assessment of the ‘White Box – Yellow Box – Blakely’s Red Gum
Grassy Woodlands and Derived Native Grasslands'
Windmill Hill, More Creek Road, Tamworth
Plate 22 Southern White Box Woodland within drainage line (2010)
Plate 23 Southern White Box Woodland within drainage line (2012)
PR103228; Final / March 2013
Page 27
Attachment 4: Condition and Extent Assessment of the ‘White Box – Yellow Box – Blakely’s Red Gum
Grassy Woodlands and Derived Native Grasslands'
Windmill Hill, More Creek Road, Tamworth
4.0
Conservation Value of the Site's White Box - Yellow Box Blakely’s Red Gum Grassy Woodland and Derived Native
Grassland
The value and quality of most examples of Box-Gum Grassy Woodlands and Derived Grasslands are difficult
to measure as there are no known guidelines that allow the quality to be quantified by defined scientific
thresholds. DEWHA (2009) identified the following states as having greatest importance:
larger and more diverse a patches;
patches that link remnants in the landscape;
patches that occur in depauperate areas;
patches that contain rare, declining or threatened species; and
patches that encompass the entire range of the ecological community.
The above values have been used herewith to assess the value of the environment which occurs on site.
The following sections specifically discuss those areas that are considered to be currently commensurate
with the Box-Gum Grassy Woodlands and Derived Grasslands.
4.1
Size of Patch
Whilst 104ha of the subject site is regarded as the listed community, the majority (81ha) comprises only
degraded examples of the derived grassland. Habitats of this nature are common and widespread within the
local area and wider region. Hence, the value of the derived grasslands component is considered to be low
in relation to size of patch. Approximately 14ha of the derived grasslands has been recorded as being
moderate condition, determined by the lesser past disturbance and higher diversity than the adjacent 81ha of
grasslands.
The remaining 9ha of wooded habitat is found along drainage lines within the site. Nandewar vegetation
mapping (DECCW, 2004) maps this woodland as a component of a larger patch totalling approximately
107.4ha. The percentage of woodland occurring within the site therefore amounts to less than 9%. Whilst,
this is a small proportion of the wooded component of this vegetation, given the reduced extent of the listed
community containing an overstorey, this area is considered important. The vegetation within the site in the
context of local availability of this habitat is further discussed in Section 4.3.
4.2
Diversity of Patch
Particular attention has been afforded to the criteria for identifying the Box-Gum Woodland and Derived
Grasslands (DEWHA 2006) to gain a measure of the diversity and subsequent value of the site. Specifically
a patch which contains at least 12 native, non-grass understorey species and at least one of the understorey
species should be an important species. On this basis, the diversity of the areas investigated over the site
are provided in Table 8. The complete data is provided in Appendix A.
Table 8 Diversity Assessment of Box-Gum Woodland Diagnostic Understorey Species
Vegetation Community
Native non-grass Species
Important Species
Northern Paddocks
1
1
North-facing Upper Slope and Ridgeline
8
3
Southern Open Paddocks
19
8
Southern Wooded Areas
26
13
PR103228; Final / March 2013
Page 28
Attachment 4: Condition and Extent Assessment of the ‘White Box – Yellow Box – Blakely’s Red Gum
Grassy Woodlands and Derived Native Grasslands'
Windmill Hill, More Creek Road, Tamworth
Vegetation Community
Native non-grass Species
Important Species
Western open areas
6
3
Total Within Site
32
14
Table 8 and Appendix A shows that all of the diversity recorded within the site is represented within the
Southern Wooded Areas and Southern Open Paddocks, with the exception of one species, namely Acaena
ovina. Whilst this A. ovina is listed as an indicator species in DEWHA (2006), it is a very common species,
occurring widely along the Western Slopes of NSW.
Due to differing intensities of disturbances and land use throughout the site, the vegetation varies in both
condition and floristic characteristics. The flora survey results indicate that the highest degree of diversity
occurs in the south of the site. The northern areas, which have been subjected to past cultivation, have
considerably less diversity. The northern and western areas qualify as Box-Gum Grassy Woodlands and
Derived Grasslands due to their connectivity to the more diverse southern woodlands and grasslands. If
considered in isolation, the southern paddocks or western open areas would not qualify as Box-Gum
Woodland and Derived Grasslands.
4.3
Local Availability
A review of the Extant and potential natural vegetation of Tamworth, Manilla and Cobbadah 1:100,000 scale
map sheets, NSW (OEH, 2009) has been undertaken to gain an appreciation of the conservation
significance of the site's vegetation in the context of the wider locality.
The site's vegetation has been mapped by OEH 2009 as:
White box grassy woodland of higher Nandewar Bioregion over part of the site's southern woodland and
over a small area in the north-west of the site;
White Box - White Cypress Pine shrub/grass woodland of Nandewar Bioregion over the most southerly
areas of the woodland;
White Box - White Cypress Pine - Wilga shrubby woodland of Brigalow Belt South and Nandewar
Bioregions within the wester woodland;
Plains Grass grassland of Brigalow Belt South and Nadewar Bioregions over the majority of the cleared
areas of the site;
Derived grassland of Nandewar Bioregion over patches of land in the north and amongst the southern
woodland; and
Urban and Cropping over an eastern portion of the site.
From these vegetation types, the White box grassy woodland and the Derived grassland communities would
be part of the Box-Gum Grassy Woodlands and Derived Grasslands. The White Box - White Cypress Pine
shrub/grass woodland and the Plains Grass grassland have a high likelihood of being commensurate with
the Box-Gum Grassy Woodlands and Derived Grasslands and have been identified as such within the site.
Within the wider area mapped by OEH (2009), additional vegetation communities are also regarded as being
commensurate with the Box-Gum Grassy Woodlands and Derived Grasslands, namely:
Rough-barked Apple - Yellow Box - Blakely's Red Gum grassy open forest of Nandewar Bioregion;
Derived grassland of New England Tablelands Bioregion;
White box grassy woodland of Brigalow Belt South Bioregion and lower Nandewar Bioregion;
Grey Box grassy woodland of Brigalow Belt South and Nadewar Bioregions;
PR103228; Final / March 2013
Page 29
Attachment 4: Condition and Extent Assessment of the ‘White Box – Yellow Box – Blakely’s Red Gum
Grassy Woodlands and Derived Native Grasslands'
Windmill Hill, More Creek Road, Tamworth
Yellow Box grassy open forest of Brigalow Belt South and Nadewar Bioregions; and
Rough-barked Apple - Silvertop Stringybark - Blakely's Red Gum grassy woodland of New England
Tablelands Bioregion.
Table 9 summarises area mapped by OEH (2009) in comparison to the areas of equivalent vegetation
recorded within the site.
Table 9 White-Box Woodland and Derived Grasslands mapping areas in OEH (2009)
OEH (2009) Vegetation
Community
Total Area (ha)
Mapped by OEH
(2009)
Site Area (ha)
Mapped by OEH
(2009)
RPS Equivalent
Vegetation Mapping
(ha)
Woodland Types
White box grassy woodland of higher
Nandewar Bioregion
58350
4
9
White Box - White Cypress Pine
shrub/grass woodland of Nandewar
Bioregion
59693
4
-
Yellow Box grassy open forest of
Brigalow Belt South and Nadewar
Bioregions
8620
-
-
Grey Box grassy woodland of
Brigalow Belt South and Nadewar
Bioregions
2954
-
-
Rough-barked Apple - Yellow Box Blakely's Red Gum grassy open
forest of Nandewar Bioregion
13457
-
-
Rough-barked Apple - Silvertop
Stringybark - Blakely's Red Gum
grassy woodland of New England
Tablelands Bioregion
4754
-
-
White box grassy woodland of
Brigalow Belt South Bioregion and
lower Nandewar Bioregion
14980
-
-
162,808
8 (0.005%)
9 (0.006%)
Derived grassland of Nandewar
Bioregion
180653
9
95ha
Derived grassland of New England
Tablelands Bioregion
35704
-
-
Plains Grass grassland of Brigalow
Belt South and Nadewar Bioregions
143265
78
-
Total Derived Grasslands
35,9622
87 (0.024%)
95 (0.053%)
Overall Total
522,430
95 (0.018%)
104 (0.020%)
Total Woodland Types
Derived Grassland Types
Table 9 indicates that the site's woodland vegetation makes up less than 0.01% of the total available BoxGum Grassy Woodlands and Derived Grasslands locally. The derived grassland component of this
community has also been mapped widely and the site's vegetation represents approximately 0.02%. The
local availability of the site's vegetation is therefore considered to be high.
PR103228; Final / March 2013
Page 30
Attachment 4: Condition and Extent Assessment of the ‘White Box – Yellow Box – Blakely’s Red Gum
Grassy Woodlands and Derived Native Grasslands'
Windmill Hill, More Creek Road, Tamworth
A review of the Nandewar WRA Landscape Conservation, Report for the Resource and Conservation
Assessment Council (RACAC) DEC (2004) has been undertaken to further gain an appreciation of the
conservation significance of the site's vegetation in the context of the wider locality. Unlike OEH (2009), this
mapping does not consider the potential for cleared areas to constitute derived grasslands.
The site's vegetation has been mapped by DEC (2004) more broadly than OEH (2009) and contains:
'Grassy White Box types' over part of the site's southern woodland and over a small area in the northwest of the site;
'New England Blackbutt forest types' with Cypress/Eucalypt/Shrubland Canopy has been mapped over
the western woodlands; and
'Grassy White Box types' described as White Box woodland with dominant Cypress regrowth' has been
mapped as occurring within the north-west of the site.
From these vegetation types, those that are broadly mapped as 'Grassy White Box types' and are show to
have a canopy dominated by White Box are likely to be commensurate with the Box-Gum Grassy Woodlands
and Derived Grasslands. Within the wider area mapped by DEC (2004), additional vegetation communities
are also regarded as being commensurate with the Box-Gum Grassy Woodlands and Derived Grasslands.
Their broad vegetation types are as follows:
'Blakelys Red Gum types' with a grassy understorey;
'Box dominated forest & woodland' with a grassy understorey; and
'Grassy White Box types' with a grassy understorey.
Table 10 summarises area mapped by DEC (2004) in comparison to the areas of equivalent vegetation
recorded within the site.
Table 10 White-Box Woodland and Derived Grasslands mapped areas in DEC (2004)
Total Area (ha)
Mapped by DEC
(2009)
Site Area (ha)
Mapped by DEC
(2004)
RPS Equivalent
Vegetation Mapping
(ha)
'Blakelys Red Gum types' with a
grassy understorey
21,455
-
-
'Box dominated forest & woodland'
with a grassy understorey
43,693
-
-
'Grassy White Box types' with a
grassy understorey
138,806
7
9
Total Woodland Types
203,954
7 (0.003%)
9 (0.004%)
DEC (2004) Vegetation
Community
Woodland Types
Table 10 indicates that the site's woodland vegetation as mapped by DEC (2004) again makes up less than
0.01% of the total available Box-Gum Grassy Woodlands and Derived Grasslands locally.
Within the immediate locality of the site, the availability of the derived grasslands vegetation is also very high
and is a dominant feature of the local landscape. The site's woodland is connected to a larger patch of this
vegetation type, which is mapped as being approximately 107ha. Within the immediate locality of the site,
connected woodland vegetation is therefore less available and the importance of the site's woodland has
greater significance.
PR103228; Final / March 2013
Page 32
Attachment 4: Condition and Extent Assessment of the ‘White Box – Yellow Box – Blakely’s Red Gum
Grassy Woodlands and Derived Native Grasslands'
Windmill Hill, More Creek Road, Tamworth
4.4
Linkages and Isolation
The site’s woodlands and derived grasslands are bounded by cleared agricultural land to the north and east.
A large linear patch of more intact vegetation occurs to the south, which is directly linked to the remaining
woodland within the site. The adjacent woodland includes a large area of crown reserve, which was
inspected during the 2012 surveys. The crown lands were noted to contain good condition Box-Gum Grassy
Woodlands and Derived Grasslands, with relatively low weed presence. Due to the presence of the adjacent
crown land, containing good examples of the Box-Gum Grassy Woodlands and Derived Grasslands, the
southern cleared areas and woodland are considered to have higher ecological value with regard to habitat
connectivity, than those areas further to the north.
Plate 24 Condition of Box-Gum Grassy Woodland and Derived Grasslands in neighbouring Crown Lands
PR103228; Final / March 2013
Page 34
Attachment 4: Condition and Extent Assessment of the ‘White Box – Yellow Box – Blakely’s Red Gum
Grassy Woodlands and Derived Native Grasslands'
Windmill Hill, More Creek Road, Tamworth
Plate 25 Plate 1: Boundary between the southern woodland and the Crown Lands
4.5
Threatened Species
One threatened species has been recorded within the site, namely B. biloba. This species is known to occur
widely and commonly within the local area, including on heavily disturbed sites. The presence of this species
within the site is therefore considered to be of low importance.
Threatened fauna species, which may have potential to occur are would have greatest association with the
wooded areas of the site. The 9ha of woodland habitat is therefore considered to have moderate importance
for threatened species.
4.6
Community Variability
Section 4.2 shows that the site overall contains variability of condition of the CEEC, however this translates
into lowered diversity across the site. Both the range of the ecological community and biodiversity is best
represented by the wooded areas of the site, which encompass the greatest diversity of species, as well as
structural complexity, including areas with moderate densities of shrubs, and open areas of grassland. The
woodland and southern grasslands are also showing sign of natural regeneration of the canopy layer. The
importance of variability of condition is therefore important within the wooded area and of lowered
importance elsewhere within the site.
PR103228; Final / March 2013
Page 35
Attachment 4: Condition and Extent Assessment of the ‘White Box – Yellow Box – Blakely’s Red Gum
Grassy Woodlands and Derived Native Grasslands'
Windmill Hill, More Creek Road, Tamworth
Plate 26 Plate 2: Sothern Woodland showing sign of canopy regeneration
4.7
Conclusion
The above considerations have been assessed to ascertain the importance of the patch of listed community
found within the site. The EPBC Act Policy Statement 1.1 - Significant Impact Guidelines Matters of National
Environmental Significance (DEWHA, 2009) states that significance of impact depends upon the sensitivity,
value and quality of the environment which is impacted, and upon the intensity, duration, magnitude and
geographic extent of the impacts.
This assessment has found that the greatest ecological values are contained within the wooded area of the
subject site. This area contains the greatest diversity, vegetative structure and habitat linkages within the
site. Whilst the size of this area is less than the other areas that are commensurate with the listed
community, due to the unique value of the wooded areas, the importance of such habitats is also considered
greater with regard to size of patch.
The remaining derived grasslands component of the site is widely represented within the wider locality and
across the range of the listed community. Due to ongoing agricultural use and weed invasion, this area is in
poor condition and despite being left ungrazed for several years, has shown little signs of natural
regeneration of the overstorey. The floristic structure of these derived grasslands is also commonly
encountered in the wider locality and therefore it is concluded that this vegetation offers little to the overall
conservation of the listed community.
PR103228; Final / March 2013
Page 36
Attachment 4: Condition and Extent Assessment of the ‘White Box – Yellow Box – Blakely’s Red Gum
Grassy Woodlands and Derived Native Grasslands'
Windmill Hill, More Creek Road, Tamworth
5.0
Conclusion
RPS has undertaken botanical surveys over the ‘Windmill Hills’ proposed residential development in order to
ascertain the existence, condition and extend of the CEEC, Box-Gum Grassy Woodlands and Derived
Grasslands.
The vegetation within the study area was delineated on the basis of past disturbances and general structure.
Each of the areas has differences in vegetation structure and floristics, which is a result of position in the
landscape, as well as different disturbance regimes. The northern areas were found to be the most
disturbed, with the least native species diversity and obvious signs of past cultivation throughout, whilst the
difference between southern open areas and the southern White Box - Dominated Woodland is
predominately the presence of a sparse shrub and canopy layer within the White Box - Dominated
Woodland.
Western wooded areas of the site were found to be not commensurate with Box-Gum Grassy Woodlands
and Derived Grasslands due to the dominance of a non-diagnostic canopy species, namely C. glaucophylla.
The cleared interface between the western woodlands and the northern paddocks do qualify as a derived
grassland component of the CEEC, despite showing an encroachment of juvenile C. glaucophylla. Some
smaller areas in the east of the site were also found not to be commensurate due to the absence of groundcover vegetation.
Each of the above delineated areas have been assessed against the DEWHA (2006) guidelines and the final
determination, which has found that all communities (except for the western woodlands and bare areas) are
of a sufficient size (greater than 01.ha) and contain a predominately native perennial groundcover, satisfying
these criterion of the listed community. In order to qualify as the listed community there must also be at least
12 native, non-grass understorey species and one ‘important species’. This criteria was examined by
compiling a species list for each delineated community, which has found that the southern woodland and
southern cleared areas have over 12 native non-grass groundcover species and at least one ‘important
species’. These communities are therefore of a reasonable condition to qualify as the listed community. The
northern and western areas had considerably less species diversity, whoever due to their strong connectivity
to the southern areas, the entire derived grasslands area is considered to qualify.
From the results of this survey it has been concluded that the CEEC, Box-Gum Grassy Woodlands and
Derived Grasslands occurs over approximately 104ha of the site. However, based species diversity, local
availability, connectivity and habitat complexity, the southern areas of the site are considered to have the
highest ecological value of the vegetation recorded within the site.
PR103228; Final / March 2013
Page 37
Attachment 4: Condition and Extent Assessment of the ‘White Box – Yellow Box – Blakely’s Red Gum
Grassy Woodlands and Derived Native Grasslands'
Windmill Hill, More Creek Road, Tamworth
6.0
Bibliography
Auld, B.A. and Medd, R.W. (1996). Weeds: An Illustrated Botanical Guide to the Weeds of Australia. Inkata
Press, Sydney.
Department of Environment and Conservation 2004, Nandewar Biodiversity Surrogates: Vegetation. Report
for the Resource and Conservation Assessment Council (RACAC), NSW Western Regional
Assessments, coordinated by NSW Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources,
Project no. NAND06. Department of Environment and Conservation, Coffs Harbour.
DEWHA (2006) White Box - Yellow Box - Blakely's Red Gum Grassy Woodlands and Derived Native
Grasslands - Nationally Threatened Species and Ecological Communities Information Guide
Department of the Environment and Heritage.
EA Systems (2004) Threatened Species Assessment – ‘Hills Plain’ Lots 285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 290
DP3100 and government controlled land described by crown plan 111 – 3100, Moore Creek Road,
Tamworth, E.A. Systems Pty Limited, Armidale, NSW.
Freudenberger, D. (1999) Guidelines for Enhancing Grassy Woodlands for the Vegetation Investment
Project. A report commissioned by Greening Australia, ACT & SE NSW, Inn. CSIRO Sustainable
Ecosystems.
Harden, G. (ed) (2000) Flora of New South Wales, Volume 1. Revised edition. New South Wales University
Press, NSW.
Harden, G. (ed) (2002) Flora of New South Wales, Volume 2. Revised edition. New South Wales University
Press, NSW.
Harden, G. (ed) (1992) Flora of New South Wales, Volume 3. New South Wales University Press, NSW.
Harden, G. (ed) (1993) Flora of New South Wales, Volume 4. New South Wales University Press, NSW.
Lamp, C.A., Forbes, S.J. and Cade, J.W. (1990). Grasses of Temperate Australia. Inkata Press, Melbourne.
NPWS (2002) Identification Guidelines for Endangered Ecological Communities: White Box Yellow Box
Blakely’s Red Gum Woodland (Box-Gum Woodland), NSW NPWS, Northern Directorate.
NPWS (2003). Threatened Species of the New England Tablelands and North West Slopes of New South
Wales. NSW NPWS, Northern Directorate.
NSW Scientific Committee (2004). Bothriochloa biloba (a grass) – removal of vulnerable species listing,
www.nationalparks.nsw.gov.au/npws.nsf/Content/bothriochloa_biloba_removal_final
OEH (2009) Potential Natural and Extant Vegetation Mapping for Cobbadah, Manilla and Tamworth 1 : 100
000 topographic Mapsheets, NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (DECCW),
Sydney
PR103228; Final / March 2013
Page 38
Attachment 4: Condition and Extent Assessment of the ‘White Box – Yellow Box – Blakely’s Red Gum
Grassy Woodlands and Derived Native Grasslands'
Windmill Hill, More Creek Road, Tamworth
TSSC (2006) Advice to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage from the Threatened Species Scientific
Committee (TSSC) on Amendments to the List of Ecological Communities under the Environment
Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act), Department of the Environment and
Heritage.
PR103228; Final / March 2013
Page 39
Attachment 4: Condition and Extent Assessment of the ‘White Box – Yellow Box – Blakely’s Red Gum
Grassy Woodlands and Derived Native Grasslands'
Windmill Hill, More Creek Road, Tamworth
Appendix 1
Flora Quadrat Results
PR103228; Final / March 2013
Attachment 4: Condition and Extent Assessment of the ‘White Box – Yellow Box – Blakely’s Red Gum Grassy Woodlands and Derived Native Grasslands'
Windmill Hill, More Creek Road, Tamworth
Quadrat Survey Results
Scientific Name
Common Name
Year
Area
Quadrat
2006
4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
2010
2
Q5
1
Q6
2
Q1
2012
4
Q2
Q3
3
Q4
Q5
3
3
Q6
3
Q7
Q8
Q1
Q2
2
Q3
Q4
1
Q5
Detected
5
Q8
Q9
Q10
Q11
Q12
CLASS FILICOPSIDA (FERNS)
SINOPTERIDACEAE
Cheilanthes distans
Cheilanthes sieberi ssp. sieberi
Mulga Fern
1
1
2
2
2
CLASS CONIFEROPSIDA (CONIFERS)
CUPRESSACEAE
Callitris glaucophylla.
White Cypress Pine
1
2
2
3
1
2
1
2
1
4
CLASS MAGNOLIOPSIDA (FLOWERING PLANTS)
SUBCLASS MAGNOLIIDAE (Dicotyledons)
ACANTHACEAE
Rostellularia adscendens
AMARANTHACEAE
*Alternanthera pungens
Khaki Weed
AMYGDALACEAE
Prunus persica
Peach
ANACARDIACEAE
*Schinus areira.
Peppercorn
APIACEAE
* Conium maculatum
* Cyclospermum leptophyllum
Hydrocotyle laxiflora
Hemlock
Slender Celery
Stinking pennywort
ASCLEPIADACEAE
*Gomphocarpus fruticosus
Narrow-leaf Cotton Bush
ASTERACEAE
*Arctotheca calendula
*Bidens pilosa
Calotis lappulacea
*Carthamus lanatus
*Centaurea solstitialis
Chrysocephalum apiculatum
*Conyza bonariensis
*Conyza sumatrensis
Cymbonotus lawsonianus
*Gnaphalium sphaericum
*Hedypnois rhagadioloides
*Hypochoeris radicata
*Sonchus asper
Capeweed
Cobbler's Pegs
Yellow Burr Daisy
Saffron Thistle
St Barnaby's Thistle
Yellow Buttons
Flax-leaf Fleabane
Tall Fleabane
Bears-ear
Common Cudweed
Cretan Weed
Cat's Ear
Prickly Sowthistle
PR103228; Final / March 2013
1
1
3
1
3
2
1
2
2
1
1
3
1
1
1
3
2
2
3
3
2
3
1
2
1
1
2
3
2
1
3
3
2
3
3
1
3
3
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
3
3
1
1
1
1
2
2
3
1
3
2
1
3
1
2
1
3
3
1
2
3
1
4
5
4
2
1
2
1
1
2
2
3
3
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
3
4
5
Attachment 4: Condition and Extent Assessment of the ‘White Box – Yellow Box – Blakely’s Red Gum Grassy Woodlands and Derived Native Grasslands'
Windmill Hill, More Creek Road, Tamworth
Scientific Name
Common Name
*Sonchus oleraceus
*Silybum marianum
*Taraxacum officinale
Common Sowthistle
Variegated Thistle
Dandelion
ASPHODELACEAE
Bulbine bulbosa
Native Leek
BORAGINACEAE
*Echium plantagineum
Paterson's Curse
BRASSICACEAE
*Capsella bursa-pastoris
*Lepidium bonariense
*Sisymbrium irio
*Sisymbrium officinale
*Sisymbrium orientale
Shepherd’s Purse
Peppercress
London Rocket
Hedge Mustard
Indian Hedge Mustard
CACTACEAE
*Opuntia aurantiaca
*Opuntia stricta
Tiger Pear
Prickly Pear
CAMPANULACEAE
Wahlenbergia communis
Wahlenbergia gracilis
Tufted Bluebell
Native Bluebell
CARYOPHYLLACEAE
*Cerastium holosteoides
*Petrorhagia nanteuilii
Mouse-ear Chickweed
Proliferous Pink
CHENOPODIACEAE
Einadia nutans
Sclerolaena birchii
Climbing Saltbush
Galvanised Burr
CONVOLVULACEAE
Convolvulus erubescens
Dichondra repens
Australian Bindweed
Kidney Weed
CRASSULACEAE
Crassula colorata
Stonecrop
CUCURBITACEAE
*Citrullus lanatus
Bitter Melon
FABOIDEAE
Desmodium brachypodum
Glycine tabacina
*Medicago lupluina
*Medicago polymorpha
*Medicago sativa
Swainsona galegifolia
Large Tick-trefoil
Twining Glycine
Black Medic
Burr Medic
Lucerne
Smooth Darling-pea
PR103228; Final / March 2013
Year
Area
Quadrat
2006
4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
2010
2
Q5
1
Q6
2
Q1
1
2012
4
Q2
Q3
1
3
Q4
Q5
Q6
3
Q7
Q8
Q1
Q2
2
Q3
Q4
1
Q5
Detected
5
Q8
Q9
Q10
Q11
Q12
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
2
3
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
3
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
3
4
5
Attachment 4: Condition and Extent Assessment of the ‘White Box – Yellow Box – Blakely’s Red Gum Grassy Woodlands and Derived Native Grasslands'
Windmill Hill, More Creek Road, Tamworth
Scientific Name
Common Name
*Trifolium arvense
*Trifolium campestre
*Trifolium dubium
*Trifolium repens
Haresfoot Clover
Hop Clover
Yellow Suckling Clover
White Clover
FUMARIACEAE
*Fumaria bastardii
*Fumaria capreolata
Bastards Fumitory
Climbing Fumitory
GERANIACEAE
Erodium crinitum
Geranium solanderi var. solanderi
Blue Storksbill
Native Geranium
Year
Area
Quadrat
2006
4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
2010
2
Q5
1
Q6
2
Q1
1
4
4
Q2
1
Q3
3
Q4
2
2
Q5
2
3
4
1
4
3
3
3
3
1
1
Q6
3
3
Q7
3
3
Q8
3
3
Q1
Q2
3
3
2
1
2
Q3
Q4
1
Q5
Detected
5
Q8
Q9
Q10
Q11
Q12
1
1
1
GOODENIACEAE
Goodenia pinnatifida
MALVACEAE
*Modiola caroliniana
Red-flowered Mallow
MIMOSOIDEAE
Acacia decora
Acacia implexa
Western Golden Wattle
Hickory
MYRTACEAE
Angophora floribunda
Eucalyptus albens
Rough-barked Apple
White Box
PAPAVERACEAE
*Argemone subfusiformis
American Poppy
PITTOSPORACEAE
Bursaria spinosa
Native Blackthorn
PLANTAGINACEAE
*Plantago debilis
Ribwort
1
1
1
POLYGONACEAE
Rumex brownii
*Polygonum arenastrum
Swamp Dock
Wireweed
1
1
1
PRIMULACEAE
*Anagallis arvensis
*Anagallis arvensis var. caerulea
Scarlet Pimpernel
Blue Pimpernel
2
2
3
2
PROTEACEAE
Grevillea robusta
Silky Oak
ROSACEAE
Acaena ovina
Sheeps Burr
PR103228; Final / March 2013
2012
2
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
3
3
4
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
2
1
2
1
2
3
4
5
Attachment 4: Condition and Extent Assessment of the ‘White Box – Yellow Box – Blakely’s Red Gum Grassy Woodlands and Derived Native Grasslands'
Windmill Hill, More Creek Road, Tamworth
Scientific Name
Common Name
Year
Area
Quadrat
2006
4
Q2
3
3
2
SANTALACEAE
Exocarpus cupressiformis
Cherry Ballart
1
SAPINDACEAE
Alectryon oleifolius ssp. Elongatus
Dodonaea viscosa
Western Rosewood
Sticky Hop-bush
1
4
SCROPHULARIACEAE
*Linaria pelisseriana
*Verbascum virgatum
Pelisser's Toadflax
Twiggy Mullein
SOLANACEAE
*Lycium ferocissimum
African Boxthorn
STACKHOUSIACEAE
Stackhousia monogyna
Creamy Candles
STERCULIACEAE
Brachychiton populneum
Kurrajong
URTICACEAE
Urtica incisa
Scrub Nettle
VERBENACEAE
*Verbena bonariensis
Purple Top
ALLIACEAE
*Nothoscordum borbonicum
Onion Weed
ANTHERICACEAE
Arthropodium milleflorum
Dichopogon fimbriatus
Pale Vanilla Lily
Nodding Chocolate Lily
CYPERACEAE
Carex inversa
Knob Sedge
JUNCACEAE
Juncus subsecundus
Finger Rush
PR103228; Final / March 2013
Q1
Q5
3
3
Q6
Q7
Q8
Q1
3
3
2
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
Q2
2
Q3
2
1
Q4
1
Q5
Detected
5
Q8
Q9
Q10
Q11
Q12
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
2
2
1
Blue Flax Lily
2012
4
2
3
POACEAE
Q4
2
Common Woodruff
Cleavers
PHORMIACEAE
Dianella caerulea var. caerulea
Q3
1
Q6
Q4
LOMANDRACEAE
Lomandra multiflora
Q2
2
Q5
Q3
RUBIACEAE
Asperula conferta
*Galium aparine
Q1
2010
1
2
2
1
1
2
3
1
1
2
1
2
3
4
5
Attachment 4: Condition and Extent Assessment of the ‘White Box – Yellow Box – Blakely’s Red Gum Grassy Woodlands and Derived Native Grasslands'
Windmill Hill, More Creek Road, Tamworth
Scientific Name
Aristida ramosa
Austrostipa ramosissima
Austrostipa verticillata
*Avena sativa
Bothriochloa biloba
Bothriochloa macra
Bothriochloa dicpiens
*Briza minor
*Bromus cartharticus
*Bromus molliformis
*Chloris gayana
*Chloris truncata
Cymbopogon refractus
Cynodon dactylon
Dicanthium sericeum ssp. Sericeum
Dichelachne crinita
*Hordeum Sp.
*Hyparrhenia hirta
*Lolium rigidum
Panicum effusum
*Paspalum dilatatum
*Pennisetum clandestinum
*Sorghum halpense
Sporobolus creber
Urochloa subquadripara
Poa sieberiana
*Vulpia muralis
Common Name
Three-awn Speargrass
Stout Bamboo Grass
Tall Wire Grass
Oats
Lobed Blue-grass
Red Leg Grass
Red Leg Grass
Shivery Grass
Prairie Grass
Soft Brome
Rhodes Grass
Windmill Grass
Barbwire Grass
Common Couch
Queensland Bluegrass
Longhair Plumegrass
Barley
Coolatai Grass
Wimmera Ryegrass
Hairy Panic
Paspalum
Kikuyu
Johnson Grass
Slender Rat’s Tail Grass
Green Summer Grass
Tussock Grass
Key:
Green = 'native' non-grass species as listed by (DEWHA 2006)
Red = 'important' species as listed by (DEWHA 2006)
Areas:
1 = northern paddocks
2= north-facing upper slope and ridgeline
3 = southern open paddocks
4= southern wooded areas
5 = western woodlands and open areas
Cover Abundance Scores:
1 = <5% few individuals
2 = <5% many individuals
3 = 5-25% cover
4 = 25-50% cover
5 = 50-75% cover
6 = 75-100% cover
PR103228; Final / March 2013
Year
Area
Quadrat
2006
4
Q1
2
Q2
3
Q3
Q4
3
3
3
4
4
2010
2
Q5
2
1
Q6
2
2012
4
Q1
3
Q2
3
2
1
Q3
3
Q4
2
Q5
3
Q6
3
3
Q7
3
3
3
3
2
3
2
1
2
2
1
1
3
3
4
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
2
3
5
3
2
5
1
1
Q4
1
Detected
5
Q8
Q9
Q10
Q11
Q12
1
3
2
2
3
2
1
6
6
2
3
2
6
3
2
6
3
4
2
1
1
2
3
2
2
1
1
Q2
3
Q1
3
1
Q5
3
3
1
2
3
Q8
3
2
Q3
1
4
2
2
6
5
3
1
2
1
2
2
4
3
3
1
2
3
1
1
2
3
4
5
Attachment 5: Aerial view of the site showing land use for cultivation
Attachment 5: Aerial view of the site showing land use for cultivation
Attachment 6: Vegetation Management Plan
Windmill Hill
Moore Creek Road, Tamworth NSW
Prepared by:
Prepared for:
RPS AUSTRALIA EAST PTY LTD
MARLOELLE PTY LTD
241 Denison Street
Broadmeadow NSW 2292
288 Peel Street
Tamworth NSW 2340
T:
F:
E:
T:
F:
+61 2 4940 4200
+61 2 4961 6794
[email protected]
+61 2 6766 1477
+61 2 6766 1499
Client Manager: Paul Hillier
Report Number: PR 103228
Version / Date: Final / March 2013
rpsgroup.com.au
Attachment 6: Vegetation Management Plan
Windmill Hill
Moore Creek Road, Tamworth NSW
IMPORTANT NOTE
Apart from fair dealing for the purposes of private study, research, criticism, or review as permitted under the Copyright
Act, no part of this report, its attachments or appendices may be reproduced by any process without the written consent
of RPS Australia East Pty Ltd. All enquiries should be directed to RPS Australia East Pty Ltd.
We have prepared this report for the sole purposes of Marloelle Pty Ltd (“Client”) for the specific purpose of only for
which it is supplied (“Purpose”). This report is strictly limited to the purpose and the facts and matters stated in it and
does not apply directly or indirectly and will not be used for any other application, purpose, use or matter.
In preparing this report we have made certain assumptions. We have assumed that all information and documents
provided to us by the Client or as a result of a specific request or enquiry were complete, accurate and up-to-date. Where
we have obtained information from a government register or database, we have assumed that the information is
accurate. Where an assumption has been made, we have not made any independent investigations with respect to the
matters the subject of that assumption. We are not aware of any reason why any of the assumptions are incorrect.
This report is presented without the assumption of a duty of care to any other person (other than the Client) (“Third
Party”). The report may not contain sufficient information for the purposes of a Third Party or for other uses. Without the
prior written consent of RPS Australia East Pty Ltd:
(a)
this report may not be relied on by a Third Party; and
(b)
RPS Australia East Pty Ltd will not be liable to a Third Party for any loss, damage, liability or claim arising out of
or incidental to a Third Party publishing, using or relying on the facts, content, opinions or subject matter
contained in this report.
If a Third Party uses or relies on the facts, content, opinions or subject matter contained in this report with or without the
consent of RPS Australia East Pty Ltd, RPS Australia East Pty Ltd disclaims all risk and the Third Party assumes all risk
and releases and indemnifies and agrees to keep indemnified RPS Australia East Pty Ltd from any loss, damage, claim
or liability arising directly or indirectly from the use of or reliance on this report.
In this note, a reference to loss and damage includes past and prospective economic loss, loss of profits, damage to
property, injury to any person (including death) costs and expenses incurred in taking measures to prevent, mitigate or
rectify any harm, loss of opportunity, legal costs, compensation, interest and any other direct, indirect, consequential or
financial or other loss.
Document Status
Version
Purpose of Document
Orig
Review
Review Date
Draft
Draft for Client Review
MW
PH
12/02/2013
Final
Final for Submission
PH
19/02/2013
Approval for Issue
Name
Signature
Paul Hillier
PR 103228; Final / March 2013
Date
19/02/2013
Page ii
Attachment 6: Vegetation Management Plan
Windmill Hill
Moore Creek Road, Tamworth NSW
Contents
1.0
2.0
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................1
1.1
Background .............................................................................................................................1
1.2
Aims and Objectives ...............................................................................................................1
1.3
Description of the Proposal ....................................................................................................1
1.4
Existing Vegetation .................................................................................................................2
1.5
Management Challenges.........................................................................................................4
LOGISTICS REQUIREMENTS ...........................................................................................................5
2.1
2.2
3.0
Preliminary Activities ..............................................................................................................5
2.1.2
Occupational Health and Safety (OH&S) ....................................................................5
2.1.3
Roles and Responsibilities..........................................................................................6
Mitigation Strategies ...............................................................................................................7
RESTORATION ..................................................................................................................................8
3.1
Weed Removal.........................................................................................................................8
3.1.1
Woody Weed Removal Techniques ............................................................................9
3.1.2
Small hand-pullable plant removal techniques: ......................................................... 10
3.1.3
Vine and scrambler removal techniques: .................................................................. 10
Weeds with underground reproductive structures removal techniques: .................................... 11
4.0
3.2
White Cypress Pine Management......................................................................................... 11
3.3
Access Control ...................................................................................................................... 11
3.4
Tree Planting ......................................................................................................................... 12
MAINTENANCE ............................................................................................................................... 14
4.1
Description of Tasks ............................................................................................................. 14
4.1.1
Rubbish Removal ..................................................................................................... 14
4.1.2
Consolidation and Weed Removal ............................................................................ 14
5.0
WORKS SCHEDULE AND PERFORMANCE TARGETS ................................................................. 15
6.0
MONITORING AND REPORTING .................................................................................................... 18
7.0
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................... 19
8.0
FURTHER INFORMATION ............................................................................................................... 20
9.0
BIBLIOGRAPHY .............................................................................................................................. 21
PR 103228; Final / March 2013
Page iii
Attachment 6: Vegetation Management Plan
Windmill Hill
Moore Creek Road, Tamworth NSW
Tables
Table 1 Preliminary Activities to be Undertaken.............................................................................................5
Table 2 Project Staff and Responsibilities......................................................................................................6
Table 3 Proposed Actions to Manage Existing Vegetation .............................................................................7
Table 4 Primary Bush Regeneration Phase (Month 1 to 18) ........................................................................ 16
Table 5 Secondary Bush Regeneration Phase (Month 19 to 36) .................................................................. 16
Table 6 Maintenance Bush Regeneration Phase (Month 37 to 60)............................................................... 17
Figures
Figure 1 Site Location ...................................................................................................................................3
Figure 2 Tree Planting Scheme ................................................................................................................... 13
Appendices
Appendix 1
Weed List
PR 103228; Final / March 2013
Page iv
Attachment 6: Vegetation Management Plan
Windmill Hill
Moore Creek Road, Tamworth NSW
1.0
Introduction
1.1
Background
RPS has been engaged by MacDonnells Law, on behalf of Marloelle Pty Ltd to prepare a Vegetation
Management Plan (VMP) for native bushland within ‘Windmill Hill’, Moore Creek Road, Tamworth (hereafter
referred to as the ‘site’).
The site contains White Box – Yellow Box – Blakely’s Red Gum grassy woodlands and derived native
grasslands (Box-Gum Grassy Woodlands and Derived Grasslands), listed as a Critically Endangered
Ecological Community (CEEC) under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity
Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) and as an Endangered Ecological Community (EEC) under the NSW
Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act).
This VMP covers areas outside of the development footprint that will be protected via positive conveyance.
This document forms part of an EPBC referral relating to the proposed development of the site.
1.2
Aims and Objectives
The aim of this VMP is to ensure that the native bushland is properly protected, managed and maintained in
perpetuity.
More specifically, the objectives of the VMP are to:
Assess the vegetation management issues relating to the site;
Preserve, protect and restore native vegetation to a condition that is representative of the natural
ecological community;
Specify appropriate measures for the re-vegetation and regeneration of the remnant bushland areas;
Identify the appropriate timing of works including site preparation, planting, weed management, and also
providing a schedule of works;
Identify and assign responsibilities for ongoing management actions over a 5 year period; and
Ensure that the project is planned, designed and implemented by informed capable contractors in order to
avoid harm to the quality, stability and natural functions of the remnant bushland areas.
1.3
Description of the Proposal
Marloelle Pty Ltd proposes to develop a staged urban residential subdivision that will provide approximately
850 residential lots and 12 rural residential lots at Moore Creek Road, Tamworth, NSW. It also consists of
approximately 4.5ha of land to facilitate the development of a community precinct and approximately 9ha of
parklands.
The overall development site incorporates Lots 285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 290 DP3100, Lot 111 DP3100 and
Lot 382 DP240766.
PR 103228; Final / March 2013
Page 1
Attachment 6: Vegetation Management Plan
Windmill Hill
Moore Creek Road, Tamworth NSW
1.4
Existing Vegetation
The vegetation within the conservation area currently exists in four different conditions:
open paddocks, which were subject to grazing up to 2006;
wooded areas, which were subject to grazing up to 2006; and
the western woodlands and open areas, which are subject to White Cypress Pine tree management and
grazing.
PR 103228; Final / March 2013
Page 2
Attachment 6: Vegetation Management Plan
Windmill Hill
Moore Creek Road, Tamworth NSW
1.5
Management Challenges
The site has been subject to historical vegetation clearance to facilitate stock grazing, resulting in legacy of
environmental and agricultural weed infestation, and soil erosion.
A total of 48 exotic flora species have been recorded within the site, including Lycium ferocissimum (African
Boxthorn), Opuntia aurantiaca (Tiger Pear) and O. stricta (Prickly Pear), all of which listed as listed as both
Weeds of National Significance (WoNS) and C4 noxious weeds in the Tamworth Regional Council Local
Government Area (LGA). Refer to Appendix 1 for a full list of exotic species recorded in the site.
Several sections of the drainage lines within the site have experienced gully erosion due to the lack of
vegetation cover in their immediate catchments and the increased scouring effects of stormwater resulting
from heavy rainfall events. It is noted that erosion have stabilised since grazing has ceased within the site.
PR 103228; Final / March 2013
Page 4
Attachment 6: Vegetation Management Plan
Windmill Hill
Moore Creek Road, Tamworth NSW
2.0
Logistics Requirements
2.1
Preliminary Activities
The following activities should be undertaken prior to implementing the VMP (Table 1).
Table 1 Preliminary Activities to be Undertaken
Activity
Details
Submit VMP
Determining authority for review and endorsement
Determine scope of project
Details of timing of works and estimated effort required to complete works are to be
determined with prospective bush regeneration contractors via tender or quote.
Engage Bush Regeneration
Contractor
Suitable Vegetation Management Contractor (Contractor) shall be appointed.
Proof of qualification for
Contractor
Contractor to submit company profile showing staff qualification as an experienced
and qualified Bush Regenerator.
Insurance documentation
The accepted Contractor’s Public Liability and Workers Compensation certificates of
currency should be submitted to Principal.
OH&S
Risk assessment completed by Contractor and submitted to principal.
Work Cover (White) cards
Contractor’s and employee’s cards sighted and numbers recorded.
Site induction
All staff and visitors inducted to site.
2.1.2
Occupational Health and Safety (OH&S)
The appointed Vegetation Management Contractor will have a formal Occupational Health and Safety
Program set up in accordance with the NSW Occupational Health & Safety Act (OH&S Act) 2000 and the
NSW Occupational Health & Safety Regulation 2001, incorporating:
workplace principles and policies relating to OH&S;
reporting systems;
project management system;
training and education;
workplace inspections, evaluations and audits; and
staff manuals.
The contractor will ensure that the following OH&S issues are addressed:
a hazard assessment is conducted for the site prior to commencement of works;
preparation of a Safe Work Method Statement or equivalent covering all vegetation management actions
for the contract and all areas of the site;
site induction for bush regeneration crews, identifying all relevant safety issues and environmental risks;
ongoing reviews of safe work methods and hazards; and
self-auditing of OH&S procedures.
PR 103228; Final / March 2013
Page 5
Attachment 6: Vegetation Management Plan
Windmill Hill
Moore Creek Road, Tamworth NSW
2.1.3
Roles and Responsibilities
The roles and responsibilities of all project staff of relevance to the VMP are listed in Table 2. The Vegetation
Management Contractor will be primarily responsible for the implementation of this VMP, and will have
appropriate qualifications and experience in bushland management.
Table 2 Project Staff and Responsibilities
Role
Responsibilities
Vegetation Management
Contractor
Implementation of the VMP
Vegetation Management
Consultant
Inspection, monitoring and reporting of vegetation management works undertaken
by the Vegetation Management Contractor;
Ensuring compliance with VMP; and
Preparation of monitoring reports.
PR 103228; Final / March 2013
Page 6
Attachment 6: Vegetation Management Plan
Windmill Hill
Moore Creek Road, Tamworth NSW
2.2
Mitigation Strategies
Table 3 Proposed Actions to Manage Existing Vegetation
Action
Responsibility
Performance Criteria
Timing
OH&S Hazard & risk assessment for vegetation management crews.
Prepare Safe Work Method Statement. Conduct internal OHS safety and
environmental induction.
Vegetation
Management
Contractor
Safe Work Method Statement (or equivalent)
submitted and approved.
Prior to implementation of VMP.
Establish site fencing to control access into the site by stock, pedestrians
and vehicles.
Vegetation
Management
Contractor
Sediment fences around construction areas.
Prior to implementation of VMP.
Contractors must ensure compliance with the Pesticides Act 1999 and
avoid Summer/Spring periods to ensure native amphibian protection.
Vegetation
Management
Contractor
Pesticides used as per the Pesticide Act
provisions
Ongoing
Ensure use of herbicides that are suitable for use near waterways and
environmentally sensitive areas such as Roundup Bi-Active.
Vegetation
Management
Contractor
Vegetation Management Contractor has
appropriate qualifications for herbicide use;
Roundup Bi-Active (or equivalent) is used.
Ongoing
Ensure compliance with Noxious Weeds Act 1993; i.e. organise removal
from site of noxious weed propagules and biomass, as per specific action
control categories for each species.
Vegetation
Management
Contractor
Noxious weeds controlled as per Noxious
Weeds Act provisions.
Ongoing
Weed biomass capable of regenerating vegetatively or with seeds
attached to be disposed of at an approved waste management centre, as
appropriate for each weed species.
Vegetation
Management
Contractor
Evidence of receipts for disposal fees
Weeds capable of vegetative regeneration
not piled on site.
Ongoing
Safety, Rubbish and Fencing
Weed Management & Mitigation
PR 103228; Final / March 2013
Page 7
Attachment 6: Vegetation Management Plan
Windmill Hill
Moore Creek Road, Tamworth NSW
3.0
Restoration
3.1
Weed Removal
Restoration and regeneration works are to be undertaken throughout the site in order to improve the
condition of extant vegetation communities, increase existing canopy coverage, improve nesting, breeding
and foraging opportunities for local wildlife, develop vegetation corridors within the site and improve the
functionality and aesthetic appeal of the site. These restoration and regeneration works are based on
bushland re-vegetation guidelines described in Buchanan (1989) and include:
Primary weed control;
Secondary weed control; and
Maintenance weed control.
Qualified and experienced bush regenerators should undertake primary, secondary and maintenance weed
control areas. The size of the bush regeneration team should vary in relation to the effectiveness of previous
works completed to ensure that the targets are met. Weed control requires an integrated approach and a
single method of treatment should not be relied upon. Bush regeneration principles (Bradley 2006) designed
for use in bushland settings, in combination with designated plantings should be employed. The systematic
removal of weeds will therefore allow native plants to establish themselves naturally (Buchanan, 1989) in
designated regeneration areas.
The Bradley Method of bush regeneration employs four basic principles:
(a)
Work outwards from good bush areas towards areas of weed;
(b)
Make minimal disturbance to the environment;
(c)
Weed control will involve primary control, secondary control and long term maintenance; and
(d)
Do not over-clear; where possible let native plant regeneration dictates the rate of weed removal.
Manual removal of herbaceous weeds, regrowth and seedlings is preferred where possible, with minimal
disturbance to soil stability and existing native species. This is particularly important in close proximity to the
drainage lines. Removal work will be undertaken outside the seeding period of weeds (seasons other than
spring generally speaking). If any work is undertaken within these periods, seed will be collected, bagged
and disposed at a designated disposal location offsite, ensuring that no seed remains.
The primary weeds of concern to be removed include:
Opuntia aurantiaca (Tiger Pear) and O. stricta (Prickly Pear) – both species listed as C4 noxious weeds in
the Tamworth Regional Council LGA and a Weed of National Significance;
Lycium ferocissimum (African Boxthorn) – listed as C4 noxious weeds in the Tamworth Regional Council
LGA and a Weed of National Significance;
Several species of thistles, particularly Carthamus lanatus (Saffron Thistle), Centaurea solstitialis (St
Barnaby's Thistle) and Silybum marianum (Variegated Thistle); and
A range of exotic grass species, such as Briza minor (Shivery Grass), Bromus cartharticus (Prairie
Grass), Hyparrhenia hirta (Coolatai Grass) and Pennisetum clandestinum (Kikuyu).
PR 103228; Final / March 2013
Page 8
Attachment 6: Vegetation Management Plan
Windmill Hill
Moore Creek Road, Tamworth NSW
Under the Noxious Weeds Act 1993, the growth of these noxious species must be managed in a manner that
reduces their numbers, spread and incidence and continuously inhibits their reproduction.
Weed biomass that will not regenerate vegetatively or does not have seeds present can remain on the site
and be used to construct habitat mounds on the site or to control erosion as long as it does not suppress
regeneration.
Large exotic shrubs should be treated via the ‘Frill and Poison’ technique with neat Glyphosate to the base of
the tree to facilitate its death. Care should be taken on drainage line banks as to reduce erosion during the
removal of trees and large shrubs. For smaller shrubs, the ‘Cut and Paint’ technique should be used with
neat Glyphosate being applied to the cut stump. In both cases, it is imperative to apply herbicides
immediately after wounding the plant, to ensure proper translocation of the poison.
To treat large infestations of exotic grass on the site, the grass should be slashed with care given not to
remove any regenerating native plants (i.e. to potentially use a brushcutter rather than tractor) and treated
with Glyphosate diluted to recommended label concentrations, depending on the target species. Areas of
grass that are damp underfoot should not be sprayed in spring and summer due to the presence of frogs (in
particular Litoria fallax) which may be utilising this habitat on the site.
Long term weed control will be required to be implemented on the site as a one off primary weeding will not
be effective in controlling the weed populations. This is due to the likely presence of a large seedbank on the
site and due to the weeding creating a degree of disturbance and altered microclimates, allowing for weed
seeds to germinate. Secondary weeding should occur on a relatively frequent occurrence commensurate
with prevailing growth rates (i.e. 3 to 6 weeks during summer rapid growth and 5 to 8 weeks during winter
slow growth). This regime should continue until native plant communities reach a state of equilibrium and
weed growth is limited (i.e. at less than 5% cover). Natural regeneration should also be encouraged on the
site as this allows for a greater diversity than will be planted and maintains the genetic diversity of the site.
The long term maintenance weed control on site should continue for a period of 5 years.
3.1.1
Woody Weed Removal Techniques
3.1.1.1
Cut and Paint (Woody Weeds To <10 Cm Basal Diameter)
Make a horizontal cut through the stem close to the ground using secateurs, loppers or a bush saw; and
Immediately apply herbicide to the exposed flat stump surface.
Considerations:
Cuts should be horizontal to prevent herbicide from running off the stump, sharp angle cuts are
hazardous;
Herbicide must be applied immediately before the plant cells close (within 30 seconds) and translocation
of herbicide ceases;
If plants re-sprout cut and paint the shoots after sufficient re-growth has occurred; and
Stem scraping can be more effective on some woody weeds.
3.1.1.2
Stem Injection
At the base of the tree drill holes at a 45 degree angle into the sapwood;
Fill each hole with herbicide immediately; and
Repeat the process at 5 cm intervals around the tree.
PR 103228; Final / March 2013
Page 9
Attachment 6: Vegetation Management Plan
Windmill Hill
Moore Creek Road, Tamworth NSW
3.1.1.3
Frilling or Chipping
At the base of the tree make a cut into the sapwood with a chisel or axe;
Fill each cut with herbicide immediately; and
Repeat the process at 5 cm intervals around the tree.
Considerations:
Plants should be actively growing and in good health;
Deciduous plants should be treated in spring and autumn when leaves are fully formed;
For multi-stemmed plants, inject or chip below the lowest branch or treat each stem individually; and
Herbicides must be injected immediately before plant cells close (within 30 seconds) and translocation of
herbicide ceases.
3.1.2
Small hand-pullable plant removal techniques:
3.1.2.1
Hand Removal
Remove any seeds or fruits and carefully place into a bag;
Grasp stem at ground level, rock plant backwards and forwards to loosen roots and pull out; and
Tap the roots to dislodge any soil, replace disturbed soil and pat down.
Considerations:
Leave weeds so roots are not in contact with the soil e.g. hang in a tree, remove from site or leave on a
rock.
3.1.3
Vine and scrambler removal techniques:
3.1.3.1
Hand Removal
Take hold of one runner and pull towards yourself;
Check points of resistance where fibrous roots grow from the nodes;
Cut roots with a knife or dig out with a trowel and continue to follow the runner;
The major root systems need to be removed manually or scrape/cut and painted with herbicide; and
Any reproductive parts need to be bagged.
3.1.3.2
Stem Scraping
Scrape 15 to 30 cm of the stem with a knife to reach the layer below the bark/outer layer; and
Immediately apply herbicide along the length of the scrape.
Considerations:
A maximum of half the stem diameter should be scraped. Do not ringbark;
Larger stems should have two scrapes opposite each other; and
Vines can be left hanging in trees after treatment provided they are unable to regrow from leaves or
stems.
PR 103228; Final / March 2013
Page 10
Attachment 6: Vegetation Management Plan
Windmill Hill
Moore Creek Road, Tamworth NSW
Weeds with underground reproductive structures removal techniques:
3.1.3.3
Hand Removal of Plants with a Taproot
Remove and bag seeds or fruits;
Push a narrow trowel or knife into the ground beside the tap root, carefully loosen the soil and repeat this
step around the taproot;
Grasp the stem at ground level, rock plant backwards and forwards and gently pull removing the plant;
and
Tap the roots to dislodge soil, replace disturbed soil and pat down.
3.1.3.4
Crowning
Remove and bag stems with seed or fruit;
Grasp the leaves or stems together so the base of the plant is visible;
Insert the knife or lever at an angle close to the crown;
Cut through all the roots around the crown; and
Remove and bag the crown.
3.1.3.5
Herbicide Treatment – Stem Swiping
Remove any seed or fruit and bag; and
Using an herbicide applicator, swipe the stems/leaves.
Considerations:
Further digging may be required for plants with more than one tuber;
Some bulbs may have small bulbils attached or present in the soil around them which need to be
removed;
It may be quicker and more effective to dig out the weed;
Protect native plants and seedlings; and
For bulb and corm species the most effective time to apply herbicide is after flowering and before fruit is
set.
3.2
White Cypress Pine Management
Callitris glaucophylla (White Cypress Pine) will continue to be managed in areas of White Cypress Pine/
White Box Woodland and Derived Grasslands. This will ensure that these communities maintain their current
structure and do not become simplified White Cypress Pine woodlands.
3.3
Access Control
It is noted that stock grazing has ceased within the site, and both native and exotic flora species are
responding favourably. To facilitate continued natural regeneration throughout the site, unauthorised access
will need to be prevented via installation of appropriate fencing. Controlling access to the site, particularly
unregulated stock and vehicles, will prevent damage to native flora from trampling and hebivory, soil erosion
and the collection of firewood, and will reduce the risk of arson and rubbish dumping.
PR 103228; Final / March 2013
Page 11
Attachment 6: Vegetation Management Plan
Windmill Hill
Moore Creek Road, Tamworth NSW
3.4
Tree Planting
Tree planting is proposed to encourage connectivity between the conservation areas. Two species of tree
are proposed to be planted:
Eucalyptus melliodora (Yellow Box) - predominately summer flowering, this species is known to occur
naturally within neighbouring properties; and
Eucalyptus albens (White Box) - winter flowering and locally endemic.
Tree planting is not required throughout the conservation area as natural regeneration is apparent and the
open grasslands form an important part of the community. Planting will be specifically used to improve
connectivity for use by fauna between the conservation areas. A planting design has been provided in
Figure 2.
PR 103228; Final / March 2013
Page 12
Attachment 6: Vegetation Management Plan
Windmill Hill
Moore Creek Road, Tamworth NSW
4.0
Maintenance
4.1
Description of Tasks
4.1.1
Rubbish Removal
Existing rubbish on the site should be removed after the site is fenced.
Any new dumping is less likely within the conservation area once secure perimeter fencing is in place,
however this may still occur. If dumping continues, the waste should be removed promptly and the dumping
reported to the relevant authorities.
Small pieces of rubbish and litter should be removed by hand opportunistically when vegetation
management contractors are on the site. All litter collected should be removed from the site and disposed of
appropriately.
Any non-biodegradable materials used in the regeneration process such as pots and tree guards should be
removed and disposed of daily or when no longer necessary or within the five year maintenance period.
4.1.2
Consolidation and Weed Removal
The study area will need several visits to remove weeds that are regenerating and/or have grown in
response to the disturbance and are competing with regenerating native plants. A system of weed removal
must be undertaken to remove weed seedlings and regrowth.
These visits are essential; otherwise the weeds will dominate and out-compete the regenerating / replanted
natives.
Weed species without seeds attached or that do not have the potential to regenerate vegetatively can be left
on site and mounded to act as habitat for invertebrates, small birds and small reptiles. Weeds that can
regenerate vegetatively if detected on the site should be bagged and disposed of offsite.
PR 103228; Final / March 2013
Page 14
Attachment 6: Vegetation Management Plan
Windmill Hill
Moore Creek Road, Tamworth NSW
5.0
Works Schedule and Performance Targets
Proposed management actions, performance targets and triggers and timing are outlined in Tables 4 to 6.
Targets are objectives to be aimed for when carrying out the management actions. Triggers are to be the
objectives which must be met before works can proceed to the next stage. If the trigger objectives are not
met by the end of the phase then this will trigger the requirement for management actions of additional work
to be done until the trigger objectives are met. The type and frequency of bush regeneration works done
should be guided by the objectives set for the targets for each phase. Timing is based on duration following
approval of this Vegetation Management Plan by the relevant consent authority.
The primary and secondary bush regeneration phases are each to be 18 months in duration whilst the
maintenance bush regeneration phase is to be 24 months. The primary phase of bush regeneration is to
begin on the date of the approval for subdivision.
PR 103228; Final / March 2013
Page 15
Attachment 6: Vegetation Management Plan
Windmill Hill
Moore Creek Road, Tamworth NSW
Table 4 Primary Bush Regeneration Phase (Month 1 to 18)
Action
Responsibility
Performance Targets
Weed cover of large infestations to be
reduced to less than 10% of vegetation
cover
Triggers for management
actions
25% or more of large
infestations remain
Timing
Removal of woody weeds from the
site to be undertaken in accordance
with Section 4.1
Vegetation Management
Contractor
Removal of non-woody weeds from
the site to be undertaken in
accordance with Section 4.1
Vegetation Management
Contractor
Weed cover of large infestations to be
reduced to less than 10% of vegetation
cover
25% or more of large
infestations remain
To be completed by end of
Month 18
Removal of exotic grasses from the
site to be undertaken in accordance
with Section 4.1
Vegetation Management
Contractor
All areas dominated by exotic grasses
to have a live exotic cover of less than
10% of vegetation cover
25% live exotic cover by exotic
grasses
To be completed by end of
Month 18
Less than 10% of mature or
flowering/fruiting plants remain
20% or less of mature or
flowering/fruiting plants remain
To be completed by end of
Month 18
Table 5 Secondary Bush Regeneration Phase (Month 19 to 36)
Action
Responsibility
Performance Targets
Weed cover of remaining infestations
are reduced to less than 5% of
vegetation cover;
Removal of woody weeds from the
site to be undertaken in accordance
with Section 4.1
Vegetation Management
Contractor
Cover of weed regrowth and secondary
infestations is to be less than 5%
Less than 5% of mature or
flowering/fruiting plants remain
Trigger for management
actions
Timing
10% or more of large
infestations remain
10% or more of weed regrowth
and secondary infestations
following primary weeding
remain;
To be completed by end of
Month 36
10% or more of mature or
flowering/fruiting plants remain
Removal of non-woody weeds from
the site to be undertaken in
accordance with Section 4.1
Vegetation Management
Contractor
Weed cover to be reduced to less than
5% of vegetation cover in all areas
10% or more of large
infestations remain
To be completed by end of
Month 36
Removal of exotic grasses from the
site to be undertaken in accordance
with Section 4.1
Vegetation Management
Contractor
All areas dominated by exotic grasses
to have a live exotic cover of less than
5%
10% live exotic cover by exotic
grasses
To be completed by end of
Month 36
PR 103228; Final / March 2013
Page 16
Attachment 6: Vegetation Management Plan
Windmill Hill
Moore Creek Road, Tamworth NSW
Table 6 Maintenance Bush Regeneration Phase (Month 37 to 60)
Responsibility
Removal of woody weeds from the
site to be undertaken in accordance
with Section 4.1
Vegetation Management
Contractor
Weed cover maintained at less than
5% of total vegetation cover
Weed cover exceeds 10% of
total vegetation cover
To be maintained from
Month 37 to the end of
Month 60
Removal of non-woody weeds,
particularly A. asparagoides, from
the site to be undertaken in
accordance with Section 4.1
Vegetation Management
Contractor
Weed cover maintained at less than
5% of total vegetation cover
Weed cover exceeds 10% of
total vegetation cover
To be maintained from
Month 37 to the end of
Month 60
Removal of exotic grasses from the
site to be undertaken in accordance
with Section 4.1
Vegetation Management
Contractor
Weed cover maintained at less than
5% of total vegetation cover
Weed cover exceeds 10% of
total vegetation cover
To be maintained from
Month 37 to the end of
Month 60
PR 103228; Final / March 2013
Performance Targets
Trigger for management
actions
Action
Page 17
Attachment 6: Vegetation Management Plan
Windmill Hill
Moore Creek Road, Tamworth NSW
6.0
Monitoring and Reporting
Qualified Vegetation Management Contractors are to carry out a program of regular monitoring and
inspection work required for the VMP. The Consultant will be responsible for ensuring the measures outlined
in this VMP are implemented and that performance criteria are satisfied.
A monitoring report on the progress of the VMP implementation should be prepared and submitted upon
completion of the primary planting and then biannually for a period of 5 years. A final report shall also be
submitted upon completion of the maintenance period.
Monitoring is to be undertaken utilising a combination of a fixed photo point and permanent 20 m x 20 m
quadrat at each monitoring point. The monitoring points will be established throughout the site, and will be
representative of all areas including the riparian zone, habitat islands and areas direct seeded. Within the
quadrats, each flora species will be identified and its density estimated. A total of 15 monitoring points are to
be established throughout the site. A map showing the locations of the monitoring points and an appendix
giving their GPS co-ordinates should be provided with the monitoring reports.
Daily records are to be kept by the Vegetation Management Contractor detailing works undertaken, including
the approximate area of weed control completed or the number of tubestock planted for example, with
reference made to a base map of the site indicating the locations of works.
The monitoring reports will:
Report on the progress of the monitoring activities; and
Discuss any problems encountered in implementing the VMP.
Maintenance activities within the areas to be replanted will include:
Estimates of the success rate of plantings
Estimates of weed cover / abundance present in the revegetation and rehabilitation management areas;
Depth and condition of mulch, if used; and
Recommendations regarding timing and responsibility for corrective measures and/or vegetation
management.
PR 103228; Final / March 2013
Page 18
Attachment 6: Vegetation Management Plan
Windmill Hill
Moore Creek Road, Tamworth NSW
7.0
Conclusion and Recommendations
The aim of the VMP is to provide a strategy for the restoration of native bushland located at ‘Windmill Hills’,
Moore Creek Road, Tamworth. The site contains areas of CEEC, namely White Box – Yellow Box –
Blakely’s Red Gum grassy woodlands and derived native grasslands
The implementation of the VMP will increase the level of coverage of native vegetation on the site, reduce
the distribution of weeds on the site, and reduce erosion on the site.
If these methods are followed it is envisaged that the biodiversity offset area will become a good example of
these EECs.
PR 103228; Final / March 2013
Page 19
Attachment 6: Vegetation Management Plan
Windmill Hill
Moore Creek Road, Tamworth NSW
8.0
Further Information
The following references may be useful for additional information regarding topics covered in this VMP.
Bush Regeneration
Bradley, J. (1971). Bush Regeneration: The Practical Way to Eliminate Exotic Plants from Natural Reserves.
Sydney, New South Wales: The Mosman Parklands and Ashton Park Association.
Bradley, J. (2006). Bringing back the Bush: the Bradley Method of Bush Regeneration. Reed New Holland.
Sydney.
Buchanan, R. A. (1989). Bush Regeneration - Recovering Australian Landscapes. TAFE NSW.
Hunter Catchment Management Trust (2003). Hunter Bushland Resource Kit. A guide to managing
vegetation on private land in the Hunter catchment. Hunter Management Catchment Trust.
Plant Identification
Robinson, L. (1997). Field Guide to the Native Plants of Sydney, 3rd Edition. Kangaroo Press, Sydney.
Sainty, G., Hosking, J., Abell, P., Jacobs, S. and Dalby-Ball, M. (2000). Burnum Burnums’ Wildthings. Sainty
and Associates Pty Ltd. Potts Point, NSW.
Weed Identification and Removal
Auld, B.A., Medd, R.W, (1992) Weeds- An illustrated guide to the weeds of Australia. Inkata Press.
Lamp, C. and Collett, F. (2004). Field Guide to the weeds of Australia. Inkata Press, Melbourne.
Richardson, F.J., Richardson, R.S. and Shepherd, R.C.H. (2006). Weeds of the South-east – An
Identification Guide for Australia. RG and FJ Richardson, PO Box 42, Meredith VIC 3333.
Further information may also be obtained from the following webpages:
www.nsw.gov.au/weeds
http://www.agric.nsw.gov.au
www.forestrytas.com.au/forestrytas/pdf_files/forest_heath_leaflets/weed_identification
www.oca.nsw.gov.au/ecology
http://www.env.qld.gov.au/environment/environment/conservation
PR 103228; Final / March 2013
Page 20
Attachment 6: Vegetation Management Plan
Windmill Hill
Moore Creek Road, Tamworth NSW
9.0
Bibliography
Bradley, J. (2006). Bringing back the Bush: the Bradley Method of Bush Regeneration. Reed New Holland.
Sydney.
Buchanan, R.A. (1989) Bush Regeneration - Recovering Australian Landscapes. TAFE NSW.
NSW Scientific Committee (2004). Bothriochloa biloba (a grass) – removal of vulnerable
species listing: www.nationalparks.nsw.gov.au/npws.nsf/Content/bothriochloa_biloba_removal_final
PR 103228; Final / March 2013
Page 21
Attachment 6: Vegetation Management Plan
Windmill Hill
Moore Creek Road, Tamworth NSW
Appendix 1
Weed List
PR 103228; Final / March 2013
Attachment 6: Vegetation Management Plan
Windmill Hill
Moore Creek Road, Tamworth NSW
Weed List
Scientific Name
Common name
Alternanthera pungens
Khaki Weed
Anagallis arvensis
Scarlet Pimpernel
Arctotheca calendula
Capeweed
Avena sativa
Oats
Briza minor
Shivery Grass
Bromus cartharticus
Prairie Grass
Bromus molliformis
Soft Brome
Capsella bursa-pastoris
Shepherd’s Purse
Carthamus lanatus
Saffron Thistle
Centaurea solstitialis
St Barnaby's Thistle
Cerastium holosteoides
Mouse-ear Chickweed
Chloris gayana
Rhodes Grass
Conyza albida
Tall Fleabane
Cyclospermum leptophyllum
Slender Celery
Echium plantagineum
Paterson's Curse
Fumaria bastardii
Bastards Fumitory
Fumaria capreolata
Climbing Fumitory
Galium aparine
Cleavers
Gomphocarpus fruticosus
Narrow-leaf Cotton Bush
Hedypnois rhagadioloides
Cretan Weed
Hordeum Sp.
Barley
Hyparrhenia hirta
Coolatai Grass
Lepidium bonariense
Peppercress
Linaria pelisseriana
Pelisser's Toadflax
Lolium rigidum
Wimmera Ryegrass
Lycium ferocissimum
African Boxthorn
Medicago lupluina
Black Medic
Medicago polymorpha
Burr Medic
Modiola caroliniana
Red-flowered Mallow
Nothoscordum borbonicum
Onion Weed
Opuntia aurantiaca
Tiger Pear
C4
Opuntia stricta
Prickly Pear
C4
Pennisetum clandestinum
Kikuyu
Petrorhagia nanteuilii
Proliferous Pink
Plantago debilis
Ribwort
Prunus persica
Peach
Schinus areira
Peppercorn
Silybum marianum
Variegated Thistle
Sisymbrium officinale
Hedge Mustard
PR 103228; Final / March 2013
Noxious Weed Listing
C4
Attachment 6: Vegetation Management Plan
Windmill Hill
Moore Creek Road, Tamworth NSW
Scientific Name
Common name
Sisymbrium orientale
Indian Hedge Mustard
Sonchus asper
Prickly Sowthistle
Sonchus oleraceus
Common Sowthistle
Taraxacum officinale
Dandelion
Trifolium arvense
Haresfoot Clover
Trifolium campestre
Hop Clover
Verbascum virgatum
Twiggy Mullein
Verbena bonariensis
Purple Top
PR 103228; Final / March 2013
Noxious Weed Listing