215327 ref 001b part2 by Orange City Council

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment

LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK AND RELEVANT GUIDELINES

3.1

Commonwealth legislation

3.1.1

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

The Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) is administered by the Department of the Environment (DotE) and regulates any action that will have, or is likely to have, an impact on any Matter of National Environmental Significance (MNES). MNES relevant to biodiversity include: 

wetlands of international importance (listed under the Ramsar Convention)



listed threatened species and Threatened Ecological Communities (TECs)



migratory species protected under international agreements



Commonwealth marine areas.

Pursuant to the EPBC Act, a person must not undertake any action that will have, or is likely to have, a significant impact on any MNES. According to the MNES Significant Impact Guidelines 1.1 (DotE 2013), a significant impact is an impact which is important, notable or of consequence, having regard to its context or intensity. Whether or not an action is likely to have a significant 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. A significant impact is considered likely if it is real or does not have a remote chance or possibility. MNES have been considered in Section 5. A referral to the DotE is not required as part of the works, as the Project is unlikely to interfere with any wetlands of international importance nor Commonwealth marine areas, and Assessments of Significance (Appendix E) have determined that the Project is unlikely to result in significant impacts on Commonwealth listed threatened species, TECs or migratory species.

3.2

State legislation and policy

3.2.1

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

The NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) and the NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 provide the framework for environmental planning in NSW and include provisions to ensure that proposals which have the potential to impact the environment are subject to detailed environmental assessment. The Project is an activity being assessed under Part 5 of the EP&A Act. This ecological assessment forms part of an REF for the activity and considers the relevant factors specified in Section 111 of the EP&A Act (Table 1). This report examines the significance of likely ecological impacts of the Project and the measures required to mitigate any adverse impacts to terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems.

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment

Table 1 Section 111 of the EP&A Act – Duty to Consider Environmental Impact – Ecologyrelated triggers Consideration

Reference / response

(1) For the purpose of attaining the objects of this Act relating to the protection and enhancement of the environment, a determining authority in its consideration of an activity shall, notwithstanding any other provisions of this Act or the provisions of any other Act or of any instrument made under this or any other Act, examine and take into account to the fullest extent possible all matters affecting or likely to affect the environment by reason of that activity. (2) Without limiting subsection (1), a determining authority shall consider the effect of an activity on: (a) any conservation agreement entered into under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 and applying to the whole or part of the land to which the activity relates, and (b) any plan of management adopted under that Act for the conservation area to which the agreement relates, and

Section 6 – Potential impacts

(c) any joint management agreement entered into under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995, and (d) any BioBanking agreement entered into under Part 7A of the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 that applies to the whole or part of the land to which the activity relates. (3) Without limiting subsection (1), a determining authority shall consider the effect of an activity on any wilderness area (within the meaning of the Wilderness Act 1987) in the locality in which the activity is intended to be carried on. (4) Without limiting subsection (1), a determining authority must consider the effect of an activity on: (a) critical habitat, and (b) in the case of threatened species, populations and ecological communities, and their habitats, whether there is likely to be a significant effect on those species, populations or ecological communities, or those habitats, and

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

The proposed CTRWSPP is unlikely to conflict with any conservation agreements entered into under the NP&W Act (Section 3.2.3) No plans of management, adopted under the NP&W Act, have been identified for land intersected by the proposed CTRWSPP (Section 3.2.3) The proposed CTRWSPP is not known to intersect any areas of joint management agreement entered into under the TSC Act. No BioBanking agreements are in place for land intersected by the proposed CTRWSPP (Section 3.2.2).

The Project area contains no wilderness areas as defined by the Wilderness Act 1987.

The Project area contains no critical habitat (Section 5.4). The proposed CTRWSPP is unlikely to result in a significant impact on threatened or migratory species or ecological communities recognised as MNES by the EPBC Act. Similarly, the proposed CTRWSPP is unlikely to result in a significant impact on threatened species, populations or ecological communities or their habitats, within the

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Ecological Assessment meaning of the TSC Act or FM Act (Section 6). (c) any other protected fauna or protected native plants within the meaning of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974.

3.2.2

No protected flora species (Section 3.2.3) were identified during the field survey 2-7 November 2015. Appropriate mitigation measures will be in place to reduce the incidence of injury or death of native fauna throughout construction of the proposed CTRWSPP (Section 7.2).

Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995

The Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act) provides for the conservation of threatened species, populations and ecological communities of plants and animals. It provides a framework to ensure that the impact of any action affecting threatened species is assessed. Schedule 1 of the TSC Act lists endangered species, populations and ecological communities; Schedule 2 lists vulnerable species; and Schedule 3 lists key threatening processes. Part 3 of the TSC Act defines critical habitat. This ecological assessment considers the potential impacts to all threatened species, populations and endangered ecological communities (EECs) listed under the TSC Act that are either known or considered likely to occur within the Project area. The potential impact of the Project on species listed in the TSC Act is discussed in Section 6. The review of relevant literature and database searches identified that a number of flora and fauna species and endangered ecological communities are known to occur within the desktop search area (Section 4.4). However, the assessments concluded that no threatened flora or fauna species, populations or ecological communities listed under the TSC Act are likely to be significantly impacted by the Project. Part 7A Division 2 of the TSC Act facilitates the establishment of BioBanking agreements. A search of the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage BioBanking Public Register, conducted 30 November 2015, identified no records for the Blayney LGA and only one record for the Orange LGA. OCC is the landowner for BioBanking Agreement 146 in the Orange LGA, executed 27 January 2015 for an area of 257.8 ha location approximately 22 km north-east of the Icely Road Filtration Plant (Figure 1). Consequently, the Project is well removed from land on which a BioBanking agreement is in place.

3.2.3

National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974

The NSW National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (NP&W Act) governs the establishment, preservation and management of national parks, historic sites, and the protection of certain fauna, native plants and Aboriginal relics. Under the NP&W Act all fauna is protected, threatened or otherwise. Schedule 13 of the NP&W Act lists protected plants, which shall not be harmed or picked on any land either on or off National Park estate without prior approval. No such flora species were identified during the field survey conducted 2-7 November. Mitigation measures are in place to protected native fauna throughout construction of the proposed CTRWSPP (Section 7.2). The proposed CTRWSPP does not entail works on any land reserved under the NP&W Act. As such, no authorisation by or under this Act is required pursuant to clause 125(4) of State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007.

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment

The CTRWSPP alignment intersects or adjoins a number of Wildlife Refuges in the southern extent of the Project area. These refuges are the result of conservation agreements entered into under the NP&W Act (including the former Fauna Protection Act 1948) and are known as: 

Anahdale Wildlife Refuge, No. 266



Coombing Park Wildlife Refuge, No. 177



Stanfield Wildlife Refuge, No. 352



Thring Wildlife Refuge, No .182.

There are no known management strategies or farm plans for these Wildlife Refuges. However, the Project is not expected to interfere with the conservation or management intent of these Wildlife Refuges.

3.2.4

NSW State Environmental Planning Policy No. 44 (SEPP 44) – Koala Habitat Protection

The NSW State Environmental Planning Policy No. 44 – Koala Habitat Protection (SEPP 44), prepared under the EP&A Act, aims to encourage the proper conservation and management of areas of natural vegetation that provide habitat for the koala (Phascolarctos cinereus) to ensure a permanent free-living population over their present range and reverse the current trend of koala population decline. The Blayney LGA is listed in Schedule 1 of the SEPP 44. The Orange LGA is not. As such, this SEPP applies only to the southern portion of the Project that falls within the Blayney LGA. Schedule 2 of the SEPP 44 lists koala feed tree species. Those species encountered within the Project area include ribbon gum (Eucalyptus viminalis), river red gum (E. camaldulensis) and white box (E. albens). However, no koalas, koala scratches nor scats were detected within the Project area, despite targeted searches. Although koalas have been recorded from the broader desktop search area, the nearest being approx. 5 km south-east of the alignment near Barry Road in 2014 (OEH 2015a) (Section 5.2), the Project alignment itself is unlikely to constitute koala habitat, owing to the exposed nature of areas where suitable feed trees were encountered.

3.2.5

Fisheries Management Act 1994

The NSW Fisheries Management Act 1994 (FM Act) and its regulations are relevant to aquatic habitat, fauna species and aquatic ecological communities that may be affected by the Project. Threatened aquatic species, populations and EECs are listed under Schedules 4, 4A and 5 of the FM Act. Schedule 6 lists key threatening processes. This ecological assessment considers the potential impacts to those threatened species, populations and EECs listed under the FM Act that are known or considered likely to occur within the Project area. Within the jurisdiction of OCC, a permit from DPI Fisheries must be attained prior to pipeline construction (i.e. dredging and reclamation works) within Key Fish Habitat (Section 5.3.3, in accordance with section 200 of the FM Act. Within the jurisdiction of Central Tablelands Water (being a public authority), DPI Fisheries must be notified of any dredging and reclamation works) within Key Fish Habitat at least 28 days prior to the works. For the purposes of the FM Act, dredging and reclamation works include, but are not limited to, construction of temporary crossings / side tracks, bridges, creek diversions, pipeline waterway crossings, geotechnical investigations, excavating or reclaiming the bed or banks of any waterways.

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment

Temporary minor dams (Section 7.2.4) will likely be required at a number of waterway crossings, subject to actual and forecast flows. This is anticipated to be undertaken for Class 1 and Class 2 waterways (Section 5.3.3). In accordance with Section 219 of the FM Act, a permit must first be attained from DPI Fisheries for any such works that will temporarily or permanently block fish passage. The classification of waterways in the study area was carried out in general accordance with the policy and guidelines for fish habitat conservation and management (DPI 2013). The assessment of ecological impacts assumed that any waterway crossing would be designed and built to comply with this policy.

3.2.6

Noxious Weeds Act 1993

The Noxious Weeds Act 1993 (NW Act) provides the regulatory framework for controlling weeds in NSW. The Act aims to reduce the negative impact of weeds on the economy, community and environment by establishing control mechanisms to prevent the establishment of significant new weeds; prevent, eliminate or restrict the spread of particular significant weeds; and to manage widespread significant weeds in NSW. There are five classes of noxious weeds, comprising: 

Class 1 – State Prohibited Weeds. The plant must be eradicated from the land and the land must be kept free of the plant. Control Objective: to prevent the introduction and establishment of those plants in NSW.



Class 2 – Regionally Prohibited Weeds. The plant must be eradicated from the land and the land must be kept free of the plant. Control Objective: to prevent the introduction and establishment of those plants in parts of NSW.



Class 3 – Regionally Controlled Weeds. The plant must be fully and continuously suppressed and destroyed. Control Objective: to reduce the area and the impact of those plants in parts of NSW.



Class 4 – Locally Controlled Weeds. The growth of the plant must be managed in a manner that reduces its numbers, spread and incidence and continuously inhibits its flowering and reproduction.



Class 5 – Restricted Plants. It is likely, by their sale or the sale of their seeds or other movement, to spread within or outside of NSW.

A weed that is as a Class 1, 2 or 5 noxious weed is a notifiable weed, for which the relevant officer of the Local Control Authority (Council) must be notified of their presence within three days of their detection. The plants must be controlled in order to prevent the introduction of those plants into NSW, the spread of those plants within NSW, or from NSW to another jurisdiction.

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment

METHODS

4.1

Project area

The Project area considered in this report is a 100 m wide corridor centred on Version 8 of the proposed CTRWSPP alignment (i.e. a buffer extending 50 m either side of the route). The proposed alignment is shown in Figure 1 and includes: 

Stage 1, which runs from Millthorpe to Blayney



Stage 2, which runs from Springhill to Millthorpe



Stage 3, which runs from Spring Creek Reservoir to Spring Hill



Stage 4, which runs from Orange’s Icely Road Filtration Plant to the Spring Creek Reservoir



Stage 5, which runs from Blayney to Carcoar



Stage 6, which runs from Carcoar to the Carcoar Filtration Plant



Stage 7, which runs from the Carcoar Filtration Plant to Lake Rowlands.

4.2

Taxonomic nomenclature

Scientific names of fauna used in this report follow the CSIRO List of Australian Vertebrates (Clayton et al. 2006). Scientific names of flora used in this report follow the Australian Plant Census (CHAH 2014).

4.3

Determination of significance level

The significance of ecological communities is described as per their listings in the EPBC Act, TSC Act and / or the FM Act as Critically Endangered (CE), Endangered (E) or Vulnerable (V). Listed threatened flora and fauna species are defined as those taxa listed in the EPBC Act, TSC Act and / or the FM Act as CE, E or V.

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment

4.4

Desktop assessment

Desktop searches were undertaken in October 2015 to identify known terrestrial and aquatic ecological values of the study area and surrounds. This included a review of the following:  DotE EPBC Act Protected Matters Search Tool (DotE 2015a), to identify MNES within a search area extending at least 10 km from the Project area. The search area was defined by the GDA 1994 coordinates:



–

-33.1947; 148.9989

–

-33.1947; 149.3515

–

-33.7513; 149.3515

–

-33.7513; 148.9989

NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH 2015a) Atlas of NSW Wildlife database, to identify threatened flora and fauna records within a search area extending at least 10 km from the Project area. The search area was defined by the GDA 1994 coordinates: –

-33.19; 149.00

–

-33.19; 149.35

–

-33.75; 149.35

–

-33.75; 149.00

The Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust NSW Flora Online Search – Rare or Threatened Australian Plants (ROTAP) species (RBGDT, 2011), to identify ROTAP records within a search area extending at least 10 km from the Project area. The search area was defined by the GDA 1994 coordinates: –

-33°12’; 149°00’

–

-33°12’; 149°21’

–

-33°45’; 149°21’

–

-33°45’; 149°00’



Department of Primary Industries (DPI) Records Viewer to identify threatened fish species records for the Lachlan River catchment and Macquarie River catchment



Murray-Darling Basin Authority Sustainable Rivers Audit 2: The ecological health of rivers in the Murray-Darling Basin at the end of the Millennium Drought (2008-2010)



DotE EPBC Act Species Profiles and Threats Database (SPRAT)



NSW OEH Threatened Species Profiles



Atlas of Living Australia



NSW OEH spatial datasets of vegetation mapping



DPI Noxious Weed database to identify noxious weeds declared for the Orange and Blayney LGAs.

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment

4.5

Field survey

Desktop investigations were used to plan targeted field surveys along the alignment. Table 1 provides a summary of flora, fauna and aquatic habitat assessment sites visited over the survey period 2-7 November 2015. These sites are also identified in Figure 4 Map 1-12. Table 2 Location and method for each survey site in the Project area Site

Vegetation assessment

Targeted flora searches

OC-0.1



OC-4.7



Fauna habitat assessment

Aquatic habitat assessment



OC-5.5



OC-7.0



OC-9.0 OC-25.2



OC-34.2



OC-39.8



OC-41.2



BS-0.8



BS-1.4



OC-48.9



OC-49.7



OC-50.3



OC-52.5



OC-53.7



OC-54.5



OC-55.0



OC-55.5



OC-57.4



S7-0.8



S7-1.7



TOTAL

4.5.1

Survey timing

The ecological survey was conducted during spring from 2-7 November 2015. Conditions at the time of survey were wet, with moderate daytime temperatures and cool overnight temperatures (Figure 2). The mean minimum and maximum temperatures during the six days of survey were 12.1 °C and 21.0 °C, respectively. Stream flows ranged from low flow in the Belubula River, moderate flow in Gosling Creek, a tributary of Spring Creek Reservoir, and Spring Creek, and high flow in Coombing Creek (regulated by Lake Rowlands dam). Surface water was present in all farm dams encountered during the survey. Weather conditions at the time of survey were suitable for surveying a diversity of fauna, though with the focus being on habitat attributes to infer habitat potential throughout an entire year.

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Ecological Assessment

Figure 2 Daily rainfall, minimum and maximum temperatures at the Orange Airport meteorological station 063303 in the two months leading up to the survey

4.5.2

Terrestrial flora survey

Plant communities The NSW Vegetation Information System (VIS) Plant Community Type (PCT) Identification Tool (OEH 2012) was used to identify PCTs based on field data collected using the DECCW Vegetation Field Survey Forms â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Module 1 and 2. This tool aligns with the NSW VIS Classification (VIS Classification) database to produce a hierarchical vegetation classification of approximately 1500 NSW plant community types (OEH 2015b), derived from 99 NSW Vegetation Classes (Keith 2004) and 16 broader NSW Vegetation Formations (Keith 2004) (Figure 3).

Figure 3 NSW vegetation classification hierarchy (based on OEH 2015b)

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Ecological Assessment

Broad vegetation types (BVTs) were first reviewed using broad-scale (1:250,000) extant native vegetation mapping for the Central West and Lachlan catchments (CWLachlanCMA_CentTab2010_4163, DEC 2006) (Figure 4, Map 1-11). Aerial imagery and field-collected data were then used to refine the accuracy of vegetation mapping for an area extending 50 m either side of the alignment. This included bottom-up determination of vegetation class and formation based on PCT diagnostic information inputted into the VIS Plant Community Types Identification Tool. Inputted information included (at least) the three dominant species in each of the upper, mid and ground strata, community height and cover classes, for each assessment site. The height of the upper stratum was measured at each site using a Nikon Forestry Pro rangefinder, with height category recorded as per CSIRO (2009). The crown cover of the upper stratum was calculated using a 100m tape transect to record canopy intercepts, with cover class recorded as per CSIRO (2009, based on Walker and Hopkins 1990). The heights and cover of the mid and ground strata were estimated. Field-collected data was analysed using the VIS Classification (OEH 2012) and vegetation of the Project area consequently mapped into the most appropriate PCT (Figure 5, Map 1-12). A mapping accuracy of approximately 1:10,000 scale was adopted to capture PCTs of 0.1ha or above, aligning with the minimum patch size for Commonwealth-listed TECs known from the search area. Flora surveys were conducted from 2-7 November 2015 and comprised 17 vegetation assessment sites (rapid assessment sites), plus an additional five targeted flora survey sites. These sites are identified in Table 2 and mapped in Figure 4, Map 1-11. Rapid assessment sites involved recording the species, abundance and cover of the three most dominant species in each stratum (top, mid and ground strata). The rapid assessment also targeted rare or threatened flora species with the potential to occur in the Project area.

4.5.3

Threatened ecological communities

The desktop review identified three EECs and one TECs with potential to occur in the Project area (Section 5.1). Where the observed vegetation communities contained constituent species of an EEC or TEC, the condition thresholds described in the State and Commonwealth listing advice were referenced to determine whether the community meets the EEC or TEC status. The thresholds of relevant EECs and TECs are summarised in Table 1.

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment

Table 3 Determining factors for Threatened Ecological Communities (including Endangered Ecological Communities) known or likely to occur within the Project area Community

Conservation status TSC Act

Tablelands Basalt Forest in the Sydney Basin and South Eastern Highlands Bioregions

(Tablelands Snow Gum Grassy Woodland)

EPBC Act

As per DECCW (2010):  the site is 600-900m above sea level in the Sydney Basin or South Eastern Highlands bioregions  the site is on relatively fertile loam or clay soils derived mainly from basalt or, less commonly, alluvium, fine-grained sedimentary rocks, granites and similar substrates that produce relatively fertile soils  the vegetation is a grassy open forest or woodland, or a native grassland (where trees and shrubs have been removed)  dominated by an open eucalypt canopy of ribbon gum (Eucalyptus viminalis), narrow-leaved peppermint (E. radiata), mountain gum (E. dalrympleana subsp. dalrympleana) and / or snow gum (E. pauciflora) The community typically has an open canopy of eucalypts with sparse mid-story shrubs (e.g. Acacia melanoxylon and A. dealbata) and understory shrubs (e.g. Rubus parvifolius) and a dense groundcover of herbs and grasses, although disturbed stands may lack either or both of the woody strata.

As per OEH (2011a):  the site is 600-1400m above sea level in the South Eastern Highlands, Sydney Basin, South East Corner or NSW South Western Slopes bioregions  the site is on basalt, sediments, granite, colluvium or alluvium on valley floors, margins of frost hollows, footslopes or undulating hills.  The vegetation is an open-forest, woodland or open woodland, or a native grassland (where trees have been removed)  Dominated by snow gum (Eucalyptus pauciflora), candlebark (E. rubida), black sallee (E. stellulata) and / or ribbon gum (E. viminalis) Common shrubs include gruggly-bush (Melicytus sp.) and urn heath (Melichrus urceolatus). The ground layer is grassy, with the most common species including kangaroo grass (Themeda australis), snow-grasses (Poa spp.), spear-grasses (Austrostipa spp.) and wallaby-grasses (Rytidosperma spp.).

(Tablelands Basalt Forest)

Tablelands Snow Gum, Black Sallee, Candlebark and Ribbon Gum Grassy Woodland in the South Eastern Highlands, Sydney Basin, South East Corner and NSW South Western Slopes Bioregions

TEC / EEC determining factors

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment

Community

Conservation status TSC Act

White Box – Yellow Box – Blakely’s Red Gum Woodland

EPBC Act

As per NPWS (2002):  the site is in the NSW North Coast, New England Tableland, Nandewar, Brigalow Belt South, Sydney Basin, South Eastern Highlands or NSW South Western Slopes Bioregions; and  the understorey contains native species, or is likely to respond to assisted natural regeneration; and  White Box, Yellow Box or Blakely’s Red Gum, or a combination of these, are or were present; or  if the site is treeless, it is likely to have supported White Box, Yellow Box or Blakely’s Red Gum prior to clearing; and the site is predominantly grassy.

(Box-Gum Woodland)

White Box – Yellow Box – Blakely’s Red Gum Grassy Woodland and Derived Native Grassland (Box-Gum Grassy Woodland and Derived Grassland)

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

TEC / EEC determining factors

As per DEH (2006):  the most common overstorey species is, or was previously, White Box, Yellow Box or Blakely’s Red Gum; and  the patch is 0.1 ha or greater in size, with the patch being the larger of: – an area that contains five or more trees in which no tree is greater than 75 m from another tree, or – the area over which the understorey is predominantly native; and  the patch has a predominantly native understorey; and  there are 12 or more native understorey species present (excluding grasses), with at least one important species listed in DEH 2006b; or  if there are less than 12 native understorey species present (excluding grasses), or there is not one important species listed in DEH 2006b, the patch is 2 ha or greater in size and: – has an average of 20 or more mature trees (i.e. ≥ 125 cm DBH) per hectare; or – there is natural regeneration of the dominant overstorey eucalypts.

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment

4.5.4

Fauna habitat assessment

Fauna habitat assessment was undertaken at 11 sites in conjunction with the flora survey from 2-7 November 2015. These sites are mapped in Figure 4, Map 1-11. The locations for fauna habitat assessments were determined from the desktop review as most likely to support threatened or migratory species. At each site an approximate 1 ha search area was assessed for a range of features including:  overall condition (pristine, very good, good, average, poor, degraded, or completely degraded)  level of erosion (absent, scattered, frequent)  presence and type of disturbance (grazing etc.)  presence and accessibility of standing water  abundance (absent, scattered, common, abundant) of: - large hollows (>20 cm) - small hollows (<20cm) - large logs (>50 cm diameter) - small logs (<50cm diameter) - cliffs and rocky outcrops - large rocks (>30 cm) - small rocks (<30 cm) - leaf litter - dense grass/shrub shelter - arboreal and terrestrial termite mounds - seeding grass cover - fruiting plants - nectar and pollen producing plants -

koala food trees.

Other important habitat features, such as creek banks, connectivity etc., were also noted where relevant.

4.5.5

Fauna observations

Fauna was opportunistically surveyed at each habitat assessment site, contributing to a list of species recorded from the broader Project area (Appendix D). This opportunistic survey included morning bird chorus surveys, diurnal reptile searches, and searches for mammal tracks, scats and other traces. An Anabat detector and a baited camera trap were also deployed overnight in a gully on Section 7 of the CTRWSPP; however, no fauna were detected by these methods. Photos were obtained and site profiles were compiled for each site (Appendix B).

4.5.6

Aquatic habitat attributes

Aquatic habitat attributes were described in accordance with AusRivAS protocols for NSW streams (DEC 2004). This established a general description of the 100 m waterway reach and its immediate surrounds including topography, water level, shading, riparian vegetation composition, land use, stream width, depth, substrate composition and relative abundance, as well as a visual assessment of disturbance related to human activities.

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment

Detailed description of the aquatic habitat encountered at each of five aquatic habitat assessment sites (Figure 4, Maps 1-11) are provided as site profiles in Appendix C. Aquatic habitat sensitivity The sensitivity of affected fish habitat was assessed by both desktop and field data. In this context, ‘sensitivity’ is defined by NSW DPI (2013) by the importance of the habitat to the survival of fish (noting that ‘fish’ under the FM Act includes all aquatic invertebrates) and its resilience. Table 4 defines those habitats which are considered ‘key fish habitats’ for the purposes of the FM Act, FM Regulations, policies and guidelines. Fish habitat sensitivity rankings were also applied, to provide context to the importance of the ‘Type’ of key fish habitat encountered along the CTRWSPP alignment. Table 4 Key fish habitat and associated sensitivity classification scheme (NSW DPI 2013) Type 1 – Highly sensitive key fish habitat: 

strapweed (Posidonia australis)



Zostera, Heterozostera, Halophila and Ruppia species of seagrass beds >5m2 in area



coastal saltmarsh >5m2 in area



coral communities



coastal lakes and lagoons that have a natural opening and closing regime (i.e. are not permanently open or artificially opened or are subject to one off unauthorised openings) Marine Park, an aquatic reserve or intertidal protected area

 

  

SEPP 14 coastal wetlands, wetlands recognised under international agreements (e.g. Ramsar, JAMBA, CAMBA, ROKAMBA wetlands), wetlands listed in the Directory of Important Wetlands of Australia freshwater habitats that contain in-stream gravel beds, rocks greater than 500 mm in two dimensions, snags greater than 300 mm in diameter or 3 m in length, or native aquatic plants any known or expected protected or threatened species habitat or area of declared ‘critical habitat’ under the FM Act mound springs

Type 2 – Moderately sensitive key fish habitat: 

Zostera, Heterozostera, Halophila and Ruppia species of seagrass beds >5m2 in area



mangroves



coastal saltmarsh <5m2 in area



marine macroalgae such as Ecklonia and Sargassum species



estuarine and marine rocky reefs



coastal lakes and lagoons that are permanently open or subject to artificial opening via agreed management arrangements (e.g. managed in line with an entrance management plan) aquatic habitat within 100 m of a marine park, an aquatic reserve or intertidal protected area

   

stable intertidal sand / mud flats, coastal and estuarine sandy beaches with large populations of in-fauna freshwater habitats and brackish wetlands, lakes and lagoons other than those defined in Type 1 weir pools and dams up to full supply level where the weir or dam is across a natural waterway

Type 3 – Minimally sensitive key fish habitat, which may include:



unstable or unvegetated sand or mud substrate, coastal and estuarine sandy beaches with minimal or no in-fauna coastal and freshwater habitats not included in Types 1 or 2



ephemeral aquatic habitat not supporting native aquatic or wetland vegetation



DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment

Waterway classification Key Fish Habitat area mapping, undertaken by DPI (2007), is presented in Figure 6 and Table 11. These areas of Key Fish Habitat are defined by DPI 2007 as areas of aquatic and riparian habitat that are important to the maintenance of “fish” (including aquatic invertebrate) populations and communities and the commercial and recreational fishing industries, and which have the highest priority for being conserved and protected from potential adverse impacts associated with development. Waterways intersected by the proposed CTRWSPP alignment were further classified in accordance with NSW DPI (2013). This classification scheme factors in the functionality of the waterway as fish habitat, using indicators such as: 

hydraulic geometry (stream shape and size)



frequency of stream flows (perennial, intermittent or ephemeral)



presence of aquatic habitat units (pools, riffles, vegetation, snags)



presence of threatened or protected fish species and other native fish, and



connection to adjacent habitats (e.g. floodplain wetlands).

The waterways were classified using a combination of desktop (aerial imagery and drainage mapping), supplemented by field data where available (Appendix C). Waterway class is used to assess the impacts of activities on fish habitats in conjunction with the habitat sensitivity Type. The waterway class scheme is used in this report to guide impact mitigation measures to minimise impacts on different fish habitats (Section 7.2). Table 5 Classification of waterways for fish passage (NSW DPI 2013) Classification Class 1 Major key fish habitat Class 2 Moderate key fish habitat Class 3 Minimal key fish habitat Class 4 Unlikely key fish habitat

Characteristics of waterway class Marine or estuarine waterway or permanently flowing or flooded freshwater waterway (e.g. river or major creek), habitat of a threatened or protected fish species or ‘critical habitat’. Non-permanently flowing (intermittent) stream, creek or waterway (generally names) with clearly defined bed and banks with semi-permanent to permanent waters in pools or in connected wetlands areas. Freshwater aquatic vegetation is present. Type 1 and 2 habitats present. Named or unnamed waterway with intermittent flow and sporadic refuge, breeding or feeding areas for aquatic fauna (e.g. fish, yabbies). Semi-permanent pools form within the waterway or adjacent wetlands after a rain event. Otherwise, any minor waterway that interconnects with wetlands or other Class 1-3 fish habitats. Waterway (generally unnamed) with intermittent flow following rain events only, little or no defined drainage channel, little or no flow or free standing water or pools post rain events (e.g. dry gullies or shallow floodplain depressions with no aquatic flora present).

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment

4.6

Assumptions and limitations

The information presented in this report is subject to the following assumptions and limitations: 

The survey represents selected points along the CTRWSPP alignment; the entire alignment has not been surveyed for flora, fauna or ecological communities.



Ecological surveys are subject to seasonality. The survey conducted for this assessment is only representative of one season. The season was however considered ideal for detecting most threatened species, with habitat assessment used to infer potential for threatened species throughout an entire year.



This report includes a desktop assessment of readily available information which relies upon the accuracy of external data sources referenced in this document.



Field survey locations are subject to standard handheld GPS device inaccuracies (approximately 10 m).



Some of the databases used to obtain information for this report have caveats regarding the completeness of data they contain. For example, the Atlas of NSW Wildlife database is based only on recorded sightings of species, and therefore the absence of a species record in a search area does not necessarily imply that the species does not occur.



Data from the DotE Protected Matters Search are based on actual records, primarily from State Government databases, combined with modelled distributions of species according to their ecological characteristics. Species identified by this search may occur in the study site, but require further investigation to confirm their presence.



As the presence or otherwise of a particular fauna species within the site can only be confirmed by detailed targeted field surveys, the precautionary principle has been applied throughout this assessment. A species is considered likely to occur in the Project site if it was recorded in database searches for the region and vegetation mapping and field surveys indicated that preferred habitat for the species is available, based on existing knowledge of the species’ ecological requirements.

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment

EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

The CTRWSPP falls within the northern extent of the South Eastern Highlands Bioregion, which occupies approximately 6.11% of NSW (OEH 2011b) and extends just inland from the coastal bioregions of the South East Corner and the Sydney Basin, bounded by the Australian Alps and South Western Slopes bioregion to the south and west. The proposed pipeline route transects, or lies adjacent to, a variety of land tenures and uses, including: 

freehold and / or leasehold land, used primarily for grazing and dryland cropping



reserves such as road reserves and stock routes



other infrastructure easements (electricity, gas, telecommunications)



wildlife refuges (Section 3.2.3).

5.1

Terrestrial flora

5.1.1

Vegetation communities

The Project alignment intersects, or passes within 50 m of a mosaic of broad open grazed and cropped farmlands, woodland and native grassland remnants, native and exotic landscape plantings, plantation pine, as well as roadside plantings and woodland regrowth. Past clearing, pasture improvement, livestock grazing, earthworks, exotic plantings, roadside vegetation management and weed invasion have impacted and influenced the vegetation across the Project area and have substantially removed much of the native composition and floristic structure from the landscape. The Project area is strongly dominated by agricultural pasturelands and associated grasslands. DEC (2006) mapping, prepared at a coarse scale of 1:250,000, recognises seven BVTs intersected by the alignment (Figure 4, Map 1-11), comprising: 

Blakely’s Red Gum – Yellow Box open-woodland of the tablelands



Apple Box – Yellow Box – Mountain Gum open-woodland on flats and low hills of the central tablelands



natural grassland and shrubland



unclassified vegetation



water



wetlands



cleared land.

Patches of grassy open woodland contain various proportions of yellow box (Eucalyptus melliodora), white box (E. albens), Blakely’s red gum (E. blakelyi), ribbon gum (E. viminalis), apple box (E. bridgesiana), bundy (E. goniocalyx), white sally (E. pauciflora), broad-leaved peppermint (E. dives) and red stringybark (E. macrorhyncha). These patches are the remnants of original box-gum woodland. Across the majority of the Project area, the native understorey of these box-gum remnants has been displaced by exotic pasture species and a long history of grazing; however, a number of these remnants contain sufficient floristic structure to still be representative of the box-gum woodland EEC listed under the TSC Act and / or TEC listed under the EPBC Act.

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment

Field surveys and examination of aerial imagery identified two PCTs within the ROW of the CTRWSPP including:  Yellow Box – Blakely’s Red Gum grassy woodland on the tablelands, South Eastern Highlands Bioregion (approximately 8.86 ha, Table 5)  Apple Box – Yellow Box dry grassy woodland of the South Eastern Highlands Bioregion (approximately 0.24 ha, Table 5) The extent of these PCTs within the Project area is shown in Figure 5, Maps 1-11. Table 6 indicates the location and approximately extent of each PCT patch affected by the ROW. These PCTs can represent both EECs and TECs. Whether or not a PCT is also an EEC or TEC is based on size, formation and floristics structure criteria established by DECCW (2010), OEH (2015), NPWS (2002) and DEH (2006), which is summarised in Table 3. The impacts of the Project on EECs and TECs is discussed further in Section 6.1. However, only a small proportion (0.31 ha or 7.5%) of the PCTs falling within the ROW represent an EEC and / or TEC (Table 5). In addition to PCTs, the following features were identified within or adjacent to the ROW (Figure 5, Maps 1-11):  lacustrine wetlands  riverine wetlands  landscape plantings, dominated by natives  landscape plantings, dominated by exotics  plantation pine. Detailed descriptions of representative vegetation communities encountered within or adjacent to the CTRWSPP alignment are provided as site profiles presented as Appendix A.

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment

Table 6 Plant Community Types within the pipeline ROW (20m wide corridor) KP range

Area (ha) (20m ROW)^

PCT

OC-4.5 to 4.7

0.18

Yellow Box – Blakely’s Red Gum grassy woodland on the tablelands, South Eastern Highlands Bioregion

OC-39.8 to 39.9

0.20

Yellow Box – Blakely’s Red Gum grassy woodland on the tablelands, South Eastern Highlands Bioregion

OC-40.2 to 40.5

0.55

Yellow Box – Blakely’s Red Gum grassy woodland on the tablelands, South Eastern Highlands Bioregion

OC-41.0 to 41.4

0.57

Yellow Box – Blakely’s Red Gum grassy woodland on the tablelands, South Eastern Highlands Bioregion

BS-0.2 to 0.4

0.31

BS-0.7 to 0.9

0.35

Yellow Box – Blakely’s Red Gum grassy woodland on the tablelands, South Eastern Highlands Bioregion Yellow Box – Blakely’s Red Gum grassy woodland on the tablelands, South Eastern Highlands Bioregion

BS-1.4 to 1.5

0.027

OC-49.6 to 49.8

0.33

Yellow Box – Blakely’s Red Gum grassy woodland on the tablelands, South Eastern Highlands Bioregion Yellow Box – Blakely’s Red Gum grassy

Description Tall grassy woodland dominated by apple box (E. bridgesiana) on northern and western side of hill and by ribbon gum (E. viminalis) on eastern and southern sides (Appendix A). Tall open grassy woodland dominated by yellow box (E. melliodora) and apple box (E. bridgesiana), with rare occurrence of white sally (E. pauciflora) (Appendix A). Tall open grassy woodland dominated by yellow box (E. melliodora), ribbon gum (E. viminalis) and apple box (E. bridgesiana), with occasional Blakely’s red gum (E. blakelyi) – based on aerial photo interpretation. Tall grassy woodland dominated by ribbon gum (E. viminalis), with frequent apple box (E. bridgesiana) and occasional Blakely’s red gum (E. blakelyi) (Appendix A). Tall grassy woodland dominated by Blakely’s red gum (E. blakelyi) – based on aerial photo interpretation. Tall grassy woodland dominated by Blakely’s red gum (E. blakelyi), with abundant yellow box (E. melliodora), and occasional broad-leaved peppermint (E. dives) and red stringybark (E. macrorhyncha) (Appendix A). Tall open grassy woodland comprised of Blakely’s red gum (Eucalyptus blakelyi) (Appendix A). Tall open grassy woodland dominated by Blakely’s

Conservation status TSC Act EPBC Act -

EEC

TEC*

EEC

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment

KP range

Area (ha) (20m ROW)^

PCT woodland on the tablelands, South Eastern Highlands Bioregion

OC-53.6 to 54.2

1.22

Yellow Box – Blakely’s Red Gum grassy woodland on the tablelands, South Eastern Highlands Bioregion

OC-54.3 to 54.8

0.97

Yellow Box – Blakely’s Red Gum grassy woodland on the tablelands, South Eastern Highlands Bioregion

OC-55.3 to 55.7

0.88

Yellow Box – Blakely’s Red Gum grassy woodland on the tablelands, South Eastern Highlands Bioregion

OC-56.9 to 58.0

1.51

Description red gum (E. blakelyi), with occasional yellow box (E. melliodora) and red stringybark (E. macrorhyncha) (Appendix A). Tall open grassy woodland dominated by bundy (E. goniocalyx) and yellow box (E. melliodora), with occasional Blakely’s red gum (E. blakelyi) and white box (E. albens) (Appendix A). Tall open grassy woodland dominated by bundy (E. goniocalyx) and yellow box (E. melliodora), with occasional Blakely’s red gum (E. blakelyi) and white box (E. albens) – based on aerial photo interpretation. Very sparse tall grassy woodland dominated by white box (E. albens), with occasional yellow box (E. melliodora) and apple box (E. bridgesiana) (Appendix A). Tall open grassy woodland dominated by white box (E. albens), with occasional yellow box (E. melliodora) (Appendix A) Tall open grassy woodland dominated by yellow box (E. melliodora), with abundant bundy (E. goniocalyx) (Appendix A).

Yellow Box – Blakely’s Red Gum grassy woodland on the tablelands, South Eastern Highlands Bioregion S7-0.1 to 1.3 2.54 Yellow Box – Blakely’s Red Gum grassy woodland on the tablelands, South Eastern Highlands Bioregion S7-1.5 to 1.8 0.59 Apple Box – Yellow Box dry grassy Medium grassy woodland dominated by white box woodland of the South Eastern Highlands (Eucalyptus albens), with yellow box (E. Bioregion melliodora) nearby (Appendix A). Notes: KP = Kilometre Point or chainage * Although not yet proven, the precautionary principle has been applied in assuming that this patch is a TEC. ^ Assumes impact area of up to 20 m width.

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Conservation status TSC Act EPBC Act

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Ecological Assessment

Figure 4 Existing vegetation mapping

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Main W estern Railwa y

ORANGE

A32

Spring Hill Millthorpe

LGA

ORANGE CITY March

ad Ro hir p O

Street

Bowen

Blayney

Carcoar

-0 OC

Winte r Stre et

A41

Orange Station

Icely Roa d

Icley Road Filtration Plant

OC-0.1

Ice

Piesele y Stree t

-1 OC

ly R oad

HI G HW AY Orange General Cemetery

Orang e - Bro ken Hill Railwa y

-2 OC

Glenroi Orange Trotting and Go-Kart Tracks

Orange South -4 OC

Sir Jack Brabham Park

-3 OC

s Roa

d Dairy

Main Western Railway

E:\Projects\100243 Orange to Carcoar Pipeline (DPM)\FIGURES\100243 F4a Existing Vegetation Mapping - Map 1 08 02 2016 TO ENVIRONMENT D E S I G N & H E R I TAG E

Blowe

ad Ro

Fo re st Ro ad

ley

Creek

Road

Steele

s Roa d

OC-4.7

-5 OC

Pipeline alignment National Park and Wildlife Estate State Forest Highway

Spring Creek Filtration Plant

Main Road Minor Road

Calton Road

loomfield

DPM Envirosciences does not warrant the accuracy or completeness of information displayed in this map and any person using it does so at their own risk. DPM Envirosciences shall bear no responsibility or liability for any errors, faults, defects, or omissions in the information

Railway Waterway OC-5

Kilometre point

OC-5.5

Fauna survey site Flora survey site Aquatic survey site Broad Vegetation Type Apple Box - Yellow Box - Mountain Gum open-woodland on flats and low hills of the central tablelands

tle

Blakely's Red Gum - Yellow Box open-woodland of the tablelands

Natural grassland & shrubland Red Stringybark - Blakely's Red Gum - Yellow Box woodland

-6 OC

Spring Creek Reservoir

Unclassified Cleared 0

1km

EXISTING VEGETATION MAPPING - MAP 1 Ecological Assessment Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project

FIGURE 4

-6 OC

Hu ey ntl

A32

Spring Hill

Millthorpe

Spring Creek Reservoir

Blayney

LGA

Carcoar

ORANGE CITY

A41

-7 OC

Bargw

anna

Road

OC-7.0

Spring Creek Reservoir -8 OC

wann

a Ro

ay tern Railw Main Wes

oad

R Huntley

-9 OC

Sprin

-10 OC

r te es W

Huntle y Road

Road

ain

Pipeline alignment National Park and Wildlife Estate

n ay ilw Ra

ENVIRONMENT D E S I G N & H E R I TAG E

Buttle

E:\Projects\100243 Orange to Carcoar Pipeline (DPM)\FIGURES\100243 F4 Existing Vegetation Mapping - Map 2 08 02 2016 TO

g Cre

Barg

OC-9.0

State Forest Highway Main Road Minor Road

Hiney

Railway

Road

Waterway OC-5

Kilometre point Fauna survey site

Capps Lane

Flora survey site Aquatic survey site Broad Vegetation Type Apple Box - Yellow Box - Mountain Gum open-woodland on flats and low hills of the central tablelands Blakely's Red Gum - Yellow Box open-woodland of the tablelands Natural grassland & shrubland Red Stringybark - Blakely's Red Gum - Yellow Box woodland Unclassified

Cully

Cleared 0

-11 OC

Road

1km

EXISTING VEGETATION MAPPING - MAP 2 Ecological Assessment Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project

FIGURE 4

Mine R o

ORANGE

Phoen ix

A32

Spring Hill Millthorpe

Huntley

Blayney

Carcoar A41

Blunt

-12

tley

Hun Huntle

Roa

LGA

Road

ORANGE CITY

y Roa

Road

May R

-13

-14

rome

Aerod

Gand

Road

er Ro

Wrigh t

ORANGE AIRPORT

ay ilw Ra

Road

Aerod

n ter es W in Ma

rome

oad

Forest Road

Forest Road OC

Fores

t Road

-16

Davis

Road

E:\Projects\100243 Orange to Carcoar Pipeline (DPM)\FIGURES\100243 F4 Existing Vegetation Mapping - Map 3 18 11 2015 TO ENVIRONMENT D E S I G N & H E R I TAG E

-15

LGA

Pipeline alignment

CABONNE

Strac han R oad

National Park and Wildlife Estate State Forest Highway Main Road Minor Road Railway Waterway Kilometre point

Road

Fauna survey site Flora survey site Aquatic survey site Broad Vegetation Type Apple Box - Yellow Box - Mountain Gum open-woodland on flats and low hills of the central tablelands

Davis

OC-5

Blakely's Red Gum - Yellow Box open-woodland of the tablelands Natural grassland & shrubland Red Stringybark - Blakely's Red Gum - Yellow Box woodland Unclassified Cleared 0

1km

EXISTING VEGETATION MAPPING - MAP 3 Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project New South Wales

FIGURE 4

A32

Spring Hill Millthorpe

Blayney

Carcoar A41

t Road

-17

rpe Ro ad

Fores

Milltho

Buckin bah R oad Spring Hill Reservoir

LGA

ORANGE CITY

Carco

ay ailw

rn R

Spring Hill Public School

te Wes

ar Stre et

Main

Spring Hill

-18

Chapm

an Ro

ad OC

Whiley

-19

Street

ar Stre et

-20

-21

rpe

ltho

Carco

Mil ad Ro OC

LGA

-22

CABONNE e orp lth Mil ad Ro

Pipeline alignment

estern R Main W

National Park and Wildlife Estate State Forest Highway Main Road Minor Road Railway

ailway

ENVIRONMENT D E S I G N & H E R I TAG E

E:\Projects\100243 Orange to Carcoar Pipeline (DPM)\FIGURES\100243 F5 Existing Vegetation Mapping - Map 4 26 11 2015 TO

Chapm an Ro ad

Waterway OC-5

Kilometre point

-23

Fauna survey site Flora survey site Aquatic survey site Broad Vegetation Type Apple Box - Yellow Box - Mountain Gum open-woodland on flats and low hills of the central tablelands Blakely's Red Gum - Yellow Box open-woodland of the tablelands Natural grassland & shrubland Red Stringybark - Blakely's Red Gum - Yellow Box woodland

Spring Terrace

Unclassified Cleared 0

1km

EXISTING VEGETATION MAPPING - MAP 4 Ecological Assessment Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project

FIGURE 4

Millthorpe

ORANGE

A32

Road

Spring Hill

LGA

ORANGE CITY

LGA

BLAYNEY

Millthorpe

Blayney

Carcoar A41

-24

Ma ern est in W ay ilw Ra

-25

oad

ria R

Millthope Cemetery

tto e-Vi orp

Mill

OC-25.2 Redmond Oval

Millthorpe Forest Reefs Road

E:\Projects\100243 Orange to Carcoar Pipeline (DPM)\FIGURES\100243 F6 Existing Vegetation Mapping - Map 5 26 11 2015 TO

Millthorpe Reservoir

-27

ad Nyes Gate Ro

Clayto

n Lane

Nyes

Gate

Road

Smith

Pipeline alignment

s Lane

National Park and Wildlife Estate State Forest Highway

Main Road Minor Road Railway Waterway OC-5

Kilometre point Fauna survey site Flora survey site

-28

n Railway Main Wester

ENVIRONMENT D E S I G N & H E R I TAG E

-26

Aquatic survey site Broad Vegetation Type Apple Box - Yellow Box - Mountain Gum open-woodland on flats and low hills of the central tablelands Blakely's Red Gum - Yellow Box open-woodland of the tablelands Natural grassland & shrubland Red Stringybark - Blakely's Red Gum - Yellow Box woodland Unclassified Cleared 0

1km

EXISTING VEGETATION MAPPING - MAP 5 Ecological Assessment Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project

FIGURE 4

A32

-27 OC

Spring Hill Millthorpe

Blayney

Carcoar A41

in Ma s We

LGA

BLAYNEY

wa ail

nR ter

llth

-30 OC

or pe Ro ad Womb ia

na Lan e

-31 OC

y Railwa estern Main W

-33 OC

or th ill

Pipeline alignment National Park and Wildlife Estate State Forest

pe Ro

Highway

Main Road Minor Road Railway Waterway OC-5

Suga

Kilometre point

-34 OC

rloaf

Fauna survey site Flora survey site

k Cree

ENVIRONMENT D E S I G N & H E R I TAG E

E:\Projects\100243 Orange to Carcoar Pipeline (DPM)\FIGURES\100243 F4 Existing Vegetation Mapping - Map 6 08 02 2016 TO

-32 OC

Aquatic survey site Broad Vegetation Type Apple Box - Yellow Box - Mountain Gum open-woodland on flats and low hills of the central tablelands

-34 OC

Blakely's Red Gum - Yellow Box open-woodland of the tablelands Natural grassland & shrubland Red Stringybark - Blakely's Red Gum - Yellow Box woodland

OC-34.2

Unclassified Cleared 0

1km

EXISTING VEGETATION MAPPING - MAP 6 Ecological Assessment Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project

FIGURE 4

A32

OC-34.2

Spring Hill

-35 OC

Millthorpe

Blayney

Carcoar

-35 OC

oir C

t Abba

A41

reek

Browns Creek Reservoir

Brown s Cree k Road -36 OC

LGA

Gays L ane

Ma in W est er

BLAYNEY

nR ailw ay

Palme r Stree t

-37 OC

Blayney

Ro ad

Plumb Street Reservoir

Plumb

Street

Blayney High School

-38 OC

McKenzies Flat Creek

King George VI Oval

ENVIRONMENT D E S I G N & H E R I TAG E

TE R M

y-D

-39 OC

n mo

ay ilw Ra

e rill

HI G

HW AY

E:\Projects\100243 Orange to Carcoar Pipeline (DPM)\FIGURES\100243 F8 Existing Vegetation Mapping - Map 7 08 02 2016 TO

Blayney Tourist Park

Bl Pipeline alignment National Park and Wildlife Estate State Forest Highway Main Road

OC-39.8

Minor Road Railway Waterway OC-5

-40 OC

Kilometre point Fauna survey site Flora survey site Aquatic survey site Broad Vegetation Type Apple Box - Yellow Box - Mountain Gum open-woodland on flats and low hills of the central tablelands Blakely's Red Gum - Yellow Box open-woodland of the tablelands Natural grassland & shrubland Red Stringybark - Blakely's Red Gum - Yellow Box woodland Unclassified Cleared

1km

EXISTING VEGETATION MAPPING - MAP 7 Ecological Assessment Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project

FIGURE 4

A32

Spring Hill Millthorpe

Blayney

Carcoar

-41 OC

A41

Bla yn ey -D em on dri lle Ra ilw ay

OC-41.2

-42 OC

LGA

BLAYNEY

McKenzies

Waterhole s Creek

-43 OC

ENVIRONMENT D E S I G N & H E R I TAG E

E:\Projects\100243 Orange to Carcoar Pipeline (DPM)\FIGURES\100243 F9 Existing Vegetation Mapping - Map 8 08 02 2016 TO

-44 OC

Carcoar Lake

Pipeline alignment National Park and Wildlife Estate State Forest Highway Main Road Minor Road Railway Waterway OC-5

Kilometre point Fauna survey site Flora survey site Aquatic survey site Broad Vegetation Type Apple Box - Yellow Box - Mountain Gum open-woodland on flats

Carcoar Lake

and low hills of the central tablelands Blakely's Red Gum - Yellow Box open-woodland of the tablelands Natural grassland & shrubland Red Stringybark - Blakely's Red Gum - Yellow Box woodland Unclassified Cleared 0

1km

EXISTING VEGETATION MAPPING - MAP 8 Ecological Assessment Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project

FIGURE 4

A32

Spring Hill Millthorpe

Bla yne y-D em ond rille Ra ilw ay

Blayney

Carcoar A41

LGA

BLAYNEY

-45 OC

W AY

Backhouse Spurline

BS-2

ENVIRONMENT D E S I G N & H E R I TAG E

-46 OC

Coldwater Creek BS-1

BS-0.8

Central Tablelands Livestock

-47 OC

Road

-48 OC

Carco ar Dam

E:\Projects\100243 Orange to Carcoar Pipeline (DPM)\FIGURES\100243 F10 Existing Vegetation Mapping - Map 9 08 02 2016 TO

BS-1.4

-49 OC

Pipeline alignment National Park and Wildlife Estate State Forest Highway Main Road

OC-48.9

Minor Road Railway Waterway OC-5

Kilometre point Fauna survey site Flora survey site Aquatic survey site Broad Vegetation Type

Fullers

Apple Box - Yellow Box - Mountain Gum open-woodland on flats

Lane

1km

EXISTING VEGETATION MAPPING - MAP 9 Ecological Assessment Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project

FIGURE 4

A32

ilw ay

Spring Hill

Carcoar

Bl ay ne yDe

Blayney

on dr il l e

Millthorpe

Be lub ula

Ri ve

A41

LGA

BLAYNEY OC-48.9 -49 OC

OC-49.7 -50 OC

OC-50.3

Rothery

Creek School

-51 OC

Street

Carcoar Carcoar Reservoir

-52 OC

Naylor

Belub

ula Riv

-53 OC

Pipeline alignment National Park and Wildlife Estate State Forest

er L

Highway Main Road

ane

ENVIRONMENT D E S I G N & H E R I TAG E

OC-52.5

timb Fell

E:\Projects\100243 Orange to Carcoar Pipeline (DPM)\FIGURES\100243 F11 Existing Vegetation Mapping - Map 10 08 02 2016 TO

Street

Icely S treet

Minor Road

OC-53.7

Railway Waterway OC-5

Kilometre point Fauna survey site Flora survey site

-54 OC

OC-54.5

1km

EXISTING VEGETATION MAPPING - MAP 10 Ecological Assessment Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project

FIGURE 4

A32

-54

Spring Hill Millthorpe

Blayney

OC-54.5 Carcoar A41

OC-55.0

-55

LGA

BLAYNEY

OC-55.5

-56

Mount Macquarie State Forest

bin

-57

ree

OC-57.4 S7-1

S7-2

ENVIRONMENT D E S I G N & H E R I TAG E

S7-0.8

Carcoar Filtration Plant

bin

ree

S7-3

Bald Hill

Fell Timber Road

Pipeline alignment

E:\Projects\100243 Orange to Carcoar Pipeline (DPM)\FIGURES\100243 F12 Existing Vegetation Mapping - Map 11 30 11 2015 TO Rev A

S7-1.7

National Park and Wildlife Estate

S7-4

State Forest Highway Main Road Minor Road Railway Waterway OC-5

1km

EXISTING VEGETATION MAPPING - MAP 11 Ecological Assessment Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project

FIGURE 4

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Ecological Assessment

Figure 5 Ground-truthed vegetation mapping

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Main W estern Railwa y

ORANGE

A32

Spring Hill Millthorpe

LGA

ORANGE CITY March

ad Ro hir p O

Street

Bowen

Blayney

Carcoar

-0 OC

Winte r Stre et

A41

Orange Station

Icely Roa d

Icley Road Filtration Plant

OC-0.1

Ice

Piesele y Stree t

-1 OC

ly R oad

HI G HW AY Orange General Cemetery

Orang e - Bro ken Hill Railwa y

-2 OC

Glenroi Orange Trotting and Go-Kart Tracks

Orange South -4 OC

Sir Jack Brabham Park

-3 OC

s Roa

d Dairy

Main Western Railway

E:\Projects\100243 Orange to Carcoar Pipeline (DPM)\FIGURES\100243 F5 Plant community Types - Map 1 08 02 2016 TO

Creek

Road

Steele

s Roa d

OC-4.7 Pipeline alignment National Park and Wildlife Estate State Forest

-5 OC

Highway Main Road Minor Road Railway

Spring Creek Filtration Plant

Waterway Kilometre point

Calton Road

OC-5

Fauna survey site Flora survey site Aquatic survey site

OC-5.5

Plant Community Type Apple Box - Yellow Box dry grassy woodland of the South Eastern Highlands Bioregion Yellow Box - Blakely's Red Gum grass woodland on the

tablelands, South Eastern Highlands Bioregion

tle

Features

Landscape plantings, dominated by natives

Landscape plantings, dominated by exotics

-6 OC

Plantation Pine

Spring Creek Reservoir

Lacustrine Wetland Riverine Wetland 0

1km

H E R I TAG E

ENVIRONMENT D E S I G N & H E R I TAG E

Blowe

ad Ro

Fo re st Ro ad

ley

loomfield

GROUND-TRUTHED VEGETATION MAPPING - MAP 1 Ecological Assessment Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project

FIGURE 5

-6 OC

Hu ey ntl

A32

Spring Hill

Millthorpe

Spring Creek Reservoir

Blayney

LGA

Carcoar

ORANGE CITY

A41

-7 OC

Bargw

anna

Road

OC-7.0

Spring Creek Reservoir -8 OC

wann

a Ro

ay tern Railw Main Wes

oad

R Huntley

-9 OC

Sprin

Pipeline alignment National Park and Wildlife Estate State Forest

-10 OC

r te es W

Huntle y Road

Road

ain

Highway Main Road

n ay ilw Ra

ENVIRONMENT D E S I G N & H E R I TAG E

Buttle

E:\Projects\100243 Orange to Carcoar Pipeline (DPM)\FIGURES\100243 F5 Plant Community Types - Map 2 08 02 2016 TO

g Cre

Barg

OC-9.0

Minor Road Railway Waterway OC-5

Kilometre point

Hiney

Fauna survey site

Road

Flora survey site Aquatic survey site Plant Community Type

Capps Lane

Apple Box - Yellow Box dry grassy woodland of the South Eastern Highlands Bioregion Yellow Box - Blakely's Red Gum grass woodland on the tablelands, South Eastern Highlands Bioregion Features Landscape plantings, dominated by natives

-11 OC

Landscape plantings, dominated by exotics Plantation Pine Lacustrine Wetland

Cully

Riverine Wetland 0

Road

1km

GROUND-TRUTHED VEGETATION MAPPING - MAP 2 Ecological Assessment Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project

FIGURE 5

Mine R o

ORANGE

Phoen ix

A32

Spring Hill Millthorpe

Huntley

Blayney

Carcoar A41

Blunt

-12

tley

Hun Huntle

Roa

LGA

Road

ORANGE CITY

y Roa

Road

May R

-13

-14

rome

Aerod

Gand

Road

er Ro

Wrigh t

ORANGE AIRPORT

ay ilw Ra

Road

Aerod

n ter es W in Ma

rome

oad

Forest Road

Forest Road OC

-15

t Road

Davis

E:\Projects\100243 Orange to Carcoar Pipeline (DPM)\FIGURES\100243 F5 Plant Community Types - Map 3 27 11 2015 TO ENVIRONMENT D E S I G N & H E R I TAG E

Fores

-16

Road

LGA

CABONNE

Pipeline alignment National Park and Wildlife Estate State Forest Highway

Strac han R oad

Main Road Minor Road Railway Waterway OC-5

Kilometre point Fauna survey site Flora survey site Aquatic survey site

Road

Plant Community Type Apple Box - Yellow Box dry grassy woodland of the

Davis

South Eastern Highlands Bioregion Yellow Box - Blakely's Red Gum grass woodland on the tablelands, South Eastern Highlands Bioregion Features Landscape plantings, dominated by natives Landscape plantings, dominated by exotics Plantation Pine Lacustrine Wetland Riverine Wetland 0

1km

GROUND-TRUTHED VEGETATION MAPPING - MAP 3 Ecological Assessment Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project

FIGURE 5

A32

Spring Hill Millthorpe

Blayney

Carcoar A41

t Road

-17

rpe Ro ad

Fores

Milltho

Buckin bah R oad Spring Hill Reservoir

LGA

ORANGE CITY

Carco

ay ailw

rn R

Spring Hill Public School

te Wes

ar Stre et

Main

Spring Hill

-18

Chapm

an Ro

ad OC

Whiley

-19

Street

ar Stre et

-20

-21

rpe

ltho

Carco

Mil ad Ro OC

LGA

-22

CABONNE e orp lth Mil ad Ro

Pipeline alignment National Park and Wildlife Estate State Forest Highway

estern R Main W

Main Road Minor Road Railway Waterway OC-5

Kilometre point Fauna survey site

ailway

ENVIRONMENT D E S I G N & H E R I TAG E

E:\Projects\100243 Orange to Carcoar Pipeline (DPM)\FIGURES\100243 F5 Plant Community Types - Map 4 27 11 2015 TO

Chapm an Ro ad

Flora survey site Aquatic survey site

-23

Plant Community Type Apple Box - Yellow Box dry grassy woodland of the South Eastern Highlands Bioregion Yellow Box - Blakely's Red Gum grass woodland on the tablelands, South Eastern Highlands Bioregion Features

Spring Terrace

Landscape plantings, dominated by natives Landscape plantings, dominated by exotics Plantation Pine Lacustrine Wetland Riverine Wetland 0

1km

GROUND-TRUTHED VEGETATION MAPPING - MAP 4 Ecological Assessment Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project

FIGURE 5

Millthorpe

ORANGE

A32

Road

Spring Hill

LGA

ORANGE CITY

LGA

BLAYNEY

Millthorpe

Blayney

Carcoar A41

-24

Ma ern est in W ay ilw Ra

-25

oad

ria R

Millthope Cemetery

tto e-Vi orp

Mill

OC-25.2 Redmond Oval

Millthorpe Forest Reefs Road

-26

Clayto

n Lane

Pipeline alignment

Nyes

National Park and Wildlife Estate

SmitState hs LForest ane

Gate

Road

Highway

Main Road Minor Road Railway

Waterway OC-5

Kilometre point Fauna survey site Flora survey site Aquatic survey site Plant Community Type Apple Box - Yellow Box dry grassy woodland of the

-28

n Railway Main Wester

ENVIRONMENT D E S I G N & H E R I TAG E

-27

ad Nyes Gate Ro

E:\Projects\100243 Orange to Carcoar Pipeline (DPM)\FIGURES\100243 F5 Plant Community Types - Map 5 27 11 2015 TO

Millthorpe Reservoir

1km

GROUND-TRUTHED VEGETATION MAPPING - MAP 5 Ecological Assessment Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project

FIGURE 5

A32

-27 OC

Spring Hill Millthorpe

Blayney

Carcoar A41

in Ma s We

LGA

BLAYNEY

wa ail

nR ter

llth

-30 OC

or pe Ro ad Womb ia

na Lan e

-31 OC

y Railwa estern Main W

-33 OC

Pipeline alignment National Park and Wildlife Estate State Forest

or th ill

Highway Main Road

Minor Road

Railway

Waterway OC-5

Kilometre point Fauna survey site Flora survey site

Suga

Aquatic survey site

-34 OC

rloaf

Plant Community Type Apple Box - Yellow Box dry grassy woodland of the

k Cree

ENVIRONMENT D E S I G N & H E R I TAG E

E:\Projects\100243 Orange to Carcoar Pipeline (DPM)\FIGURES\100243 F5 Plant Community Types - Map 6 08 02 2016 TO

-32 OC

South Eastern Highlands Bioregion Yellow Box - Blakely's Red Gum grass woodland on the

-34 OC

tablelands, South Eastern Highlands Bioregion Features Landscape plantings, dominated by natives Landscape plantings, dominated by exotics Plantation Pine

OC-34.2

Lacustrine Wetland Riverine Wetland 0

1km

GROUND-TRUTHED VEGETATION MAPPING - MAP 6 Ecological Assessment Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project

FIGURE 5

A32

OC-34.2

Spring Hill

-35 OC

Millthorpe

Blayney

Carcoar

-35 OC

oir C

t Abba

A41

reek

Browns Creek Reservoir

Brown s Cree k Road -36 OC

LGA

Gays L ane

Ma in W est er

BLAYNEY

nR ailw ay

Palme r Stree t

-37 OC

Blayney

Ro ad

Plumb Street Reservoir

Plumb

Street

Blayney High School

-38 OC

McKenzies Flat Creek

King George VI Oval

ENVIRONMENT D E S I G N & H E R I TAG E

TE R M

y-D

Pipeline alignment

-39 OC

n mo

ay ilw Ra

e rill

HI G

HW AY

E:\Projects\100243 Orange to Carcoar Pipeline (DPM)\FIGURES\100243 F5 Plant Community Types - Map7 08 02 2016 TO

Blayney Tourist Park

National Park and Wildlife Estate State Forest Highway Main Road Minor Road Railway Waterway OC-5

OC-39.8

Kilometre point Fauna survey site Flora survey site

-40 OC

Aquatic survey site Plant Community Type Apple Box - Yellow Box dry grassy woodland of the South Eastern Highlands Bioregion Yellow Box - Blakely's Red Gum grass woodland on the tablelands, South Eastern Highlands Bioregion Features Landscape plantings, dominated by natives Landscape plantings, dominated by exotics Plantation Pine Lacustrine Wetland Riverine Wetland 0

1km

GROUND-TRUTHED VEGETATION MAPPING - MAP 7 Ecological Assessment Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project

FIGURE 5

A32

Spring Hill Millthorpe

Blayney

Carcoar

-41 OC

A41

Bla yn ey -D em on dri lle Ra ilw ay

OC-41.2

-42 OC

LGA

BLAYNEY

McKenzies

Waterhole s Creek

-43 OC

ENVIRONMENT D E S I G N & H E R I TAG E

E:\Projects\100243 Orange to Carcoar Pipeline (DPM)\FIGURES\100243 F5 Plant Community Types - Map 8 08 02 2016 TO

-44 OC

Carcoar Lake

Pipeline alignment National Park and Wildlife Estate State Forest Highway Main Road Minor Road Railway Waterway OC-5

Kilometre point Fauna survey site Flora survey site Aquatic survey site Plant Community Type Apple Box - Yellow Box dry grassy woodland of the South Eastern Highlands Bioregion

Carcoar Lake

Yellow Box - Blakely's Red Gum grass woodland on the tablelands, South Eastern Highlands Bioregion Features Landscape plantings, dominated by natives Landscape plantings, dominated by exotics Plantation Pine Lacustrine Wetland Riverine Wetland 0

1km

GROUND-TRUTHED VEGETATION MAPPING - MAP 8 Ecological Assessment Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project

FIGURE 5

A32

Spring Hill Millthorpe

Bla yne y-D em ond rille Ra ilw ay

Blayney

Carcoar A41

LGA

BLAYNEY

-45 OC

W AY

Backhouse Spurline

BS-2

BS-1.4

-46 OC

ENVIRONMENT D E S I G N & H E R I TAG E

BS-0.8

Central Tablelands Livestock

-47 OC

Road

-48 OC

Pipeline alignment National Park and Wildlife Estate State Forest

Carco ar Dam

E:\Projects\100243 Orange to Carcoar Pipeline (DPM)\FIGURES\100243 F5 Plant Community Types - Map 9 08 02 2016 TO

Coldwater Creek BS-1

-49 OC

Highway Main Road Minor Road Railway Waterway

OC-48.9

OC-5

Fullers

tablelands, South Eastern Highlands Bioregion

Lane

Features Landscape plantings, dominated by natives Landscape plantings, dominated by exotics Plantation Pine Lacustrine Wetland Riverine Wetland 0

1km

GROUND-TRUTHED VEGETATION MAPPING - MAP 9 Ecological Assessment Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project

FIGURE 5

Be lu

bu la

Ri ve

ay ne yDe m

on dr ille

Ra ilw ay

LGA

BLAYNEY OC-48.9 OC

-49

OC-49.7 0 C-5

OC-50.3

Rothery

Street

School

-51

Creek

Carcoar Carcoar Reservoir

-52

Icely S

Street

treet

ula Riv

-53

Pipeline alignment National Park and Wildlife Estate State Forest Highway Main Road Minor Road

ber

Railway

e Lan

ENVIRONMENT D E S I G N & H E R I TAG E

Belub

tim Fell

E:\Projects\100243 Orange to Carcoar Pipeline (DPM)\FIGURES\100243 F5 Plant Community Types - Map 10 27 11 2015 TO

Naylor

OC-52.5

Waterway OC-5

OC-53.7

Kilometre point Fauna survey site Flora survey site Aquatic survey site Plant Community Type

Apple Box - Yellow Box dry grassy woodland of the

-54

OC-54.5

1km

GROUND-TRUTHED VEGETATION MAPPING - MAP 10 Ecological Assessment Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project

FIGURE 5

A32

-54

Spring Hill Millthorpe

Blayney

OC-54.5 Carcoar A41

OC-55.0

-55

LGA

BLAYNEY

OC-55.5

-56

Mount Macquarie State Forest

bin

-57

ree

OC-57.4 S7-1

S7-2

S7-1.7

ENVIRONMENT D E S I G N & H E R I TAG E

Carcoar Filtration Plant

S7-3

ree

Bald Hill

Fell Timber Road

Pipeline alignment

bin

National Park and Wildlife Estate

State Forest Highway

E:\Projects\100243 Orange to Carcoar Pipeline (DPM)\FIGURES\100243 F5 Plant Community Types - Map 11 30 11 2015 TO Rev A

S7-0.8

Main Road

S7-4

Minor Road Railway Waterway OC-5

Kilometre point Fauna survey site Flora survey site Aquatic survey site Plant Community Type Apple Box - Yellow Box dry grassy woodland of the South Eastern Highlands Bioregion Yellow Box - Blakely's Red Gum grass woodland on the tablelands, South Eastern Highlands Bioregion Features Landscape plantings, dominated by natives Landscape plantings, dominated by exotics Plantation Pine Lacustrine Wetland Riverine Wetland

1km

GROUND-TRUTHED VEGETATION MAPPING - MAP 1 Ecological Assessment Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project

FIGURE 5

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Ecological Assessment

5.1.2

Threatened flora

Searches of the EPBC Act Protected Matters database (DotE 2015a) and the Atlas of NSW Wildlife (OEH 2015a) identified previous records of ten threatened flora species within a search area extending at least 10 km from the Project area (Table 7). Of these, seven are listed under both the EPBC Act and TSC Act. One species is listed under the EPBC Act only, and two species are listed under the TSC Act only. No records were identified from the NSW Flora Online Search â&#x20AC;&#x201C; ROTAP (RBGDT, 2011). Seasonal conditions during the survey period 2-7 November 2015 were appropriate for the detection of a broad range of flora species, including those listed as threatened (Table 7). Preferred habitat for hoary sunray (Leucochrysum albicans var. tricolor), small purple-pea (Swainsona recta), black gum (Eucalyptus aggregata) and austral toadflax (Thesium australe) occurs within the Project area. However, despite dedicated searches, no threatened flora species were detected in the Project area during the field survey.

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline – Ecological Assessment

Table 7 Rare or threatened flora, or their habitat, identified from the search area (within at least 10 km of the proposed alignment)

Robertson’s peppermint

Eucalyptus canobolensis

Silver-leaf candlebark

Euphrasia arguta

Lepidium hyssopifolium

Aromatic peppercress

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Likelihood of occurrence within Project area

Closed grassy woodland in locally sheltered sites; on lighter soils, often on granite or quartzite (DotE 2015b). In the Orange district it is limited to a few sheltered sites in gullies and on south-facing slopes in the northern Mullion Range (Bower, Semple and Harcombe 2002).

Known only from Mt Canobolas. Found chiefly between 1100-1300 mAHD, but can occur down to 1000m and above 1300 mAHD. The species occurs predominantly in the Mt Canobolas State Recreation Area (OEH 2015c) Eucalypt forest with a mixed grass and shrub understorey within Nundle State Forest. Also in open forest country around Bathurst in sub-humid places, on the grassy country near Bathurst or more generally, in grassy areas near rivers at elevations up to 700 m ASL, with an annual rainfall of 600 mm (DotE 2015b). Woodland with a grassy understorey and grassland (OEH 2015c). In NSW, there is a small population near Bathurst, one population at Bungendore and one near Crookwell (OEH 2015c).

Unlikely. Species or species habitat ‘likely’ to occur within the broader search area (DotE 2015a). However, the nearest records of this species are north of Orange in the vicinity of Mullion Creek (OEH 2015a), well outside of the Project area. This species was not encountered within the Project area during the survey 2-7 November 2015. Unlikely. Species or species habitat ‘likely’ to occur within broader search area (DotE 2015a). However, the Project area is located below 1000 mAHD and is well removed from preferred habitat for E. canobolensis. Unlikely. Species or species habitat ‘may’ occur within the search area (DotE 2015), but hasn’t previously been recorded (OEH 2015a). The Project area is removed from the known distribution of E. arguta. Furthermore, the Project area is likely too elevated for this species to occur. Unlikely. Species or species habitat ‘may’ occur within the search area (DotE 2015a), but hasn’t previously been recorded (OEH 2015a). The Project area is well removed from the known distribution of L. hyssopifolium.

OEH 2015a

Eucalyptus robertsonii subsp. hemisphaerica

Preferred habitat

DotE 2015a

Common name

TSC Act2

Scientific name

Source

EPBC Act1

Status



Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment

Hoary sunray

Prasophyllum petilum

Tarengo Leek Orchid

Swainsona recta

Small purplepea

Eucalyptus aggregata

Black gum

Preferred habitat

Likelihood of occurrence within Project area

Grassland, woodland or forest habitats, generally on relatively heavy soils; highly dependent on the presence of bare ground for germination (OEH 2015c).

Potential. Species or species habitat ‘likely’ to occur within the search area (DotE 2015a), but hasn’t previously been recorded (OEH 2015a). A perennial everlasting daisy, detectable year round.



Open sites within Natural Temperate Grassland; also grassy woodland (OEH 2015c). Natural populations are known from only five sites in NSW: Boorowa, Captains Flats, Ilford, Delegate and Muswellbrook.



Grassy understorey of woodlands and open-forests dominated by Blakely’s red gum (E. blakelyi), yellow box (E. melliodora), candlebark (E. rubida) and bundy (E. goniocalyx); Historical records near Carcoar, Culcairn and Wagga Wagga, where it is likely now extinct (OEH 2015c). Occurs in Queenbeyan and Wellington-Mudgee area (OEH 2015c). Lowest parts of the landscape, on alluvial soils, cold, poorly-drained flats and hollows adjacent to creeks and small rivers; commonly associated with other cold-adapted eucalypts such as snow gum (E. pauciflora), ribbon gum (E. viminalis), candlebark (E. rubida), black sallee (E. stellulata) and swamp gum (E. ovata).

Unlikely. Species or species habitat ‘may’ occur within the search area (DotE 2015a), but hasn’t previously been recorded (OEH 2015a). The Project area is well removed from the known distribution of P. petilum. Potential. Species or species habitat ‘likely’ to occur within the search area (DotE 2015a), but hasn’t previously been recorded (OEH 2015a). Flowers throughout spring (OEH 2015c), aiding detectability during the scheduled field survey.

Potential. OEH (2015a) identifies an 1899 record of E. aggregata approximately 10 km south-west of Orange (accuracy of 10 km); as well as a 1975 record at Neville, approximately 10 km south-east of Carcoar (accuracy of 1 km).

OEH 2015a

Leucochrysum albicans var. tricolor

DotE 2015a

Common name

TSC Act2

Scientific name

Source

EPBC Act1

Status



DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline – Ecological Assessment

Likelihood of occurrence within Project area

Shrubland, grassland or woodland, often on damp sites (DotE 2015c); often in association with kangaroo grass (Themeda triandra) (OEH 2013a).

Natural temperate grassland and snow gum woodland on the Monaro plains; box-gum woodland in the Southern Tablelands and South West Slopes (OEH 2015c).

Potential. Species or species habitat ‘likely’ to occur within the search area (DotE 2015a), but hasn’t previously been recorded (OEH 2015a). Flowers appear in spring (OEH 2013a), aiding detectability during the scheduled field survey. Unlikely. OEH (2015a) identifies a 1926 record of S. sericea in the vicinity of the Orange township (accuracy of 10 km). This species has not been recorded from the search area in approximately 90 years. Furthermore, the Project area is outside the current accepted distribution of this species.

Common name

Thesium australe

Austral toadflax

Swainsona sericea

silky swainson-pea

OEH 2015a

Preferred habitat

Scientific name

DotE 2015a

TSC Act2

Source

EPBC Act1

Status



Notes: 1. EPBC Act = Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999; 2. TSC Act = NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995.

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment

5.1.3

Other native flora

The Atlas of NSW Wildlife identifies three threatened flora species, 37 protected flora species, 531 non-protected native flora species, and 326 exotic species within the search area. Most of these species are associated with grassy woodlands and riparian habitats common in the local area. Surveys conducted 2-7 November 2015 identified many non-protected native and exotic flora species. Flora assessments, including lists of woody species and common ground-storey species were conducted for 17 sites. The data is provided in Appendix A of this report.

5.1.4

Weeds

The Commonwealth Government recognises 32 Weeds of National Significance (WONS) across Australia, based on their: 

invasiveness and impact characteristics



potential and current area of spread



current primary industry, environmental and socio-economic impacts.

The NSW Department of Primary Industries (DPI) identifies weeds that are declared noxious under the Noxious Weeds Act 1993. For the Orange and Blayney LGAs, 121 noxious weeds are identified (Table 8), 19 of which have been recorded from the search area (OEH 2015a). Noxious weeds and WONS identified during the field survey 2-7 November 2015 include: 

African boxthorn (Lycium ferocissimum) – Class 4 noxious, WONS



Blackberry (Rubus fruticosus) – Class 4 noxious, WONS



Chilean needle grass (Nassella neesiana) – Class 4 noxious, WONS (Plate 1)



Montpellier broom (Genista monspessulana) – WONS



Scotch thistle (Onopordum acanthium) – Class 4 noxious



Serrated tussock (Nassella trichotoma) – Class 4 noxious, WONS (Plate 2)



Sweet briar (Rosa rubiginosa) – Class 4 noxious



Willows (Salix spp.) – Class 4 noxious, WONS.

None of these species are notifiable weeds (Section 3.2.6). Instead, they are locally controlled weeds, requiring that their growth be managed in a manner that continuously inhibits the ability of the plant to spread, and they must not be knowingly distributed.

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment

Plate 1 Chilean needle grass (Nassella neesiansa) (left) and seed (right), collected from site OC-57.4 on Felltimber Rd, Carcoar, 6 November 2015

Plate 2 Serrated tussock (Nassella trichotoma) (left) and seed enclosed by glumes (b), collected from site S7-1.7 between the Carcoar Filtration Plant and Lake Rowlands, 6 November 2015 Table 8 Plants declared noxious for the Orange and Blayney LGAs, including those identified from the desktop search area and surveyed Project area Scientific name

Common name

NW Act status*

National status^

WONS

Identified in search area

Identified in Project area

Both Orange and Blayney LGAs Lycium ferocissimum

African boxthorn

Cenchrus macrourus

African feather grass

Eragrostis curvula

African lovegrass

Sisymbrium runcinatum

African turnip weed

Alternanthera philoxeroides Eichhornia azurea

Alligator weed

Anchored water hyacinth

Ambrosia artemisiifolia

Annual ragweed

Sagittaria calycina var. calycina Cynara cardunculus

Arrowhead

Artichoke thistle

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

 

WONS



Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment

National status^

Identified in Project area



Common name

Asparagus spp.

Asparagus weeds

WONS

Tamarix aphylla

Athel pine

WONS

Festuca gautieri

Bear-skin fescue

Centaurea X moncktonii

Black knapweed

Salix nigra

Black willow

Rubus fruticosus

Blackberry

Chrysanthemoides monilifera monilifera Asparagus declinatus

Boneseed

Bridal veil creeper

Orobanche species

Broomrapes



Xanthium spinosum

Bathurst burr



Xanthium orientale

Californian burr

Xanthium italicum

Italian cockleburr

Xanthium occidentale

Noogoora burr

Xanthium cavanillesii

South American burr

Ambrosia confertiflora

Burr ragweed

Cabomba caroliniana

Cabomba

Genista monspessulana

Cape broom

Dolichandra unguis-cati

Cat's claw creeper

Stachytarpheta cayennensis Nassella neesiana

Cayenne snakeweed

Chilean needle grass

Asystasia gangetica subsp. micrantha Oenothera curtiflora

Chinese violet

Clockweed

Sorghum x almum

Columbus grass

Sonchus arvensis

Corn sowthistle

Cuscuta species

Dodder

Amelichloa caudata

Espartillo - broad kernel

Amelichloa brachychaeta

Espartillo - narrow kernel

Myriophyllum spicatum

Eurasian water milfoil

Cenchrus brownii

Fine-bristled burr grass

Senecio madagascariensis Genista linifolia

Fireweed

WONS

Flax-leaf broom

WONS

Cenchrus setaceus

Fountain grass

Limnobium laevigatum

Frogbit

Cenchrus biflorus

Gallon's curse

Andropogon gayanus

Gamba grass

Arundo donax

Giant reed

Carthamus leucocaulos

Glaucous starthistle

Cuscuta campestris

Golden dodder

Scolymus hispanicus

Golden thistle

Ulex europaeus

Gorse

Cestrum parqui

Green cestrum

Salix cinerea

Grey sallow / pussy

NW Act status*

Identified in search area

Scientific name

WONS

WONS WONS

WONS



WONS

 

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment

Scientific name

Common name

NW Act status*

National status^

Harrisia species

Harrisia cactus

Hieracium species

Hawkweeds

Equisetum species

Horsetails

Hydrocotyle ranunculoides Hymenachne amplexicaulis and hybrids Onopordum illyricum

Hydrocotyl

Hymenachne

Illyrian thistle

Sorghum halepense

Johnson grass

Vachellia karroo

Karroo thorn

Heteranthera reniformis

Kidney-leaf mud plantain

Bassia scoparia

Kochia

Clidemia hirta

Koster's curse

Lagarosiphon major

Lagarosiphon

Egeria densa

Leafy elodea

Phyla canescens

Lippia

Ludwigia longifolia

Long-leaf willow primrose

Prosopis species

Mesquite

Nassella tenuissima

Mexican feather grass

Argemone mexicana

Mexican poppy

Miconia species

Miconia

Mikania micrantha

Mikania vine

Mimosa pigra

Mimosa

WONS

Genista monspessulana

Montpellier broom

WONS

Cenchrus echinatus

Mossman River grass

Bryophyllum species

Mother-of-millions

Carduus nutans

Nodding thistle

Cortaderia species

Pampas grass

Parkinsonia aculeata

Parkinsonia

WONS

Parthenium hysterophorus Annona glabra

Parthenium weed

WONS

Pond apple

WONS

Vachellia nilotica

Prickly acacia

WONS

Opuntia stricta

Prickly pear - common pear Prickly pear - Hudson pear Prickly pear - smooth tree pear Prickly pear - tiger pear

WONS

Identified in search area

Identified in Project area

willow

Cylindropuntia rosea Opuntia monacantha Opuntia aurantiaca

WONS



WONS

Ligustrum lucidum

Ligustrum sinense

Privet - narrow-leaf

Oryza rufipogon

Red rice

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc



Prickly pear - velvety tree pear Privet - broad-leaf

Opuntia tomentosa

WONS

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment

Scientific name

Common name

NW Act status*

National status^

Toxicodendron succedaneum Cryptostegia grandiflora

Rhus tree

Rubber vine

WONS

Sagittaria platyphylla

Sagittaria

WONS

Salvinia molesta

Salvinia

WONS

Cytisus scoparius subsp. scoparius Onopordum acanthium

Scotch broom

WONS

Scotch thistle

Gymnocoronis spilanthoides Nassella trichotoma

Senegal tea plant

Serrated tussock

Chromolaena odorata

Siam weed

Solanum elaeagnifolium

Silverleaf nightshade

Brassica barrelieri subsp. oxyrrhina Picnomon acarna

Smooth-stemmed turnip

Soldier thistle

Cenchrus longispinus

Spiny burrgrass

Cenchrus spinifex

Spiny burrgrass

Limnobium spongia

Spongeplant

Centaurea stoebe subsp. micranthos Hypericum perforatum

Spotted knapweed

St. John's wort

Onopurdum acaulon

Stemless thistle

Rosa rubiginosa

Sweet briar

Onopurdum tauricum

Taurian thistle

Helianthus ciliaris

Texas blueweed

Solanum viarum

Tropical soda apple

Trapa species

Water caltrop

Eichhornia crassipes

Water hyacinth

Pistia stratiotes

Water lettuce

Stratiotes aloides

Water soldier

Salix spp.

Willows

Striga species

Witchweeds

Limnocharis flava

Yellow burrhead

Cyperus esculentus

Yellow nutgrass

Coolatai grass

Ailanthus altissima

Tree of heaven



Raphanus raphanistrum

Wild raddish



WONS

Identified in search area

Identified in Project area

 



WONS

 



WONS

Orange LGA only Hyparrhenia hirta

Blayney LGA only

Notes: * Species declared under the Noxious Weeds Act 1993 (NW Act); ^ Species listed as Weed of National Significance.

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment

5.2

Terrestrial fauna

Searches of the EPBC Act Protected Matters database and the Atlas of NSW Wildlife database identified the potential occurrence of 32 threatened fauna species within a search area extending at least 10 km from the CTRWSPP alignment (Table 9). Of these species, 15 are listed under both the EPBC Act and the TSC Act. The remaining 17 are listed under the TSC Act only. Ten of the fauna species identified from the search are listed as migratory under the EPBC Act. Of those species identified within the broader search area, 21 threatened fauna species and an additional five migratory species are either known or have the potential to occur within the Project area (Table 9), based on habitat assessments conducted 2-7 November 2015. A total of 81 fauna species were opportunistically detected in the Project area during the field survey 2-7 November 2015. This comprised five frog species, four reptile species, eight mammal species and 64 bird species (Appendix B). Included in this count are three threatened or migratory species that were opportunistically detected, being: 

blue-billed duck (Oxyura australis) – Vulnerable (TSC Act), identified in open water of Spring Creek Reservoir, well downstream of the proposed alignment crossing of Gosling Creek (site OC-4.9)



a snipe (Gallinago sp.), potentially Latham’s snipe (Gallinago hardwickii) – Migratory (EPBC Act), in the vicinity of the proposed alignment crossing of Gosling Creek (site OC-4.9)



superb parrot (Polytelis swainsonii) – Vulnerable (TSC Act and EPBC Act), identified from open woodland in the vicinity of the proposed Backhouse Spurline (site BS-1.4).

Features of the Project area that provide fauna with opportunities for foraging and nesting are represented by:  Yellow Box – Blakely’s Red Gum grassy woodland  Apple Box – Yellow Box dry grassy woodland  regrowth and native landscape plantings  exotic landscape plantings  native grassland and pasture  riverine wetland / waterways  lacustrine wetland / dams. Although a variety of fauna habitats were encountered, no unique habitats were encountered that are not represented in adjoining habitats of the locale and broader region.

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment

Table 9 Threatened and migratory fauna species, or their habitat, identified from the search area (within at least 10 km of the proposed alignment)

TSC Act2

Booroolong frog

On or under boulders and debris in and beside the rocky beds of mountain streams (Cogger 2014).

Litoria castanea

Yellow-spotted tree frog

Dense low vegetation along the margins of swamps, lagoons and slow-moving permanent streams and soaks (Cogger 2014). Considered to comprise two separated populations: Northern Tablelands of NSW (presumed extinct); and Southern Tablelands in the Canberra-Yass region (recently rediscovered in the wild for the first time in many years).

Regent honeyeater

Ironbark forest; also forests and woodlands of box, yellow gum, swamp mahogany and river oak (Morcombe 2003). In NSW the distribution is very patchy and mainly confined to Capertree Valley and the Bundarra-Barraba region (OEH 2015c).

Common name

Preferred habitat

Likelihood of occurrence in the Project area

OEH 2015a

EPBC Act1

Litoria booroolongensis

Scientific name

DotE 2015a

Source

Status

Amphibians Unlikely. Species or species habitat ‘may’ occur within the search area (DotE 2015a), but hasn’t previously been recorded (OEH 2015a). No mountain streams detected within the Project area. Unlikely. Single record from the search area (4 km south of Millthorpe; 10km accuracy) is a 1977 record. This species has long been regarded as extinct across most of its former range (Cogger 2014). The Project area is well removed from the known distribution of L. castanea.



Potential. Foraging, feeding or related behaviour ‘likely’ to occur within the search area (DotE 2015a). Although suitable habitat occurs within the Project area, there are no previous records of regent honeyeater from the broader search area (OEH 2015a).



Birds Anthochaera phrygia

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment

Source

Apus pacificus

Fork-tailed swift

Ardea alba / modesta

Great egret

Ardea ibis

Cattle egret

Botaurus poiciloptilus

Australasian bittern

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Preferred habitat

Low to very high airspace over varied habitat, rainforest to semi-desert, most active just ahead of summer storm fronts (Morcombe 2003). Wetlands, flooded pastures, dams, estuarine mudflats, mangroves and reefs (Morcombe 2003). Nests in colonies located in wooded and shrubby swamps including mangrove forests, melaleuca swamps and mixed eucalypt / acacia / lignum swamps (DotE 2015b). Moist pastures with tall grass; shallow open wetlands and margins, mudflats (Morcombe 2003). Avoids short grass (DotE 2015b).

Freshwater wetlands, occasionally estuarine (Morcombe 2003). Favours permanent freshwater wetlands with tall, dense vegetation, particularly bullrushes (Typha spp.) and spikerushes (Eleocharis spp.) (OEH 2015c).

OEH 2015a

Common name

DotE 2015a

Scientific name

TSC Act2

EPBC Act1

Status

Unlikely. Unlikely to substantially utilise ground resources of the Project area.



Potential. Species habitat ‘known’ to occur within the search area (DotE 2015a); although no recorded sightings (OEH 2015a).



Potential. Species or species habitat ‘may’ occur within the search area (DotE 2015a), although no recorded sightings (OEH 2015a). Moist pastures, and farm dams provide potential habitat within Project area. Unlikely. Species or species habitat ‘may’ occur within the search area (DotE 2015a), The Project area does not support tall, dense aquatic vegetation preferred by this species.



Likelihood of occurrence in the Project area



Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment

Common name

Callocephalon fimbriatum

Gang-gang cockatoo

Dense, tall, wet forests of mountains and gullies, as well as alpine woodlands (Morcombe 2003).

Chthonicola sagittata

Speckled warbler

Open eucalypt woodlands with rocky gullies, ridges, tussocky grass, sparse shrubbery (Morcombe 2003).

Climacteris picumnus victoriae

Brown treecreeper – eastern subspecies

Eucalypt forests and woodlands, scrubs of the drier areas, river-edge trees, timbered paddocks (Morcombe 2003).

Daphoenositta chrysoptera

Varied sittella

Eucalypt forest and woodland, mallee, farm trees, shelter belts, roadside trees, parks and gardens, with a preference for rough-barked trees.

Preferred habitat

Likelihood of occurrence in the Project area

Unlikely. Preferred habitat does not occur within the Project area. The nearest record is almost 10 km south of the Project area, where this species was recorded in 2012 in the vicinity of the Pennsylvania State Forest (OEH 2015a). Likely. Areas of open woodland and tussocky grass are prevalent throughout the Project area, particularly in the south. There are five records from the search area (OEH 2015a), the nearest being approximately 4.5 km south of the Carcoar Filtration Plant. Likely. Areas of Eucalypt woodland and timbered paddocks occur throughout the Project area, particularly in the south. There are three records from the search area (OEH 2015a), the nearest being approximately 4.5 km south of the Carcoar Filtration Plant. Likely. Eucalypt woodland, farm trees, shelter belts, roadside trees, and rough-barked trees occur throughout the Project area, particularly in the south. There are seven records from the search area (OEH 2015a), the nearest being approximately 2 km north-west of OC-43.

OEH 2015a

TSC Act2

EPBC Act1

Scientific name

DotE 2015a

Source

Status



DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment

Black falcon

Gallinago hardwickii

Latham’s snipe

Glossopsitta pusilla

Little lorikeet

Grantiella picta

Painted honeyeater

Hieraaetus morphnoides

Little eagle

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Preferred habitat

Tree-lined watercourses and isolated stands of trees; hunts out over the low vegetation of surrounding plains, grasslands, saltbush and bluebush (Morcombe 2003). Low vegetation around wetlands in shallows, sedges, reeds, heath, salt marsh, irrigated crops (Morcombe 2003).

Forest and woodland, favouring open country – trees along watercourses and paddock trees (Morcombe 2003).

Dry, open forests and woodlands (Morcombe 2003), usually in areas with flowering and fruiting mistletoe on woodland eucalypts and acacias (OEH 2015c).

Hilly country, where it often soars on the updrafts generated by wind deflected up the slopes. Forests, woodlands, open scrublands, tree-lined watercourses of the interior (Morcombe 2003).

Likelihood of occurrence in the Project area

Likely. Isolated stands of trees, plains and grasslands occur throughout the Project area. There is one record from the search area (OEH 2015a), being approximately 2.7 km west of OC-54. Likely. Low vegetation occurs around most waterways intersected by the proposed pipeline, including Gosling Creek (OC-5.5), where a pair of unidentified snipe (Gallinago sp.) were flushed from low vegetation on 2/11/2015 and 3/11/2015. Likely. Woodland, open country and paddock trees occur throughout the Project area. There is one record from the search area (OEH 2015a), although approx. 9.4 km west of OC-1. Potential. Species habitat ‘known’ to occur within the broader search area (DotE 2015a), although hasn’t previously been recorded (OEH 2015a). However, open woodlands, containing mistletoe, occur throughout the Project area (Appendix A). Likely. Hilly country and woodlands occur in the Project area, particularly in the south. There are two records from the search area (OEH 2015a), the nearest being approximately 700 m west of OC-53.4.

OEH 2015a

Falco subniger

TSC Act2

Common name

EPBC Act1

Scientific name

DotE 2015a

Source

Status



Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment

Common name

Hirundapus caudacutus

White-throated needletail

Lathamus discolor

Swift parrot

Forests and woodlands with flowering trees (Morcombe 2003).

Leipoa ocellata

Malleefowl

Dry inland scrubs, chiefly mallee country (Cayley 2011).

Merops ornatus

Rainbow bee-eater

Open country of woodlands, open forest, semiarid scrub, grasslands, clearings in heavier forests, farmlands (Morcombe 2003).

Motacilla flava

Yellow wagtail

Open habitats, often near water; on the Australian Coast (Morcombe 2003).

Preferred habitat

High open spaces of sky above almost any habitat, including oceans (Morcombe 2003).

Likelihood of occurrence in the Project area

Unlikely. Species or species habitat ‘likely’ to occur within the broader search area (DotE 2015a), but hasn’t previously been recorded (OEH 2015a). High open spaces considered to be outside the Project area. Potential. Species or species habitat ‘likely’ to occur within the broader search area (DotE 2015a), but hasn’t previously been recorded (OEH 2015a). Woodland with flowering eucalypts occurs throughout the Project area, particularly in the. Unlikely. Species habitat ‘known’ to occur within the broader search area (DotE 2015a), but hasn’t previously been recorded (OEH 2015a). Preferred habitat not evident within the Project area. Potential. Open country, woodland, grasslands and farmlands are prevalent throughout the Project area. There are three records from the search area (OEH 2015a), the nearest being approximately 2 km north-west of OC-43. Unlikely. Species or species habitat ‘may’ occur within the broader search area, but hasn’t previously been recorded. Preferred is more coastal.

OEH 2015a

TSC Act2

EPBC Act1

Scientific name

DotE 2015a

Source

Status



DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment

Common name

Myiagra cyanoleuca

Satin flycatcher

Ninox connivens

Barking owl

Ninox strenua

Powerful owl

Oxyura australis

Blue-billed duck

Stictonetta naevosa

Freckled duck

Petroica boodang

Scarlet robin

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Preferred habitat

Forests and woodlands, mangroves, coastal heath scrubs; in breeding season favours dense, wet gullies of heavy eucalypt forests (Morcombe 2003). Open country with stands of trees, tree-lined watercourses and paperbark swamps (Morcombe 2003).

Eucalypt forest, preferring tall wet forest or ranges where the territories centre on densely vegetated gullies; also in lower or drier forest that holds both prey and large hollows (Morcombe 2003). Breeds on deep, permanent, densely vegetated freshwater lakes, swamps and dams; wintering in more open waters (Morcombe 2003). Breeds on densely vegetated freshwater lakes, swamps, creeks and floodwaters; after breeding moves to open waters (Morcombe 2003). Forest, woodland, heavier vegetation when breeding; more open and cleared in autumn and winter (Morcombe 2003).

Likelihood of occurrence in the Project area

Potential. Species or species habitat ‘known’ to occur within broader search area, although not identified from OEH database (OEH 2015a). Woodlands occur within Project area. Likely. Open country with stands of trees occur throughout the Project area, particularly in the south. There is one record from the search area (OEH 2015a), although approx. 9.5 km northwest of OC-0. Unlikely. Although known to occur in the broader search area, preferred habitat is unlikely to occur within the Project area and was not encountered during field surveys 2-7 November 2015. Known. Observed in open water of Spring Creek Reservoir, downstream of site OC-5.5 on Gosling Creek.

OEH 2015a

TSC Act2

EPBC Act1

Scientific name

DotE 2015a

Source

Status



Likely. Recorded from the vicinity of Spring Creek Reservoir in 2009 (OEH 2015a).



Likely. Woodland and open areas occur throughout the Project area. There are six records from the search area (OEH 2015a), the nearest being approx. 6.8 km west of OC-1.



Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment

Petroica phoenicea

Flame robin

Polytelis swainsonii

Superb parrot

Rhipidura rufifrons

Rufous fantail

Rostratula australis

Australian painted snipe

E, Mi

Stagonopleura guttata

Diamond firetail

Preferred habitat

In summer, eucalypt forest and woodland; in winter, open woodlands and farmlands (Morcombe 2003).

River red gum, box and similar forests, riveredge forest, nearby mallee, native cypress, farmlands (Morcombe 2003).

Wet sclerophyll forests, often in gullies with dense shrubby understorey, including ferns. Also in drier sclerophyll forests and woodlands with a shrubby or heath understorey (DotE 2015b). Shallow terrestrial freshwater (occasionally brackish) wetlands, including temporary and permanent lakes, swamps and claypans (DotE 2015b). Grassy groundcover underneath open forest, woodland, mallee, acacia shrub and timber belts along watercourses and roadsides (Morcombe 2003).

Likelihood of occurrence in the Project area

Likely. Woodland, open woodlands and farmlands occur throughout the Project area. There are two records from the search area (OEH 2015a), the nearest being approximately 6.8 km west of OC-1. Known. Box woodland and farmlands occur throughout the Project area. Recorded from site BS-1.4 during the survey on 4/11/2015. Unlikely. Species habitat ‘known’ to occur within the broader search area (DotE 2015a), but hasn’t previously been recorded (OEH 2015a). Woodlands encountered during the survey were predominantly grassy. Potential. Species or species habitat ‘known’ to occur within broader search area, although not identified from OEH database (OEH 2015a). Riverine and lacustrine wetlands occur within the Project area. Likely. Grassy open woodland and woodland, as well as timber belts along roadsides, occur throughout the Project area. There are six records from the search area (OEH 2015a), including a record from 2007 only 150 m south of OC-41.5 (100 m accuracy, OEH 2015a).

OEH 2015a

Common name

TSC Act2

EPBC Act1

Scientific name

DotE 2015a

Source

Status



DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment

Masked owl

Preferred habitat

Likelihood of occurrence in the Project area

Roosts and nests in heavy forests; hunts over open woodlands, farmlands.

Unlikely. No heavy forest identified in the vicinity of the Project area. A single record from the periphery of the (rectangular) search area, approximately 14.9 km east-north-east of OC21. Likely. Open forest / woodland and woodland occurs throughout the Project area, particularly in the south. There are two records from the search area (OEH 2015a), the nearest being approximately 3.5 km east of OC-53 in the vicinity of Carcoar Dam. Potential. Species or species habitat ‘likely’ to occur (DotE 2015a), but hasn’t previously been recorded (OEH 2015a). May utilise dry sclerophyll woodland of the Project area for foraging, although unlikely to roost within the Project area. Potential. May utilise open woodland and open grassland of the Project area for foraging; may roost within road culverts within the Project area. There are three records from the search area (OEH 2015a), the nearest being approximately 1.8 km east of OC-2.5.

OEH 2015a

Tyto novaehollandiae

TSC Act2

Common name

EPBC Act1

Scientific name

DotE 2015a

Source

Status



Mammals Dasyurus maculatus maculatus

Spotted-tailed quoll (SE mainland population)

Rainforest, open forest, woodland, coastal heathland and inland riparian forest; den sites have been recorded in caves, rock crevices and hollow logs (Strahan 1995).

Chalinolobus dwyeri

Large-eared pied bat

Miniopterus schreibersii oceanensis

Eastern bentwingbat

Dry sclerophyll forests and woodlands; also sub-alpine woodland, the edge of rainforest, wet sclerophyll forest, Callitris-dominated forest and sandstone outcrop country; roosting in caves, crevices in cliffs and mines (Churchill 2008). Rainforest, wet and dry sclerophyll forest, monsoon forest, open woodland, melaleuca forests and open grassland; roosting in caves but also man-made constructions such as abandoned mines and road culverts (Churchill 2008).

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc



Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment

Common name

Myotis macropus

Southern myotis

Nyctophilus corbeni

South-eastern longeared bat

Phascolarctos cinereus

Koala

Preferred habitat

A strong association with streams and permanent waterways, usually at low elevations and in vegetated flat or undulating country (Churchill 2008); roosting in caves, mine shafts, hollow-bearing trees, storm water channels, buildings, under bridges and in dense foliage (OEH 2015c). Areas with a cluttered understorey layer in river red gum, black box, Allocasuarina, belah, mallee, open woodlands, and savannahs; roosting in fissures in branches and under dried sheets of bark still attached to the trunks of trees; utilising tree hollows for maternity sites (Churchill 2008).

West of the Great Dividing Range, the koala follows river red gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis) forests that skirt the mosaic of rivers and watercourses (Strahan 1995). Also Melaleuca, Casuarina and Eucalyptus woodland.

Likelihood of occurrence in the Project area

Potential. May utilise waterways and vegetated flat and undulating country of the Project area for foraging; may roost in hollow-bearing trees, culverts and bridges within the Project area. A single record from the periphery of the (rectangular) search area, approximately 14.5 km east of Lake Rowlands dam. Unlikely. Species or species habitat ‘likely’ to occur within the search area (DotE 2015a). Nyctophilus spp. previously recorded from the search area, although unknown whether this included N. corbeni (OEH 2015a). Open woodland of the Project area generally has a sparse to absent shrub layer, with a grassy understorey, and is unlikely to represent the cluttered understorey preferred. Likely. Vegetation intersected by the alignment contains a number of SEPP 44 preferred koala feed tree species, including ribbon gum (Eucalyptus viminalis), river red gum (E. camaldulensis) and white box (E. albens). The koala has been recorded approx. 5 km southeast of OC-41 near Barry Rd in 2014; approx. 3.5 km north-east of Lake Rowlands dam in 2014, and approx. 4.5 km west of OC-34.5 in 1957 (OEH 2015a).

OEH 2015a

TSC Act2

EPBC Act1

Scientific name

DotE 2015a

Source

Status



DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment

Source

Scientific name

Common name

EPBC Act1

TSC Act2

DotE 2015a

OEH 2015a

Status

Pteropus poliocephalus

Grey-headed flyingfox

Usually roost near water in stands of native vegetation such as mangrove, rainforest, melaleuca or casuarina (Churchill 2008). Usually commutes within 15 km to feed on various flowering and fruiting plants, feeding extensively on the blossoms of various species of eucalypt, angophora, tea-tree and banksia (Strahan 1995).

Potential. Although unlikely to roost within the Project area, the species may forage within the Project area on occasion. There are two records from the search area (OEH 2015a), the nearest being approximately 1.3 km east-south-east of OC-3 on the outskirts of Orange.



Pink-tailed wormlizard

Found under weathered granite rocks and logs in (mostly) native grasslands (Cogger 2014).

Potential. Species or species habitat ‘may’ occur within the search area (DotE 2015a), although not previously recorded (OEH 2015a). Opportunistic searches under numerous granite rocks failed to detect this species during the field survey 2-7/11/2015.



Preferred habitat

Likelihood of occurrence in the Project area

Reptiles Aprasia parapulchella

Notes: 1. EPBC Act = Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999; 2. TSC Act = Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995.

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment

5.3

Aquatic habitats

5.3.1

Catchments

The proposed CTRWSPP alignment intersects the Macquarie River catchment from OC-0 to about OC-23 and intersects the Lachlan River catchment from OC-23 southwards to Lake Rowlands. Figure 6, Maps 1-11 identifies the major watercourses and tributaries of the Project area.

5.3.2

Waterways

The proposed CTRWSPP alignment intersects 63 waterways, including a number of named watercourses and smaller tributaries, as summarised in Table 10. This count excludes the western alignment option, shown on Maps 6-7 of Figure 6. Table 10 Summary of Strahler stream order and waterways intersected by the CTRWSPP alignment Stream order

Number of crossings Macquarie River catchment

Named waterways

Spring Creek

Gosling Creek, School Creek, Belubula River and Coombing Creek

5.3.3

Key fish habitats

Seventeen of the waterways intersected by the CTRWSPP alignment have been mapped by NSW DPI (2007) as Key Fish Habitat (Figure 6, Maps 1-11). Aquatic habitat sensitivities have been determined and Key Fish Habitat classifications were refined in accordance with the Policy and guidelines for fish habitat conservation and management (NSW DPI 2013) (Section 4.5.6). Accordingly, the alignment intersects: 

Three Class 1 waterways, representing major key fish habitat



Six Class 2 waterways, representing moderate key fish habitat



10 Class 3 waterways, representing minimal key fish habitat



44 Class 4 waterways, representing unlikely key fish habitat.

Waterway class is used to assess the potential impacts of activities on fish habitats in conjunction with the habitat sensitivity Type (Table 11). The waterway class scheme is used in this report to guide impact mitigation measures to minimise impacts on fish habitats (Section 7.2.4). The information provided in Table 11 and Appendix C can be used to inform relevant NSW DPI permit applications under the FM Act.

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment

Table 11 Waterways, aquatic habitat sensitivity and key fish habitats intersected by the proposed CTRWSPP alignment KP

Stream order

Waterway

OC-1.7

OC-5.5

Unnamed drainage depression Gosling Creek

OC-7.0

OC-9.0

OC-10.4

OC-11.4

OC-11.5

OC-11.6

OC-14.3

OC-15.2

OC-19.6

OC-19.7

OC-20.3

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Tributary of Spring Creek Reservoir Spring Creek Unnamed drainage depression Unnamed drainage depression Unnamed drainage depression Unnamed drainage depression Unnamed drainage depression Unnamed drainage depression Unnamed drainage depression Unnamed drainage depression Unnamed drainage depression

Mapped as Key fish habitatˆ       -

Aquatic habitat sensitivity#

Waterway classification#

Type

Reason

Class

3 (Minimally sensitive) 1 (Highly sensitive) 1 (Highly sensitive) 1 (Highly sensitive) 3 (Minimally sensitive) 3 (Minimally sensitive) 3 (Minimally sensitive) 3 (Minimally sensitive) 2 (Moderately sensitive) 2 (Moderately sensitive) 3 (Minimally sensitive) 3 (Minimally sensitive) 3 (Minimally sensitive)

Highly ephemeral; native aquatic plants unlikely* Freshwater habitat containing native aquatic plants Freshwater habitat containing native aquatic plants Freshwater habitat containing native aquatic plants Highly ephemeral; native aquatic plants unlikely* Highly ephemeral; native aquatic plants unlikely* Highly ephemeral; native aquatic plants unlikely* Highly ephemeral; native aquatic plants unlikely* Ephemeral freshwater habitat, likely to contain aquatic plants Ephemeral freshwater habitat, likely to contain aquatic plants Highly ephemeral; native aquatic plants unlikely* Highly ephemeral; native aquatic plants unlikely* Highly ephemeral; native aquatic plants unlikely*

4 (Unlikely key fish habitat) 2 (Moderate key fish habitat) 2 (Moderate key fish habitat)

Aquatic habitat assessment undertaken  

1 (Major key fish habitat) 4 (Unlikely key fish habitat) 4 (Unlikely key fish habitat)



4 (Unlikely key fish habitat) 4 (Unlikely key fish habitat) 3 (Minimal key fish habitat)

3 (Minimal key fish habitat) 4 (Unlikely key fish habitat) 4 (Unlikely key fish habitat)

4 (Unlikely key fish habitat)

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment

Stream order

Waterway

OC-20.5

OC-22.0

OC-24.1

OC-24.3

OC-27.4

OC-27.9

OC-28.7

OC-29.0

OC-29.8

OC-31.1

OC-32.2

OC-32.4

OC-33.1

OC-34.2 (western)

Unnamed drainage depression Unnamed drainage depression Unnamed drainage depression Unnamed drainage depression Unnamed drainage depression Unnamed drainage depression Unnamed drainage depression Unnamed drainage depression Unnamed drainage depression Unnamed drainage depression Unnamed drainage depression Unnamed drainage depression Unnamed drainage depression Unnamed drainage depression

Mapped as Key fish habitatˆ      -

Aquatic habitat sensitivity#

Waterway classification#

Aquatic habitat assessment undertaken

Type

Reason

Class

2 (Moderately sensitive) 2 (Moderately sensitive) 3 (Minimally sensitive) 3 (Minimally sensitive) 3 (Minimally sensitive) 2 (Moderately sensitive) 3 (Minimally sensitive) 3 (Minimally sensitive) 3 (Minimally sensitive) 3 (Minimally sensitive) 3 (Minimally sensitive) 3 (Minimally sensitive) 3 (Minimally sensitive) 2 (Moderately sensitive)

Ephemeral freshwater habitat, likely to contain aquatic plants* Ephemeral freshwater habitat, likely to contain aquatic plants* Highly ephemeral; native aquatic plants unlikely* Highly ephemeral; native aquatic plants unlikely* Highly ephemeral; native aquatic plants unlikely* Ephemeral freshwater habitat, likely to contain aquatic plants* Highly ephemeral; native aquatic plants unlikely* Highly ephemeral; native aquatic plants unlikely* Highly ephemeral; native aquatic plants unlikely* Indiscernible*

3 (Minimal key fish habitat)

3 (Minimal key fish habitat) 4 (Unlikely key fish habitat) 4 (Unlikely key fish habitat)

Highly ephemeral; native aquatic plants unlikely* Highly ephemeral; native aquatic plants unlikely* Highly ephemeral; native aquatic plants unlikely* Ephemeral freshwater habitat, containing aquatic plants

4 (Unlikely key fish habitat) 3 (Minimal key fish habitat) 3 (Minimal key fish habitat)

4 (Unlikely key fish habitat) 4 (Unlikely key fish habitat) 4 (Unlikely key fish habitat)

4 (Unlikely key fish habitat)

 (flora site)

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Ecological Assessment

Stream order

Waterway

OC-34.7 (western) OC-35.0 (eastern) OC-35.1 (western) OC-37.0

OC-37.9

OC-38.7

OC-38.9

OC-41.2

OC-41.6

OC-42.5

OC-43.0

OC-43.3

OC-43.7

OC-44.6

2 1

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Mapped as Key fish habitatË&#x2020; -

Aquatic habitat sensitivity# Type 3 (Minimally sensitive) 3 (Minimally sensitive) 3 (Minimally sensitive) 3 (Minimally sensitive) 3 (Minimally sensitive) 3 (Minimally sensitive) 3 (Minimally sensitive) 3 (Minimally sensitive) 3 (Minimally sensitive) 3 (Minimally sensitive) 3 (Minimally sensitive) 3 (Minimally sensitive) 3 (Minimally sensitive) 3 (Minimally sensitive)

Reason Highly ephemeral; native aquatic plants unlikely* Highly ephemeral; native aquatic plants unlikely* Highly ephemeral; native aquatic plants unlikely* Highly ephemeral; native aquatic plants unlikely* Highly ephemeral; native aquatic plants unlikely* Highly ephemeral; native aquatic plants unlikely* Highly ephemeral; native aquatic plants unlikely* Highly ephemeral; native aquatic plants unlikely* Highly ephemeral; native aquatic plants unlikely* Highly ephemeral; native aquatic plants unlikely* Highly ephemeral; native aquatic plants unlikely* Highly ephemeral; native aquatic plants unlikely* Highly ephemeral; native aquatic plants unlikely* Highly ephemeral; native aquatic plants unlikely*

Waterway classification# Class

Aquatic habitat assessment undertaken

4 (Unlikely key fish habitat)

4 (Unlikely key fish habitat) 4 (Unlikely key fish habitat) 4 (Unlikely key fish habitat)

ď&#x192;ź (flora site) -

4 (Unlikely key fish habitat) 4 (Unlikely key fish habitat) 4 (Unlikely key fish habitat)

4 (Unlikely key fish habitat)

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment

Stream order

Waterway

OC-45.1

OC-45.2

OC-45.7

OC-46.6

OC-48.7

BS-1.4

BS-2.4

OC-50.3

OC-50.4

OC-52.2

Mapped as Key fish habitatˆ 

Unnamed drainage depression School Creek



OC-52.5

Belubula River



OC-53.6

OC-53.8

OC-54.1

Unnamed drainage depression Unnamed drainage depression Unnamed drainage depression

Aquatic habitat sensitivity#

Waterway classification#

Aquatic habitat assessment undertaken

Type

Reason

Class

3 (Minimally sensitive) 3 (Minimally sensitive) 3 (Minimally sensitive) 3 (Minimally sensitive) 3 (Minimally sensitive) 2 (Moderately sensitive) 3 (Minimally sensitive) 1 (Highly sensitive) 3 (Minimally sensitive) 1 (Highly sensitive) 1 (Highly sensitive) 3 (Minimally sensitive) 3 (Minimally sensitive) 3 (Minimally sensitive)

Highly ephemeral; native aquatic plants unlikely* Highly ephemeral; native aquatic plants unlikely* Highly ephemeral; native aquatic plants unlikely* Highly ephemeral; native aquatic plants unlikely* Highly ephemeral; native aquatic plants unlikely* Ephemeral freshwater habitat, containing aquatic plants Highly ephemeral; native aquatic plants unlikely* Freshwater habitat containing native aquatic plants Highly ephemeral; native aquatic plants unlikely* Freshwater habitat containing native aquatic plants Freshwater habitat containing native aquatic plants Highly ephemeral; native aquatic plants unlikely* Highly ephemeral; native aquatic plants unlikely* Highly ephemeral; native aquatic plants unlikely*

4 (Unlikely key fish habitat)

4 (Unlikely key fish habitat) 4 (Unlikely key fish habitat) 4 (Unlikely key fish habitat)

2 (Moderate key fish habitat) 4 (Unlikely key fish habitat) 2 (Moderate key fish habitat)

 (flora site) -

1 (Major key fish habitat) 4 (Unlikely key fish habitat) 4 (Unlikely key fish habitat)



4 (Unlikely key fish habitat)

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment

Stream order

Waterway

OC-54.4

OC-55.0

Unnamed drainage depression Coombing Creek

S7-0.3

S7-0.9

S7-1.4

S7-2.4

S7-3.2

S7-3.3

S7-3.8

S7-3.9

Mapped as Key fish habitatˆ    -

Aquatic habitat sensitivity#

Waterway classification#

Aquatic habitat assessment undertaken

Type

Reason

Class

2 (Moderately sensitive) 1 (Highly sensitive) 2 (Moderately sensitive) 1 (Highly sensitive) 1 (Highly sensitive) 3 (Minimally sensitive) 3 (Minimally sensitive) 3 (Minimally sensitive) 3 (Minimally sensitive) 2 (Moderately sensitive) 2 (Moderately sensitive)

Ephemeral freshwater habitat, likely to contain aquatic plants* Freshwater habitat containing native aquatic plants Ephemeral freshwater habitat, likely to contain aquatic plants* Freshwater habitat containing native aquatic plants Freshwater habitat containing native aquatic plants Highly ephemeral; native aquatic plants unlikely* Highly ephemeral; native aquatic plants unlikely* Highly ephemeral; native aquatic plants unlikely* Highly ephemeral; native aquatic plants unlikely* Ephemeral freshwater habitat, likely to contain aquatic plants* Ephemeral freshwater habitat, containing aquatic plants

3 (Minimal key fish habitat)

1 (Major key fish habitat) 3 (Minimal key fish habitat) 2 (Moderate key fish habitat)



2 (Moderate key fish habitat) 4 (Unlikely key fish habitat) 4 (Unlikely key fish habitat)

4 (Unlikely key fish habitat) 4 (Unlikely key fish habitat) 3 (Minimal key fish habitat)

3 (Minimal key fish habitat)

Note: * Presumed rating based on interpretation of aerial imagery and stream mapping. ^ Based on NSW DPI Key Fish Habitat mapping (NSW DPI 2007). # Consistent with criteria identified in the Policy and guidelines for fish habitat conservation and management (NSW DPI 2013).

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment

5.3.4

Endangered ecological communities (aquatic)

The CTRWSPP does not intersect any endangered ecological communities listed under the FM Act. The southern portion of the Project falls within the Lachlan River Catchment, which contains the ‘Aquatic ecological community in the natural drainage system of the lowland catchment of the Lachlan River’ (the Lachlan River EEC). However, the Lachlan River EEC extends downstream from Wyangala Dam, is well removed from the Project area, and is not expected to be impacted by the CTRWSPP construction.

5.3.5

Aquatic habitat

Aquatic habitat assessments were undertaken at five watercourse crossings during the survey period 2-7 November 2015, comprising: 

Gosling Creek (OC-5.5)



a tributary of Spring Creek (OC-7.0)



Spring Creek (OC-9.0)



Belubula River (OC-52.5)



Coombing Creek (OC-55.0).

Flow was encountered at each site, ranging from low flow (< watermark) at Gosling Creek and the Belubula River, low-moderate flow (≤ watermark) at the tributary of Spring Creek Reservoir, moderate flow (= watermark) at Spring Creek, and high flow (> watermark) at Coombing Creek. Each site exhibited a diversity of both native and exotic macrophytes. Physico-chemical water quality measurements were within ranges considered normal for freshwater reaches of the upper Macquarie and Lachlan River catchments. Overall aquatic values ranged from low (at the tributary of Spring Creek Reservoir) to high (in Spring Creek itself). Site profiles for each aquatic habitat site are provided as Appendix C.

5.3.6

Threatened fishes

Searches of the NSW DPI Records Viewer (DPI 2015), EPBC Act Protected Matters database (DoE 2015), Atlas of NSW Wildlife database (OEH 2015a) and the Sustainable Rivers Audit 2 (MDBA 2012) identified eight threatened fishes as having been recorded from the broader Lachlan and Macquarie River catchments (Table 12). Of these species, three fishes are listed under both the EPBC Act and FM Act. The remaining five species are listed under the FM Act only. Fish were not surveyed as part of the assessment. Instead, the assessment focussed on assessing habitat potential for threatened fishes that may be encountered within the Project area. Although habitat for a number of these threatened fishes is likely to occur in the broader search area, preferred habitat for these species was not encountered in the vicinity of the proposed crossing locations. However, the Belubula River (OC-52.5) and Coombing Creek (OC55.0) provide marginal habitat for the Murray cod (Maccullochella peelii) and silver perch (Bidyanus bidyanus) on occasion (Appendix C).

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment

Table 12 Threatened fish and invertebrate species recorded from the Lachlan and Macquarie River catchments

DPI 2015

MDBA 2012

OEH 2015a



Common name

FM Act



Scientific name

EPBC Act

Likelihood of occurrence in the Project area

DotE 2015

Data Source

Status

Maccullochella peelii

Murray cod

Slow flowing, turbid water of rivers and streams at low elevations; also fastmoving, clear rocky upland streams (Allen et al. 2002). Preferring habitats with instream cover such as rocks, stumps, fallen trees or undercut banks (Lintermans 2007).

Potential.

Maccullochella peelii

Trout cod

Large amount of woody debris in deep water, often close to the riverbanks (SEWPaC 2011).

Unlikely.

Macquaria australasica

Macquarie perch

Cool, clear water of rivers, lakes and reservoirs. Prefers slow-flowing, deep rocky pools (Allen et al. 2002).

Unlikely.

Mogurnda adspersa

Purple-spotted gudgeon

Slow-moving or still waters of rivers, creeks and billabongs, often amongst weeds, rocks or large woody debris (DPI 2005).

Unlikely.



Nannoperca australis

Southern pygmy perch

Vegetated areas in small streams, lakes, billabongs and other types of wetlands; recently discovered in the upper Lachlan catchment (DPI 2005).

Unlikely.



Ambassis agassizii

Olive perchlet (western population)

Slow-flowing or still waters of rivers, creeks, ponds and swamps, often near overhanging vegetation or amongst logs, dead branches and boulders (DPI 2005).

Unlikely.



Tandanus tandanus

Freshwater catfish (Murray-Darling Basin population)

Sluggish or still waters of rivers, creeks, lakes, billabongs and lagoons (Allen et al. 2002).

Unlikely.



DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Preferred habitat



Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment

FM Act

Silver perch

Faster-flowing water, including rapids and races, and more open sections of river, throughout the Murray-Darling Basin (Clunie and Koehn 2001, cited in TSSC 2013).

Potential.



Note: 1. Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999; 2. NSW Fisheries Management Act 1994.

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

MDBA 2012

EPBC Act

Bidyanus bidyanus

Preferred habitat

DPI 2015

Common name

OEH 2015a

Scientific name

Likelihood of occurrence in the Project area

DotE 2015

Data Source

Status

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment

5.3.7

Turtles

A search of the Atlas of NSW Wildlife database (OEH 2015a) identified only one species of turtle from the search area. This is the eastern snake-necked turtle (Chelodina longicollis), a species commonly found throughout eastern Australia. This species was detected crossing the highway on a number of occasions and locations during the survey period 2-7 November 2015, typical of the overland migrations commonly undertaken by this species in the warmer months of the year.

5.3.8

Platypus

The platypus (Ornithorhynchus anatinus), protected under the NP&W Act, has previously been recorded from a number of locations (17) within the search area, including the Belubula River approximately 8 km downstream of the proposed crossing location. The proposed crossing locations generally lacked habitat features suitable for platypus breeding. However, it is likely that platypus would transit a number of these waterways on occasion.

5.4

Critical habitat

Critical habitat is the whole or any part of the habitat of an endangered species, population or ecological community or critically endangered species or ecological community that is critical to the survival of the species, population or ecological community and is declared as such under the TSC Act or FM Act. Four critical habitat declarations are in place under the TSC Act, being for Gould’s petrel (Pterodroma leucoptera leucoptera), the little penguin (Eudyptula minor) population in Sydney’s North Harbour, Mitchell’s rainforest snail (Thersites mitchellae) in Stotts Island Nature Reserve, and for the Wollemi Pine (Wollemia nobilis). One critical habitat declaration is in place under the FM Act, being for the grey nurse shark (Carcharias taurus). No critical habitat occurs within the Project area.

5.5

Ecologically sensitive areas

Desktop and in-field investigations have identified the following areas of ecological significance to flora and fauna within the ROW and / or Project area: 

EECs (TSC Act and FM Act)



potential TECs (EPBC Act)



Key fish habitat (KFH)

These are presented in Figure 6, Maps 1-11.

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Ecological Assessment

Figure 6 Ecologically sensitive areas

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Main W estern Railwa y

ORANGE

A32

Spring Hill Millthorpe

LGA

ORANGE CITY March

ad Ro hir p O

Street

Bowen

Blayney

Carcoar

-0 OC

Winte r Stre et

A41

Orange Station

Icely Roa d

Icley Road Filtration Plant

Ice

Piesele y Stree t

-1 OC

ly R oad

HI G HW AY Orange General Cemetery

Orang e - Bro ken Hill Railwa y

-2 OC

Glenroi Orange Trotting and Go-Kart Tracks

Orange South -4 OC

Sir Jack Brabham Park

-3 OC

s Roa

d Dairy

Main Western Railway

E:\Projects\100243 Orange to Carcoar Pipeline (DPM)\FIGURES\100243 F6 Ecologically Sensitive Areas - Map 1 08 02 2016 TO ENVIRONMENT D E S I G N & H E R I TAG E

Blowe

ad Ro

Fo re st Ro ad

ley

Creek

Road

Steele

s Roa d

-5 OC

Spring Creek Filtration Plant

Pipeline alignment National Park and Wildlife Estate State Forest

Calton Road

loomfield

Highway Main Road Minor Road Railway Waterway OC-5

Kilometre point Ecologically Sensitve Areas

Box-Gum Woodland EEC

tle

Box-Gum Woodland EEC and potential Box-Gum

Grassy Woodland TEC

Box-Gum Woodland EEC or Tablelands Snow Gum

-6 OC

Grassy Woodland EEC

Spring Creek Reservoir

Tablelands Snow Gum Grassy Woodland EEC Key Fish Habitat (NSW DPI) 0

1km

ECOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE AREAS - MAP 1 Ecological Assessment Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project

FIGURE 6

-6

ad Ro ey ntl Hu

A32

Spring Hill Millthorpe

Spring Creek Reservoir

Blayney

LGA

Carcoar

ORANGE CITY

A41

-6

Bargw

anna

Road

Spring Creek Reservoir OC

-8

te Main Wes

Huntley

wann

a Ro

rn Railway

Road

-9

Sprin

Road

-10

Huntle

y Road

Buttle

ain M rn te es W ay ilw Ra

ENVIRONMENT D E S I G N & H E R I TAG E

E:\Projects\100243 Orange to Carcoar Pipeline (DPM)\FIGURES\100243 F6 Ecologically Sensitive Areas - Map 2 27 11 2015 TO

g Cre

Barg

Pipeline alignment National Park and Wildlife Estate State Forest

Hiney

Highway Main Road

Road

Minor Road Railway

Lane

Waterway OC-5

Kilometre point Ecologically Sensitve Areas

Capps

Box-Gum Woodland EEC Box-Gum Woodland EEC and potential Box-Gum Grassy Woodland TEC Box-Gum Woodland EEC or Tablelands Snow Gum

Grassy Woodland EEC Tablelands Snow Gum Grassy Woodland EEC

Cully

Key Fish Habitat (NSW DPI) 0

-11

Road

1km

ECOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE AREAS - MAP 2 Ecological Assessment Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project

FIGURE 6

Mine R o

ORANGE

Phoen ix

A32

Spring Hill Millthorpe

Huntley

Blayney

Carcoar A41

Blunt

-12

tley

Hun Huntle

Roa

LGA

Road

ORANGE CITY

y Roa

Road

May R

-13

-14

rome

Aerod

Gand

Road

er Ro

Wrigh t

ORANGE AIRPORT

ay ilw Ra

Road

Aerod

n ter es W in Ma

rome

oad

Forest Road

Forest Road OC

Fores

t Road

-16

Davis

Road

E:\Projects\100243 Orange to Carcoar Pipeline (DPM)\FIGURES\100243 F6 Ecologically Sensitive Areas - Map 3 27 11 2015 TO ENVIRONMENT D E S I G N & H E R I TAG E

-15

LGA

CABONNE

Strac han R oad Pipeline alignment National Park and Wildlife Estate State Forest Highway Main Road Minor Road

Road

Railway Waterway Kilometre point

Davis

OC-5

Ecologically Sensitve Areas Box-Gum Woodland EEC Box-Gum Woodland EEC and potential Box-Gum Grassy Woodland TEC Box-Gum Woodland EEC or Tablelands Snow Gum Grassy Woodland EEC Tablelands Snow Gum Grassy Woodland EEC Key Fish Habitat (NSW DPI) 0

1km

ECOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE AREAS - MAP 3 Ecological Assessment Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project

FIGURE 6

A32

Spring Hill Millthorpe

Blayney

Carcoar A41

t Road

-17

rpe Ro ad

Fores

Milltho

Buckin bah R oad Spring Hill Reservoir

LGA

ORANGE CITY

Carco

ay ailw

rn R

Spring Hill Public School

te Wes

ar Stre et

Main

Spring Hill

-18

Chapm

an Ro

ad OC

Whiley

-19

Street

ar Stre et

-20

-21

rpe

ltho

Carco

Mil ad Ro OC

LGA

-22

CABONNE e orp lth Mil ad Ro

estern R Main W

Pipeline alignment National Park and Wildlife Estate State Forest Highway

ailway

ENVIRONMENT D E S I G N & H E R I TAG E

E:\Projects\100243 Orange to Carcoar Pipeline (DPM)\FIGURES\100243 F6 Ecologically Sensitive Areas - Map 4 30 11 2015 TO Rev A

Chapm an Ro ad

Main Road Minor Road

-23

Railway Waterway OC-5

Kilometre point Ecologically Sensitve Areas Box-Gum Woodland EEC Box-Gum Woodland EEC and potential Box-Gum

Spring Terrace

Grassy Woodland TEC Box-Gum Woodland EEC or Tablelands Snow Gum Grassy Woodland EEC Tablelands Snow Gum Grassy Woodland EEC Key Fish Habitat (NSW DPI) 0

1km

ECOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE AREAS - MAP 4 Ecological Assessment Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project

FIGURE 6

Millthorpe

ORANGE

A32

Road

Spring Hill

LGA

ORANGE CITY

LGA

BLAYNEY

Millthorpe

Blayney

Carcoar A41

-24

Ma ern est in W ay ilw Ra

-25

oad

ria R

Millthope Cemetery

tto e-Vi orp

Mill

Redmond Oval

Millthorpe Forest Reefs Road

E:\Projects\100243 Orange to Carcoar Pipeline (DPM)\FIGURES\100243 F6 Ecologically Sensitive Areas - Map 5 27 11 2015 TO

Millthorpe Reservoir

-27

ad Nyes Gate Ro

Clayto

n Lane

Nyes

Gate

Road

Smith

s Lane

Pipeline alignment

National Park and Wildlife Estate State Forest Highway Main Road Minor Road Railway Waterway OC-5

-28

n Railway Main Wester

ENVIRONMENT D E S I G N & H E R I TAG E

-26

Kilometre point Ecologically Sensitve Areas Box-Gum Woodland EEC Box-Gum Woodland EEC and potential Box-Gum Grassy Woodland TEC Box-Gum Woodland EEC or Tablelands Snow Gum Grassy Woodland EEC Tablelands Snow Gum Grassy Woodland EEC Key Fish Habitat (NSW DPI)

1km

ECOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE AREAS - MAP 5 Ecological Assessment Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project

FIGURE 6

A32

-27 OC

Spring Hill Millthorpe

Blayney

Carcoar A41

in Ma s We

LGA

BLAYNEY

wa ail

nR ter

llth

-30 OC

or pe Ro ad Womb ia

na Lan e

-31 OC

y Railwa estern Main W

-33 OC

or th ill

M Ro

Pipeline alignment

National Park and Wildlife Estate State Forest Highway Main Road

Suga

Minor Road Railway

k Cree

Waterway OC-5

-34 OC

rloaf

ENVIRONMENT D E S I G N & H E R I TAG E

E:\Projects\100243 Orange to Carcoar Pipeline (DPM)\FIGURES\100243 F6 Ecologically Sensitive Areas - Map 6 08 02 2016 TO

-32 OC

Kilometre point Ecologically Sensitve Areas

-34 OC

Box-Gum Woodland EEC Box-Gum Woodland EEC and potential Box-Gum Grassy Woodland TEC Box-Gum Woodland EEC or Tablelands Snow Gum Grassy Woodland EEC Tablelands Snow Gum Grassy Woodland EEC Key Fish Habitat (NSW DPI) 0

1km

ECOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE AREAS - MAP 6 Ecological Assessment Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project

FIGURE 6

A32

Spring Hill

-35 OC

Millthorpe

Blayney

Carcoar

-35 OC

oir C

t Abba

A41

reek

Browns Creek Reservoir

Brown s Cree k Road -36 OC

LGA

Gays L ane

Ma in W est er

BLAYNEY

nR ailw ay

Palme r Stree t

-37 OC

Blayney

Ro ad

Plumb Street Reservoir

Plumb

Street

Blayney High School

-38 OC

McKenzies Flat Creek

King George VI Oval

ENVIRONMENT D E S I G N & H E R I TAG E

TE R M

y-D

-39 OC

n mo

ay ilw Ra

e rill

HI G

HW AY

E:\Projects\100243 Orange to Carcoar Pipeline (DPM)\FIGURES\100243 F6 Ecologically Sensitive Areas - Map 7 08 02 2016 TO

Blayney Tourist Park

Pipeline alignment National Park and Wildlife Estate State Forest Highway Main Road

-40 OC

Minor Road Railway Waterway OC-5

1km

ECOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE AREAS - MAP 7 Ecological Assessment Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project

FIGURE 6

A32

Spring Hill Millthorpe

Blayney

Carcoar

-41 OC

Bla yn ey -D em on dri lle Ra ilw ay

A41

-42 OC

LGA

BLAYNEY

McKenzies

Waterhole s Creek

-43 OC

ENVIRONMENT D E S I G N & H E R I TAG E

E:\Projects\100243 Orange to Carcoar Pipeline (DPM)\FIGURES\100243 F6 Ecologically Sensitive Areas - Map 8 08 02 2016 TO

-44 OC

Carcoar Lake

Pipeline alignment National Park and Wildlife Estate State Forest Highway Main Road Minor Road Railway Waterway OC-5

Kilometre point

Carcoar Lake

1km

ECOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE AREAS - MAP 8 Ecological Assessment Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project

FIGURE 6

A32

Spring Hill Millthorpe

Bla

yne

Blayney

Carcoar

y-D

ond rille Ra ilw ay

A41

LGA

BLAYNEY

W AY

Backhouse Spurline

BS-2

-45

ENVIRONMENT D E S I G N & H E R I TAG E

-46

Coldwater Creek BS-1

Central Tablelands Livestock

-47

Road

-48

ar Dam

Carco

E:\Projects\100243 Orange to Carcoar Pipeline (DPM)\FIGURES\100243 F6 Ecologically Sensitive Areas - Map 9 09 12 2015 TO Rev A

Pipeline alignment National Park and Wildlife Estate State Forest

-49

Highway Main Road Minor Road Railway Waterway OC-5

Kilometre point Ecologically Sensitve Areas

Fullers

Box-Gum Woodland EEC

Lane

Box-Gum Woodland EEC and potential Box-Gum Grassy Woodland TEC Box-Gum Woodland EEC or Tablelands Snow Gum Grassy Woodland EEC Tablelands Snow Gum Grassy Woodland EEC Key Fish Habitat (NSW DPI) 0

1km

ECOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE AREAS - MAP 9 Ecological Assessment Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project

FIGURE 6

A32

ilw ay

Spring Hill

Carcoar

Bl ay ne yDe

Blayney

on dr il l e

Millthorpe

Be lub ula

Ri ve

A41

LGA

BLAYNEY -49 OC

-50 OC

Rothery

Creek School

-51 OC

Street

Carcoar Carcoar Reservoir

-52 OC

Naylor

ula Riv

-53 OC

er L

Pipeline alignment National Park and Wildlife Estate

ane

ENVIRONMENT D E S I G N & H E R I TAG E

Belub

timb Fell

E:\Projects\100243 Orange to Carcoar Pipeline (DPM)\FIGURES\100243 F6 Ecologically Sensitive Areas - Map 10 08 02 2016 TO

Street

Icely S treet

State Forest Highway Main Road Minor Road Railway Waterway

-54 OC

OC-5

1km

ECOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE AREAS - MAP 10 Ecological Assessment Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project

FIGURE 6

A32

-54

Spring Hill Millthorpe

Blayney

Carcoar A41

-55

LGA

BLAYNEY

-56

Mount Macquarie State Forest

bin

-57

ree

ENVIRONMENT D E S I G N & H E R I TAG E

S7-2

Carcoar Filtration Plant

bin

ree

S7-3

Bald Hill

Fell Timber Road

E:\Projects\100243 Orange to Carcoar Pipeline (DPM)\FIGURES\100243 F6 Ecologically Sensitive Areas - Map 11 30 11 2015 TO Rev a

S7-1

S7-4

Pipeline alignment National Park and Wildlife Estate State Forest Highway Main Road Minor Road Railway Waterway OC-5

1km

ECOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE AREAS - MAP 11 Ecological Assessment Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project

FIGURE 6

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment

POTENTIAL IMPACTS

6.1

Flora

6.1.1

Vegetation communities

Route selection was undertaken by OCC using high resolution aerial imagery, spatial information for existing infrastructure and on-ground assessment, with the aim of avoiding as many trees as possible. This has resulted in a final alignment (Version 8) that has minimised the requirement for vegetation clearing, and avoids the majority of large trees encountered in the Project area. Generally, where there are no constraints, pipeline construction activity will be limited to a maximum 20 m wide corridor. This allows for pipe laydown areas, storage of other materials, and room for construction vehicles and plant to double pass. The 20 m wide corridor will generally be restricted to agricultural grasslands largely void of trees and native grasses. Where possible, the zone of disturbance will be reduced to 6-10 m (average 8 m). Within this zone of disturbance, land to be physically cleared, i.e. vegetation cleared and topsoil stripped, will be limited to 3 m wide. In areas of sensitivity (including from OC-39.8 to 39.9 and from OC41.0 to 41.4), the land to be physically cleared will be reduced to as low as reasonably practicable for construction, ranging from 1-3 m, where machine reach allows. Despite careful route selection, construction of the proposed CTRWSPP would involve vegetation clearing and earthworks, resulting in the temporary loss of varying vegetation types along the aggregated 66 km route. This vegetation is dominated by agricultural pasturelands and associated grasslands. Remnant vegetation intersected by the CTRWSPP includes diverse representations of two PCTs, being: Yellow Box – Blakely’s Red Gum grassy woodland on the tablelands, SE Highlands Bioregion; and Apple Box – Yellow Box dry grassy woodland of the SE Highlands Bioregion. The proposed CTRWSPP alignment transects approximately 5.11 km of remnant vegetation, or 7.7% of the 66 km CTRWSPP alignment. General disturbance would occur across an approximate area of 4.1 ha (8 m ROW) to 10.22 ha (20 m ROW) or remnant vegetation. Physical clearing and earthworks within the ROW would equate to approximately 1.53 ha (up to 3 m wide) of remnant vegetation (Table 13). Table 13 lists the estimated maximum clearing extents for remnant vegetation, as well as for remnant vegetation representing EECs / TECs. The impacts are considered minimal in both a local and regional context because of the extent of these vegetation communities remaining outside the Project area. A number of EECs and potential TECs were identified in the Project area (i.e. within 50 m of the alignment) during the field survey. However, the route selection process has resulted in most of these EEC / TEC remnants being avoided. The CTRWSPP alignment intersects the edge of a patch of Box-Gum Grassy Woodland EEC in the road corridor in the vicinity of OC-39.8. Although not yet proven by detailed floristic survey (i.e. identifying 12 or more native understorey species, excluding grasses), the precautionary principle has been applied in assuming that the remnant patch is Box-Gum Grassy Woodland and Derived Grassland TEC (Appendix A). However, only 0.01 to 0.03 ha of the disturbed edge of this patch will be impacted, and impacts will be contained to the road corridor. The impacts are minimal in both a local and regional context. This is supported by an Assessment of Significance provided as Appendix E. The CTRWSPP alignment intersects a patch of Tablelands Snow Gum Grassy Woodland EEC in the road corridor in the vicinity of OC-41.2. This patch is unlikely to represent a TEC, as the understorey is predominantly exotic (Appendix A). Only 0.03 to 0.09 ha of this weed impacted EEC is likely to be affected (Table 13), and impacts would be confined to the road corridor. The DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment

impacts are minimal in both a local and regional context. This is supported by an Assessment of Significance provided as Appendix E. Table 13 Vegetation communities impacted by the proposed CTRWSPP Vegetation Community

Impact area scenarios (ha) Clearing Clearing ROW Zone of (3m) in a (20 m) disturb. sensitive (8m av.) area (1m)

PCT (excluding EECs / TECs) Yellow Box – Blakely’s Red Gum grassy woodland on the tablelands, South Eastern Highlands Bioregion Apple Box – Yellow Box dry grassy woodland of the South Eastern Highlands Bioregion EEC / TEC

8.86

3.54

1.33

0.44

0.59

0.24

0.09

0.03

Box Gum Woodland EEC / Box Gum Grassy Woodland and Derived Grassland TEC Tablelands Snow Gum Grassy Woodland EEC

0.20

0.08

0.03

0.01

0.57

0.23

0.09

0.03

Note: Shaded areas indicate options not being utilised, but are presented for completeness.

6.1.2

Threatened species

No threatened flora species (listed under either the EPBC Act or TSC Act) were detected within the Project area, despite targeted searches during suitable seasonal conditions from 2-7 November 2015. Although there remains potential for threatened flora species to occur within proposed impact areas, it is considered unlikely that substantial populations would exist without having been detected during the survey. Consequently, no Assessments of Significance have been undertaken for threatened flora species. It is considered unlikely that the Project would result in significant impacts on threatened flora species.

6.1.3

Noxious weeds and WoNS

Noxious weeds and WoNS occurring on the CTRWSPP alignment that would be removed or otherwise managed as part of the works include African boxthorn (Lycium ferocissimum), blackberry (Rubus fruticosus), Chilean needle grass (Nassella neesiana), Montpellier broom (Genista monspessulana), Scotch thistle (Onopordum acanthium), serrated tussock (Nassella trichotoma), sweet briar (Rosa rubiginosa), and willows (Salix spp.). These weeds were opportunistically recorded during the survey 2-7 November 2015. It is likely that a number of other noxious weeds and WoNS would be encountered along the alignment. If left unmitigated, construction activities have the potential to introduce and promote the spread of weeds through the use of unclean machinery which can spread weed propagules.

6.2

Terrestrial fauna

6.2.1

Habitat loss

Fauna habitat assessments were undertaken at 11 sites during the survey 2-7 November 2015. Habitat features commonly encountered included ground logs, small and large rocks, leaf litter, seeding grass cover, fleshy fruiting plants, nectar / pollen producing plants, mistletoe and a

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment

number of koala feed trees. Small and / or large hollows were encountered in the majority of woodland sites (Appendix B). Vegetation removal is discussed in Section 6.1.1. Approximately 10 ha of remnant vegetation will be removed, or otherwise interfered with, by the Project. A number of trees will be lopped or removed. This includes a portion of trees within the approximate 10 ha of remnant vegetation patches of >0.1 ha mapped as part of this assessment, as well as trees within smaller patches of remnant vegetation, isolated paddock and road corridor trees, regrowth vegetation, and landscape plantings. In addition to woody plants, construction activities will remove grasses, forbs and (to a lesser extent) shrubs from the ROW, resulting in temporary reductions in the available food resources for herbivores, granivores, nectarivores and (to a lesser extent) insectivores. Considering the limited vegetation removal required, the extent of similar vegetation in adjoining areas, and that rehabilitation works will immediately follow pipe placement (Section 7.2), the impacts of habitat loss on fauna are considered both minor and reversible (Section 6.4).

6.2.2

Connectivity and habitat fragmentation

The Project area provides habitat for a diversity of fauna, and is likely to provide habitat for a number of threatened species, particularly woodland birds (Section 5.2). The proposed works may temporarily fragment habitat available for wildlife along roadside corridors and within other remnant patches. However, these areas would be rehabilitated post-construction and therefore the impact on habitat connectivity is considered temporary. Rehabilitation would include managing weedy species – such as African boxthorn, blackberry, Montpellier broom, Scotch thistle, sweet briar and willows – allowing for assisted regeneration of native trees, native and pasture grasses, to help restore habitat connectivity.

6.2.3

Threatened and migratory species

Impacts to the following 24 threatened fauna species may occur as a result of the proposal (Table 9): 

Speckled warbler (Chthonicola sagittata) – Vulnerable (TSC Act)



Brown treecreeper – eastern subspecies (Climacteris picumnus victoriae) – Vulnerable (TSC Act)



Varied sittella (Daphoenositta chrysoptera) – Vulnerable (TSC Act)



Black falcon (Falco subniger) – Vulnerable (TSC Act)



Little lorikeet (Glossopsitta pusilla) – Vulnerable (TSC Act)



Regent honeyeater (Anthochaera phrygia) – Critically Endangered (EPBC Act and TSC Act)



Painted honeyeater Grantiella picta) – Vulnerable (EPBC Act and TSC Act)



Little eagle (Hieraaetus morphnoides) – Vulnerable (TSC Act)



Swift parrot (Lathamus discolour) – Endangered (EPBC Act and TSC Act)



Barking owl (Ninox connivens) – Vulnerable (TSC Act)



Powerful owl (Ninox strenua) – Vulnerable (TSC Act)



Blue-billed duck (Oxyura australis) – Vulnerable (TSC Act)



Freckled duck (Stictonetta naevosa) – Vulnerable (TSC Act)



Scarlet robin (Petroica boodang) – Vulnerable (TSC Act)



Flame robin (Petroica phoenicea) – Vulnerable (TSC Act)



Superb parrot (Polytelis swainsonii) – Vulnerable (EPBC Act and TSC Act)



Australian painted snipe (Stagonopleura guttata) – Vulnerable (TSC Act)

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment



Spotted-tailed quoll (SE mainland population) (Dasyurus maculatus maculatus) – Endangered (EPBC Act), Vulnerable (TSC Act)



Large-eared pied bat (Chalinolobus dwyeri) – Vulnerable (EPBC Act and TSC Act)



Eastern bentwing-bat (Miniopterus schreibersii oceanensis) – Vulnerable (TSC Act)



Southern myotis (Myotis macropus) – Vulnerable (TSC Act)



Koala (Phascolarctos cinereus) – Vulnerable (EPBC Act and TSC Act)



Grey-headed flying-fox (Pteropus poliocephalus) – Vulnerable (EPBC Act and TSC Act)



Pink-tailed worm-lizard (Aprasia parapulchella) – Vulnerable (EPBC Act and TSC Act).

Seven-part tests of significance have been undertaken for these species and are provided as Appendix E. The assessments determined that the proposal is unlikely to result in a significant impact on any of these fauna species. There is potential for the following migratory bird species to utilise the study area on occasion: 

Great egret (Ardea alba / modesta) – Migratory (EPBC Act)



Cattle egret (Ardea ibis) – Migratory (EPBC Act)



Latham’s snipe (Gallinago hardwickii) – Migratory (EPBC Act)



Rainbow bee-eater (Merops ornatus) – Migratory (EPBC Act)



Satin flycatcher (Myiagra cyanoleuca) – Migratory (EPBC Act)

Seven-part tests of significance have been undertaken for these MNES species, consistent with the bilateral agreement between the Australian and NSW Governments (DPI 2013) and are provided in Appendix E. The assessments determined that the proposal is unlikely to result in a significant impact on any of these migratory species.

6.3

Aquatic ecology

The proposed CTRWSPP alignment intersects 63 waterways, including a number of named watercourses and smaller tributaries, as summarised in Table 10. Works within and adjoining the waterways of the Project area, in particular those waterways representing Class 1 or 2 key fish habitat (Table 11), have the potential to temporarily impact aquatic ecological values through: 

vegetation clearing, earthworks, and vehicle use within, or adjacent to, waterways



creation of barriers obstructing surface water flows and aquatic fauna passage



unmitigated sediment laden stormwater runoff entering waterways



spills of contaminants such as fuels, oils or chemicals that could migrate into waters.

The level of impact is influenced by the construction methodology applied (Section 7.2.4), environmental factors such as soil and substrate characteristics, vegetation type, flow levels, weather, and rehabilitation measures such as bank stabilisation and revegetation. An approximate 3 m wide section of riverbed would be impacted by instream works at most crossings of Class 3 and 4 waterways. This area would be widened to up to 20m in flowing Class 1 and 2 waterways, where earthworks will likely extend to the construction of temporary minor dams and flow diversions (Section 7.2.4). Exceptions to this include Spring Creek (OC9.0), a tributary of Spring Creek Reservoir (OC-7.0), and School Creek (OC-52.2), for which the pipeline is expected to be placed in the road abutment, elevated above an existing culvert, and hung from an existing bridge, respectively. An approximate 3 m wide section of bank vegetation would also be temporarily impacted at each waterway crossing. Loss of bank vegetation would reduce edge habitat complexity, shelter and organic inputs into the stream reach. Weed management and site rehabilitation would assist in reducing impacts. 60

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment

The installation of instream structures during construction (temporary minor dams) may directly impact aquatic habitat through dredging and / or reclamation. This may include the relocation of large woody debris located within the dam footprint. Works that involve dredging or reclamation require consultation with DPI (Fisheries). The direct impact of any dredging or reclamation on instream habitat is expected to be minimal, owing to the relatively small impact footprint and the prevalence of similar habitat extending both upstream and downstream of crossing locations. Impacts would be localised and a small amount of large woody debris may need to be relocated from areas of disturbance. Minor dams may partially obstruct flow and impede fish passage for the duration of the works. The dams would require dewatering during installation. This has the potential to increase turbidity temporarily. The dams also have the potential to capture fish, and these would need to be salvaged during the dewatering. Pipeline construction through waterways has the potential to impact surface water quality through increased erosion of stream banks left exposed following vegetation clearing. In the absence of suitable controls, mobilised sediments can lead to increased suspended sediment loads in waterways. This can in turn reduce light penetration and visibility, limiting plant growth and impede fish movement. Increased sedimentation can also affect water chemistry, reduce waterway depths, change drainage patterns and smother benthic flora and fauna. Leaks or spills of hydrocarbon based fluids from construction equipment presents a potential risk. Hydrocarbons are toxic to aquatic flora and fauna at relatively low concentrations. Runoff of spilled fuels and oils into waterways is only likely to occur if spills occur in close proximity to the waterway, or if the spill or leak is left uncontrolled. The severity and duration of impacts would depend on the type and quantity of any fuel or oil spilled, and the effectiveness of containment measures.

6.3.1

Threatened aquatic species and endangered ecological community

Although unlikely to make substantial use of the Project area, transient impacts to the silver perch (Bidyanus bidyanus) – Vulnerable (FM Act), Critically Endangered (EPBC Act); and the Murray Cod (Maccullochella peelii) – Vulnerable (EPBC Act), may occur as a result of the Project. A seven-part test of significance has been undertaken for these species and is provided as Appendix E. The assessment determined that the proposal is unlikely to result in significant impacts on either of these species.

6.4

Reversible versus non-reversible impacts

In areas not subject to cropping and grazing, such as remnant and regrowth communities, there is the potential to allow tree and shrub vegetation to naturally re-establish over all but the area immediately over the pipeline. Assuming that a 3 m tree-free zone is sufficient to protect the pipeline from root damage, the remaining 17 m of the ROW would be expected to regenerate naturally in the medium term (20 to 50 years). The pipeline is likely to be decommissioned within 40 to 50 years. Decommissioning would be in accordance with the regulatory requirements and accepted environmental best practices at that time. Current procedures include the removal of all above ground infrastructure and the restoration of associated disturbed areas. Subject to the exception that landholders may, at that future time, choose to manage their properties in a manner that inhibits natural regrowth, the impacts associated with clearing for construction, maintenance and decommissioning of the pipeline are considered to be reversible.

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment

MITIGATION MEASURES

The following mitigation measures would assist in minimising the ecological impacts of the CTRWSPP. These measures generally include the minimum standard of management identified in the Code of Environmental Practice – Onshore Pipelines (APIA 2013), as well as additional measures specific to the Project.

7.1

Planning

7.1.1

Flora



 



7.1.2

Existing roads, tracks and areas of disturbance should be used where available, both for locating the pipeline and any lay down areas. Any new access tracks / points should be designed / chosen to avoid impacts on flora, fauna and their habitat. On private property, pre-construction assessments including photographs and GPS references should be undertaken as required – for use as pre-construction baseline allowing for future comparison should the need arise. Clearing activities shall be scheduled so that the time between initial clearing and rehabilitation is minimal. Clearly mark the location of the construction zone on the plans. All construction activities must be kept within the construction zone. No clearing will occur outside the construction zone. Rehabilitation measures should be planned (erosion / sediment control devices, re-use of any cleared vegetation) to optimise potential for regrowth and stabilisation success. Weed control should be incorporated into the Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP), including a weed hygiene procedure for known areas of weed infestation. On private property, landowner input should be sought on the presence and location of weeds. An inventory of noxious or declared weed species occurring along the easement should be compiled and appropriate weed control procedures developed. Weed management goals and desired outcomes should be established, based on regulatory pest plant control guidelines, regional weed control programs, an assessment of weed risk and consultation with landowners. Arrangements should be made to ensure Project and contractor staff are inducted into weed control issues and solutions, and appraised of relevant Project commitments and their responsibilities in fulfilling these.

Terrestrial Fauna



Pre-clearance terrestrial fauna surveys / checks must be undertaken by an ecologist or experienced fauna spotter / catcher approximately 1-5 days prior to tree clearing to identify and mitigate against direct impacts on breeding places of threatened species (such as parrots, woodland birds, raptors, microbats and quolls). Any trees or logs observed to contain an active breeding place of a threatened species must be cordoned off and left untouched until young have naturally vacated the immediate area.



If the pre-clearance terrestrial fauna survey / check identifies an occupied nest of a threatened species, nest boxes would be placed into nearby retention areas as an attempt to offset impacted tree hollows for use during subsequent breeding events.

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment

7.1.3 



Aquatic Ecology For waterways within the jurisdiction of OCC, a permit from DPI Fisheries must be attained by OCC prior to pipeline construction (i.e. dredging and reclamation works) within Key Fish Habitat areas (Table 5), in accordance with Section 200 of the FM Act. For waterways within the jurisdiction of Central Tablelands Water, being a public authority, DPI Fisheries must be notified (28 days notification) prior to pipeline construction (i.e. dredging and reclamation works) within Key Fish Habitat areas (Table 5), in accordance with Section 199 of the FM Act. A permit from DPI Fisheries must be attained from DPI Fisheries prior to the construction of any minor dams or other bunding that would block fish passage (even temporarily). This should be undertaken in conjunction with the Section 200 permit application and / or Section 199 notification. Erosion and Sediment Control (ESC) Plans should be developed for crossings of Class 1 and 2 waterways (as a minimum), and implemented during construction site establishment to minimise the likelihood of construction-related activities mobilising sediments and leading to turbidity and sedimentation of waterways.

7.2

Construction

7.2.1

Flora



 

     



Clearly mark the location of the construction zone on the ground. All construction activities must be kept within the construction zone. No clearing will occur outside the construction zone. Flagging or marking tape shall be used to identify ecologically sensitive features adjacent to the impact zone (Figure 6, Maps 1-11) for strict avoidance during construction. Vehicle parking shall be restricted to the pipeline construction corridor, easement, roadsides or other specifically designated areas agreed with the landowner in advance when outside of the road corridor. Parking under trees can damage their roots through soil compaction and impaired water infiltration into the soil, and should be discouraged. The removal or disturbance of vegetation outside the access tracks, agreed / approved additional work areas and pipeline ROW is not permitted unless additional regulatory and landowner approvals are obtained. Trimming of any native trees over-hanging the construction zone is preferred over removal, where feasible. Woody vegetation over-hanging the construction zone should be lopped to the minimum extent necessary to achieve safe construction of the pipeline. Vegetation clearance should be minimised as far as practicable, with any cleared vegetation being stockpiled separately if required for respreading during reinstatement. Avoid disturbing roots or compacting soil in the drip zone of vegetation to be retained. Where possible, any native trees to be removed should be mulched and re-used in surrounding areas. Any cleared vegetation shall be stockpiled separately in a manner which: – facilitates respreading – avoids damage to adjacent live vegetation (e.g. any trees to be felled shall be felled onto the easement away from standing timber) Cleared vegetation management options include: – distribution of mulch over the pipeline construction area during rehabilitation to recycle nutrients and to provide surface protection from erosion or access barriers – retention of logs on site as habitat.

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment

   

 

   

  

7.2.2  

  



Any cleared vegetation shall be stockpiled separately in a manner which does not impede stock or wildlife. During earthworks, topsoil should be stockpiled locally, separately from subsoil, and respread over the disturbed area at completion of works in order to aid rehabilitation. Appropriate weed biosecurity measures, as identified below, shall be applied as necessary. All machinery, equipment and vehicles brought to the Project site should be free of any soil, seed or plant material. All soil and organic matter should be removed, including under the vehicle and in the cabin or trays. Restrict access of vehicles and personnel to areas of known noxious weed infestation. Vehicles exiting such areas may need to be re-cleaned. All machinery, equipment and vehicles taken into private landholdings should be inspected upon entry, and either admitted or refused entry on the bases of presence / absence of soil seed or plant material. Construction machinery shall be weed free prior to entering a flowing watercourse, or starting construction of a watercourse crossing. Construction machinery shall be weed free prior to entering a new private landholding, unless otherwise agreed by the landholder. Declared noxious weeds should be managed according to the requirements stipulated by the Noxious Weeds Act 1993. Construction machinery shall be blown down on site, then floated off site for washing, following completion of works within a landholding identified as containing Chilean needle grass (Nassella neesiana) or serrated tussock (N. trichotoma). Evidence of compliance with weed biosecurity requirements should be documented, e.g. on a Vehicle Wash Down Register. Transportation of topsoil along the pipeline corridor should be avoided where practicable. Any weed control activities involving the use of chemicals shall be undertaken in consultation with the relevant landowners and regulatory authorities, giving due consideration to sensitive land uses (e.g. chemical free, organic and biodynamic farming, run off potential, wind drift and flora and fauna sensitivities).

Terrestrial Fauna Felling of hollow bearing trees should be avoided where possible. Prior to clearing, any habitat trees / hollows / hollow logs and other habitat for conservation significant species should be identified and flagged, with a view to re-using such trees / hollows / hollow logs as fauna habitat as part of the ROW reinstatement. Individual pipes and joined pipe sections (pipe strings) shall not impede vehicle, stock or wildlife passage. Joined pipe sections should have temporary end caps installed when the site is not attended, to prevent ingress of fauna. Measures shall be adopted to prevent fauna entrapment within the pipeline trench, such as: – minimising the period of time the trench is open, particularly in fauna habitat areas – constructing trench plugs, at appropriate intervals, with slopes <45° to provide exit ramps for fauna – use of branches, ropes, hessian sacks, ramped gangplanks or similar to create ‘ladders’ to enable fauna to exit the trench. An experienced fauna spotter / catcher should be available to: – advise on tree clearing techniques that will minimise fauna impact and to undertake fauna handling if required – remove trapped fauna as required DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment



7.2.3 



 



7.2.4

– treat (or transport) any animals inadvertently injured. Project personnel to: – regularly monitor the open trench and arrange for removal of any trapped fauna by an experienced fauna / spotter. – survey the trench prior to the commencement of pipe laying and backfill activities, notify the fauna spotter / catcher where fauna is present, and wait until such fauna has been removed before proceeding with pipe laying or backfill. Records of all fauna interactions should be created, listing the species concerned, the nature of the interaction and its GPS coordinates.

Aquatic Ecology Construction methods of waterway crossings shall be in accordance with Section 7.2.4 and shall allow for the free passage of fish downstream and upstream of the works areas at all times. Any activities requiring the dewatering of a dammed area within the disturbance area (ROW) must ensure that affected water is pumped a minimum 30 m away from the waterway and should not re-enter the waterway. If water is to re-enter the waterway, water quality parameters must not be significantly different to receiving waters (as measured upstream of disturbance areas). Only the minimum number of snags (large woody debris) should be disturbed within wetted habitat. Within the ROW of the Belubula River (OC-52.5) and Coombing Creek (OC-55.0), in which potential threatened fish habitat has been confirmed, snags must not be impacted by the works. No snags were encountered within the ROW at these locations during the field survey 2-7 November 2015; however, snags can be mobile and may be present within the ROW at the time of construction. DPI Fisheries must be contacted, and approval attained, prior to removing, realigning or relocating any snags at these locations. Vehicles and machinery should be kept away from the banks of waterways where possible. Areas for vehicle and machinery maintenance, refuelling, and storage of fuels, lubricants, and batteries, should be bunded in accordance with Australian Standard AS 1940-2004 The storage and handling of flammable and combustible liquids. Refuelling during construction should be undertaken > 50 m from a waterway. Maintenance and daily checks of plant and equipment must be undertaken to minimise the risk of hydrocarbon spills or leaks. Emergency spill kits must be made available and readily accessible for all plant and equipment at all times, and should include equipment for containment and clean-up of spills on dry soils/sediments as well as for water (e.g. floating booms). Any contaminant spills (including fuel, hydraulic fluid etc.) must be contained (where safe to do so) and immediately reported to the construction manager / environmental advisor to establish a plan for remediation.

Waterway crossing construction

Where possible, crossings should be constructed while the waterway is dry using the open cut trenching method. If flow is present, water should be conveyed across the trench via flume pipes or, alternatively, the watercourse should be temporarily dammed and the water flow pumped around the crossing site. Standard open cut

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment

Waterways that are Class 3 (minimal key fish habitat) and Class 4 (unlikely key fish habitat) are expected to be constructed using the standard open cut (trenching) method, as illustrated in Plate 3. This technique is most suited to dry or low flow conditions. It involves establishing a stable working platform either side of the watercourse and creating a trench using excavators. Tie-in points are located on high ground well away from any water flow.

Plate 3 Open cut construction of watercourse crossing (Source: SKM 2012) Trench spoil removed from the waterway should be placed above the bank. Trench and backfill activities should be undertaken in a manner that enables bed and bank material to be stockpiled separately and returned to the trench to match original conditions. Joined pipe is laid in the trench and spoil material returned to the trench. Rock protection should be placed over the trench in the stream bed where required, to prevent potential scouring during any high flow events. Open cut with flow diversion Waterways that are Class 1 (major key fish habitat) and Class 2 (moderate key fish habitat) may require flow diversion during construction of the pipeline crossing. Flow diversion is a modification of the standard open cut method and should be applied where higher water volumes and flows (typically <1,000 L/s) are present or anticipated during the construction period. Flow diversion includes the use of a flume pipe or pump to convey water through or around the work area. Each method requires the construction of two minor dams to create a dry work area within the ROW. Open cut – minor dam and flume This method concentrates stream flows through a flume pipe to prevent siltation problems that may be created during trenching, lowering in and backfilling. Key considerations of this technique include:



It is not suitable for watercourses with broad channels, low gradients or permeable substrates



lower risk of erosion and sedimentation compared with the standard open cut technique due to diversion of flows around the works area



the footprint of works will likely extend across the full ROW



fish passage is temporarily blocked (long, dark pipes create a behavioural barrier to fish movement), although the flow regime is effectively maintained



fish trapped in the impounded area require management (relocation of native species, euthanasia of pest species)



water pumped from the impoundment area may require treatment prior to discharge. DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment

Open cut – minor dam and pumping This method involves pumping water around the work area by constructing barrier dykes / head walls above and below the trenched area, keeping the work area relatively dry. Key considerations of this technique include: 

suitable for low gradient watercourses with a discharge <1,000 L/s



risk of malfunction or failure of the pump system



lower risk of erosion and sedimentation compared with the standard open cut technique due to diversion of flows around the works area



the footprint of works will likely extend across the full ROW



fish passage is temporarily blocked, although the flow regime is effectively maintained



fish trapped in the impounded area require management (relocation of native species, euthanasia of pest species)



water pumped from the impoundment area may require treatment prior to discharge.

Stream banks should be reinstated as near as practicable to their original profile. Where required, geofabric, which remains permeable to water and enhances plant growth, should be used to stabilise soil and sediment during re-establishment. Vegetation should be reinstated (Section 7.3) to facilitate bank stabilisation. Following construction, reinstatement should be monitored and livestock access temporarily restricted to facilitate rehabilitation.

7.3

Reinstatement and Rehabilitation

7.3.1

General



The pipeline should be constructed in stages to allow for progressive rehabilitation.



Rehabilitation should commence as soon as possible following completion of construction.



Upon completion of pipeline construction, temporary access tracks should be closed and rehabilitated to a condition compatible with the surrounding land use, and as preagreed with the landowner when outside of the road corridor.

7.3.2

7.3.3

Private landholdings on strategically important land -

Remove excess rock or fill material.

Re-profiling the site in a manner which ensures soil stability and which is as near as practicable to pre-existing contours.

Relieve soil compaction in trafficked areas as necessary (e.g. rip along the contours).

Respreading stockpiled topsoil over the rehabilitation area.

Undertake seeding, where required by the landowner, in consultation with the landowner.

Monitor rehabilitation success, undertaking maintenance and or supplementary seeding as required.

Road corridors and similar areas -

Remove excess rock or fill material.

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment

7.3.4



Re-profile the site in a manner which ensures soil stability and which is as near as practicable to pre-existing contours.

Relieve soil compaction in trafficked areas as necessary (e.g. rip along the contours).

Respread stockpiled topsoil over the rehabilitation area, maximising the use of the existing seed bank to regenerate and stabilise disturbed areas.

Monitor rehabilitation success, undertaking maintenance or seeding as required.

Works in proximity to (i.e. within 20 m of) EECs or TECs -

Remove excess rock or fill material.

Re-profile the site in a manner which ensures soil stability and which is as near as practicable to pre-existing contours.

Soil compaction relief in trafficked areas as necessary (e.g. rip along the contours).

Respread stockpiled topsoil over the rehabilitation area.

Apply native seed of local species, containing kangaroo grass (Themeda triandra), tussock (P. labillardierei) and / or snow grass (P. sieberiana), in proximity to the EEC at the Icely Road Filtration Plant (OC-0.2 to OC-0.7).

Apply native seed of local species, dominated by kangaroo grass (T. triandra), in proximity to the EEC at Millthorpe Cemetery (OC-25.1 to OC-25.3) and the EEC / TEC south of Blayney (OC-39.7 to OC-39.9).

Apply native seed of local species, dominated by tussock (P. labillardierei), in proximity to the EEC at Blayney Golf Course (OC-41.0 to OC-41.5 and OC-41.7 to OC-41.9) and the EEC on the Mid Western Highway from OC-48.8 to OC49.0.

Apply native seed of local species, co-dominated by kangaroo grass (T. triandra) and tussock (P. labillardierei), in proximity to the EEC / TEC north of Carcoar from approximately OC-50.0 to OC-51.0.

Monitor rehabilitation success, undertaking maintenance and supplementary seeding as required.

Where seeding is adopted to facilitate prompt revegetation and soil stabilisation, the following principles shall be considered: -

Seed mixtures shall be formulated with consideration of the vegetation composition of the areas adjacent to the pipeline construction area. When outside of the road corridor, the proposed seed mixture must first be agreed with the landholder.

Where applied, seed shall be evenly dispersed over the disturbed area.

Seeding shall take place as soon as practicable after reinstatement of the soil profile; reapplication of seed may be required in some areas.

Fertilisers and soil supplements may be necessary to aid germination, but shall only be applied in consultation with landholders, as their application could encourage faster-growing weed species.



A watering regime should be determined for newly reinstated areas, to facilitate optimum germination of seed stock in the absence of rain.



Rehabilitation should be monitored regularly, with requisite maintenance being undertaken as soon as practicable. DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment



7.4 



  

If rehabilitation monitoring determines that erosion is occurring due to inadequate vegetation cover on the easement, consideration should be given to promoting additional growth or installing erosion control structures. Such work should be conducted in consultation with the relevant landowner when outside of the road corridor. Flagging or marking tape, used to identify ecologically sensitive features, shall be removed and correctly disposed of at the completion of construction.

Operation The pipeline alignment should be patrolled at least annually by personnel trained in the identification of weed species likely to be encountered, particularly WoNS and other declared noxious weeds, and in techniques for their management. Overall rehabilitation success should also be monitored as part of this patrol. Inspection of the pipeline easement should include an assessment of weed impacts. If significant infestations are found, aspects noted should include: - weed species that are present (WoNS and other noxious weeds should be noted as such) - estimated coverage of total area - possible reasons for infestation - suggested management measure(s). All maintenance inspections should include notes on weeds encountered and actions taken / recommended. Follow up weed control should be undertaken, in consultation with the landowner, where it is determined likely that the Project has led to their presence. Maintenance crews should be made aware of weed control requirements and their compliance with weed control requirements monitored as appropriate.

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The Project alignment intersects, or passes within 50 m of, a mosaic of broad open grazed and cropped farmlands, woodland and native grassland remnants, native and exotic landscape plantings, plantation pine, as well as roadside plantings and woodland regrowth. Past clearing, pasture improvement, livestock grazing, earthworks, exotic plantings, roadside vegetation management and weed ingression have each impacted and influenced the vegetation across the Project area, substantially removing moving much of the native composition and floristic structure from the landscape. Remnant vegetation intersected by the CTRWSPP includes various representations of Yellow Box – Blakely’s Red Gum grassy woodland on the tablelands, South Eastern Highlands Bioregion, with a small occurrence of Apple Box – Yellow Box dry grassy woodland of the South Eastern Highlands Bioregion. The route selection process has resulted in an alignment which minimises the need for vegetation clearing, avoiding the vast majority of woody vegetation encountered within the Project area. The aggregated 66 km CTRWSPP alignment intersects about 5.11 km of remnant vegetation, equating to a maximum disturbance area of 10.22 ha of remnant vegetation (20 m ROW). This is more likely to be in the order of 4.1 ha of remnant vegetation, with a reduced ROW of about 8 m in woodland habitats. These impacts are considered minimal in both a local and regional context. A number of EECs and potential TECs were identified in the Project area (i.e. within 50 m of the alignment). The proposed alignment avoids most of these remnants, with impacts limited to the removal of approximately 0.01 to 0.03 ha of the disturbed edge of a patch of Box-Gum Grassy Woodland EEC (being potential Box-Gum Grassy Woodland and Derived Grassland TEC) and approximately 0.03-0.09 ha of a disturbed patch of Tablelands Snow Gum Grassy Woodland EEC, each falling within the road corridor. The impacts on each EEC / TEC are minimal in both a local and regional context. This is supported by an Assessment of Significance (Appendix E). No threatened flora species (listed under either the EPBC Act or TSC Act) were detected within the Project area, despite targeted searches during suitable seasonal conditions from 2-7 November 2015. Although there remains potential for threatened flora species to occur within the proposed impact areas, it is unlikely that substantial populations would exist without having been detected during the survey. A number of noxious weeds and WoNS were identified in the Project area during the survey, highlighting the importance of weed hygiene protocols to be adhered to throughout all phases of the Project. Impacts to fauna and their habitat are considered minor, restricted largely to temporary removal of foraging habitat, as opposed to removing breeding habitat. Direct impacts on fauna can be mitigated during construction by fauna pre-clearance checks in the lead up to clearing, as well as the presence of a fauna spotter / catcher during clearing and earthworks, at least when passing through woodland remnants and waterway crossings. The Project may disrupt or otherwise impact up to 24 threatened fauna species and an additional five migratory bird species. However, Assessments of Significance have determined that impacts are unlikely to be significant. Approximately 63 waterways will be intersected by the proposed CTRWSP, including a number of named watercourses, but mainly smaller tributaries and drainage depressions. The level of impact will be influenced by construction methodologies, environmental factors such as soil and substrate characteristics, vegetation type, flow levels, weather, and rehabilitation efforts. Construction methodologies are expected to include open cut with flow diversion on most Class 70

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Ecological Assessment

1 and 2 waterways, and open cut trenching on most Class 3 and 4 waterways. However, the construction technique adopted will be dependent on the conditions encountered at each of the 63 waterway crossings at the time of construction. Through adoption of appropriate impact mitigation measures, the integrity of receiving waters is unlikely to be affected. The proposed CTRWSPP is unlikely to result in a significant impact on threatened or migratory species or ecological communities recognised as MNES by the EPBC Act. Similarly, the proposed CTRWSPP is unlikely to result in a significant impact on threatened species, populations or ecological communities or their habitats, within the meaning of the TSC Act or FM Act. Consequently, the requirement for a Species Impact Statement is not triggered. Most impacts resulting from the construction of the Project are considered minor and temporary in nature. In areas not subject to cropping and grazing, such as remnant and regrowth communities, there is the potential to allow tree and shrub vegetation to naturally re-establish over all but the area immediately over the pipeline. A reduced easement over the constructed pipeline will be required for the ongoing inspection and maintenance of the pipeline. Assuming that a 3 m easement is sufficient to protect the pipeline from root damage, the remaining 5-17 m would be expected to regenerate naturally in the medium term (20 to 50 years). The pipeline is likely to be decommissioned within 40 to 50 years. Decommissioning would be in accordance with the regulatory requirements and accepted environmental best practices at that time. Current procedures include the removal of all above ground infrastructure and the restoration of associated disturbed areas. Subject to the exception that landholders may, at that future time, choose to manage their properties in a manner that inhibits natural regrowth, the impacts associated with clearing for construction, maintenance and decommissioning of the pipeline are considered to be reversible within all remnant vegetation.

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment

REFERENCES

Allen, GR, Midgley, SH, and Allen, M, 2002, Field guide to the freshwater fishes of Australia, Western Australia Museum, WA, 394pp. Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (DSEWPaC) 2012, Grey Box (Eucalyptus microcarpa) Grassy Woodlands and Derived Native Grasslands of South-Eastern Australia: A guide to the identification, assessment and management of a nationally threatened ecological community. DSEWPaC, Canberra. Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (SEWPaC) 2011, Survey guideline for Australia's threatened fish, Commonwealth of Australia. Australian Government Department of the Environment (DotE) 2013, Matters of National Environmental Significance: Significant impact guidelines 1.1, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. DotE, Canberra. Australian Government Department of the Environment (DotE) 2015a, Protected Matters Search Tool, viewed 24 October 2015, http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/pmst/ Australian Government Department of the Environment (DotE) 2015b, Species Profile and Threats Database, DotE, Canberra, viewed 28 October 2015, http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/sprat.pl Australian Government Department of the Environment and Heritage (DEH) 2006a, EPBC Policy Statement: White Box – Yellow Box – Blakely’s Red Gum grassy woodlands and derived native grasslands. DEH, Canberra. Australian Government Department of the Environment and Heritage (DEH) 2006b, Species list for the EPBC Act policy statement: White Box – Yellow Box – Blakely’s Red Gum grassy woodlands and derived native grasslands. DEH, Canberra. Bower C, Semple B and Harcombe L 2002, Eucalypts of the Central West of NSW. NSW Department of Land and Water Conservation, Orange. Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) 2015, Orange Airport meteorological monitoring station 063303, viewed 20 November 2015, http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/dwo/IDCJDW2105.latest.shtml Cayley NW 2011, What bird is that? Australia’s Heritage Publishing Pty Ltd, Sydney. Churchill S 2008, Australian Bats: Second Edition. Allen & Unwin, Crows Nest NSW. Clayton M, Wombey JC, Mason IJ, Chesser RT and Wills A 2006, CSIRO List of Australian Vertebrates: A Reference with Conservation Status. CSIRO Publishing, Canberra. Cogger HG 2014, Reptiles and Amphibians of Australia: Seventh edition, CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood Vic. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) 2009, Australian Soil and Land Survey Field Handbook, 3rd edition, CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood. Council of Heads of Australasian Herbaria (CHAH) 2014, Australian Plant Census, https://www.anbg.gov.au/chah/apc/ GHD 2008, Councils of Blayney, Cabonne and Orange City: Sub-Regional Rural and Industrial Land Use Strategy, Available: http://www.orange.nsw.gov.au/client_images/1732618.PDF Keith D 2004, Ocean Shores to Desert Dunes: The Native Vegetation of New South Wales and the ACT. NSW Department of Environment and Conservation, Hurstville. Lintermans M, 2007, Fishes of the Murray-Darling Basin, an introductory guide. Murray-Darling Basin Commission, Canberra. 72

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment

Morcombe M 2003, Field Guide to Australian Birds. Steve Parish Publishing Pty Ltd, Archerfield Qld. NSW Department of Environment and Climate Change (DECC) 2008, Recovery plan for the koala (Phascolarctos cinereus). DECC, Sydney. NSW Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) 2006, Combined Extant Vegetation for Central West and Lachlan Catchments. VIS_ID 4163. NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (DECCW) 2010, Tablelands Basalt Forest in the Sydney Basin and South Eastern Highlands Bioregions. DECCW, Sydney South. NSW Department of Primary Industries (DPI) 2007, Key Fish Habitat – shapefiles and metadata. NSW DPI, Nelson Bay. NSW Department of Primary Industries (DPI) 2013, Policy and guidelines for fish habitat conservation and management. DPI, Wollongbar. NSW Department of Primary Industries (DPI) 2015, Threatened & protected species – records Viewer, viewed 25 November 2015, http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/speciesprotection/records/viewer NSW Department of Primary Industries 2006, Silver Perch Bidyanus bidyanus NSW Recovery Plan, DPI, Nelson Bay. NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) 2002, Identification Guidelines for Endangered Ecological Communities: White Box Yellow Box Blakely’s Red Gum Woodland (Box-Gum Woodland). NPWS, Hurstville. NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) 2011, Nature Conservation – South Eastern Highlands Bioregion, viewed 24 November 2015, http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/bioregions/SouthEasternHighlandsBioregion.htm NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) 2011a, Nature conservation, Tablelands Snow Gum, Black Sallee, Candlebark and Ribbon Gum Grassy Woodland in the South Eastern Highlands, Sydney Basin, South East Corner and NSW South Western Slopes Bioregions – endangered ecological community: NSW Scientific Committee – final determination, 28 October 2015, http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/determinations/tablelandssnowgumFD.htm NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) 2011b, Nature conservation, Conserving biodiversity, Bioregion overviews, viewed 1 July 2015, http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/bioregions/BioregionOverviews.htm NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) 2012, VIS Plant Community Identification Tool, Version 1.0.0.0. OEH. NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) 2015a, BioNet – the website for the Atlas of NSW Wildlife, viewed 2 June 2015, http://www.bionet.nsw.gov.au/ NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) 2015b, Native vegetation, Vegetation Information System: Classification. Viewed 10 June 2015, http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/research/Visclassification.htm NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) 2015c, Threatened species profiles, viewed 28 October 2015, http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/threatenedspecies/index.htm NSW Rural Fire Service (NSW RFS) 2006, Planning for Bush Fire Protection. NSW RFS. NSW Rural Fire Service (NSW RFS) 2012, BAL Risk Assessment Application Kit: New dwellings and alterations and additions to existing dwellings. NSW RFS. NSW Scientific Committee 2013, Final Determination: Black Falcon Falco subniger. NSW Scientific Committee, Hurstville. Available: http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/threatenedspecies/BlackFalcVSFD.pdf DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment

Saunders DL and Tzaros CL 2011, National Recovery Plan for the Swift Parrot Lathamus discolor, Birds Australia, Melbourne. Sivertsen D 2009, Native Vegetation Interim Type Standard, Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water NSW, Sydney. SKM, 2012, Arrow Bowen Pipeline Project – Environmental Impact Statement. Report prepared for Arrow Energy Pty Ltd. Strahan R 1995, The Mammals of Australia: Revised edition. Reed New Holland, Sydney. The Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust 2011, NSW Flora Online Search – Rare or Threatened Australian Plants, viewed 25 November 2015, http://plantnet.rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au/ Threatened Species Scientific Committee (TSSC) 2013, Conservation Advice: Bidyanus bidyanus (silver perch), viewed 25 November 2015, http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/species/pubs/76155-conservationadvice.pdf Victorian Government Department of Natural Resources and Environment (DNRE) 1999, Regent Honeyeater Recovery Plan 1999-2003. DNRE, Melbourne. Victorian Government Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) 2011, National Recovery Plan for the Superb Parrot Polytelis swainsonii. DSE, Melbourne. Walker J and Hopkins MS 1990, ‘Vegetation’, in RC McDonald, RF Isbell, JG Speight, J Walker and MS Hopkins (eds), Australian Soil and Land Survey Field Handbook, 2nd edition, Inkata Press, Melbourne.

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Ecological Assessment

Appendix A: Vegetation / Flora Site Descriptions

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment

Survey Code OC-0.1 (Flora) Location Orange Water Treatment Plant Date 20/11/2015 Latitude -33.28781 Longitude 149.12618 Elevation: 910 mAHD Slope: 5° Aspect: E General Site Description Rolling low hills Landform Lithology Height of EDS Crown cover Formation Vegetation class Mapped regional vegetation (BVT) Calculated plant community type (PCT) Dominant vegetation observed

General Site Observations

Health TSC Act status EPBC Act status

Basalt Tall (mode 20 m; range 17-23 m) Sparse or open Grassy woodland Southern Tablelands Grassy Woodland Apple Box – Yellow Box – Mountain Gum open-woodland on flats and low hills of the central tablelands Yellow Box – Blakely’s Red Gum grassy woodland on the tablelands, South Eastern Highlands Bioregion (based on site and floristics data inputted into the VIS PCT Identification Tool [DECC 2008]) Tall open grassy woodland dominated by yellow box (Eucalyptus melliodora) and apple box (E. bridgesiana), with frequent ribbon gum (Eucalyptus viminalis). Sparse mid stratum dominated by exotics, including African boxthorn (Lycium ferocissimum) (a WONS), hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna), blackberry (Rubus fruticosus) (a WONS) and sweet briar (Rosa rubiginosa) (a WONS). Groundcover dominated by introduced species including prairie grass (Bromus catharticus), winter grass (Poa annua) and phalaris (Phalaris aquatica), though with frequent natives including tussock (Poa labillardierei) and snow grass (Poa sieberiana), and occasional kangaroo grass (Themeda triandra). Trees form ecologically dominant stratum; isolated connectivity, irregular patch; disturbance associated with weed ingress and cattle grazing; very little recruitment; soils are brown loamy clay, with patches of brown sandy loam; erosion absent; little dieback (1-25%); fire scars absent. Average Endangered – represents Box Gum Woodland EEC (Table 1), although the alignment avoids this EEC Unlikely to represent a TEC, as the understorey is not dominated by natives.

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment

Survey Code OC-4.7 (Flora) Location Leewood water tank Date 2/11/2015 Latitude -33.31321 Longitude 149.10564 Elevation: 926 mAHD Slope: 10° Aspect: SE

General Site Description Rolling low hills Landform Lithology Height of EDS Crown cover Formation Vegetation class Mapped regional vegetation (BVT) Calculated plant community type (PCT) Dominant vegetation observed

General Site Observations

Health TSC Act status EPBC Act status DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Pyroxene olivine basalt, plagioclase basalt, alkali basalt, trachybasalt, trachyandesite Tall (mode 19 m; range 16-21 m) Mid-dense Grassy woodland Southern Tablelands Grassy Woodland Apple Box – Yellow Box – Mountain Gum open-woodland on flats and low hills of the central tablelands Yellow Box – Blakely’s Red Gum grassy woodland on the tablelands, South Eastern Highlands Bioregion (based on site and floristics data inputted into the VIS PCT Identification Tool [DECC 2008]) Tall grassy woodland dominated by apple box (Eucalyptus bridgesiana) on northern and western side of hill and by ribbon gum (E. viminalis) on eastern and southern sides. Sparse to mid-dense mid stratum dominated by exotics, including hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna), blackberry (Rubus fruticosus) (a WONS), African boxthorn (Lycium ferocissimum) (a WONS) and sweet briar (Rosa rubiginosa) (a WONS). Groundcover dominated by exotic species including great brome (Bromus diandrus), prairie grass (B. catharticus), soft brome (B. hordeaceus), barley grass (Hordeum leporinum) and perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne). Weedy site, with frequent species including hemlock (Conium maculatum), variegated thistle (Silybum marianum), star thistle (Centaurea calcitrapa) and Verbena spp. Trees form ecologically dominant stratum; isolated patch; disturbance associated with weed ingress and spread exacerbated by vehicles accessing telecommunications equipment and water infrastructure; no recruitment evident; soils are red-brown clayey loam; no erosion detected; scattered dieback; fire scars absent. Poor (no recruitment detected; very weedy) Closest fit to an EEC is the Tablelands Snow Gum Grassy Woodland (Table 1); however, unlikely to represent an EEC Unlikely to represent a TEC 77

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment

Survey Code OC-25.2 (Flora) Location Millthorpe Cemetery Date 7/11/2015 Latitude -33.44212 Longitude 149.18642 Elevation: 976 mAHD Slope: 7° Aspect: WSW General Site Description Rolling rises Landform Lithology EDS height Crown cover Formation Veg. class Mapped BVT Observed PCT Dominant vegetation observed

General Site Observations

Health TSC Act status

EPBC Act status

Clinopyroxene basalt, agglomeratic in places; volcanic sandstone Tall (range 5 m [juveniles] -17 m [adult remnants]) Very sparse Grassy woodland Southern Tablelands Grassy Woodland Not mapped Yellow Box – Blakely’s Red Gum grassy woodland on the tablelands, South Eastern Highlands Bioregion (using DECC 2008) Native grassland to tall open woodland dominated by ribbon gum / mountain gum (E. viminalis / dalrympleana) [no juvenile foliage to differentiate], with occasional apple box (E. bridgesiana). Yellow box (E. melliodora) included in plantings. Sparse mid stratum dominated by young eucalypts and acacias (including A. dealbata) in nearby retention area, and by hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna) in planted windbreak along fenceline. Groundcover dominated by kangaroo grass (Themeda triandra), with frequent tussock (Poa labillardierei), occasional snowgrass (Poa sieberiana), native raspberry (Rubus parvifolius), bluebells (Wahlenbergia australis), flax lily (Dianella sp.), native geranium (Geranium solanderi), golden lily (Dichopogon strictus), rice flower (Pimelea curviflora), hairy sheep’s burr (Acaena agnipila), yam daisy (Microseris lanceolata), common woodruff (Asperula conferta), swamp dock (Rumex brownii). Frequent exotics including cocksfoot (Dactylis glomerata) and phalaris (P. aquatica), blackberry (Rubus fruticosus) (a WONS), Yorkshire fog (Holcus annuus), ribwort (Plantago lanceolata), great brome (Bromus diandrus), prairie grass (B. catharticus) and narrow-leaved vetch (Vicia sativa subsp. nigra). Trees form ecologically dominant stratum; isolated patch; brown clayey loam soils; erosion absent; dieback absent; fire scars absent. Proposed alignment follows edge of Hawthorn plantings with groundcover in this shaded, disturbed strip dominated by the exotic cocksfoot and phalaris. Good (in broader area); degraded along fence line and alignment. Endangered – may represent either the Box Gum Woodland EEC or Tablelands Snow Gum Grassy Woodland EEC (Table 1), although the alignment avoids this EEC. Unlikely to be a TEC (Table 1), as the site is not dominated by either white box, yellow box or Blakely’s red gum. DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment

Survey Code OC-34.2 (Flora) Location North of Blayney Browns Creek Road, Blayney Date 4/11/2015 Latitude -33.51034 Longitude 149.21993 Elevation: 914 mAHD Slope: 2° Aspect: E General Site Description Gently undulating rises Landform Lithology EDS height Crown cover Formation Vegetation class Mapped BVT Observed plant community type (PCT) Dominant vegetation observed

General Site Observations

Health TSC Act status EPBC Act status

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Clinopyroxene basalt, agglomeratic in places; volcanic sandstone Medium (mode 0.25 m; range 0.05-0.5 m) N/A Grassland Grassland – unclassified Natural grassland and shrubland – unclassified species Agricultural grassland / improved pasture (not a natural grassland, nor shrubland) Agricultural grassland dominated by exotic pasture species including prairie grass (Bromus catharticus), soft brome (B. hordeaceus), perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne) and white clover (Trifolium repens), with occasional hairy clover (Trifolium sp.), barley grass (Hordeum leporinum) and Yorkshire fog (Holcus annuus). Native species represented by tussock (Poa labillardierei) (approx. 25%), and occasional natives including geranium (Geranium solanderi), rush (Restio sp.) and pale spike sedge (Eleocharis pallens). Grasses form dominant stratum; continuation of surrounding agricultural grassland / pasture; currently grazed by cattle; good quality pasture with few weeds, however, not a natural grassland; light brown clayey loam soils; no erosion evident. N/A (not a natural grassland) Not an EEC Not a TEC

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment

Survey Code OC-39.8 (Flora) Location Mid Western Highway, south of Blayney Date 4/11/2015 Latitude -33.54643 Longitude 149.23820 Elevation: 948 mAHD Slope: 2° Aspect: NE General Site Description Gently undulating rises Landform Lithology EDS height Crown cover Formation Vegetation class Mapped BVT Observed plant community type (PCT) Dominant vegetation observed

General Site Observations

Health TSC Act status EPBC Act status

Clinopyroxene basalt, agglomeratic in places; volcanic sandstone Tall (mode 17 m; range 16-19 m) Sparse or open Grassy woodland Southern Tablelands Grassy Woodland Apple Box – Yellow Box – Mountain Gum open-woodland on flats and low hills of the central tablelands Yellow Box – Blakely’s Red Gum grassy woodland on the tablelands, South Eastern Highlands Bioregion (based on site and floristics data inputted into the VIS PCT Identification Tool [DECC 2008]) Tall open grassy woodland dominated by yellow box (Eucalyptus melliodora) and apple box (E. bridgesiana), with rare occurrence of white sally (E. pauciflora). Sparse mid stratum dominated by silver wattle (Acacia dealbata) and sifton bush (Cassinia arcuata). Groundcover dominated by native species, including tussock (Poa labillardierei) and kangaroo grass (Themeda triandra) and the exotic cocksfoot (Dactylis glomerata) and quaking grass (Briza maxima). Frequent natives included rice flower (Pimelea curviflora), golden lily (Bulbine bulbosa), common woodruff (Asperula conferta), bush pea (Pultanea procumbens), native geranium (Geranium solanderi) and bluebells (Wahlenbergia australis). Trees form dominant stratum; semi-isolated patch; disturbance associated with landscaping and road corridor; frequent weeds in the ground stratum; recruitment evident; light brown clayey loam soils; no erosion evident; scattered dieback; fire scars absent. Good (recruitment evident, abundance of natives in ground stratum; weeds) Endangered – The remnant patch is likely to represent Box-Gum Woodland EEC (Table 1). Critically Endangered – Although not yet proven by detailed floristic survey (i.e. identifying 12 or more native understorey spp., excl. grasses), the precautionary principle has been applied in assuming that the remnant patch is a potential Box-Gum Grassy Woodland and Derived Grassland TEC (Table 1). DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment

Survey Code OC-41.2 (Flora) Location Front of Blayney Golf Course Date 4/11/2015 Latitude -33.55651 Longitude 149.23058 Elevation: 918 mAHD Slope: 5° Aspect: S

General Site Description Undulating rises Landform Lithology EDS height Crown cover Formation Vegetation class Mapped regional vegetation (BVT) Observed plant community type (PCT) Dominant vegetation observed

General Site Observations

Health TSC Act status EPBC Act status DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Clinopyroxene basalt, agglomeratic in places; volcanic sandstone Tall (mode 18 m; range 12-19 m) Closed Grassy woodland Southern Tablelands Grassy Woodland Apple Box – Yellow Box – Mountain Gum open-woodland on flats and low hills of the central tablelands Yellow Box – Blakely’s Red Gum grassy woodland on the tablelands, South Eastern Highlands Bioregion (based on site and floristics data inputted into the VIS PCT Identification Tool [DECC 2008]) Tall grassy woodland dominated by ribbon gum (Eucalyptus viminalis) with frequent apple box (E. bridgesiana) and occasional Blakely’s red gum (E. blakelyi). Sparse mid stratum dominated by silver wattle (Acacia dealbata), hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna) and blackberry (Rubus fruticosus) (a WONS). Groundcover dominated by the exotic cocksfoot (Dactylis glomerata) and phalaris (Phalaris aquatica), frequent native tussock (Poa labillardierei) and exotic Bromus spp. Occasional natives included bidgeewidgee (Aceana novae-zelandiae), native geranium (Geranium solanderi) and Cyperus exaltatus; occasional exotics included Yorkshire fog (Holcus annuus), quaking grass (Briza maxima), shivery grass (B. minor), cleavers (Galium aparine), shaftal clover (Trifolium resupinatum) and narrow-leaved vetch (Vicia sativa subsp. nigra). Trees form dominant stratum; connectivity not isolated, yet not continuous; disturbance associated with past highway construction; frequent weeds in the ground and shrub strata; no recruitment detected; light brown clayey loam soils; scattered rill erosion; scattered dieback; fire scars absent. Average (no recruitment detected) Endangered – Although impacted by weeds, the remnant patch is likely to represent Tablelands Snow Gum Grassy Woodland EEC (Table 1). Unlikely to represent a TEC, as the understorey is predominantly exotic. 81

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment

Survey Code OC-48.9 (Flora) Location Mid Western Highway, near Fullers Lane Date 5/11/2015 Latitude -33.59808 Longitude 149.16693 Elevation: 839 mAHD Slope: 2° Aspect: W General Site Description Gently undulating plain Landform Lithology EDS height Crown cover Formation Vegetation class Mapped regional vegetation (BVT) Observed plant community type (PCT) Dominant vegetation observed

General Site Observations

Health TSC Act status

EPBC Act status

Hornblende, biotite, granodiorite and tonalite Tall (mode 15 m; range 8-18 m) Mid-dense Grassy woodland Southern Tablelands Grassy Woodland Apple Box – Yellow Box – Mountain Gum open-woodland on flats and low hills of the central tablelands Yellow Box – Blakely’s Red Gum grassy woodland on the tablelands, South Eastern Highlands Bioregion (based on site and floristics data inputted into the VIS PCT Identification Tool [DECC 2008]) Tall grassy woodland dominated by yellow box (Eucalyptus melliodora) with frequent apple box (E. bridgesiana) and Blakely’s red gum (E. blakelyi). Scattered mid stratum dominated by silver wattle (Acacia dealbata), sifton bush (Cassinia arcuata) and blackberry (Rubus fruticosus) (a WONS). Groundcover dominated by exotics, including great brome (Bromus diandrus) and quaking grass (Briza maxima), though with abundant native tussock (Poa labillardierei). Mainly advanced regeneration, with scattered mature yellow box, apple box and Blakely’s red gum; trees form dominant stratum; semi-isolated patch; recruitment evident; light brown clayey loam soils; no erosion evident; scattered dieback; scattered old fire scars to 1.5 m. Average Endangered – The remnant patch is likely to represent Box-Gum Woodland EEC (Table 1), as the patch is in the South Eastern Highlands Bioregion, native species are evident in the understorey, yellow box and Blakely’s red gum are present, and the site is predominantly grassy (although closely followed by shrubs). Unlikely to represent a TEC. The closest match is the Box-Gum Grassy Woodland and Derived Grassland TEC (Table 1), however the understorey is not predominantly native. DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment

Survey Code BS-0.8 (Flora) Location Backhouse spurline, west of Livestock Exchange Date 5/11/2015 Latitude -33.59101 Longitude 149.16927 Elevation: 870 mAHD Slope: 2° Aspect: NE General Site Description Gently undulating plain Landform Lithology EDS height Crown cover Formation Vegetation class Mapped regional vegetation (BVT) Observed plant community type (PCT) Dominant vegetation observed

General Site Observations

Health TSC Act status

EPBC Act status

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Hornblende, biotite, granodiorite and tonalite Tall (mode 19 m; range 15-22 m) Mid-dense (71%) Grassy woodland Southern Tablelands Grassy Woodland Blakely’s Red Gum – Yellow Box open-woodland of the tablelands Yellow Box – Blakely’s Red Gum grassy woodland on the tablelands, South Eastern Highlands Bioregion (based on site and floristics data inputted into the VIS PCT Identification Tool [DECC 2008]) Tall grassy woodland dominated by Blakely’s red gum (Eucalyptus blakelyi), with abundant yellow box (E. melliodora) and occasional broadleaved peppermint (E. dives) and red stringybark (E. macrorhyncha). Mid stratum absent. Medium height groundcover comprised of exotic pasture species dominated by soft brome (Bromus hordeaceus), great brome (B. diandrus), perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne), phalaris (Phalaris aquatica) and Yorkshire fog (Holcus annuus). No native groundcover species detected. Trees form ecologically dominant stratum; connectivity not isolated, yet not continuous; semi-irregular patch shape; disturbance associated with long history of grazing; evidence of past timber cutting and ring-barking; no recruitment detected; light brown clayey loam soils; no erosion detected; no dieback detected; fire scars absent. Poor (no recruitment detected, no native mid or lower strata species detected) Unlikely to represent an EEC. The closest match is the Box Gum Woodland EEC (Table 1), however the natural seed bank is unlikely to be intact. Unlikely to represent a TEC. The closest match is the Box-Gum Grassy Woodland and Derived Grassland TEC (Table 1), however the understorey is not predominantly native. 83

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment

Survey Code BS-1.4 (Flora) Location Backhouse spurline, northwest of Livestock Exchange Date 4/11/2015 Latitude -33.58605 Longitude 149.17248 Elevation: 853 mAHD Slope: 1° Aspect: NW General Site Description Gently undulating plain Landform Lithology EDS height Crown cover Formation Vegetation class Mapped regional vegetation (BVT) Observed plant community type (PCT) Dominant vegetation observed

General Site Observations

Health TSC Act status

EPBC Act status

Hornblende, biotite, granodiorite and tonalite Tall (mode 18 m; range 11-21 m) Sparse or open (50%) Grassy woodland Southern Tablelands Grassy Woodland Blakely’s Red Gum – Yellow Box open-woodland of the tablelands Yellow Box – Blakely’s Red Gum grassy woodland on the tablelands, South Eastern Highlands Bioregion (based on site and floristics data inputted into the VIS PCT Identification Tool [DECC 2008]) Tall open grassy woodland comprised of Blakely’s red gum (Eucalyptus blakelyi). Mid stratum absent. Medium height ground layer comprised of exotic pasture species including great brome (Bromus diandrus), phalaris (Phalaris aquatica), Yorkshire fog (Holcus annuus), perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne), barley grass (Hordeum leporinum), soft brome (B. hordeaceus). Native species in the ground layer included occasional Juncus sp. and Eleocharis sp. confined to a drainage depression transecting the site. Trees form ecologically dominant stratum; connectivity not isolated, yet not continuous; linear patch shape, orientated lengthwise along drainage depression; disturbance associated with long history of grazing and nearby cropping; no recruitment detected; light brown loam soils; no erosion detected; scattered dieback; fire scars absent. Poor (no recruitment detected, no native mid or lower strata species detected) Unlikely to represent an EEC. The closest match is the Box Gum Woodland EEC (Table 1), however the natural seed bank is unlikely to be intact. Unlikely to represent a TEC. The closest match is the Box-Gum Grassy Woodland and Derived Grassland TEC (Table 1), however the understorey is not predominantly native. DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment

Survey Code OC-49.7 (Flora) Location Mid Western Highway, north of Carcoar Date 5/11/2015 Latitude -33.59970 Longitude 149.15800 Elevation: 816 mAHD Slope: 3° Aspect: W General Site Description Undulating plain Landform Lithology EDS height Crown cover Formation Vegetation class Mapped regional vegetation (BVT) Observed plant community type (PCT) Dominant vegetation observed

General Site Observations

Health TSC Act status EPBC Act status

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Hornblende, biotite, granodiorite and tonalite Tall (mode 15 m; range 7-17 m) Sparse or open (50%) Grassy woodland Southern Tablelands Grassy Woodland Apple Box – Yellow Box – Mountain Gum open-woodland on flats and low hills of the central tablelands Yellow Box – Blakely’s Red Gum grassy woodland on the tablelands, South Eastern Highlands Bioregion (based on site and floristics data inputted into the VIS PCT Identification Tool [DECC 2008]) Tall open grassy woodland dominated by Blakely’s red gum (Eucalyptus blakelyi), with occasional yellow box (E. melliodora) and red stringybark (E. macrorhyncha). Scattered, exotic mid stratum of firethorn (Pyracantha sp.). Groundcover dominated by exotics including cocksfoot (Dactylis glomerata), phalaris (Phalaris aquatica), English ivy (Hedera helix) and narrow-leaved vetch (Vicia sativa subsp. nigra). Occasional native geranium (Geranium solanderi). Trees form ecologically dominant stratum; semi-isolated patch; disturbance associated with road corridor / weed ingression; recruitment evident on land adjoining road corridor, cattle grazing on this adjoining land; light brown clayey loam soils; no erosion detected; scattered dieback; fire scars absent. Poor (understorey dominated by exotic species; no recruitment in road corridor, although some recruitment / planting on adjoining grazing land) Unlikely to represent an EEC. Closest match is the Box Gum Woodland EEC (Table 1), however the natural seed bank is unlikely to be intact. Unlikely to represent a TEC. The closest match is the Box-Gum Grassy Woodland and Derived Grassland TEC (Table 1), however the understorey is not predominantly native.

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment

Survey Code OC-50.3 (Flora) Location Bathurst Rd near Mid Western Hwy intersect., Carcoar Date 5/11/2015 Latitude -33.60098 Longitude 149.15261 Elevation: 796 mAHD Slope: 2° Aspect: S General Site Description Gently undulating rises Landform Lithology EDS height Crown cover Formation Vegetation class Mapped BVT Observed plant community type (PCT) Dominant vegetation observed

General Site Observations

Health TSC Act status

EPBC Act status

Hornblende, biotite, granodiorite and tonalite Tall (mode 18 m; range 16-20 m) Sparse or open (50%) Grassy woodland Southern Tablelands Grassy Woodland Blakely’s Red Gum – Yellow Box open-woodland of the tablelands Yellow Box – Blakely’s Red Gum grassy woodland on the tablelands, South Eastern Highlands Bioregion (based on site and floristics data inputted into the VIS PCT Identification Tool [DECC 2008]) Tall open grassy woodland dominated by Blakely’s red gum (Eucalyptus blakelyi) and apple box (E. bridgesiana), with occasional yellow box (E. Melliodora) and ribbon gum (E. viminalis). Sparse mid stratum dominated by exotic weeds including cotoneaster (Cotoneaster sp.), Montpelliar broom (Genista monspessulana) (a WONS) and hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna), though with frequent native silver wattle (Acacia dealbata). Groundcover dominated by natives including kangaroo grass (Themeda triandra) and tussock (Poa labillardierei), with occasional bluebells (Wahlenbergia australis) and native geranium (Geranium solanderi). Trees form ecologically dominant stratum; disturbance associated with road corridor and weed ingression; recruitment not evident; light brown clayey loam soils; scattered gully erosion; no dieback detected; fire scars absent. Alignment follows road, avoiding mapped PCT / EEC / TEC. Average (very little recruitment detected, mid stratum dominated by exotics, although ground layer dominated by natives) Endangered – The remnant patch is likely to represent Box-Gum Woodland EEC (Table 1), as native understorey species evident, yellow box / Blakely’s red gum present, site is predominantly grassy (except exotic shrubs). Critically Endangered – Although not yet proven by detailed floristics or DBH measurements (i.e. ≥20 trees/ha ≥40 cm DBH), the precautionary principle has been applied in assuming that the remnant patch is BoxGum Grassy Woodland and Derived Grassland TEC (Table 1), as Blakely’s red gum is common; understorey is predominantly native, and patch is >2ha. DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment

Survey Code OC-53.7 (Flora) Location Off Mt Macquarie Road, Carcoar Date 5/11/2015 Latitude -33.62554 Longitude 149.13971 Elevation: 773 mAHD Slope: 9° Aspect: W General Site Description Rolling rises Landform Lithology EDS height Crown cover Formation Vegetation class Mapped regional vegetation (BVT) Observed plant community type (PCT) Dominant vegetation observed

General Site Observations

Health TSC Act status EPBC Act status

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Feldspathic siltstone and sandstone, chert Tall (mode 19 m; range 15-22 m) Sparse or open (45%) Grassy woodland Southern Tablelands Grassy Woodland Blakely’s Red Gum – Yellow Box open-woodland of the tablelands Yellow Box – Blakely’s Red Gum grassy woodland on the tablelands, South Eastern Highlands Bioregion (based on site and floristics data inputted into the VIS PCT Identification Tool [DECC 2008]) Tall open grassy woodland dominated by bundy (Eucalyptus goniocalyx) and yellow box (E. melliodora), with occasional Blakely’s red gum (E. blakelyi) and white box (E. albens). Exotic mid stratum of scattered hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna) and African boxthorn (Lycium ferocissimum) (a WONS). Groundcover dominated by pasture spp. including soft brome (B. hordeaceus), medic (Medicago sp.), phalaris (P. aquatica), perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne) and narrow-leaved clover (Trifolium angustifolium). No native groundcover species detected. Trees form ecologically dominant stratum; connectivity continuous; semiirregular patch shape; disturbance associated with likely long history of grazing (large sheep shearing sheds nearby); evidence of past timber cutting; recruitment evident, although very little; brown clayey loam soils; scattered gully erosion in drainage lines; scattered dieback; fire scars absent. Average (very little recruitment detected, no native mid or lower strata species detected) Unlikely to represent an EEC. Closest match is the Box Gum Woodland EEC (Table 1), however the natural seed bank is unlikely to be intact. Unlikely to represent a TEC. The closest match is the Box-Gum Grassy Woodland and Derived Grassland TEC (Table 1), however the understorey is not predominantly native. 87

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment

Survey Code OC-54.5 (Flora) Location Off Felltimber Road, Carcoar Date 6/11/2015 Latitude -33.63232 Longitude 149.13765 Elevation: 752 mAHD Slope: 11° Aspect: W General Site Description Rolling rises Landform Lithology EDS height Crown cover Formation Vegetation class Mapped regional vegetation (BVT) Observed plant community type (PCT) Dominant vegetation observed

General Site Observations

Health TSC Act status

EPBC Act status

Feldspathic siltstone and sandstone, chert Tall (mode 15 m; range 12-17 m) Very sparse (10%) Grassy woodland Southern Tablelands Grassy Woodland Blakely’s Red Gum – Yellow Box open-woodland of the tablelands Yellow Box – Blakely’s Red Gum grassy woodland on the tablelands, South Eastern Highlands Bioregion (based on site and floristics data inputted into the VIS PCT Identification Tool [DECC 2008]) Very sparse tall grassy woodland dominated by yellow box (Eucalyptus melliodora), with occasional Blakely’s red gum (E. blakelyi) and exotic poplar (Populus sp.). Mid stratum absent. Groundcover dominated by pasture species including perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne) and great brome (Bromus diandrus) and soft brome (B. hordeaceus), with frequent phalaris (Phalaris aquatica) and narrow-leaved clover (Trifolium angustifolium). No native groundcover species detected. Trees form ecologically dominant stratum; connectivity not isolated, yet not continuous; semi-irregular patch shape; disturbance associated with grazing; evidence of past timber cutting; no recruitment detected; brown loamy clay soils; scattered gully erosion in nearby drainage lines; scattered dieback; fire scars absent. Poor (no recruitment detected, no native mid or lower strata species detected) Unlikely to represent an EEC. The closest match is the Box Gum Woodland EEC (Table 1), however the natural seed bank is unlikely to be intact. Unlikely to represent a TEC. The closest match is the Box-Gum Grassy Woodland and Derived Grassland TEC (Table 1), however the understorey is not predominantly native.

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment

Survey Code OC-55.5 (Flora) Location Felltimber Road, Carcoar Date 6/11/2015 Latitude -33.64094 Longitude 149.13483 Elevation: 736 mAHD Slope: 9° Aspect: E General Site Description Rolling rises Landform Lithology EDS height Crown cover Formation Vegetation class Mapped regional vegetation (BVT) Calculated plant community type (PCT) Dominant vegetation observed

General Site Observations Health TSC Act status EPBC Act status

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Feldspathic siltstone and sandstone, chert Tall (mode 16 m; range 12-19 m) Very sparse (10%) Grassy woodland Southern Tablelands Grassy Woodland Blakely’s Red Gum – Yellow Box open-woodland of the tablelands Yellow Box – Blakely’s Red Gum grassy woodland on the tablelands, South Eastern Highlands Bioregion (based on site and floristics data inputted into the VIS PCT Identification Tool [DECC 2008]) Very sparse tall grassy woodland dominated by white box (Eucalyptus albens), with occasional yellow box (E. melliodora) and apple box (E. bridgesiana). Mid stratum absent. Groundcover dominated by pasture species, specifically great brome (Bromus diandrus), with abundant perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne), frequent soft brome (B. hordeaceus), phalaris (Phalaris aquatica), narrow-leaved clover (Trifolium angustifolium), broad-leaved clover (Trifolium sp.) and barley grass (Hordeum leporinum). Occasional herbs including native bluebells (Wahlenbergia australis) and exotic velvet pink (Petrorhagia dubia). Occasional serrated tussock (Nassella trichotoma) – a Weed of National Significance. Trees form ecologically dominant stratum; connectivity semi-isolated; disturbance associated with cattle grazing; no recruitment evident; brown loamy clay soils; erosion absent; scattered dieback; fire scars absent. Poor (no recruitment detected, no mid stratum, only occasional natives in ground stratum) Unlikely to represent an EEC. Closest match is the Box Gum Woodland EEC (Table 1), however the natural seed bank is unlikely to be intact. Unlikely to represent a TEC. The closest match is the Box-Gum Grassy Woodland and Derived Grassland TEC (Table 1), however the understorey is not predominantly native. 89

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment

Survey Code OC-57.4 (Flora) Location Felltimber Road, Carcoar Date 6/11/2015 Latitude -33.65634 Longitude 149.13769 Elevation: 807 mAHD Slope: 10° Aspect: NE General Site Description Rolling rises Landform Lithology EDS height Crown cover Formation Vegetation class Mapped regional vegetation (BVT) Observed plant community type (PCT) Dominant vegetation observed

General Site Observations

Health TSC Act status

EPBC Act status

Feldspathic siltstone and sandstone, chert Tall (mode 15 m; range 12-17 m) Sparse or open (50%) Grassy woodland Southern Tablelands Grassy Woodland Blakely’s Red Gum – Yellow Box open-woodland of the tablelands Yellow Box – Blakely’s Red Gum grassy woodland on the tablelands, South Eastern Highlands Bioregion (based on site and floristics data inputted into the VIS PCT Identification Tool [DECC 2008]) Tall open grassy woodland dominated by white box (Eucalyptus albens), with occasional yellow box (E. melliodora). Sparse mid stratum of exotic sweet briar (Rosa rubiginosa) (a WONS) and blackberry (Rubus fruticosus) (a WONS). Groundcover dominated by pasture species, including oat (Avena sp.), great brome (Bromus diandrus), perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne) and soft brome (B. hordeaceus). Occasional natives including bluebell (Wahlenbergia australis). Weeds included salsify (Tragopogon porrifolius), scotch thistle (Onopordum acanthium), and Chilean need grass (Nassella neesiana) (a WONS). Trees form ecologically dominant stratum; connectivity not isolated; disturbance associated with cattle grazing; very little recruitment; brown clayey loam; erosion absent; scattered weeds in the mid and lower strata; scattered dieback; fire scars absent. Poor (very little recruitment, no mid stratum, only occasional natives [herbs] in ground stratum) Unlikely to represent an EEC. The closest match is the Box Gum Woodland EEC (Table 1), however the natural seed bank is unlikely to be intact. Unlikely to represent a TEC. The closest match is the Box-Gum Grassy Woodland and Derived Grassland TEC (Table 1), however the understorey is not predominantly native. DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment

Survey Code S7-0.8 (Flora) Location Second gully east of Carcoar Filtration Plant Date 6/11/2015 Latitude -33.65811 Longitude 149.14581 Elevation: 755 mAHD Slope: 15° Aspect: E General Site Description Rolling low hills Landform Lithology Height of ecologically dominant stratum Crown cover Formation Vegetation class Mapped regional vegetation (BVT) Observed plant community type (PCT) Dominant vegetation observed

General Site Observations

Health TSC Act status

EPBC Act status

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Feldspathic siltstone and sandstone, chert Tall (mode 19 m; range 13-25 m)

Sparse or open (40%) Grassy woodland Southern Tablelands Grassy Woodland Blakely’s Red Gum – Yellow Box open-woodland of the tablelands Yellow Box – Blakely’s Red Gum grassy woodland on the tablelands, South Eastern Highlands Bioregion (based on site and floristics data inputted into the VIS PCT Identification Tool [DECC 2008]) Tall open grassy woodland dominated by yellow box (Eucalyptus melliodora), with abundant bundy (E. goniocalyx). Sparse lower-mid stratum of exotic blackberry (Rubus fruticosus) (a WONS) and hemlock (Conium maculatum). Groundcover dominated by pasture species including great brome (Bromus diandrus), perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne), soft brome (B. hordeaceus) and barley grass (Hordeum leporinum), with occasional natives including native geranium (Geranium solanderi). Trees form ecologically dominant stratum; connectivity continuous; square/circular patch shape; evidence of past timber cutting; on route of existing pipeline established in 1950’s; disturbance associated with weed ingress and cattle grazing; no recruitment evident; red-brown clayey loam; scattered rill erosion; no dieback detected; fire scars absent. Average Unlikely to represent an EEC. The closest match is the Box Gum Woodland EEC (Table 1), however the natural seed bank is unlikely to be intact. Unlikely to represent a TEC. The closest match is the Box-Gum Grassy Woodland and Derived Grassland TEC (Table 1), however the understorey is not predominantly native. 91

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment

Survey Code S7-1.7 (Flora) Location Lake Rowlands to Carcoar Filtration Plant Date 6/11/2015 Latitude -33.65729 Longitude 149.15458 Elevation: 843 mAHD Slope: 23° Aspect: NNE General Site Description Steep low hills Landform Lithology Height of ecologically dominant stratum Crown cover Formation Vegetation class Mapped regional vegetation (BVT) Calculated plant community type (PCT) Dominant vegetation observed

General Site Observations

Health TSC Act status

EPBC Act status

Feldspathic siltstone and sandstone, chert Medium (mode height 10 m)

Mid-dense Grassy woodland Southern Tablelands Grassy Woodland Apple Box – Yellow Box – Mountain Gum open-woodland on flats and low hills of the central tablelands Apple Box – Yellow Box dry grassy woodland of the South Eastern Highlands Bioregion (based on site and floristics data inputted into the VIS PCT Identification Tool [DECC 2008]) Medium grassy woodland dominated by white box (Eucalyptus albens) with yellow box (E. melliodora) nearby. Sparse mid stratum dominated by cough bush (Cassinia laevis) and blackberry (Rubus fruticosus) (a WONS). Groundcover dominated by serrated tussock (Nassella trichotoma) (a WONS) – though with frequent tussock (Poa labillardierei) and snow grass (Poa sieberiana). Trees form ecologically dominant stratum; not-isolated, square/circular patch shape; disturbance associated with weed ingress and adjoining plantation pine (Pinus sp.); little recruitment; light brown clayey loam soils; erosion absent; no dieback detected; fire scars absent. Poor Unlikely to represent an EEC. The parent community is aligned with the Box Gum Woodland EEC (Table 1), however the natural seed bank is unlikely to be intact in this outer edge of the vegetation community. The EEC is more likely to occur to the N and NE within the broader patch of this grassy woodland. Unlikely to represent a TEC. The closest match is the Box-Gum Grassy Woodland and Derived Grassland TEC (Table 1), however the understorey is not predominantly native in this outer edge. DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Ecological Assessment

Appendix B: Fauna Habitat Site Descriptions

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment

Survey Code OC-4.7 (Fauna) Location Leewood water tank Date 2/11/2015 Latitude -33.31321 Longitude 149.10564 Elevation: 926 mAHD Slope: 10° Aspect: SE General Site Description Rolling low hills Landform Red-brown clayey loam Soil Grassy woodland dominated by apple box (Eucalyptus bridgesiana) on Observed northern and western side of hill and by ribbon gum (Eucalyptus vegetation viminalis) on eastern and southern sides. Sparse to mid-dense mid stratum dominated by exotic shrubs. Groundcover dominated by exotic grasses. Trees form ecologically dominant stratum; isolated patch; disturbance General Site associated with infrequent vehicular access to telecommunications Observations equipment and water infrastructure, as well as weed ingression; fire scars absent; large boulders arranged into heaps, likely relocated from footprint of existing infrastructure. Fauna Habitat Observations Scattered small hollows, mostly alive; scattered large logs; scattered Shelter / Cover small and large rocks, with large rocks having been stockpiled many years ago and now providing valuable, occupied reptile habitat; scattered leaf litter; dense shrub / grass shelter common. Seeding grass cover abundant; fleshy fruiting plants common; Food Potential nectar/pollen producing plants common; mistletoe common; koala feed Over Entire Year trees common. Occupied by eastern grey kangaroo (Macropus giganteus). Opportunistic Signs sighting of Cunningham’s skink (Egernia cunninghami) and introduced fox (Vulpes vulpes). Birds observed comprised common native woodland species including eastern rosella (Platycercus eximius), superb fairywren (Malurus cyaneus), weebill (Smicrornis brevirostris), black-faced cuckoo-shrike (Coracina novaehollandiae), white-browed treecreeper (Climacteris affinis) and yellow-plumed honeyeater (Lichenostomus ornatus). Ribbon gum (E. viminalis) abundant; however, no scratches or pellets SEPP 44 Koala detected, despite targeted searches. Feed Trees Good Fauna habitat value Alignment requires lopping of <5 trees and avoids existing rock piles that Notes provide valuable refuge for reptiles. Fauna impacts are expected to be minimal, restricted to marginal reduction in foraging and potential nesting habitat for common fauna species, as well as transient noise impacts. 94

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment

Survey Code OC-41.2 (Fauna) Location Front of Blayney Golf Course Date 4/11/2015 Latitude -33.55651 Longitude 149.23058 Elevation: 918 mAHD Slope: 5° Aspect: S General Site Description Undulating rises Landform Light brown clayey loam Soil Tall Grassy Woodland, dominated by ribbon gum (Eucalyptus viminalis) Observed with frequent apple box (E. bridgesiana) and occasional Blakely’s red vegetation gum (E. blakelyi). Sparse mid stratum dominated by silver wattle (Acacia dealbata), hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna) and blackberry (Rubus fruticosus). Groundcover dominated by the exotics, though with frequent natives. Trees form dominant stratum; connectivity not isolated, yet not General Site continuous; disturbance associated with past highway construction; Observations frequent weeds in the ground and shrub strata; fire scars absent. Fauna Habitat Observations Scattered small hollows, mostly alive; no large hollows detected; Shelter / Cover scattered small and large logs; scattered small and large rocks; leaf litter common; dense shrub / grass shelter scattered. Seeding grass cover abundant; fleshy fruiting plants scattered; Food Potential nectar/pollen producing plants abundant; mistletoe scattered; high Over Entire Year disturbance resulting from adjoining highway traffic / noise. Occasional macropod and rabbit scats; no koala, glider or possum Signs scratches or scats detected. Birds observed comprised common native woodland species including sacred kingfisher (Todiramphus sanctus), crimson rosella (Platycercus elegans), magpie-lark (Grallina cyanoleuca), Australian magpie (Cracticus tibicen), galah (Eolophus roseicapillus), western gerygone (Gerygone fusca) and striated pardalote (Pardalotus striatus). Ribbon gum (E. viminalis) abundant; however, no scratches or pellets SEPP 44 Koala detected, despite targeted searches. Feed Trees Average Fauna habitat value <5 small trees will need to be cleared from this patch, with some minor Notes lopping of <5 mature trees, none of which were observed to contain hollows. Fauna impacts are expected to be minimal, restricted to a marginal reduction in foraging and potential nesting habitat for common fauna species. DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment

Survey Code BS-1.4 (Fauna) Location Backhouse spurline, northwest of Livestock Exchange Date 4/11/2015 Latitude -33.58605 Longitude 149.17248 Elevation: 853 mAHD Slope: 1° Aspect: NW General Site Description Gently undulating plain Landform Light brown loam Soil Tall open grassy woodland comprised of Blakely’s red gum (Eucalyptus Observed blakelyi). Mid stratum absent. Ground layer comprised of exotic pasture vegetation grasses. Native ground layer species included occasional Juncus sp. and Eleocharis sp., confined to a drainage depression transecting the site. Trees form ecologically dominant stratum; connectivity not isolated, yet not General Site continuous; linear patch shape, orientated lengthwise along drainage Observations depression; disturbance associated with long history of grazing and nearby cropping; fire scars absent. Fauna Habitat Observations Scattered large hollows and abundant small hollows, including both dead Shelter / Cover and alive trees; Large logs common; scattered small logs; no rocks detected; scattered leaf litter; dense shrub / grass shelter largely absent. Seeding grass cover abundant; nectar / pollen producing plants abundant; Food Potential no fleshy fruiting plants detected. Over Entire Year Possum / glider scratches and scats evident; eastern rosellas (Platycercus Signs eximius) occupying hollows; superb parrot (Polytelis swainsonii) (listed as Vulnerable under the TSC Act and EPBC Act) detected; occasional macropod scats; no koala scratches detected. Birds observed included threatened superb parrot, as well as common native woodland species including grey fantail (Rhipidura albiscapa), willie wagtail (R. leucophrys), eastern rosella, crimson rosella (Platycercus elegans), red-rumped parrot (Psephotus haematonotus), brown thornbill (Acanthiza pusilla) and striated pardalote (Pardalotus striatus), as well as welcome swallow (Hirundo neoxena), Australian wood duck (Chenonetta jubata), grey teal (Anas gracilis) and glossy ibis (Plegadis falcinellus) near adjoining farm dam. None detected. SEPP 44 Koala Feed Trees Good Fauna habitat value Minimal impacts anticipated, including minor lopping of one tree, marginal Notes reduction in foraging habitat, and transient noise impacts. 96

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment

Survey Code BS-0.8 (Fauna) Location Backhouse spurline, west of Livestock Exchange Date 5/11/2015 Latitude -33.59101 Longitude 149.16927 Elevation: 870 mAHD Slope: 2° Aspect: NE General Site Description Gently undulating plain Landform Light brown clayey loam Soil Tall grassy woodland dominated by Blakely’s red gum (Eucalyptus Observed blakelyi), with abundant yellow box (E. melliodora), occasional broadvegetation leaved peppermint (E. dives) and red stringybark (E. macrorhyncha). Mid stratum absent. Medium height groundcover dominated by exotic pasture. Trees form ecologically dominant stratum; connectivity not isolated, yet General Site not continuous; semi-irregular patch shape; disturbance associated with Observations long history of grazing and past clearing / thinning; fire scars absent. Fauna Habitat Observations Scattered small and large hollows, in alive trees; scattered small and large Shelter / Cover logs; no rocks detected; scattered leaf litter; dense shrub / grass shelter largely absent. Seeding grass cover abundant; nectar / pollen producing plants abundant; Food Potential no fleshy fruiting plants detected. Over Entire Year Eastern grey kangaroos occupying patch; possum / glider scratches on Signs trees; no koala scratches detected; introduced brown hare (Lepus capensis) and rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus) present; occupied by common native woodland birds, including red wattlebird (Anthochaera carunculata), laughing kookaburra (Dacelo novaeguineae), yellow-faced honeyeater (Lichenostomus chrysops), grey fantail (Rhipidura albiscapa), willie wagtail (R. leucophrys), pied currawong (Strepera graculina), eastern rosella (Platycercus eximius), sulphur-crested cockatoo (Cacatua galerita) and brown thornbill (Acanthiza pusilla); crested pigeon (Ocyphaps lophotes), galah (Eolophus roseicapillus) and masked lapwing (Vanellus miles) in adjoining open grassland. None detected. SEPP 44 Koala Feed Trees Poor. Fauna habitat value Adjoins highway, with fauna movement impeded by agricultural fencing. Notes Minimal impacts anticipated, including minor lopping of <10 trees and clearing of <5 trees, and marginal reduction in foraging habitat. DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment

Survey Code OC-49.7 (Fauna) Location Mid Western Highway, north of Carcoar Date 5/11/2015 Latitude -33.59970 Longitude 149.15800 Elevation: 816 mAHD Slope: 3° Aspect: W General Site Description Undulating plain Landform Light brown clayey loam Soil Tall open grassy woodland dominated by Blakely’s red gum (Eucalyptus Observed blakelyi), with occasional yellow box (E. melliodora) and red stringybark vegetation (E. macrorhyncha). Scattered, exotic mid stratum of firethorn (Pyracantha sp.). Groundcover dominated by exotic grasses, legumes and vine. Trees form ecologically dominant stratum; semi-isolated patch; General Site disturbance associated with road corridor / weed ingression; cattle grazing Observations on adjoining land; fire scars absent. Fauna Habitat Observations No hollows detected; scattered small logs; no rocks detected; leaf litter Shelter / Cover common; scattered shrub / grass shelter. Scattered seeding grasses; scattered fleshy fruiting plants; nectar / pollen Food Potential producing plants common; no mistletoe detected. Over Entire Year No obvious evidence of fauna occupation. Signs None detected. SEPP 44 Koala Feed Trees Average Fauna habitat value Alignment follows road, avoiding woodland remnant. Anticipated impacts Notes restricted to transient noise and human occupation during construction.

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment

Survey Code OC-50.3 (Fauna) Location Bathurst Rd near Mid Western Hwy intersect., Carcoar Date 5/11/2015 Latitude -33.60098 Longitude 149.15261 Elevation: 796 mAHD Slope: 2° Aspect: S General Site Description Gently undulating rises Landform Light brown clayey loam Soil Tall open grassy woodland dominated by Blakely’s red gum (Eucalyptus Observed blakelyi) and apple box (E. bridgesiana), with occasional yellow box (E. vegetation Melliodora) and ribbon gum (E. viminalis). Sparse mid stratum dominated by exotic weeds including cotoneaster (Cotoneaster sp.), Montpelliar broom (Genista monspessulana) and hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna), though with frequent native silver wattle (Acacia dealbata). Groundcover dominated by natives including kangaroo grass (Themeda triandra) and tussock (Poa labillardierei), with occasional bluebells (Wahlenbergia australis) and native geranium (Geranium solanderi). Trees form ecologically dominant stratum; connectivity not-isolated, yet General Site not continuous; semi-irregular patch shape; disturbance associated with Observations road corridor and weed ingression; fire scars absent. Fauna Habitat Observations No hollows detected; scattered small and large logs; scattered small and Shelter / Cover large rocks; scattered leaf litter; dense shrub / grass shelter common. Seeding grass cover abundant; scattered fleshy fruiting plants; nectar / Food Potential pollen producing plants abundant; scattered koala fee trees; no mistletoe Over Entire Year detected; (low) flow encountered in drainage line transecting site. Scattered macropod scats; no possum, glider or koala scratches detected, Signs despite targeted searches; patch occupied by common native woodland birds, including grey butcherbird (Cracticus torquatus), black-faced woodswallow (Artamus cinereus), willie wagtail (Rhipidura leucophrys), grey fantail (R. albiscapa), crested shrike-tit (Falcunculus frontatus), crested bellbird (Oreoica gutturalis), as well as the introduced European goldfinch (Carduelis carduelis) and common blackbird (Turdus merula). Occasional ribbon gum (E. viminalis); however, no scratches or pellets SEPP 44 Koala detected, despite targeted searches. Feed Trees Average Fauna habitat value Alignment follows road, avoiding woodland remnant. Anticipated impacts Notes restricted to transient noise and human occupation during construction. DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment

Survey Code OC-53.7 (Fauna) Location Off Mt Macquarie Road, Carcoar Date 5/11/2015 Latitude -33.62554 Longitude 149.13971 Elevation: 773 mAHD Slope: 9° Aspect: W

General Site Description Rolling rises Landform Brown clayey loam Soil Tall open grassy woodland dominated by bundy (Eucalyptus goniocalyx) Observed and yellow box (E. melliodora), with occasional Blakely’s red gum vegetation (Eucalyptus blakelyi) and white box (E. albens). Scattered mid stratum of exotic hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna) and African boxthorn (Lycium ferocissimum). Groundcover dominated by pasture grasses and legumes. Trees form ecologically dominant stratum; connectivity continuous; semiGeneral Site irregular patch shape; disturbance associated with likely long history of Observations grazing (large sheep shearing sheds nearby); evidence of past timber cutting; fire scars absent. Fauna Habitat Observations No hollows detected; small and large logs common; scattered lead litter; Shelter / Cover scattered granite cobbles, although likely too sparse for Vulnerable (TSC Act and EPBC Act) pink-tailed worm skink (Aprasia parapulchella). Seeding grass cover abundant; nectar / pollen producing plants abundant; Food Potential scattered mistletoe; scattered koala feed trees. Over Entire Year Scattered macropod scats; no possum, glider or koala scratches detected, Signs despite targeted searches; patch occupied by common woodland birds, including white-winged chough (Corcorax melanorhamphos), western gerygone (Gerygone fusca), noisy friarbird (Philemon corniculatus), crested bellbird (Oreoica gutturalis), red wattlebird (Anthochaera carunculata), black-faced woodswallow (Artamus cinereus), crimson rosella (Platycercus elegans), Australian wood duck (Chenonetta jubata), Australian magpie (Cracticus tibicen), striated pardalote (Pardalotus striatus) and willie wagtail (Rhipidura leucophrys). Occasional white box (E. albens); however, no scratches or pellets SEPP 44 Koala detected, despite targeted searches. Feed Trees Average Fauna habitat value Minimal impacts anticipated, including minor lopping of <5 trees, marginal Notes reduction in foraging and potential nesting habitat, and transient noise impacts.

100

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment

Survey Code OC-54.5 (Fauna) Location Off Felltimber Road, Carcoar Date 6/11/2015 Latitude -33.63232 Longitude 149.13765 Elevation: 752 mAHD Slope: 11° Aspect: W

General Site Description Rolling rises Landform Brown loamy clay Soil Very sparse tall grassy woodland dominated by yellow box (Eucalyptus Observed melliodora), with occasional Blakely’s red gum (E. blakelyi) and exotic vegetation poplar (Populus sp.). Mid stratum absent. Groundcover dominated by exotic pasture grasses and legumes. Trees form ecologically dominant stratum; connectivity not isolated, yet General Site not continuous; semi-irregular patch shape; disturbance associated with Observations cattle grazing; fire scars absent. Fauna Habitat Observations No hollows detected; scattered small and large logs; scattered small Shelter / Cover rocks; scattered leaf litter. Seeding grass cover abundant; scattered nectar / pollen producing plants. Food Potential Over Entire Year Eastern grey kangaroo (Macropus giganteus) and emu (Dromaius Signs novaehollandiae) occupying patch; no possum, glider or koala scratches detected; patch utilised by a common woodland birds, including galah (Eolophus roseicapillus) and Australian raven (Corvus coronoides); nearby drainage line occupied by spotted marsh frog (Limnodynastes tasmaniensis), white-faced heron (Egretta novaehollandiae), with fairy martin (Petrochelidon ariel) flying overhead. None detected. SEPP 44 Koala Feed Trees Poor Fauna habitat value Minimal impacts anticipated, including minor lopping of <5 trees in patch, Notes marginal reduction in foraging and potential nesting habitat, as well as transient noise impacts.

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

101

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Ecological Assessment

Survey Code OC-55.5 (Fauna) Location Felltimber Road, Carcoar Date 6/11/2015 Latitude -33.64094 Longitude 149.13483 Elevation: 736 mAHD Slope: 9Â° Aspect: E

General Site Description Rolling rises Landform Brown loamy clay Soil Very sparse tall grassy woodland dominated by white box (Eucalyptus Observed albens), with occasional yellow box (E. melliodora) and apple box (E. vegetation bridgesiana). Mid stratum absent. Groundcover dominated by exotic pasture grasses and legumes, with occasional native and exotic herbs. Trees form ecologically dominant stratum; connectivity semi-isolated; General Site semi-irregular patch shape; disturbance associated with cattle grazing; fire Observations scars absent. Fauna Habitat Observations Scattered small and large hollows, in a mixture of dead and alive trees; Shelter / Cover scattered small and large logs; no rocks detected; scattered leaf litter. Seeding grass cover abundant; scattered nectar / pollen producing plant; Food Potential koala feed trees common. Over Entire Year No possum, glider or koala scratches detected, despite targeted searches; Signs patch occupied by common woodland birds, including sulphur-crested cockatoo (Cacatua galerita), eastern rosella (Platycercus eximius), galah (Eolophus roseicapillus) and willie wagtail (Rhipidura leucophrys). Dominated by white box (E. albens); however, no scratches or pellets SEPP 44 Koala detected, despite targeted searches. Feed Trees Average Fauna habitat value Alignment remains within road corridor. Minimal impacts anticipated, Notes including minor lopping of <5 trees in patch, marginal reduction in foraging and potential nesting habitat, as well as transient noise impacts.

102

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Ecological Assessment

Survey Code OC-57.4 (Fauna) Location Felltimber Road, Carcoar Date 6/11/2015 Latitude -33.65634 Longitude 149.13769 Elevation: 807 mAHD Slope: 10Â° Aspect: NE

General Site Description Rolling rises Landform Brown clayey loam Soil Tall open woodland dominated by white box (Eucalyptus albens), with Observed occasional yellow box (E. melliodora). Sparse mid stratum of exotic sweet vegetation briar (Rosa rubiginosa) and blackberry (Rubus fruticosus). Groundcover dominated by pasture grasses, with occasional forbs. Trees form ecologically dominant stratum; connectivity not isolated, yet General Site not continuous; semi-irregular patch shape; disturbance associated with Observations cattle grazing; fire scars absent. Fauna Habitat Observations Scattered small and large hollows, mainly in stags; scattered small and Shelter / Cover large logs; scattered small rocks; scattered leaf litter; dense shrub / grass shelter scattered. Seeding grass cover abundant; scattered fleshy fruiting plants; nectar / Food Potential pollen producing plant abundant; scattered mistletoe; koala feed trees Over Entire Year common. No possum, glider or koala scratches detected, despite targeted searches; Signs patch occupied by common woodland birds, including grey butcherbird (Cracticus torquatus), crimson rosella (Platycercus elegans), galah (Eolophus roseicapillus), Australian magpie (Cracticus tibicen), willie wagtail (Rhipidura leucophrys) and grey fantail (R. albiscapa), Dominated by white box (E. albens); however, no scratches or pellets SEPP 44 Koala detected, despite targeted searches. Feed Trees Average Fauna habitat value Alignment remains largely within road corridor. Minimal impacts Notes anticipated, including minor lopping of <10 trees in patch, marginal reduction in foraging and potential nesting habitat, as well as transient noise impacts.

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

103

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment

Survey Code S7-0.8 (Fauna) Location Second gully east of Carcoar Filtration Plant Date 6/11/2015 Latitude -33.65811 Longitude 149.14581 Elevation: 755 mAHD Slope: 15° Aspect: E General Site Description Rolling low hills Landform Red-brown clayey loam Soil Open canopy dominated by yellow box (Eucalyptus melliodora), with Observed abundant bundy (E. goniocalyx). Sparse lower-mid stratum dominated by vegetation exotic shrubs. Groundcover dominated by exotic pasture grasses, with occasional native herbs. Trees form ecologically dominant stratum; connectivity continuous; square General Site / circular patch shape; on route of existing pipeline established in 1950’s; Observations disturbance associated with cattle grazing; fire scars absent. Fauna Habitat Observations Small hollows common; no large hollows detected; small and large logs Shelter / Cover common; scattered small rocks; scattered leaf litter; scattered shrub / grass shelter. Seeding grass cover abundant; scattered fleshy fruiting plants; nectar / Food Potential pollen producing plant common; mistletoe common. Over Entire Year No possum, glider or koala scratches detected; patch occupied by Signs common wallaroo (Macropus robustus) and eastern grey kangaroo (M. giganteus), as well as common woodland birds, including eastern rosella (Platycercus eximius), crimson rosella (P. elegans), superb fairy-wren (Malurus cyaneus), western gerygone (Gerygone fusca), willie wagtail (Rhipidura leucophrys) Australian magpie (Cracticus tibicen). Magpie-lark (Grallina cyanoleuca) and brown falcon (Falco berigora). None detected. SEPP 44 Koala Feed Trees Good Fauna habitat value Alignment follows existing pipeline constructed in the 1950’s. It is Notes anticipated that approx. 20 trees will be lopped, with <5 trees being removed from the patch. Direct impacts on fauna can be mitigated by fauna pre-clearance checks, avoidance of threatened species breeding places, and relocation of common fauna species by an experienced fauna spotter catcher prior to construction. Indirect impacts include reduced foraging and potential nesting habitat, and transient disturbance.

104

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Ecological Assessment

Appendix C: Aquatic Habitat Site Descriptions

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

105

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment

Site Code: OC-5.5

Upstream General Site Description

Watercourse: Gosling Creek, Orange

Left Bank

Latitude: -33.31912

Downstream

Longitude: 149.10760

Date: 2/11/2015

Right Bank

Site attributes Study reach positioned within a broad valley; defined bed and banks; little local catchment erosion; at the time of the site visit, the water level was low (<watermark); stream width along the 100 m survey reach ranged from 0.5 – 14 m, with a mode width of 1.5 m (estimated); at the proposed crossing location, wetted width was approx. 2 m, water depth was 0.2 m, bankfull width was approx. 40 m and bankfull height approx. 1.5 m (from stream bed); a variety of in-stream habitat was available within the 100 m reach, including shallow (<0.5 m), deep, pool, run, large woody debris and macrophytes. Riparian Vegetation Riparian zone approximately 5 m on left bank and 5 m on right bank, dominated by grasses and rushes; no trees >10m; little / few trees <10m, including exotic willow (Salix sp.) and juvenile native river red gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis); some shrubs / rushes, including broad-leaved cumbungi (Typha orientalis) and exotic blackberry (Rubus fruticosus) (a WONS); extensive grass cover, dominated by the exotic Yorkshire fog (Holcus annuus) and phalaris (Phalaris aquatica). Erosion Risk Low – banks appear to be stable. Aquatic Flora, Fauna and Breeding Habitat The study reach likely provides ephemeral to semi-permanent (isolated pools) habitat for aquatic flora and fauna. It supports a diversity of emergent macrophytes including broadleaved cumbungi (some), annual beardgrass (Polypogon monspeliensis) (some), Juncus usitatus (little), tassel sedge (Carex fascicularis) (little), Cyperus sp. (little), buttercup (Ranunculus sp.) (little), tall sedge (Carex appressa) (little), river clubrush (Schoenoplectus validus) (little), small knotweed (Polygonum plebeium) (little) and curled dock (Rumex crispus) (little). The reach is expected to support a diversity of fishes, turtles and macroinvertebrates, although no sampling was undertaken. The reach provides potential foraging habitat for platypus (Ornithorhynchus anatinus), although suitable breeding habitat (i.e. banks suitable for burrow construction) was not encountered. The proposed alignment avoids potential turtle and platypus breeding habitat.

106

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment Threatened Flora and Fauna The study reach does not represent preferred habitat for threatened aquatic flora or fauna species (Section 5.4). A pair of snipe (Gallinago sp.) were flushed from the study reach on arrival, potentially being the migratory (EPBC Act) Latham’s snipe (G. hardwickii), although possibly the pin-tailed snipe (G. stenura) (differentiation generally requires counting of tail feathers, and this was not possible at the time of assessment). Vulnerable (TSC Act) blue-billed duck (Oxyura australis) observed in adjoining open water of Spring Creek Reservoir. Visual Assessment of Disturbance Water quality – no evidence of disturbance (0). Instream – high disturbance (3), attributed to existing road construction and other past land-forming. Riparian zone – high disturbance (3), attributed to de-vegetation, exotic plant invasion. Catchment assessment – moderate disturbance (2), attributed to upstream dam, grazing and other agricultural pursuits. Physico-chemical water quality Collection time: 17:00 DST; temperature: 22.7 °C; conductivity: 67 µS/cm (fresh); turbidity: 11.7 NTU (high clarity); dissolved oxygen: 115% (saturated); pH 7.24 (neutral). Summary: normal. Aquatic Values Moderate (although somewhat degraded, the reach conveys water into known habitat of threatened species, and also provides foraging habitat for potential migratory species. Suitability of proposed crossing location Suitable for open trenching during dry conditions, or with temporary dam and flow diversion during times of flow.

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

107

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment

Site Code: OC-7.0

Watercourse: Tributary of Spring Creek Reservoir, Orange

Upstream General Site Description

Left Bank

Latitude: -33.33126

Downstream

Longitude: 149.11171

Date: 3/11/2015

Right Bank

Site attributes Study reach positioned within a broad valley; study reach transects both road and rail via pipe culverts of approx. 2.5 m diameter; defined bed and banks; little local catchment erosion; substrates comprised of 5% boulder (>256mm), 2% cobble (64 – 256mm), 1% pebble (4 – 64 mm), 1% gravel (2 -4 mm), 15% sand (0.05 – 2 mm) and 76% silt/clay (<0.05 mm); at the time of the site visit, the water level was low-moderate (≤watermark), with maximum flow velocity of 0.03 m/s; stream width along the 100 m survey reach ranged from 0.3 – 4 m, with a mode width of 1.0 m (estimate); at the proposed crossing location, wetted width was approx. 6 m, water depth was 0.3 m, bankfull width was approx. 15 m and bankfull height approx. 3.5 m (from stream bed); in-stream habitat within the 100 m reach included shallow (<0.5 m) pool and macrophytes. No deep habitat, riffle nor large woody debris detected. Riparian Vegetation Riparian zone approximately 3 m on left bank and 3 m on right bank, dominated by grasses and rushes; little / few trees >10m and <10m, each comprising willow (Salix sp.); little / few shrubs, comprising exotic hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna); extensive grass cover, dominated by the exotics phalaris (Phalaris aquatica), Yorkshire fog (Holcus annuus) and oatgrass (Arrhenatherum elatius). Erosion Risk Low – banks appear to be stable. Aquatic Flora, Fauna and Breeding Habitat The reach likely provides ephemeral to semi-permanent (isolated pools) habitat for aquatic flora and fauna. It supports a diversity of emergent macrophytes including tassel sedge (Carex fascicularis) (little), rush (Juncus sp.) (some), pale spike-rush (Eleocharis pallens) (some), brooklime (Gratiola sp.), stonecrop (Crassula sp.), blue water speedwell (Veronica anagallis-aquatica) (some), and a milfoil (Myriophyllum sp.). The reach is expected to support small fishes and a diversity of macroinvertebrates, although no sampling was undertaken. The reach provides negligible habitat for turtles or platypus.

108

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment Threatened Flora and Fauna The study reach does not represent preferred habitat for threatened aquatic flora or fauna species recorded from the broader catchment (Section 5.4). Visual Assessment of Disturbance Water quality – moderate disturbance (2), attributed to shading from culverts expected to reduce DO during times of low to no flow. Instream – high disturbance (3), attributed to existing road and rail construction. Riparian zone – high disturbance (3), attributed to de-vegetation and exotic plant invasion. Catchment assessment – moderate disturbance (2), attributed to upstream grazing, including direct access by cattle. Physico-chemical water quality Collection time: 8:50 DST. Temperature: 14.8 °C; conductivity: 329 µS/cm (fresh); turbidity: 7.3 NTU (high clarity); dissolved oxygen: 27.5% (low, although expected to rise throughout day); pH 7.18 (neutral). Summary: normal. Aquatic Values Low (heavily modified stream reach; existing culverts likely provide a behavioural barrier to fish passage) Pipe expected to be elevated above culvert for engineering purposes, although no ecological constraints detected that would preclude open trenching. Suitability of proposed crossing location Suitable for open trenching during dry conditions, or with temporary dam and flow diversion during times of flow; or suspension above culvert.

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

109

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment

Site Code: OC-9.0

Upstream General Site Description

Watercourse: Spring Creek, Orange

Left Bank

Latitude: -33.34874

Downstream

Longitude: 149.11478

Date: 3/11/2015

Right Bank

Site attributes Study reach positioned within a broad valley; defined bed and banks; little local catchment erosion; substrates comprised of 10% boulder (>256mm), 5% cobble (64 – 256mm), 2% pebble (4 – 64 mm), 5% gravel (2 -4 mm), 15% sand (0.05 – 2 mm) and 63% silt/clay (<0.05 mm); at the time of the site visit, the water level was moderate (=watermark); stream width along the 100 m survey reach ranged from 1.0 – 5.0 m, with a mode width of 2.5 m (estimated); immediately downstream of the proposed crossing location (i.e. downstream of the culvert), wetted width was approx. 8 m, water depth was 0.3 m, bankfull width was approx. 20 m and bankfull height approx. 1.5 m (from stream bed); a variety of in-stream habitat was available within the 100 m reach, including shallow (<0.5 m), deep, pool, run and macrophytes. No riffle habitat, undercut banks or large woody debris detected. Riparian Vegetation Riparian zone approximately 3 m on left bank and 3 m on right bank, dominated by grasses and rushes; little / few trees >10m and <10m, including exotic crack willow (Salix fragilis); some shrubs, including the exotic hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna) and African boxthorn (Lycium ferocissimum) (a WONS), and the native silver wattle (Acacia dealbata); extensive grass cover, dominated by the exotics phalaris (Phalaris aquatica) and Yorkshire fog (Holcus annuus), as well as native tussock (Poa labillardierei). Erosion Risk Low – banks appear to be stable. Aquatic Flora, Fauna and Breeding Habitat The study reach likely provides semi-permanent to permanent (spring fed) habitat for aquatic flora and fauna. It supports a diversity of both native and exotic emergent macrophytes including watercress (Nasturtium officinale) (some), blue water speedwell (Veronica anagallis-aquatica) (some), pale spike-rush (Eleocharis pallens) (some), common starwort (Callitriche stagnalis) (some); tall sedge (Carex appressa) (some), spiny mudgrass (Pseudoraphis spinescens) (some) and buttercup (Ranunculus sp.) (little), as well as submerged macrophytes including stonewort (Chara sp. or Nitella sp.), curly pondweed (Potamogeton crispus) (little), and hornwort (Ceratophyllum demersum). The reach is expected to support a diversity of fishes, turtles and macroinvertebrates, although no sampling was undertaken. The reach provides potential foraging habitat for platypus (Ornithorhynchus anatinus), although suitable breeding habitat (i.e. banks suitable for burrow construction) not encountered. Furthermore, the proposed alignment (within road abutment) avoids aquatic habitat.

110

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment Threatened Flora and Fauna The study reach does not represent preferred habitat for threatened aquatic flora or fauna species recorded from the broader catchment (Section 5.4). Visual Assessment of Disturbance Water quality – no evidence of disturbance (0). Instream – moderate disturbance (2), attributed to existing road construction and proliferation of exotic aquatic plants. Riparian zone – high disturbance (3), attributed to de-vegetation, exotic plant invasion. Catchment assessment – moderate disturbance (2), attributed to grazing and direct cattle access. Physico-chemical water quality Collection time: 10:00 DST; temperature: 17.8 °C; conductivity: 69 µS/cm (fresh); turbidity: 2.5 NTU (high clarity); dissolved oxygen: 85.3% (approaching saturation); pH 7.69 (mildly alkaline). Summary: normal. Aquatic Values High (permanency of spring flow, high diversity of macrophytes, potential habitat for platypus). Suitability of proposed crossing location Proposed placement of pipe within road abutment appears suitable, subject to structural engineering considerations.

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

111

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment

Site Code: OC-52.5

Upstream General Site Description

Watercourse: Belubula River, Carcoar

Left Bank

Latitude: -33.61459

Downstream

Longitude: 149.14069

Date: 5/11/2015

Right Bank

Site attributes Study reach positioned within a broad valley and floodplain; defined bed and banks; little local catchment erosion; substrates comprised of 5% cobble (64 – 256mm), 10% pebble (4 – 64 mm), 10% gravel (2 -4 mm), 55% sand (0.05 – 2 mm) and 20% silt/clay (<0.05 mm); recent Willow (Salix sp.) removal and bank stabilisation works undertaken; at the time of the site visit, the water level was low (<watermark); proposed pipeline follows existing pipeline alignment; stream width along the 100 m survey reach ranged from 0.5 – 8.0 m, with a mode width of 2.0 m (estimated); at the proposed crossing location, wetted width was approx. 1.0 m, water depth was 0.1 m, ‘normal’ wetted width was approx. 8 m; bankfull width was approx. 25 m and bankfull height was approx. 1.5 m (from stream bed); a variety of in-stream habitat was available within the 100 m reach, including shallow (<0.5 m), deep, pool, run, riffle and macrophytes. Utilised for recreational purposes, including fishing and exercising dogs. Riparian Vegetation Riparian zone approximately 7 m on left bank and 7 m on right bank; some trees >10 m, including exotic elms (Ulmus sp.) and poplar (Populus sp.), as well as native river red gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis); little / few trees <10 m, including willow (Salix sp.) and elm (Ulmus sp.); shrubs largely absent, although occasional rushes including broad-leaved cumbungi (Typha orientalis); moderate groundcover dominated by phalaris (Phalaris aquatica), prairie grass (Bromus catharticus) and Poa spp. Erosion Risk Low – banks appear to be stable. Aquatic Flora, Fauna and Breeding Habitat The study reach likely provides ephemeral and semi-permanent (isolated pools) habitat for aquatic flora and fauna. It supports a diversity of both native and exotic emergent macrophytes including watercress (Nasturtium officinale) (little), blue water speedwell (Veronica anagallis-aquatica) (little), rush (Juncus sp.), broad-leaved cumbungi (little), water pepper (Persicaria hydropiper) (little) and tall sedge (Carex appressa) (little), as well as submerged macrophytes including curly pondweed (Potamogeton crispus) (some). The reach may support a diversity of fishes, turtles and macroinvertebrates, although no sampling was undertaken. The reach provides potential foraging habitat for platypus (Ornithorhynchus

112

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment anatinus), although suitable breeding habitat (i.e. banks suitable for burrow construction) was not encountered. Threatened Flora and Fauna The study reach does not represent preferred habitat for threatened aquatic flora or fauna species recorded from the broader catchment (Section 5.4), although may provide habitat for the Murray Cod (Maccullochella peelii) and silver perch (Bidyanus bidyanus) on occasion. Visual Assessment of Disturbance Water quality – moderate disturbance (2), attributed to shade impacts from highway overpass. Instream – moderate disturbance (2), attributed to existing road construction and proliferation of exotic plants. Riparian zone – high disturbance (3), attributed to de-vegetation, exotic plant invasion. Catchment assessment – moderate disturbance (2), attributed to cattle grazing. Physico-chemical water quality Collection time: 13:00 DST; temperature: 16.5 °C; conductivity: 697 µS/cm (fresh); turbidity: 2.4 NTU (high clarity); dissolved oxygen: 75.2% (low for time of day); pH 7.88 (mildly alkaline). Summary: Relatively normal, although dissolved oxygen levels marginally low; likely a result of low flow conditions and shading by highway overpass. Aquatic Values Moderate Suitability of proposed crossing location Suitable for open trenching during dry conditions, or with temporary dam and flow diversion during times of flow.

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

113

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment

Site Code: OC-55.0

Upstream General Site Description

Watercourse: Coombing Creek, Carcoar

Left Bank

Latitude: -33.63600

Downstream

Longitude: 149.13589

Date: 7/11/2015

Right Bank

Site attributes Study reach positioned within a broad valley; defined bed and banks; regulated by Lake Rowlands dam; little local catchment erosion, substrates comprised of 15% bedrock, 20% boulder (>256mm), 30% cobble (64 – 256mm), 15% pebble (4 – 64 mm), 10% gravel (2 -4 mm), 5% sand (0.05 – 2 mm) and 5% silt/clay (<0.05 mm); attributed to cattle; at the time of the site visit, the water level was high (>watermark); proposed pipeline follows existing pipeline alignment; stream width along the 100 m survey reach ranged from 2.5 – 15 m, with a mode width of 4.5 m (estimated); at the proposed crossing location, wetted width was approx. 15 m, water depth was 0.8 m, ‘normal’ wetted width was approx. 10 m; ‘normal’ depth was approx. 0.4 m; bankfull width was approx. 25 m; and bankfull height was approx. 4.0 m (from stream bed); a variety of in-stream habitat was available within the 100 m reach, including shallow (<0.5 m), deep, pool, run, riffle and macrophytes. Direct access by cattle. Riparian Vegetation Riparian zone approximately 5 m on left bank and 5 m on right bank; little / few trees >10 m and <10 m, comprising crack willow (Salix fragilis); little / few shrubs / rushes, including blackberry (Rubus fruticosus) (a WONS) and tall sedge (Carex appressa); extensive groundcover dominated by tussock (Poa labillardierei), phalaris (Phalaris aquatica), oat (Avena sp.), perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne), great brome (Bromus diandrus) and common couch (Cynodon dactylon). Erosion Risk Low – banks appear to be stable. Aquatic Flora, Fauna and Breeding Habitat The study reach provides regulated flow from Lake Rowlands; likely to be ephemeral to semi-permanent (isolated pools) habitat for aquatic flora and fauna. It supports a diversity of both native and exotic emergent macrophytes including giant sedge (Cyperus exaltatus) (little), rush (Juncus sp.) (little), blue water speedwell (Veronica anagallis-aquatica) (little), water pepper (Persicaria hydropiper) (little), slender knotweed (P. decipiens) (little), tall sedge (Carex appressa) (little) and pale spike-rush (Eleocharis pallens) (little). The reach may support a diversity of fishes, turtles and macroinvertebrates, although no sampling was undertaken. The reach provides potential foraging habitat for platypus (Ornithorhynchus anatinus), although suitable breeding habitat (i.e. banks suitable for burrow construction) were not encountered.

114

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment Threatened Flora and Fauna The study reach does not represent preferred habitat for threatened aquatic flora or fauna species recorded from the broader catchment (Section 5.4), although may provide habitat for the Murray Cod (Maccullochella peelii) and silver perch (Bidyanus bidyanus) on occasion. Visual Assessment of Disturbance Water quality – no evidence of disturbance (0). Instream – little disturbance (1). Riparian zone – moderate disturbance (3), attributed to de-vegetation, exotic plant invasion. Catchment assessment – moderate disturbance (2), attributed to grazing and direct cattle access. Physico-chemical water quality Collection time: 10:00 DST; temperature: 18.2 °C; conductivity: 160 µS/cm (fresh); turbidity: 7.5 NTU (high clarity); dissolved oxygen: 92% (approaching saturation); pH 8.01 (moderately alkaline). Summary: Normal. Aquatic Values Low-moderate Suitability of proposed crossing location Suitable for open trenching during dry conditions, or with temporary dam and flow diversion during times of flow. Footings of existing 1950’s pipeline appear to have incurred damage from flood debris. Suggest burying new pipeline to better protect asset. Suggest removing existing vegetative debris from bank / floodplain as part of works.

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

115

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Ecological Assessment

Appendix D: Fauna Species Detected

116

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Ecological Assessment

Table 14 Fauna species recorded in the Project area 2-7 November 2015 Scientific name Amphibians Crinia parinsignifera Crinia signifera Limnodynastes dumerilii Limnodynastes tasmaniensis Litoria peronii Reptiles Carlia tetradactyla Chelodina longicollis Cryptoblepharus australis Egernia cunninghami Mammals Canis lupus Felis catus Lepus capensis Macropus giganteus Macropus robustus Oryctolagus cuniculus Vulpes vulpes Wallabia bicolor Birds Acanthiza nana Acanthiza pusilla Anas gracilis Anas superciliosa Anthochaera carunculata Artamus cinereus Aythya australis Biziura lobata Cacatua galerita Carduelis carduelis Chenonetta jubata Chroicocephalus novaehollandiae Cisticola exilis Climacteris affinis Coracina novaehollandiae Corcorax melanorhamphos Corvus coronoides Cracticus tibicen Cracticus torquatus Dacelo novaeguineae Dromaius novaehollandiae Egretta novaehollandiae Eolophus roseicapillus Eurystomus orientalis Falco berigora Falcunculus frontatus Fulica atra Gallinago sp. Gerygone fusca DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Common name

Native (N) / Introduced (I)

Beeping froglet Clicking froglet Eastern pobblebonk Spotted marsh frog Emerald-spotted tree frog

N N N N N

Southern rainbow-skink Eastern long-necked turtle Inland snake-eyed skink Cunningham's skink

N N N N

Domestic dog Cat Brown hare Eastern grey kangaroo Common wallaroo Rabbit Fox Swamp wallaby

I I I N N I I N

Yellow thornbill Brown thornbill Grey teal Pacific black duck Red wattlebird Black-faced woodswallow Hardhead Musk duck Sulphur-crested cockatoo European goldfinch Australian wood duck Silver gull Golden-headed cisticola White-browed treecreeper Black-faced cuckoo-shrike White-winged chough Australian raven Australian magpie Grey butcherbird Laughing kookaburra Emu White-faced heron Galah Dollarbird Brown falcon Crested shrike-tit Eurasian coot Snipe Western gerygone

N N N N N N N N N I N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 117

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Ecological Assessment

Grallina cyanoleuca Haliastur sphenurus Hirundo neoxena Lichenostomus chrysops Lichenostomus ornatus Lichmera indistincta Malacorhynchus membranaceus Malurus cyaneus Malurus lamberti Manorina melanocephala Neochmia temporalis Ocyphaps lophotes Oreoica gutturalis Oxyura australis Pardalotus striatus Petrochelidon ariel Phalacrocorax sulcirostris Philemon corniculatus Platycercus elegans Platycercus eximius Poliocephalus poliocephalus Polytelis swainsonii Porphyrio porphyrio Psephotus haematonotus Rhipidura albiscapa Rhipidura leucophrys Smicrornis brevirostris Strepera graculina Sturnus vulgaris Tachybaptus novaehollandiae Threskiornis molucca Threskiornis spinicollis Todiramphus sanctus Turdus merula Vanellus miles

118

Magpie-lark Whistling kite Welcome swallow Yellow-faced honeyeater Yellow-plumed honeyeater Brown honeyeater Pink-eared duck Superb fairy-wren Variegated fairy-wren Noisy miner Red-browed finch Crested pigeon Crested bellbird Blue-billed duck Striated pardalote Fairy martin Little black cormorant Noisy friarbird Crimson rosella Eastern rosella Hoary-headed grebe superb parrot Purple swamphen Red-rumped parrot Grey fantail Willie wagtail Weebill Pied currawong Common starling Australasian grebe Australian white ibis Straw-necked ibis Sacred kingfisher Common blackbird Masked lapwing

N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N I N N N N I N

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Ecological Assessment

Appendix E: Assessments of Significance

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

119

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment

Assessments of Significance The NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) specifies a set of seven factors which must be considered by decision-makers in assessing the effect of a proposed development or activity on threatened species, populations or ecological communities, or their habitats. These factors are collectively referred to as the ‘7 part test’. In January 2007, the Australian and NSW Governments signed a Bilateral Agreement which allows the assessment regimes under the EP&A Act (Part 4 and 5 of the EP&A Act) to be automatically accredited under the EPBC Act. This means that separate assessment processes are not required. Where a proposed development or activity is in the potential range of a listed threatened species, population or ecological community under the TSC Act and/or EPBC Act, the ‘7 part test’ applies (NSW Department of Primary Industries 2013). The following seven factors (i.e. a-g) have been used to determine whether there would be a significant impact on a TSC Act, FM Act or EPBC Act listed threatened species, migratory species or threatened ecological community identified from the search area, grouped into: 



120

Parrots: -

Little lorikeet (Glossopsitta pusilla) – Vulnerable, TSC Act

Superb parrot (Polytelis swainsonii) – Vulnerable, EPBC Act and TSC Act

Swift parrot (Lathamus discolour) – Endangered, EPBC Act and TSC Act

Woodland birds: -

Brown treecreeper – eastern subspecies (Climacteris picumnus victoriae) – Vulnerable, TSC Act

Flame robin (Petroica phoenicea) – Vulnerable, TSC Act

Painted honeyeater (Grantiella picta) – Vulnerable, EPBC Act and TSC Act

Scarlet robin (Petroica boodang) – Vulnerable, TSC Act

Speckled warbler (Chthonicola sagittata) – Vulnerable, TSC Act

Varied sittella (Daphoenositta chrysoptera) – Vulnerable, TSC Act

Rainbow bee-eater (Merops ornatus) – Migratory, EPBC Act

Regent honeyeater (Anthochaera phrygia) – Critically Endangered, EPBC Act and TSC Act

Satin flycatcher (Myiagra cyanoleuca) – Migratory, EPBC Act

Raptors: -

Barking owl (Ninox connivens) – Vulnerable, TSC Act

Black falcon (Falco subniger) – Vulnerable, TSC Act

Little eagle (Hieraaetus morphnoides) – Vulnerable, TSC Act

Powerful owl (Ninox strenua) – Vulnerable, TSC Act

Waterbirds and waders: -

Australian painted snipe (Stagonopleura guttata) – Vulnerable, TSC Act

Blue-billed duck (Oxyura australis) – Vulnerable, TSC Act

Freckled duck (Stictonetta naevosa) – Vulnerable, TSC Act

Great egret (Ardea alba / modesta) – Migratory, EPBC Act

Cattle egret (Ardea ibis) – Migratory, EPBC Act

Latham’s snipe (Gallinago hardwickii) – Migratory, EPBC Act



Spotted-tailed quoll (SE mainland population) (Dasyurus maculatus maculatus) – Endangered, EPBC Act; Vulnerable, TSC Act



Koala (Phascolarctos cinereus) – Vulnerable, EPBC Act and TSC Act



Grey-headed flying-fox (Pteropus poliocephalus) – Vulnerable, EPBC Act and TSC Act DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment



Pink-tailed worm-lizard (Aprasia parapulchella) – Vulnerable, EPBC Act and TSC Act



Microchiropteran bats:



Eastern bentwing bat (Miniopterus schreibersii oceanensis) – Vulnerable, TSC Act

Large-eared pied bat (Chalinolobus dwyeri) – Vulnerable, EPBC Act and TSC Act

Southern myotis (Myotis macropus) – Vulnerable, TSC Act

Fishes: -

Murray cod (Maccullochella peelii) – Vulnerable, EPBC Act

silver perch (Bidyanus bidyanus) – Vulnerable, FM Act; Critically Endangered, EPBC Act

Ecological Communities: -

White Box – Yellow Box – Blakely’s Red Gum Woodland (Box-Gum Woodland EEC) – Endangered, TSC Act

White Box – Yellow Box – Blakely’s Red Gum Grassy Woodland and Derived Native Grassland (Box-Gum Grassy Woodland and Derived Grassland TEC) – Critically Endangered, EPBC Act

Tablelands Snow Gum, Black Sallee, Candlebark and Ribbon Gum Grassy Woodland in the South Eastern Highlands, Sydney Basin, South East Corner and NSW South Western Slopes Bioregions (Tablelands Snow Gum Grassy Woodland EEC) – Endangered, TSC Act.

Parrots – Little Lorikeet, Superb Parrot and Swift Parrot a)

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

Threatened parrots that have been recorded within approximately 10 km of the CTRWSPP alignment and whose habitat occurs within the Project area include the little lorikeet (Glossopsitta pusilla), swift parrot (Lathamus discolour) and superb parrot (Polytelis swainsonii) (Section 5.1.3). These species nest in tree hollows and forage on seeds, herbaceous plants, fruits, berries, nectar, buds, flowers, insects and grain. Little Lorikeet Forages primarily in the canopy of open Eucalyptus forest and woodland. Isolated flowering trees in open country, e.g. paddocks, roadside remnants and urban trees also help sustain viable populations of the species (OEH 2015c). The little lorikeet breeds from May to September, where pairs nest in proximity to feeding areas if possible, most typically selecting hollows in the limb or trunk of smooth-barked Eucalypts. These nest sites are often used repeatedly for decades, suggesting that preferred sites are limited (OEH 2015c). Swift Parrot The swift parrot breeds only in Tasmania (Higgins 1999; Swift Parrot Recovery Team 2001, cited in DotE 2015b). This species is highly unlikely to breed in the Project area. Development of the proposed CTRWSPP is unlikely to affect the life cycle of the swift parrot such that a viable local population is likely to be placed at risk of extinction. Superb Parrot The key breeding populations of the superb parrot occur in the Riverina and South-West Slopes Region of NSW (DotE 2015b) The superb parrot breeds between September and January, nesting in the hollows of large trees (dead or alive) in tall riparian River Red Gum Forest or Woodland, open Box-Gum Woodland or isolated paddock trees including Blakely’s Red Gum, Yellow Box, Apple Box and Red Box (OEH 2015c). Although the Project area contains hollowDPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

121

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Ecological Assessment

bearing trees, it is located outside of the key breeding area and is unlikely to be an important area for breeding pairs of superb parrots. It is, however, possible that occasional breeding could occur in the study area. Effects Though removal of vegetation may reduce the extent of potential breeding habitat for the little lorikeet, superb parrot and swift parrot, only a small number of trees are expected to be lopped or trimmed (Section 6.2). Pre-clearance fauna surveys by an ecologist or experienced fauna spotter / catcher would negate direct impacts. The pre-clearance fauna survey / check would be undertaken approximately 1-5 days prior to clearing to identify and mitigate against direct impacts on breeding places of threatened parrots. Any trees observed to contain an occupied nest of a threatened parrot would be left untouched until young have fully fledged and vacated the immediate area. Accordingly, the works are unlikely to impact on the life cycle of the little lorikeet, superb parrot or swift parrot such that they would be placed at risk of extinction. b)

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

Not applicable. c)

In the case of an endangered ecological community or critically endangered ecological community, whether the action proposed: i) is likely to have an adverse effect on the extent of the ecological community such that its local occurrence is likely to be placed at risk of extinction, or ii) is likely to substantially and adversely modify the composition of the ecological community such that its local occurrence is likely to be placed at risk of extinction.

Not applicable. d)

Route selection for the CTRWSPP alignment has minimised the requirement for vegetation clearing, and avoids the vast majority of woody vegetation encountered in the Project area. Vegetation lopping, clearing and earthworks would result in the temporary loss of varying vegetation types along the aggregated 66 km route. This vegetation is dominated by agricultural pasturelands and associated grasslands, but also includes patches of remnant vegetation, isolated paddock and road corridor trees, and landscape plantings. The proposed CTRWSPP alignment transects approximately 5.11 km of remnant vegetation, or 7.7% of the 66 km alignment. General disturbance would occur across an approximate area of 4.1 ha (8 m ROW) to 10.22 ha (20 m ROW) of remnant vegetation. Physical clearing and earthworks within the ROW would equate to approximately 1.53 ha (up to 3 m wide) of remnant vegetation.

122

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment

ii) The proposed works may temporarily fragment habitat available for parrots along roadside corridors and within other remnant patches. However, these areas would be rehabilitated post-construction and the impact on habitat connectivity is considered both temporary and minor. Rehabilitation would include managing weedy species – such as African boxthorn, blackberry, Montpellier broom, Scotch thistle, sweet briar and willows – allowing for assisted regeneration of native trees as well as native and pasture grasses, to help restore habitat connectivity. iii) With the exception of only 0.12 ha of the disturbed edge of two patches of EECs / TECs (Section 6.1), the vegetation to be removed is not unique in a local nor regional context. Considering the limited vegetation removal required and the extent of similar, contiguous vegetation in the broader area, impacts are generally considered to be minor. However, the loss of existing and future hollow-bearing trees is a key threat to threatened parrots. Where pre-clearance terrestrial fauna surveys / checks (Section 7.1.2) identify a hollow occupied or suspected to be used by a threatened species, nest boxes would be placed into nearby retention areas as an attempt to offset impacted tree hollows for use during subsequent breeding events. It is noted that any trees observed to contain an active breeding place of a threatened parrot will first be cordoned off and left untouched until young have fully fledged and vacated the immediate area. e)

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

Critical habitat declarations in force under the TSC Act at the time of this assessment comprise those for: 

Gould’s Petrel



Little penguin population in Sydney’s North Harbour



Mitchell’s Rainforest Snail in Stotts Island Nature Reserve



Wollemi Pine.

Critical habitat declarations in force under the Fisheries Management Act 1994 (FM Act) are not relevant to parrots. No areas of critical habitat have been declared for any threatened fauna species with the potential to occur in the Project area. f)

Whether the action proposed is consistent with the objectives or actions of a Recovery Plan or Threat Abatement Plan

A recovery plan is in place for the superb parrot (DSE 2011). The specific objectives of the recovery plan are to: 

determine population trends in the superb parrot



increase the level of knowledge of the super parrot’s ecological requirements



develop and implement threat abatement strategies (so that the decline in abundance is reversed and there is an overall increase in population size)



increase community involvement in and awareness of the super parrot recovery program.

The Project is unlikely to interfere with the objectives of the recovery plan for the superb parrot. A recovery plan is in place for the swift parrot (Saunders and Tzaros 2011). The overall objectives of the recovery plan are to: 

prevent further decline of the swift parrot population



to achieve a demonstrable sustained improvement in the quality and quantity of swift parrot habitat to increase carrying capacity.

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

123

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment

The Project is unlikely to not interfere with the objectives of the recovery plan for the superb parrot. Although no specific Recovery Plan or Threat Abatement Plan is in place for the little lorikeet, this species is identified as a ‘landscape-managed species’ (OEH 2015c) that can best be recovered through: 

broadscale vegetation and habitat management programs, e.g. replanting or weeding



land clearing controls regulated through the Native Vegetation Act 2003 and the EP&A Act



water sharing plans for riparian and floodplain ecosystems and species that depend on them



programs to manage coasts, estuaries and coastal wetlands



the management of national parks and reserves under the NP&W Act.

The Project is unlikely to interfere with the recovery actions for ‘landscape-managed species’ including the little lorikeet. g)

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

Key threatening processes (KTPs) relevant to terrestrial fauna are identified in Schedule 3 of the TSC Act. KTPs relevant to the Project include: 



Loss of hollow-bearing trees – A number of living and dead trees containing both small and large hollows occur within the Project area, and a number of these will need to be lopped or removed as part of the works. Loss of hollow-bearing trees would reduce the availability of potential breeding habitat for the little lorikeet, swift parrot and superb parrot. Though removal of trees may reduce the extent of potential breeding habitat, direct impacts on this species can be negated. A pre-clearance fauna survey/check would be undertaken by an experienced fauna spotter / catcher approximately 1-5 days prior to clearing to identify and mitigate against direct impacts on breeding places of threatened species. Any hollow-bearing trees observed to contain an occupied nest of a threatened species would be left untouched until young have fully fledged and vacated the immediate area. Nest boxes would then be placed into nearby retention areas as an attempt to offset impacted tree hollows for use during subsequent breeding events.

Conclusion The proposal would impact potential habitat for the little lorikeet, superb parrot and swift parrot through the removal of sheltering and foraging habitat. However, the area to be impacted is 124

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment

small in both a local and regional context. A pre-clearance fauna survey / check would be undertaken by an experienced fauna spotter / catcher approximately 1-5 days prior to clearing to identify and mitigate against direct impacts on breeding places of any threatened parrots occurring within the proposed clearing area. In conclusion, the proposal is unlikely to have a significant impact on the little lorikeet, superb parrot or swift parrot and as such a Species Impact Statement is not required. Woodland Birds – Brown Tree-creeper, Flame Robin, Painted Honeyeater, Scarlet Robin, Speckled Warbler, Varied Sittella, Rainbow Bee-eater, Regent Honeyeater and Satin Flycatcher a)

Woodland birds include those that rely on forested areas for nesting or foraging purposes and may utilise vegetation of the Project area on occasion. Threatened and migratory woodland birds recorded from the search area and whose habitat potentially occurs within the Project area include the brown treecreeper – eastern subspecies (Climacteris picumnus victoriae), flame robin (Petroica phoenicea), painted honeyeater (Grantiella picta), scarlet robin (Petroica boodang), speckled warbler (Chthonicola sagittata), varied sittella (Daphoenositta chrysoptera), rainbow bee-eater (Merops ornatus), regent honeyeater (Anthochaera phrygia), and satin flycatcher (Myiagra cyanoleuca) (Section 5.2). Brown treecreeper – eastern subspecies The brown treecreeper inhabits eucalypt forests and woodlands, scrubs of the drier areas, riveredge trees and timbered paddocks (Morcombe 2003). Pairs generally breed between May and December, where they build a bark and grass nest in a hollow tree or stump (Morcombe 2003). Hollows in standing dead or live trees and tree stumps are essential for their nesting (OEH 2015c). Flame robin In NSW, the flame robin breeds in upland areas and in winter, many birds move to the inland slopes and plains (OEH 2015c). It breeds in spring to late summer in upland tall moist eucalypt forest and woodlands, often on ridges and slopes (OEH 2015c). In winter it migrates to drier more open habitats in the lowlands (i.e. valleys below the ranges, and to the western slopes and plains). Nests are often near the ground and are built in sheltered sites, such as shallow cavities in trees, stumps or banks (OEH 2015c). Painted honeyeater The painted honeyeater is nomadic and occurs at low densities throughout its range (OEH 2015c). The greatest concentrations of the bird and almost all breeding occurs on the inland slopes of the Great Dividing Range in NSW, Victoria and southern Queensland. During the winter it is more likely to be found in the north of its distribution. It may inhabit Box-Gum Woodlands of the Project area. The painted honeyeater nests from spring to autumn in small, delicate nests hanging within the outer canopy of drooping eucalypts, she-oak, paperbark or mistletoe branches (OEH 2015c). Scarlet robin The scarlet robin generally breeds in forests and woodlands on ridges, hills and foothill, where pairs mainly breed between the months of July and January, raising two or three broods in each season (OEH 2015c). Their nest is an open cup made of plant fibres and cobwebs built in the fork of a tree, usually more than 2 metres above the ground (OEH 2015c). These nests are often found in a dead branch in a live tree, or in a dead tree or shrub (OEH 2015c). DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

125

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Ecological Assessment

Speckled warbler The speckled warbler lives in a wide range of Eucalyptus dominated communities that have a grassy understorey, often on rocky ridges or in gullies (OEH 2015c). Their diet consists of seeds and insects, with most foraging taking place on the ground around tussocks and under bushes and trees (OEH 2015c). Pairs are sedentary and occupy a breeding territory of about ten hectares, with a slightly larger home-range when not breeding (OEH 2015c). Eggs are laid between August and January in a rounded, domed, roughly built nest of dry grass and strips of bark, located in a slight hollow in the ground or the base of a low dense plant, often among fallen branches and other litter (OEH 2015c). Varied sittella The varied sittella inhabits eucalypt forests and woodlands, especially those containing roughbarked species and mature smooth-barked gums with dead branches, mallee and Acacia woodland, where it feeds on arthropods gleaned from crevices in rough or decorticating bark, dead branches, standing dead trees and small branches and twigs in the tree canopy (OEH 2015c). This species builds a cup-shaped nest of plant fibres and cobwebs in an upright tree fork high in the living tree canopy, and often re-uses the same fork or tree in successive years (OEH 2015c). Rainbow bee-eater The Rainbow Bee-eater is a regular summer migrant to southern Australia from September to April (Morcombe 2003). In Australia, the breeding season extends from August to January (DotE 2015b). The nests are typically concentrated together in loose colonies, although in some instances pairs will nest solitarily (DotE 2015b). The nest is located in an enlarged chamber at the end of a large burrow or tunnel that is excavated in flat or sloping ground, in the banks of rivers, creeks or dams, roadside cuttings, in the walls of gravel pits or quarries, in mounds of gravel, or in cliff-faces (DotE 2015b). Regent honeyeater The total known population of the regent honeyeater has been estimated at between 800 and 2000 (DotE 2015b). This species breeds almost year round, from May to March, presumed to correspond with regional patterns in the flowering of key eucalypt and mistletoe species (DotE 2015b). The regent honeyeater usually nests in the canopy of forests or woodlands, and in the crowns of tall trees, mostly eucalypts, building cup-shaped nests commonly made from strips of bark or dry grass or both, bound with spider web (DotE 2015b). Young generally fledge 13-17 days after hatching. Breeding pairs may re-nest after a successful or failed breeding attempt, sometimes re-nesting several kilometres away from the site of their previous breeding attempt (DotE 2015b). Satin flycatcher The Satin Flycatcher is a summer breeding migrant to eastern and south-eastern Australia, wintering in north-east Queensland and New Guinea (Morcombe 2003). In NSW, eggs have been recorded between November and January (DotE 2015k). This species prefers to nest in a fork of outer branches of trees, such as paperbarks, eucalypts and banksias (DotE 2015k). Effects Though earthworks, land re-forming and removal of vegetation may reduce the extent of potential breeding habitat, only a small number of trees are expected to be lopped or trimmed (Section 6.2). Pre-clearance fauna surveys by an ecologist or experienced fauna spotter / catcher would negate direct impacts. The pre-clearance fauna survey / check would be undertaken approximately 1-5 days prior to clearing to identify and mitigate against direct impacts on breeding places of threatened woodland birds. Any trees observed to contain an occupied nest of a threatened woodland bird would be left untouched until young have fully 126

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Ecological Assessment

fledged and vacated the immediate area. Accordingly, the works are unlikely to impact on the life cycle of the brown tree-creeper, flame robin, painted honeyeater, scarlet robin, speckled warbler, varied sittella, rainbow bee-eater, regent honeyeater or satin flycatcher to the extent that a viable local population of the species is likely to be placed at risk of extinction. b)

Not applicable. c)

Not applicable. d)

In relation to the habitat of a threatened species, population or ecological community: i) the extent to which habitat is likely to be removed or modified as a result of the action proposed, and ii) whether an area of habitat is likely to become fragmented or isolated from other areas of habitat as a result of the proposed action, and iii) the importance of the habitat to be removed, modified, fragmented or isolated to the long-term survival of the species, population or ecological community in the locality. i) Route selection for the CTRWSPP alignment has minimised the requirement for vegetation clearing, and avoids the majority of woody vegetation encountered in the Project area. Vegetation lopping, clearing and earthworks would result in the temporary loss of varying vegetation types along the aggregated 66 km route. This vegetation is dominated by agricultural pasturelands and associated grasslands, but also includes patches of remnant vegetation, isolated paddock and road corridor trees, and landscape plantings. The proposed CTRWSPP alignment transects approximately 5.11 km of remnant vegetation, or 7.7% of the 66 km alignment. General disturbance would occur across an approximate area of 4.1 ha (8 m ROW) to 10.22 ha (20 m ROW) of remnant vegetation. Physical clearing and earthworks within the ROW would equate to approximately 1.53 ha (up to 3 m wide) of remnant vegetation. ii) The proposed works may temporarily fragment habitat available for woodland birds along roadside corridors and within other remnant patches. However, these areas would be rehabilitated post-construction and the impact on habitat connectivity is considered both temporary and minor. Rehabilitation would include managing weedy species â&#x20AC;&#x201C; such as African boxthorn, blackberry, Montpellier broom, Scotch thistle, sweet briar and willows â&#x20AC;&#x201C; allowing for assisted regeneration of native trees as well as native and pasture grasses, to help restore habitat connectivity. iii) With the exception of only 0.12 ha of the disturbed edge of two patches of EECs / TECs (Section 6.1), the vegetation to be removed is not unique in a local nor regional context. Considering the limited vegetation removal required and the extent of similar,

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

127

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment

contiguous vegetation in the broader area, impacts are considered to be minor. However, the loss of remnant vegetation is a key threat to many threatened woodland birds. Where pre-clearance terrestrial fauna surveys / checks (Section 7.1.2) identify a breeding place occupied or suspected to be used by a threatened species, nest boxes would be placed into nearby retention areas as an attempt to offset impacted tree hollows for use during subsequent breeding events by those woodland birds which utilise hollows. It is noted that any trees observed to contain an active breeding place of a threatened woodland bird will first be cordoned off and left untouched until young have fully fledged and vacated the immediate area. e)

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

Critical habitat declarations in force under the TSC Act at the time of this assessment comprise those for: 

Gould’s Petrel



Little penguin population in Sydney’s North Harbour



Mitchell’s Rainforest Snail in Stotts Island Nature Reserve



Wollemi Pine.

Critical habitat declarations in force under the Fisheries Management Act 1994 (FM Act) are not relevant to woodland birds. No areas of critical habitat have been declared for any threatened fauna species with the potential to occur in the Project area. f)

Whether the action proposed is consistent with the objectives or actions of a Recovery Plan or Threat Abatement Plan

A recovery plan is in place for the regent honeyeater (DNRE 1999). The specific objectives of the recovery plan are to: 

effectively organise and administer the recovery effort to ensure that recovery plan objectives are met



maintain and enhance the value of regent honeyeater habitat at key sites and throughout the former range, by active participation in land-use planning processes and by active vegetation rehabilitation at strategic sites



monitor trends in the regent honeyeater population size and dispersion across its range to allow assessment of the efficacy of management actions



facilitate research on strategic questions which will enhance the capacity to achieve the long-term objectives; in particular, determine the whereabouts of regent honeyeaters during the non-breeding season and during breeding season absences from known sites; identify important sites and habitat requirements at these times



maintain and increase community awareness, understanding and involvement in the recovery effort



maintain the captive population of regent honeyeaters at a size which will provide adequate stock to: provide insurance against the demise of the wild populations; continuously improve captive-breeding and husbandry techniques; provide adequate stock for trials of release strategies; and maintain 90% of the wild heterozygosity in the captive population.

The Project is unlikely to interfere with the objectives of the recovery plan for the regent honeyeater. Although no specific Recovery Plan or Threat Abatement Plan is in place for the brown treecreeper, flame robin, scarlet robin, painted honeyeater, speckled warbler or varied sittella, these species are identified as ‘landscape-managed species’ (OEH 2015c). The key threats to 128

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment

the viability of landscape-managed species are loss, fragmentation and degradation of habitat, and widespread pervasive factors such as impacts of climate change and disease that can best be recovered through: 

broadscale vegetation and habitat management programs, e.g. replanting or weeding



land clearing controls regulated through the Native Vegetation Act 2003 and the EP&A Act



water sharing plans for riparian and floodplain ecosystems and species that depend on them



programs to manage coasts, estuaries and coastal wetlands



the management of national parks and reserves under the NP&W Act (OEH 2015c).

The Project is unlikely to interfere with these recovery measures for ‘landscape-managed species’ including the brown treecreeper, flame robin, scarlet robin, painted honeyeater, speckled warbler or varied sittella. The rainbow bee-eater and satin flycatcher are migratory species that are not subject to recovery planning. g)

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

Key threatening processes (KTPs) relevant to terrestrial fauna are identified in Schedule 3 of the TSC Act. KTPs relevant to the Project include: 

Clearing of native vegetation – Construction of the CTRWSPP would involve vegetation lopping, clearing and earthworks, resulting in the temporary loss of varying vegetation types along the aggregated 66 km CTRWSPP alignment. This vegetation is dominated by agricultural pasturelands and associated grasslands, but also includes patches of remnant vegetation, isolated paddock and road corridor trees, and landscape plantings. The proposed CTRWSPP alignment transects approximately 5.11 km of remnant vegetation. Vegetation clearing and earthworks within the ROW would equate to approximately 1.53 ha (up to 3 m wide) of remnant vegetation. The proposal may reduce foraging habitat for a number of threatened woodland birds. However, the area impacted is small, and is not unique in a local nor regional context. Suitable habitat resources for these species occur as remnant patches and contiguous woodland beyond the proposed clearing areas of remnant vegetation. Less impacted remnant patches of vegetation occur within the broader locale and region which are also likely to be better suited to the brown treecreeper, flame robin, painted honeyeater, scarlet robin, speckled warbler, varied sittella, rainbow bee-eater, regent honeyeater and satin flycatcher. Though removal of trees may reduce the extent of potential breeding habitat, direct impacts on this species can be negated. A pre-clearance fauna survey / check would be undertaken by an experienced fauna spotter / catcher approximately 1-5 days prior to clearing to identify and mitigate against direct impacts on breeding places of threatened species. Any occupied nest of a threatened species would be left untouched until young have fully fledged and vacated the immediate area.



DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

129

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Ecological Assessment

hollow-bearing trees observed to contain an occupied nest of a threatened species would be left untouched until young have fully fledged and have vacated the immediate area. Nest boxes would then be placed into nearby retention areas as an attempt to offset impacted tree hollows for use during subsequent breeding events. Conclusion The Project would impact potential habitat for threatened woodland birds through the removal of potential breeding, sheltering and foraging habitat. However, the area to be impacted is small in both a local and regional context. Pre-clearance fauna surveys / checks would be undertaken by an experienced fauna spotter / catcher approximately 1-5 days prior to clearing to identify and mitigate against direct impacts on breeding places of threatened woodland birds. Any trees observed to contain an active breeding place of a threatened woodland bird would be left untouched until young have fully fledged and vacated the immediate area. In conclusion, the proposal is unlikely to have a significant impact on either the brown treecreeper, flame robin, painted honeyeater, scarlet robin, speckled warbler, varied sittella, rainbow bee-eater, regent honeyeater or satin flycatcher, and as such a Species Impact Statement is not required. Raptors â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Barking Owl, Black Falcon, Little Eagle and Powerful Owl a)

Raptors, also known as birds of prey, include both diurnal and nocturnal species that hunt and feed on other animals. Threatened raptors that have been recorded within the search area and whose habitat occurs within the Project area include the barking owl (Ninox connivens), black falcon (Falco subniger), little eagle (Hieraaetus morphnoides) and powerful owl (Ninox strenua) (Section 5.2). Barking Owl The barking owl inhabits woodland and open forest, including fragmented remnants and partly cleared farmland. It is flexible in its habitat use, and hunting can extend into closed forest and more open areas (OEH 2014c). The barking owl preferentially hunts small arboreal mammals such as squirrel gliders and ringtail possums, but also preys on birds, invertebrates and terrestrial mammals such as rodents and rats. Nesting generally occurs during mid-winter and spring, where eggs are laid in hollows of large, old trees (OEH 2014c). These breeding places are used repeatedly over years by a pair (OEH 2014c). Eggs are generally laid in August, with fledging in November (OEH 2014c). Black Falcon The black falcon inhabits woodland, shrubland and grassland in the arid and semi-arid zones, especially wooded watercourses and agricultural land with scattered remnant trees (NSW Scientific Committee 2013). It is usually associated with streams or wetlands, visiting them in search of prey and often using standing dead trees as lookout posts. In agricultural landscapes the black falcon tends to nest in healthy riparian woodland remnants with diverse avifauna prey (Debus et al. 2005, cited in NSW Scientific Committee 2013). Breeding pairs of the black falcon use the same breeding territories in successive years and nest in old sticks, typically built by corvids (in the vicinity of the CTRWSPP this would be ravens) or sometimes other raptor species, in the top of emergent trees in woodland, particularly riparian woodland. Eggs are laid between winter and late spring, with young fledging 11-12 weeks thereafter (NSW Scientific Committee 2013). Little Eagle The little eagle occupies eucalypt forest, woodland or open woodland, and occasionally she-oak or Acacia woodlands and riparian woodlands of interior NSW, where is preys on birds, reptiles 130

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Ecological Assessment

and mammals, occasionally adding large insects and carrion (OEH 2015b). This species nests in tall living trees within a remnant patch, where breeding pairs build a large stick nest in winter. The female lays two or three eggs during spring, and young fledge in early summer (OEH 2015c). Powerful Owl The powerful owl breeds and hunts in open or closed sclerophyll forest or woodlands, and occasionally hunts in open habitats (OEH 2015c). It roosts by day in dense vegetation, hunting at night on medium-sized arboreal marsupials. As most prey species require hollows and a shrub layer, these are important habitat components for the owl. Powerful owls nest in large tree hollows (at least 0.5 m deep), in large eucalypts (diameter at breast height of 80-240 cm) that are at least 150 years old (OEH 2015c). Nesting occurs from late autumn to mid-winter (OEH 2015c). Effects Though removal of vegetation may reduce the extent of potential breeding habitat, direct impacts on threatened raptors can be negated. A pre-clearance fauna survey / check would be undertaken by an experienced fauna spotter / catcher 1-5 days prior to clearing to identify and mitigate against direct impacts on breeding places of threatened raptors. Any trees observed to contain an occupied nest of a threatened raptor would be left untouched until young have fully fledged and vacated the immediate area. The loss of existing and future hollow-bearing trees is a key threat to the barking owl and powerful owl, and the removal of any large hollows (i.e. >20cm diameter) in any existing hollowbearing trees could be considered to have a more immediate impact on the success of a local breeding pair of either species. Consequently, if any large hollows (i.e. >20cm diameter) are encountered within the proposed clearing area, a corresponding number of nest boxes will be established in nearby retention habitat as an attempt at a direct offset measure. Noise and other indirect impacts may result from the Project, although will be transient in nature and unlikely to significantly amplify extant impacts. With the above mitigation measures in place, construction of the CTRWSPP is unlikely to impact on the life cycle of either the barking owl, black flacon, little eagle or powerful owl such that they would be placed at risk of extinction. b)

Not applicable. c)

Not applicable. d)

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

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

131

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment

i) the extent to which habitat is likely to be removed or modified as a result of the action proposed, and ii) whether an area of habitat is likely to become fragmented or isolated from other areas of habitat as a result of the proposed action, and iii) the importance of the habitat to be removed, modified, fragmented or isolated to the long-term survival of the species, population or ecological community in the locality. i) Route selection for the CTRWSPP alignment has minimised the requirement for vegetation clearing, and avoids the majority of woody vegetation encountered in the Project area. Vegetation lopping, clearing and earthworks would result in the temporary loss of varying vegetation types along the aggregated 66 km route. This vegetation is dominated by agricultural pasturelands and associated grasslands, but also includes patches of remnant vegetation, isolated paddock and road corridor trees, and landscape plantings. The proposed CTRWSPP alignment transects approximately 5.11 km of remnant vegetation, or 7.7% of the 66 km alignment. General disturbance would occur across an approximate area of 4.1 ha (8 m ROW) to 10.22 ha (20 m ROW) of remnant vegetation. Physical clearing and earthworks within the ROW would equate to approximately 1.53 ha (up to 3 m wide) of remnant vegetation. ii) The proposed works may temporarily fragment habitat available for raptors along roadside corridors and within other remnant patches. However, these areas would be rehabilitated post-construction and the impact on habitat connectivity is considered both temporary and minor. Rehabilitation would include managing weedy species – such as African boxthorn, blackberry, Montpellier broom, Scotch thistle, sweet briar and willows – allowing for assisted regeneration of native trees as well as native and pasture grasses, to help restore habitat connectivity. iii) With the exception of only 0.12 ha of the disturbed edge of two patches of EECs / TECs (Section 6.1), the vegetation to be removed is not unique in a local nor regional context. Considering the limited vegetation removal required and the extent of similar, contiguous vegetation in the broader area, impacts are considered to be minor. However, the loss of existing and future hollow-bearing trees is a key threat to the barking owl and powerful owl. The removal of any large hollows (i.e. >20cm diameter) in any existing hollow-bearing trees could be considered to have a more immediate impact to the survival of this species in the locality. Consequently, if any large hollows (i.e. >20cm diameter) are encountered within the proposed clearing area, and cannot be avoided, a corresponding number of nest boxes will be established in nearby retention habitat as an attempt at a direct offset measure. It is noted that any trees observed to contain an active breeding place of a threatened raptor will first be cordoned off and left untouched until young have fully fledged and vacated the immediate area. e)

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

Critical habitat declarations in force under the TSC Act at the time of this assessment comprise those for: 

Gould’s Petrel



Little penguin population in Sydney’s North Harbour



Mitchell’s Rainforest Snail in Stotts Island Nature Reserve



Wollemi Pine.

Critical habitat declarations in force under the Fisheries Management Act 1994 (FM Act) are not relevant to raptors. 132

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment

No areas of critical habitat have been declared for any threatened fauna species with the potential to occur in the Project area. f)

Whether the action proposed is consistent with the objectives or actions of a Recovery Plan or Threat Abatement Plan

Although no specific Recovery Plan or Threat Abatement Plan in place for the barking owl, black falcon, little eagle or powerful owl, these species are identified as ‘landscape-managed species’ (OEH 2015c). The key threats to the viability of landscape-managed species are loss, fragmentation and degradation of habitat, and widespread pervasive factors such as impacts of climate change and disease that can best be recovered through: 

broad scale vegetation and habitat management programs, e.g. replanting or weeding



land clearing controls regulated through the Native Vegetation Act 2003 and the EP&A Act



water sharing plans for riparian and floodplain ecosystems and species that depend on them



programs to manage coasts, estuaries and coastal wetlands



the management of national parks and reserves under the NP&W Act (OEH 2015c).

The Project is unlikely to interfere with these recovery measures for ‘landscape-managed species’ including the barking owl, black falcon, little eagle or powerful owl. g)

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

Key threatening processes (KTPs) relevant to terrestrial fauna are identified in Schedule 3 of the TSC Act. KTPs relevant to the Project include: 

Clearing of native vegetation – Construction of the CTRWSPP would involve vegetation lopping, clearing and earthworks, resulting in the temporary loss of varying vegetation types along the aggregated 66 km CTRWSPP alignment. This vegetation is dominated by agricultural pasturelands and associated grasslands, but also includes patches of remnant vegetation, isolated paddock and road corridor trees, and landscape plantings. The proposed CTRWSPP alignment transects approximately 5.11 km of remnant vegetation. Vegetation clearing and earthworks within the ROW would equate to approximately 1.53 ha (up to 3 m wide) of remnant vegetation. The proposal may reduce foraging habitat for a number of threatened raptors. However, the area impacted is small, and is not unique in a local nor regional context. Suitable habitat resources for these species occur as remnant patches and contiguous woodland beyond the proposed clearing areas of remnant vegetation. Less impacted remnant patches of vegetation occur within the broader locale and region which are also likely to be better suited to the barking owl, black falcon, little eagle and powerful owl. Though removal of trees may reduce the extent of potential breeding habitat, direct impacts on this species can be negated. A pre-clearance fauna survey / check would be undertaken by an experienced fauna spotter / catcher approximately 1-5 days prior to clearing to identify and mitigate against direct impacts on breeding places of threatened species. Any occupied hollow or nest of a threatened raptor species would be left untouched until young have fully fledged and vacated the immediate area.



DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

133

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment

undertaken by an experienced fauna spotter / catcher approximately 1-5 days prior to clearing to identify and mitigate against direct impacts on breeding places of threatened species. Any hollow-bearing trees observed to contain an occupied nest of a threatened raptor species would be left untouched until young have fully fledged and have vacated the immediate area. Large nest boxes would then be placed into nearby retention areas as an attempt to offset impacted tree hollows for use during subsequent breeding events. Conclusion The proposal would impact potential habitat for threatened raptor species through the removal of potential breeding, sheltering and hunting habitat. However, the area to be impacted is small in both a local and regional context. Pre-clearance fauna surveys / checks would be undertaken by an experienced spotter / catcher approximately 1-5 days prior to clearing to identify and mitigate against direct impacts on breeding places of threatened species. Any trees observed to contain an active breeding place of a threatened raptor would be left untouched until young have fully fledged and vacated the immediate area. In conclusion, the proposal is unlikely to have a significant impact on threatened raptors and as such a Species Impact Statement is not required. Waterbirds and Waders – Australian Painted Snipe, Blue-billed Duck, Freckled Duck, Great Egret, Cattle Egret, Latham’s Snipe a)

Wetland birds and waders include those that rely on wetted habitat for nesting or foraging purposes and may utilise waterways and wetlands of the Project area on occasion. Threatened or migratory waterbirds and waders recorded from the search area, and whose habitat potentially occurs within the Project area, include the Australian painted snipe (Stagonopleura guttata), blue-billed duck (Oxyura australis), freckled duck (Stictonetta naevosa), great egret (Ardea alba / modesta), cattle egret (Ardea ibis) and Latham’s snipe (Gallinago hardwickii). Australian painted snipe The Australian painted snipe inhabits shallow terrestrial freshwater (occasionally brackish) wetlands, including temporary and permanent lakes, swamps and claypans (DotE 2015b), preferring the surrounds and shallows of wetlands that are well vegetated with dense low cover (Morcombe 2003). Breeding occurs between October and May, where they nest close to, often surrounded by, water (Morcombe 2003). Blue-billed duck The blue-billed duck inhabits deep, densely vegetated freshwater lakes and swamps when breeding; wintering on more open waters (Morcombe 2003). Breeding occurs mainly from September to December, where breeding pairs produce one clutch per year. The female builds in old, very dense, long un-burned Typha reedbeds where masses of old dead leaves tangle near water levels (Morcombe 2003). Freckled duck The freckled duck breeds on densely vegetated freshwater swamps, creeks or temporary floodwaters (Morcombe 2003). The breeding season usually extends from August to December, where it moves into densely vegetated lake or swamp habitat (Morcombe 2003). Nest sites are usually the fork of a branch hanging low over water among flood debris, or in another waterbird’s old nest, but within 1 m of the water surface (Morcombe 2003).

134

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment

Great egret The great egret inhabits wetlands, flooded pastures, dams, estuarine mudflats, mangroves and reefs (Morcombe 2003). It nests in colonies located in wooded and shrubby swamps including mangrove forests, melaleuca swamps and mixed eucalypt / acacia / lignum swamps (DotE 2015b). In the southern portion of Australia, breeding occurs between October and December, in colonies with herons, ibis and spoonbills (Morcombe 2003). It uses trees standing in water, where it builds a nest in the upper forks, often in the topmost foliage where the nest is open to the sky for unobstructed landing (Morcombe 2003). Cattle egret The cattle egret inhabits moist pastures with tall grass, shallow open wetlands and margins, and mudlfats (Morcombe 2003). It avoids short grass (DotE 2015b). In NSW, the cattle egret generally breeds from September to October, where it congregates in colonies in clumps of trees or shrubs, often with other waterbirds (Morcombe 2003). Latham’s snipe Latham’s snipe inhabits low vegetation around wetlands in shallows, sedges, reeds, heath, salt marsh and irrigated crops (Morcombe 2003). It is a regular summer migrant from Japan, where it breeds. Effects Potential foraging habitat for waterbirds and waders was encountered within the Project area at a number of locations in the vicinity of waterways and farm dams. Breeding habitat was also encountered in the Project area in the vicinity of Gosling Creek (OC-4.9), and a number of farm dams. Although foraging habitat was encountered within the maximum extent of the ROW (i.e. within 10 m either side of the alignment), no breeding habitat for waterbirds or waders was encountered within the ROW, nor is it likely to occur. Potential Impacts on breeding places of waterbirds and waders would be limited to transient noise associated with construction, as well as downstream water quality impacts in the unlikely instance of unmitigated runoff from construction areas. Such impacts will be mitigated through appropriate sediment and erosion controls. The works are unlikely to impact on the life cycle of the Australian painted snipe, blue-billed duck, freckled duck, great egret, cattle egret or Latham’s snipe to the extent that a viable local population of the species is likely to be placed at risk of extinction. b)

Not applicable. c)

Not applicable.

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

135

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment

In relation to the habitat of a threatened species, population or ecological community: i) the extent to which habitat is likely to be removed or modified as a result of the action proposed, and ii) whether an area of habitat is likely to become fragmented or isolated from other areas of habitat as a result of the proposed action, and iii) the importance of the habitat to be removed, modified, fragmented or isolated to the long-term survival of the species, population or ecological community in the locality. i) Potential foraging habitat for threatened and migratory waterbirds and waders along the ROW is likely to correspond with waterways classified as Class 1 ‘major key fish habitat’ and Class 2 ‘moderate key fish habitat’ and Class 3 ‘minimal key fish habitat’ (Section 5.3.3) (fish in this definition also includes aquatic invertebrates). The CTRWSPP alignment intersects three Class 1 waterways, six Class 2 waterways and ten Class 3 waterways (Section 5.3.3). Three of these waterways: Spring Creek, a tributary of Spring Creek and School Creek, will have the pipe positioned above existing road culverts. The minimum ROW required to construct the remaining Class 1, 2 and 3 waterways will vary from 3 m to 20 m wide. However, no remnant riparian vegetation is likely to be found within the ROW, impacts will be temporary, and stream banks will be rehabilitated following construction. ii) No remnant riparian vegetation is expected to occur within the ROW. The proposed works may temporarily fragment habitat available for waterbirds and waders along waterways. However, these areas would be rehabilitated post-construction and the impact on habitat connectivity is considered temporary and minor. No areas of habitat for waterbirds or waders are likely to become fragmented or isolated from other areas of habitat as a result of the proposed works. iii) The waterways to be temporarily impacted by construction of the CTRWSPP are not unique in a local nor regional context. Considering the limited vegetation removal required and the extent of similar, contiguous habitat both upstream and downstream of crossing locations, impacts are considered to be minor. Breeding habitat for waterbirds and waders is not expected to occur within the ROW. A temporary reducing in foraging habitat within the ROW is unlikely to influence the long-term survival of these species.

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

Critical habitat declarations in force under the TSC Act at the time of this assessment comprise those for: 

Gould’s Petrel



Little penguin population in Sydney’s North Harbour



Mitchell’s Rainforest Snail in Stotts Island Nature Reserve



Wollemi Pine.

Critical habitat declarations in force under the Fisheries Management Act 1994 (FM Act) are not relevant to waterbirds or waders. No areas of critical habitat have been declared for any threatened fauna species with the potential to occur in the Project area. f)

Whether the action proposed is consistent with the objectives or actions of a Recovery Plan or Threat Abatement Plan

No Recovery Plan, Threat Abatement Plan or Recovery Strategy is in place for the Australian painted snipe, blue-billed duck, freckled duck, great egret, cattle egret or Latham’s snipe. 136

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment

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

Key threatening processes (KTPs) relevant to terrestrial fauna are identified in Schedule 3 of the TSC Act. KTPs relevant to waterbirds and waders include: 

Alteration to the natural flow regimes of rivers and streams and their floodplains and wetlands – Construction of the CTRWSPP through waterways may necessitate the construction of temporary minor dams to create a dry area for construction. Flume pipes or pumps will be used to convey water from upstream to downstream of the dammed area for this purpose. These minor dams will be removed following pipe placement and backfill. Due to continuity of flow, flow regimes are not expected to be impacted by the works. Consequently, the CTRWSPP is unlikely to represent this KTP.

Conclusion The Project would impact potential habitat for threatened and migratory waterbirds and waders through the removal of potential sheltering and foraging habitat. However, the area to be impacted is small in both a local and regional context. Breeding is unlikely to occur within the ROW. Accordingly, waterbirds and waders occurring within this area are expected to be mobile species that will temporarily vacate construction work areas, and are expected to recolonise these areas following completion of works and site rehabilitation. The Project is unlikely to have a significant impact on either the Australian painted snipe, blue-billed duck, freckled duck, great egret, cattle egret or Latham’s snipe, and as such a Species Impact Statement is not required. Spotted-tailed Quoll (SE Mainland Population) a)

The spotted-tail quoll (SE mainland population) (Dasyurus maculatus maculatus) inhabits rainforest, open forest, woodland, coastal heathland and inland riparian forest (Strahan 1995). The Project area contains open forest / woodland, particularly in the south, and there are two records from the search area (OEH 2015a), the nearest being approximately 3.5 km east of OC53 in the vicinity of Carcoar Dam. The spotted-tail quoll is an efficient predator, taking prey ranging from small wallabies to insects (Strahan 1995). Mating takes place from April to July. Young are confined largely to den sites, which include caves, rock crevices and hollow logs, until fully independent at about 18 weeks (Strahan 1995). No caves or rock crevices are expected to occur within the Project area, but a number of hollow logs are expected to be encountered. Prior to clearing, tree hollows and hollow logs will be identified and flagged, with a view to reusing these as fauna habitat as part of the ROW reinstatement (Section 7.2.2). Pre-clearance fauna surveys by an experienced fauna spotter / catcher would negate direct impacts on the spotted-tailed quoll. The pre-clearance fauna survey / check would be undertaken approximately 1-5 days prior to clearing to identify and mitigate against direct impacts on breeding places of the spotted-tailed quoll. Any hollow logs or other breeding places observed to contain an occupied den of a spotted-tailed quoll would be left untouched until young have naturally vacated. Accordingly, the works are unlikely to impact on the life cycle of the spottedtailed quoll such that it would be placed at risk of extinction.

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

137

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Ecological Assessment

Not applicable. c)

Not applicable. d)

In relation to the habitat of a threatened species, population or ecological community: i) the extent to which habitat is likely to be removed or modified as a result of the action proposed, and ii) whether an area of habitat is likely to become fragmented or isolated from other areas of habitat as a result of the proposed action, and iii) the importance of the habitat to be removed, modified, fragmented or isolated to the long-term survival of the species, population or ecological community in the locality. i) Route selection for the CTRWSPP alignment has minimised the requirement for vegetation clearing, and avoids the vast majority of woody vegetation encountered in the Project area. Vegetation lopping, clearing and earthworks would result in the temporary loss of varying vegetation types along the aggregated 66 km route. This vegetation is dominated by agricultural pasturelands and associated grasslands, but also includes patches of remnant vegetation, isolated paddock and road corridor trees, and landscape plantings. The proposed CTRWSPP alignment transects approximately 5.11 km of remnant vegetation, or 7.7% of the 66 km alignment. General disturbance would occur across an approximate area of 4.1 ha (8 m ROW) to 10.22 ha (20 m ROW) of remnant vegetation. Physical clearing and earthworks within the ROW would equate to approximately 1.53 ha (up to 3 m wide) of remnant vegetation. ii) The proposed works may temporarily fragment habitat available for the spotted-tailed quoll in remnant patches. However, these areas would be rehabilitated postconstruction and the impact on habitat connectivity is considered both temporary and minor. Rehabilitation would include managing weedy species â&#x20AC;&#x201C; such as African boxthorn, blackberry, Montpellier broom, Scotch thistle, sweet briar and willows â&#x20AC;&#x201C; allowing for assisted regeneration of native trees as well as native and pasture grasses, to help restore habitat connectivity. iii) With the exception of only 0.12 ha of the disturbed edge of two patches of EECs / TECs (Section 6.1), the vegetation to be removed is not unique in a local nor regional context. Considering the limited vegetation removal required and the extent of similar, contiguous vegetation in the broader area, impacts are considered to be minor.

138

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment

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

Critical habitat declarations in force under the TSC Act at the time of this assessment comprise those for: 

Gould’s Petrel



Little penguin population in Sydney’s North Harbour



Mitchell’s Rainforest Snail in Stotts Island Nature Reserve



Wollemi Pine.

Critical habitat declarations in force under the Fisheries Management Act 1994 (FM Act) are not relevant to the spotted-tailed quoll. No areas of critical habitat have been declared for any threatened fauna species with the potential to occur in the Project area. f)

Whether the action proposed is consistent with the objectives or actions of a Recovery Plan or Threat Abatement Plan

Although no specific Recovery Plan or Threat Abatement Plan was in place for the spottedtailed quoll at the time of assessment, targeted strategies for managing this species have been developed under the Saving Our Species program (OEH 2015c). This program identifies critical actions for the spotted-tailed quoll as: 

conserve old-growth forest stands and other areas of known habitat under perpetual, funded conservation agreements such as BioBanking agreements, conservation property vegetation plans or inclusion in the conservation reserve system



identify and target restoration and revegetation projects at areas where connectivity between large areas of known habitat is compromised, with the aim of increasing the width, condition and security of critical landscape links



implement (or augment coordinated), cross-tenure, landscape scale predator control programs in areas where significant populations of spotted-tailed quoll are known to occur, and monitor populations of the target introduced predator



monitor significant spotted-tailed quoll populations to investigate the impact of fox and wild dog baiting



design and distribute an educational brochure for designing 'quoll-proof' poultry runs and aviaries and distribute



modify poultry runs and aviaries based on best-practice guidelines



incorporate methods to reduce the numbers of spotted-tailed quolls killed at sections of roads where road kills are frequently reported; assess the effectiveness of different mitigation methods



monitor survival of spotted-tailed quoll populations in habitat newly colonised by cane toads.

The Project is unlikely to interfere with the critical actions of the Saving Our Species program for the spotted-tailed quoll. g)

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

Key threatening processes (KTPs) relevant to terrestrial fauna are identified in Schedule 3 of the TSC Act. KTPs relevant to the Project include: 

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

139

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Ecological Assessment

remnant vegetation, isolated paddock and road corridor trees, and landscape plantings. The proposed CTRWSPP alignment transects approximately 5.11 km of remnant vegetation. Vegetation clearing and earthworks within the ROW would equate to approximately 1.53 ha (up to 3 m wide) of remnant vegetation. The proposal may reduce potential breeding and foraging habitat for the spotted-tailed quoll. However, the area impacted is small, and is not unique in a local nor regional context. Suitable habitat resources for the spotted-tailed quoll occur as remnant patches and contiguous woodland beyond the proposed clearing areas of remnant vegetation. Less impacted remnant patches of vegetation occur within the locale and broader region which are also likely to be better suited to the spotted-tailed quoll. Conclusion The proposal would impact potential habitat for the spotted-tailed quoll through the removal of foraging habitat and the relocation of potential breeding habitat (hollow logs). However, the area to be impacted is small in both a local and regional context. A pre-clearance fauna survey / check would be undertaken by an experienced fauna spotter / catcher approximately 1-5 days prior to clearing to identify and mitigate against direct impacts on breeding places of any spotted-tailed quoll occurring within the proposed clearing area. In conclusion, the proposal is unlikely to have a significant impact on the spotted-tailed quoll, and as such a Species Impact Statement is not required. Koala a)

West of the Great Dividing Range, the koala (Phascolarctos cinereus) follows river red gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis) forests that skirt the mosaic of rivers and watercourses (Strahan 1995), as well as Melaleuca, Casuarina and Eucalyptus woodland. No sign of koala was detected during the field surveys 2-7 November 2015 and the Project area is unlikely to contain core koala habitat. However, vegetation intersected by the alignment contains a number of SEPP 44 preferred koala feed tree species, including ribbon gum (E. viminalis), river red gum (E. camaldulensis) and white box (E. albens). The koala has been recorded from approximately 5 km south-east of OC-41, approximately 3.5 km north-east of Lake Rowlands dam, and from approximately 4.5 km west of OC-34.5 (OEH 2015a). Pre-clearance fauna surveys / checks would be undertaken approximately 1-5 days prior to vegetation clearing to negate direct impacts on the koala. Any trees observed to contain a koala would be left untouched until it has naturally vacated. Accordingly, the works are unlikely to impact on the life cycle of the koala such that it would be placed at risk of extinction. b)

Not applicable.

140

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment

Not applicable. d)

In relation to the habitat of a threatened species, population or ecological community: i) the extent to which habitat is likely to be removed or modified as a result of the action proposed, and ii) whether an area of habitat is likely to become fragmented or isolated from other areas of habitat as a result of the proposed action, and iii) the importance of the habitat to be removed, modified, fragmented or isolated to the long-term survival of the species, population or ecological community in the locality. i) Route selection for the CTRWSPP alignment has minimised the requirement for vegetation clearing, and avoids the vast majority of woody vegetation encountered in the Project area. Vegetation lopping, clearing and earthworks would result in the temporary loss of varying vegetation types along the aggregated 66 km route. This vegetation is dominated by agricultural pasturelands and associated grasslands, but also includes patches of remnant vegetation, isolated paddock and road corridor trees, and landscape plantings. The proposed CTRWSPP alignment transects approximately 5.11 km of remnant vegetation, or 7.7% of the 66 km alignment. General disturbance would occur across an approximate area of 4.1 ha (8 m ROW) to 10.22 ha (20 m ROW) of remnant vegetation. Physical clearing and earthworks within the ROW would equate to approximately 1.53 ha (up to 3 m wide) of remnant vegetation. ii) The proposed works may marginally fragment potential habitat available for the koala in remnant patches. However, these areas would be rehabilitated post-construction and the impact on habitat connectivity is considered minor. Rehabilitation would include managing weedy species – such as African boxthorn, blackberry, Montpellier broom, Scotch thistle, sweet briar and willows – allowing for assisted regeneration of native trees as well as native and pasture grasses, to help restore habitat connectivity. iii) With the exception of only 0.12 ha of the disturbed edge of two patches of EECs / TECs (Section 6.1), the vegetation to be removed is not unique in a local nor regional context. Considering the limited vegetation removal required and the extent of similar, contiguous vegetation in the broader area, impacts are considered to be minor.

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

Critical habitat declarations in force under the TSC Act at the time of this assessment comprise those for: 

Gould’s Petrel



Little penguin population in Sydney’s North Harbour



Mitchell’s Rainforest Snail in Stotts Island Nature Reserve



Wollemi Pine.

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

141

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment

Critical habitat declarations in force under the Fisheries Management Act 1994 (FM Act) are not relevant to the koala. No areas of critical habitat have been declared for any threatened fauna species with the potential to occur in the Project area. f)

Whether the action proposed is consistent with the objectives or actions of a Recovery Plan or Threat Abatement Plan

A recovery plan is in place for the koala (DECC 2008). The objectives of the recovery plan are to: 

conserve koalas in their existing habitat



rehabilitate and restore koala habitat and populations



develop a better understanding of the conservation biology of koalas



ensure that the community has access to factual information about the distribution, conservation and management of koalas at a national, state and local level



manage captive, sick or injured koalas and orphaned wild koalas to ensure consistent and high standards of care



manager overbrowsing to prevent both koala starvation and ecosystem damage in discrete patches of habitat



coordinate, promote the implementation, and monitor the effectiveness of the NSW Koala Recovery Plan across NSW.

The Project is unlikely to interfere with the objectives of the recovery plan for the koala. g)

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

Key threatening processes (KTPs) relevant to terrestrial fauna are identified in Schedule 3 of the TSC Act. KTPs relevant to the Project include: 

Conclusion The proposal would impact potential habitat for the koala through the removal of koala feed trees. However, the area to be impacted is small in both a local and regional context. A preclearance fauna survey / check would be undertaken by an experienced fauna spotter / catcher prior to clearing to identify and mitigate against direct impacts on any koalas occurring within the proposed clearing area. In conclusion, the proposal is unlikely to have a significant impact on the koala, and as such a Species Impact Statement is not required.

142

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Ecological Assessment

Grey-headed Flying-fox a)

The grey-headed flying fox usually roosts near water in stands of native vegetation such as mangrove, rainforest, melaleuca or casuarina (Churchill 2008). Individuals usually commute within 15 km to feed on various flowering and fruiting plants, feeding extensively on the blossoms of various species of eucalypt, angophora, tea-tree and banksia (Strahan 1995). There are two records from the search area (OEH 2015a), the nearest being approximately 1.3 km east-south-east of OC-3 on the outskirts of Orange. Although the grey-headed flying fox may forage within the Project area on occasion, it is unlikely to roost or breed within the Project area. Accordingly, the works are unlikely to impact on the life cycle of the grey-headed flying fox such that it would be placed at risk of extinction. b)

Not applicable. c)

Not applicable. d)

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

143

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment

ii) The proposed works may marginally fragment potential habitat available for the greyheaded flying-fox in remnant patches. However, these areas would be rehabilitated post-construction and the impact on habitat connectivity is considered minor. Rehabilitation would include managing weedy species – such as African boxthorn, blackberry, Montpellier broom, Scotch thistle, sweet briar and willows – allowing for assisted regeneration of native trees as well as native and pasture grasses, to help restore habitat connectivity. iii) With the exception of only 0.12 ha of the disturbed edge of two patches of EECs / TECs (Section 6.1), the vegetation to be removed is not unique in a local nor regional context. Considering the limited vegetation removal required and the extent of similar, contiguous vegetation in the broader area, impacts are considered to be minor. e)

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

Critical habitat declarations in force under the TSC Act at the time of this assessment comprise those for: 

Gould’s Petrel



Little penguin population in Sydney’s North Harbour



Mitchell’s Rainforest Snail in Stotts Island Nature Reserve



Wollemi Pine.

Critical habitat declarations in force under the Fisheries Management Act 1994 (FM Act) are not relevant to the grey-headed flying-fox. No areas of critical habitat have been declared for any threatened fauna species with the potential to occur in the Project area. f)

Whether the action proposed is consistent with the objectives or actions of a Recovery Plan or Threat Abatement Plan

No Recovery Plan, Threat Abatement Plan or Recovery Strategy is in place for the grey-headed flying-fox. g)

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

Key threatening processes (KTPs) relevant to terrestrial fauna are identified in Schedule 3 of the TSC Act. KTPs relevant to the Project include: 

144

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment

Conclusion The proposal would impact potential habitat for the grey-headed flying-fox through the removal of potential foraging habitat. However, the area to be impacted is small in both a local and regional context. A pre-clearance fauna survey / check would be undertaken by an experienced fauna spotter / catcher prior to clearing to identify and mitigate against direct impacts on any grey-headed flying-fox occurring within the proposed clearing area. In conclusion, the proposal is unlikely to have a significant impact on the grey-headed flying-fox, and as such a Species Impact Statement is not required. Pink-tailed Worm-lizard a)

The pink-tailed worm-lizard (Aprasia parapulchella) inhabits sloping, open woodland areas with predominantly native grassy groundlayers, particularly those dominated by Kangaroo Grass (Themeda australis) (OEH 2015c). It is found under weathered granite rocks and logs (Cogger 2014), particularly beneath small, partially-embedded rocks where it appears to spend considerable time in burrows below these rocks (OEH 2015c). This species or species habitat ‘may’ occur within the search area (DotE 2015a), although hasn’t previously been recorded (OEH 2015a). Opportunistic searches under numerous granite rocks failed to detect this species during the field survey 2-7 November 2015; however, there remains potential for this species to occur. Pre-clearance fauna surveys by an experienced fauna spotter / catcher may help negate direct impacts on the pink-tailed worm-lizard. The pre-clearance fauna survey / check would be undertaken approximately 1-5 days prior to clearing to identify and mitigate against direct impacts on the pink-tailed worm-lizard. Any pink-tailed worm-lizards, or their eggs, detected within the proposed clearing areas would be relocated into suitable nearby retention habitat. Particular care will be taken when relocating reptile eggs as the yolk is commonly attached to the shell and can easily rupture. The works are considered unlikely to impact on the life cycle of the pink-tailed worm-lizard such that it would be placed at risk of extinction. b)

Not applicable. c)

Not applicable. d)

In relation to the habitat of a threatened species, population or ecological community: i) the extent to which habitat is likely to be removed or modified as a result of the action proposed, and

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

145

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment

ii) whether an area of habitat is likely to become fragmented or isolated from other areas of habitat as a result of the proposed action, and iii) the importance of the habitat to be removed, modified, fragmented or isolated to the long-term survival of the species, population or ecological community in the locality. i) Route selection for the CTRWSPP alignment has minimised the requirement for vegetation clearing, and avoids the vast majority of woody vegetation (with grassy understorey) encountered in the Project area. Earthworks would result in the movement of granite rocks and other potential habitat for the pink-tailed worm-lizard at various locations along the aggregated 66 km route. The proposed CTRWSPP alignment transects approximately 5.11 km of remnant vegetation (with grassy understorey and potential rock), or 7.7% of the 66 km alignment. General disturbance would occur across an approximate area of 4.1 ha (8 m ROW) to 10.22 ha (20 m ROW) of remnant vegetation. Physical clearing and earthworks within the ROW would equate to approximately 1.53 ha (up to 3 m wide) of remnant vegetation. ii) The impact on habitat connectivity for the pink-tailed worm-skink is considered minor. It is unlikely that an area of habitat would become fragmented or isolated from other areas of habitat as a result of the Project. iii) The pink-tailed worm-lizard or its habitat ‘may’ occur within the search area (DotE 2015a), although hasn’t previously been recorded (OEH 2015a). Considering the limited earthworks required and the extent of similar, contiguous vegetation types and lithology in the broader area, impacts are considered to be minor. The habitat to be removed is unlikely to be critical for the long-term survival of the pink-tailed worm-skink species. e)

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

Critical habitat declarations in force under the TSC Act at the time of this assessment comprise those for: 

Gould’s Petrel



Little penguin population in Sydney’s North Harbour



Mitchell’s Rainforest Snail in Stotts Island Nature Reserve



Wollemi Pine.

Critical habitat declarations in force under the Fisheries Management Act 1994 (FM Act) are not relevant to the pink-tailed worm-skink. No areas of critical habitat have been declared for any threatened fauna species with the potential to occur in the Project area. f)

Whether the action proposed is consistent with the objectives or actions of a Recovery Plan or Threat Abatement Plan

No Recovery Plan, Threat Abatement Plan or Recovery Strategy is in place for the pink-tailed worm-skink. g)

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

Key threatening processes (KTPs) relevant to terrestrial fauna are identified in Schedule 3 of the TSC Act. KTPs relevant to the Project include:  146

Clearing of native vegetation – Construction of the CTRWSPP would involve vegetation lopping, clearing and earthworks, resulting in the temporary loss of varying vegetation DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Ecological Assessment

types along the aggregated 66 km CTRWSPP alignment. This vegetation is dominated by agricultural pasturelands and associated grasslands, but also includes patches of remnant vegetation (with grassy understorey), isolated paddock and road corridor trees, and landscape plantings. The proposed CTRWSPP alignment transects approximately 5.11 km of remnant vegetation. Vegetation clearing and earthworks within the ROW would equate to approximately 1.53 ha (up to 3 m wide) of remnant vegetation. The proposal may reduce potential breeding and foraging habitat for the pink-tailed worm-skink. However, the area impacted is small, and is not unique in a local nor regional context. Suitable habitat resources for the pink-tailed worm-skink occur as remnant patches and contiguous woodland beyond the proposed clearing areas of remnant vegetation. Less impacted remnant patches of vegetation occur within the locale and broader region which are also likely to be better suited to the pink-tailed worm-skink. Conclusion The proposal would impact potential habitat for the pink-tailed worm-skink through earthworks and habitat removal. However, the area to be impacted is small in both a local and regional context. A pre-clearance fauna survey / check would be undertaken by an experienced fauna spotter / catcher approximately 1-5 days prior to clearing to help identify and mitigate against direct impacts on pink-tailed worm-skink occurring within the proposed clearing area. In conclusion, the proposal is unlikely to have a significant impact on the pink-tailed worm-skink, and as such a Species Impact Statement is not required.

Microchiropteran Bats â&#x20AC;&#x201C;Eastern Bentwing Bat, Large-eared Pied Bat and Southern Myotis a)

Microchiropteran bats, also known as microbats, are mostly small, insectivorous bats. Threatened microbats that have been recorded from the search area and whose habitat potentially occurs within the study area include the eastern bentwing bat (Miniopterus schreibersii oceanensis), large-eared pied bat (Chalinolobus dwyeri) and southern myotis (Myotis macropus). Eastern bentwing bat The eastern bentwing bat inhabits rainforest, wet and dry sclerophyll forest, monsoon forest, open woodland, Melaleuca forests and open grasslands (Churchill 2008). It roosts in caves but also use man-made constructions such as abandoned mines and road culverts. Populations are centred on a maternity cave that is used annually for the birth and development of young. Each population disperses to other caves during the year but only within its own territorial range (Churchill 2008). Although numerous road culverts occur in the Project area, these culverts are unlikely to be substantially impacted by the works. Construction activity in the vicinity of culverts may cause noise disruption, although impacts would be both transient and minor. The works may result in a marginal reduction in extent of potential foraging habitat, but not a reduction in the extent of potential breeding habitat. Accordingly, the proposed works are unlikely to have an adverse effect on the lifecycle of the eastern bentwing bat to the extent that a viable local population of the species is likely to be placed at risk of extinction. Large-eared pied bat The large-eared pied bat inhabits dry sclerophyll forests and woodlands, as well as sub-alpine woodland, the edge of rainforest, wet sclerophyll forest, Callitris-dominated forest and sandstone outcrop country (Churchill 2008). It roosts in caves, crevices in cliffs and mines DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

147

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Ecological Assessment

(Churchill 2008). No caves, cliffs or mines are known to occur within or in close proximity to the CTRWSPP alignment. Accordingly, potential impacts of the works are expected to be limited to the marginal reduction in extent of potential foraging habitat, and not a reduction in the extent of potential breeding habitat. Accordingly, the proposed works are unlikely to have an adverse effect on the lifecycle of the large-eared pied bat to the extent that a viable local population of the species is likely to be placed at risk of extinction. Southern myotis The southern myotis (Myotis macropus) has strong association with streams and permanent waterways, usually at low elevations and in vegetated flat or undulating country (Churchill 2008). This species forages over streams and pools catching insects and small fish by raking their feet across the water surface (OEH 2015c). The southern myotis roosts in caves, mine shafts, hollow-bearing trees, storm water channels, buildings, under bridges and in dense foliage (OEH 2015c). In NSW, females have one young each year, usually in November or December (OEH 2015c). Though removal of vegetation may reduce the extent of potential breeding habitat for the southern myotis, only a small number of trees are expected to be lopped or trimmed (Section 6.2). Pre-clearance fauna surveys by an ecologist or experienced fauna spotter / catcher would negate direct impacts. This would be undertaken approximately 1-5 days prior to clearing. Any trees observed to contain an active breeding place of a threatened microbat would be left untouched until young have naturally vacated the area. Where only adults are encountered, and clearing of the roost cannot be avoided, the bats would be relocated into nearby retention habitat. Accordingly, the proposed works are unlikely to have an adverse effect on the lifecycle of the southern myotis to the extent that a viable local population of the species is likely to be placed at risk of extinction. b)

Not applicable. c)

Not applicable. d)

148

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment

i) Route selection for the CTRWSPP alignment has minimised the requirement for vegetation clearing, and avoids the vast majority of woody vegetation encountered in the Project area. Vegetation lopping, clearing and earthworks would result in the temporary loss of varying vegetation types along the aggregated 66 km route. This vegetation is dominated by agricultural pasturelands and associated grasslands, but also includes patches of remnant vegetation, isolated paddock and road corridor trees, and landscape plantings. The proposed CTRWSPP alignment transects approximately 5.11 km of remnant vegetation, or 7.7% of the 66 km alignment. General disturbance would occur across an approximate area of 4.1 ha (8 m ROW) to 10.22 ha (20 m ROW) of remnant vegetation. Physical clearing and earthworks within the ROW would equate to approximately 1.53 ha (up to 3 m wide) of remnant vegetation. ii) The proposed works may marginally fragment potential habitat available for the threatened microbats in remnant patches. However, these areas would be rehabilitated post-construction and the impact on habitat connectivity is considered minor. Rehabilitation would include managing weedy species – such as African boxthorn, blackberry, Montpellier broom, Scotch thistle, sweet briar and willows – allowing for assisted regeneration of native trees as well as native and pasture grasses, to help restore habitat connectivity. iii) With the exception of only 0.12 ha of the disturbed edge of two patches of EECs / TECs (Section 6.1), the vegetation to be removed is not unique in a local nor regional context. Considering the limited vegetation removal required and the extent of similar, contiguous vegetation in the broader area, impacts are considered to be minor. e)

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

Critical habitat declarations in force under the TSC Act at the time of this assessment comprise those for: 

Gould’s Petrel



Little penguin population in Sydney’s North Harbour



Mitchell’s Rainforest Snail in Stotts Island Nature Reserve



Wollemi Pine.

Critical habitat declarations in force under the Fisheries Management Act 1994 (FM Act) are not relevant to microbats. No areas of critical habitat have been declared for any threatened fauna species with the potential to occur in the Project area. f)

Whether the action proposed is consistent with the objectives or actions of a Recovery Plan or Threat Abatement Plan

A national recovery plan is in place for the large-eared pied bat (DERM 2011). The specific objectives of the recovery plan are to: 

identify priority roost and maternity sites for protection



implement conservation and management strategies for priority sites



educate the community and industry to understand and participate in the conservation of the large-eared pied bat



research the large-eared pied bat to augment biological and ecological data to enable conservation management



determine the meta-population dynamics throughout the distribution of the large-eared pied bat.

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

149

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment

The Project is unlikely to interfere with the objectives of the national recovery plan for the largeeared pied bat. Although no specific Recovery Plan or Threat Abatement Plan in place for the eastern bentwing bat or southern myotis, these species are identified as ‘landscape-managed species’ (OEH 2015c). The key threats to the viability of landscape-managed species are loss, fragmentation and degradation of habitat, and widespread pervasive factors such as impacts of climate change and disease that can best be recovered through: 

broad scale vegetation and habitat management programs, e.g. replanting or weeding



land clearing controls regulated through the Native Vegetation Act 2003 and the EP&A Act



water sharing plans for riparian and floodplain ecosystems and species that depend on them



programs to manage coasts, estuaries and coastal wetlands



the management of national parks and reserves under the NP&W Act (OEH 2015c).

The Project is unlikely to interfere with these recovery measures for ‘landscape-managed species’ including the eastern bentwing bat or southern myotis. g)

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

Key threatening processes (KTPs) relevant to terrestrial fauna are identified in Schedule 3 of the TSC Act. KTPs relevant to the Project include: 



Loss of hollow-bearing trees – A number of living and dead trees containing both small and large hollows occur within the Project area, and a number of these will need to be lopped or removed as part of the works. Loss of hollow-bearing trees would reduce the availability of potential breeding habitat for the southern myotis. Though removal of hollow-bearing trees may reduce the extent of potential breeding habitat, direct impacts on the southern myotis can be negated. A pre-clearance fauna survey / check would be undertaken by an experienced fauna spotter / catcher approximately 1-5 days prior to clearing to identify and mitigate against direct impacts on breeding places of threatened species. Any hollow-bearing trees observed to contain occupied hollows of southern myotis would be left untouched until any young have naturally vacated the area. Where only adults are encountered, and clearing of the roost cannot be avoided, the bats would be relocated into nearby retention habitat.

Conclusion The proposal would impact potential habitat for the eastern bentwing bat, large-eared pied bat and southern myotis through the removal of potential breeding and foraging habitat. However, 150

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Ecological Assessment

the area to be impacted is small in both a local and regional context. Pre-clearance fauna surveys / checks would be undertaken by an experienced spotter / catcher approximately 1-5 days prior to clearing to identify and mitigate against direct impacts on breeding places of threatened species. Any hollow-bearing trees observed to contain occupied hollows of southern myotis would be left untouched until any young have naturally vacated the area. Where only adults are encountered, and clearing of the roost cannot be avoided, the bats would be relocated into nearby retention habitat. In conclusion, the proposal is unlikely to have a significant impact on threatened microbats and as such a Species Impact Statement is not required. Fishes a)

Habitat assessments determined that the Belubula River (OC-52.5) and Coombing Creek (OC55.0) are likely to provide marginal habitat for the Murray cod (Maccullochella peelii) and silver perch (Bidyanus bidyanus) on occasion. The Project area may provide spawning habitat or a passage to spawning habitat for both species during the breeding season (spring / summer). Fish passage would be maintained at all times during construction of the CTRWSPP. Temporary minor dams may be utilised to allow trenching, pipe laying and backfilling works to proceed in the stream bed and banks whilst minimising water quality impacts. Minor dams would be used only temporarily and would be removed following backfilling of the trench. Fish passage would be maintained at all times. The Project is not expected to create any barriers to fish migration or spawning. Vegetation removal and earthworks on the stream banks have the potential to reduce water quality. In the absence of suitable controls, sedimentation and reduced water quality have the potential to influence fish movement and spawning success. Erosion and sediment control measures would be implemented to minimise the risk of spills and sediment laden-runoff from reaching all waterways, including the Belubula River and Coombing Creek. The potential for the proposal to impact on the life cycle of the silver perch and Murray cod is low. Through the implementation of mitigation measures (Sections 7.1.3 and 7.2.3), the risks are further reduced. The proposal is highly unlikely to lead to an increased risk of extinction for either species. b)

Not applicable c)

Not applicable d)

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

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

151

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment

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

Critical habitat in NSW has only been identified (under the FM Act) for the grey nurse shark. No areas of critical habitat have been declared for any threatened fauna species with the potential to occur in the Project area. f)

Whether the action proposed is consistent with the objectives or actions of a Recovery Plan or Threat Abatement Plan

A recovery plan is in place for the silver perch (DPI 2006). The specific objectives of the recovery plan are to: 

increase awareness of the current status of silver perch throughout its range



increase scientific knowledge of the current distribution, ecological and habitat requirements and population genetics of silver perch



protect and enhance remaining natural populations of silver perch



ameliorate the impacts of known major threats to silver perch



minimise any fishing impacts on natural populations through enhanced compliance with fishing regulations and involvement of recreational fishers



improve management of aquaculture and stocking programs



encourage and support the involvement implementation of recovery actions



establish a program to monitor the status of silver perch and evaluate the effectiveness of recovery actions.

indigenous communities in

the

The Project would not interfere with the objectives of the recovery plan. 152

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment

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

Key threatening processes (KTPs) relevant to fisheries are identified in Schedule 6 of the FM Act. KTPs relevant to the proposal include: 

The removal of large woody debris from NSW rivers and streams – the in-stream works may require the removal of large woody debris that provides fish habitat. However, any woody debris within the ROW that is derived from a native tree species (e.g. not willows) would be retained and relocated to adjoining habitat, or reinstated within the ROW following backfilling. This would be undertaken in consultation with DPI Fisheries.



Degradation of native riparian vegetation along NSW water courses – riparian vegetation would be removed as part of the works. Riparian areas outside the ROW would be marked as no-go areas. Weed control measures would be implemented and creek banks would be stabilised post-works. The potential for degradation of riparian vegetation would be minimised.



Installation and operation of in-stream structures and other mechanisms that alter natural flow regimes of rivers and streams – any temporary minor dams that are required for pipeline construction through waterways would be accompanied by flow diversion in the form of a flume pipe or pump. The works are not expected to alter the natural flow regimes of rivers or streams.

Conclusion The Project may impact potential habitat for the silver perch and Murray cod. It is unlikely, although possible, that these species would spawn within stream reaches intersected by the ROW. These species may transit the Project area during their breeding season, and fish passage must be maintained throughout the works. In conclusion, the proposal is highly unlikely to have a significant impact on either the silver perch or the Murray cod and as such, a Species Impact Statement is not required. Endangered Ecological Communities / Threatened Ecological Communities a)

Not applicable. b)

Not applicable c)

The CTRWSPP alignment intersects the edge of a patch of Box-Gum Grassy Woodland EEC in the road corridor in the vicinity of OC-39.8. Although not yet proven by detailed floristic survey (i.e. identifying 12 or more native understorey species, excluding

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

153

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Ecological Assessment

grasses), the precautionary principle has been applied in assuming that the remnant patch is also Box-Gum Grassy Woodland and Derived Grassland TEC (Appendix A). However, only 0.01 to 0.03 ha of the disturbed edge of this patch will be impacted, and impacts will be contained to the road corridor. The impacts are minimal in both a local and regional context. It is anticipated that impacts will be largely limited to the clearing of understorey species. The impacts are also only temporary, as the impacted ROW will be rehabilitated following pipe placement and backfill. This will include seeding with a local native seed mix (Section 7.3.4) dominated by native grass species that are already encountered in the EEC / TEC patch. The works are not expected to place this EEC / TEC at risk of extinction. The CTRWSPP alignment intersects a patch of Tablelands Snow Gum Grassy Woodland EEC in the road corridor in the vicinity of OC-41.2. Only 0.03 to 0.09 ha of this weed-impacted EEC is likely to be affected, and impacts would be confined to the road corridor. The impacts are minimal in both a local and regional context. It is anticipated that impacts will be largely limited to the clearing of understorey species. The impacts are also only temporary, as the impacted ROW will be rehabilitated following pipe placement and backfill. This will include seeding with a local native seed mix (Section 7.3.4) dominated by native grass species that are already encountered in the EEC / TEC patch. The works are not expected to place this EEC / TEC at risk of extinction. ii) The EECs / TECs intersected by the CTRWSPP are already impacted by weed infestation and other edge effects from the road corridor. Weed hygiene protocols will be followed to reduce the risk of construction works proliferating weed spread. Impacted areas of EECs / TECs will be rehabilitated and seeded with a local native mix dominated by native grass species that are already encountered in the EEC / TEC patch. Rehabilitation success will be monitored, undertaking maintenance and supplementary seeding as required. Accordingly, the works are not expected to substantially and adversely modify the composition of the ecological community such that its local occurrence is likely to be placed at risk of extinction. d)

154

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project – Ecological Assessment

Woodland EEC, Box-Gum Grassy Woodland and Derived Grassland TEC, or Tablelands Snow Gum Grassy Woodland EEC. e)

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

Critical habitat declarations in force under the TSC Act at the time of this assessment comprise those for: 

Gould’s Petrel



Little penguin population in Sydney’s North Harbour



Mitchell’s Rainforest Snail in Stotts Island Nature Reserve



Wollemi Pine.

Critical habitat declarations in force under the Fisheries Management Act 1994 (FM Act) are not relevant to terrestrial EECs / TECs. No areas of critical habitat have been declared for any EECs / TECs with the potential to occur in the Project area. f)

Whether the action proposed is consistent with the objectives or actions of a Recovery Plan or Threat Abatement Plan

No Recovery Plans have been prepared for these EECs / TECs. g)

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

Key threatening processes (KTPs) are identified in Schedule 3 of the TSC Act. KTPs relevant to EECs / TECs include: 

Clearing of native vegetation – Construction of the CTRWSPP requires removal and subsequent reinstatement of 0.01 to 0.03 ha of the disturbed edge of a patch of BoxGum Grassy Woodland EEC and potential Box-Gum Grassy Woodland and Derived Grassland TEC within the road corridor. The CTRWSPP also requires removal and subsequent reinstatement of 0.03 to 0.09 ha of Tablelands Snow Gum Grassy Woodland EEC within the road corridor. Net impacts are expected to be minimal to nonexistent.

Conclusion Construction of the CTRWSPP requires removal and subsequent reinstatement of 0.01 to 0.03 ha of the disturbed edge of a patch of Box-Gum Grassy Woodland EEC and potential Box-Gum Grassy Woodland and Derived Grassland TEC within the road corridor. The Project also requires removal and subsequent reinstatement of 0.03 to 0.09 ha of Tablelands Snow Gum Grassy Woodland EEC within the road corridor. Subject to effective rehabilitation, net impacts are expected to be minimal to non-existent.

DPM15013_RPTFinal.doc

155

Appendix C HERITAGE ASSESSMENT

Orange to Carcoar Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Due Diligence Assessment and Historical Heritage Assessment FINAL Prepared for Geolyse 2 February 2016

ÂŠ Biosis 2012 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Leaders in Ecology and Heritage Consulting

Biosis offices

Document information

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY Canberra Floor 1, Unit 3, 38 Essington Street Mitchell ACT 2911 Phone: (02) 6241 2333 Fax: (03) 9646 9242  Email: canberra@biosis.com.au NEW SOUTH WALES Sydney

Report to:

Geolyse

Prepared by:

Amanda Atkinson Shannon Smith

Biosis project no.:

21045

File name:

21045.OrangetoCarcoar.DD.FIN.2015

Citation:

Biosis 2015. Orange to Carcoar Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Due Diligence Assessment and Historical Heritage Assessment. Report for Geolyse. Authors: A. Atkinson & S. Smith, Biosis Pty Ltd, Wollongong. Project no.21045

Unit 14, 17-27 Power Avenue Alexandria NSW 2015 Phone: (02) 9690 2777 Fax: (02) 9690 2577 Email: sydney@biosis.com.au Wollongong 8 Tate Street Wollongong NSW 2500

Document control

Phone: (02) 4229 5222 Fax: (02) 4229 5500 Email: wollongong@biosis.com.au

Version

Internal reviewer

Date issued

Draft version 01

AA/AJB

26/11/2015

Newcastle

Draft version 01

AJB

01/12/2015

Final Version

ALA

02/02/2016

39 Platt Street Waratah NSW 2298 Phone: (02) 4968 4901 Fax: (02) 9696 9242 Email: Newcastle@biosis.com.au QUEENSLAND Brisbane Suite 4 First Floor, 72 Wickham Street Fortitude Valley QLD 4006 Phone: (07) 3831 7400 Fax: (07) 3831 7411 Email: brisbane@biosis.com.au VICTORIA

Acknowledgements Biosis acknowledges the contribution of the following people and organisations in undertaking this study: 

The following Biosis staff were involved in this project: 

Amanda Atkinson & Shannon Smith for assistance in the field



Lauren Harley for mapping



Alexander Beben for background research and technical oversight of historical heritage components.

Ballarat 506 Macarthur Street Ballarat VIC 3350 Phone: (03) 5331 7000 Fax: (03) 5331 7033 Email: ballarat@biosis.com.au

Geolyse

Melbourne (Head Office) 38 Bertie Street  Port Melbourne VIC 3207 Phone: (03) 9646 9499 Fax: (03) 9646 9242 Email: melbourne@biosis.com.au Wangaratta 16 Templeton Street Wangaratta VIC 3677 Phone: (03) 5721 9453 Fax: (03) 5721 9454 Email: wangaratta@biosis.com.au

 Biosis Pty Ltd This document is and shall remain the property of Biosis Pty Ltd. The document may only be used for the purposes for which it was commissioned and in accordance with the Terms of the Engagement for the commission. Unauthorised use of this document in any form whatsoever is prohibited. Disclaimer: Biosis Pty Ltd has completed this assessment in accordance with the relevant federal, state and local legislation and current industry best practice. The company accepts no liability for any damages or loss incurred as a result of reliance placed upon the report content or for any purpose other than that for which it was intended.

ContentsÂ 1

Aboriginal heritage due diligence assessment..................................................................................... 5

1.1

Introduction .............................................................................................................................................................. 5

1.2

Scope of the assessment ........................................................................................................................................ 5

1.3

Aboriginal consultation ........................................................................................................................................... 5

Desktop assessment ................................................................................................................................ 7

2.1

Geology, soils and landforms ................................................................................................................................ 7

2.2

Flora and fauna ........................................................................................................................................................ 8

2.3

Resource statement ................................................................................................................................................ 8

Landscape context.................................................................................................................................. 13

3.1

Ethnohistory history .............................................................................................................................................. 13 3.1.1 Previously identified Aboriginal archaeological sites ........................................................................... 13

Archaeological survey ............................................................................................................................ 17

4.1

Archaeological survey aims .................................................................................................................................. 17

4.2

Survey methods ..................................................................................................................................................... 17

4.3

Constraints to the survey...................................................................................................................................... 18

4.4

Aboriginal survey results and discussion .......................................................................................................... 19

Impact assessments and mitigation measures ................................................................................. 21

5.1

Impact assessments .............................................................................................................................................. 21

5.2

Potential risks to Aboriginal cultural heritage ................................................................................................... 21

5.3

Management and mitigation measures ............................................................................................................ 22

Recommendations.................................................................................................................................. 24

6.1

Recommendations................................................................................................................................................. 24

Historical assessment ............................................................................................................................ 25

7.1

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................ 25

7.2

Assessment objectives .......................................................................................................................................... 25

Historical analysis................................................................................................................................... 26

8.1

Archival research ..................................................................................................................................................... 26

8.2

Statutory and non-statutory registers .................................................................................................................... 26

8.3

Site survey ............................................................................................................................................................... 27

8.4

Results ...................................................................................................................................................................... 27 8.4.1 Brief historical context ............................................................................................................................... 27 8.4.2 Built heritage items .................................................................................................................................... 28 8.4.3 Archaeological assessment ...................................................................................................................... 33

Impact assessment................................................................................................................................. 40

ÂŠ Biosis 2015 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Leaders in Ecology and Heritage Consulting

9.1

Statement of heritage impact .............................................................................................................................. 40

Recommendations.................................................................................................................................. 50

10.1 Recommendations .................................................................................................................................................. 50 11

References ............................................................................................................................................... 52

List of Tables Table 1 Soil landscape characteristics (Kovac1990)...................................................................................................... 7 Table 2 Landscape resources available to local Aboriginal groups ........................................................................... 8 Table 3 AHIMS search results. ........................................................................................................................................ 13 Table 4 Aboriginal sites recorded during the survey ................................................................................................. 20 Table 5 Statements of impacts for Aboriginal sites within the Project Area .......................................................... 21 Table 6 Identified historical themes fir the Project Area ........................................................................................... 28 Table 7 Summary of built heritage items and conservation areas within or adjacent to the Project Area ..... 29 Table 8 Archaeological potential within the Project Area.......................................................................................... 33 Table 9 Statements of heritage impacts for registered heritage items, heritage conservation areas and unregistered archaeology located within the Project Area........................................................................................ 41 List of Figures Figure 1 Location of the Project Area .............................................................................................................................. 6 Figure 2 Hydrology within the Project Area ................................................................................................................. 10 Figure 3 Geology within the Project Area ..................................................................................................................... 11 Figure 4 Soils within the Project Area............................................................................................................................ 12 Figure 5 AHIMS sites near the Project Area. ................................................................................................................ 16 Figure 6 Survey effort and results .................................................................................................................................. 23 Figure 7 PHAS 1 within Orange 1878 (NSW Crown Plan Cat. No.R 1624.1603)..................................................... 34 Figure 8 PHAS 2 within Orange (NSW Crown Plan) .................................................................................................... 35 Figure 9 PHAS 3 within Orange 1863 (NSW Crown Plan Cat. No.R 419-1564)....................................................... 35 Figure 10 PHAS 4 within Orange 1914 (NSW Crown Plan Cat. No.R.13518.1603) ................................................ 36 Figure 11 PHAS 5 within Spring Hill .............................................................................................................................. 36 Figure 12 PHAS 6 near Carcoar (NSW Crown Plan Cat. No.R508.2009) .................................................................. 37 Figure 13 PHAS 7 within Carcoar 1882 (NSW Crown Plan Cat. No.R1-2256) ......................................................... 37 Figure 14 PHAS 8 within Carcoar 1882 (NSW Crown Plan Cat. No.R1-2256) ......................................................... 38 Figure 15 No go areas within the Project Area ............................................................................................................ 49

List of Plates Plate 1 Example of visibility and disturbance within the Project Area (scale = 2 metres) ................................... 18

ÂŠ Biosis 2015 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Leaders in Ecology and Heritage Consulting

iii

Plate 2 Example of road corridor within the Project Area (scale = 2 metres) ........................................................ 19 Plate 3 Example of exposures within the Project Area subject to spot checks (scale = 2 metres) .................... 19 Plate 4 Location of Area 2, within PHAS 8, showing public school yards 1872 (state records of NSW 15051_A047_002522) ........................................................................................................................................................ 38 Plate 5 Location of Area 2 within PHAS 8 showing pub at the corner of Coombing Street and Icely Street 1873 (NSW State Library – Carcoar Hotel and the Public School in Belubula Street, Carcoar 1873, a2824841) ...... 39

1 Aboriginal heritage due diligence assessment 1.1

Introduction

Biosis Pty Ltd has been commissioned by client name Geolyse to undertake an Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Due Diligence Assessment for the Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project (the Project). The Project involves the construction of a pipeline connecting Orange to Blayney and Carcoar via Millthorpe. The pipeline and associated pumps would allow the bi-directional transfer of potable water between two water utilities and provide potable water supplies to the various demand centres along its route. An assessment in accordance with the Due Diligence Code of Practice for the Protection of Aboriginal Objects in New South Wales (DECCW 2010) 'the due diligence code' has been undertaken for the Project Area in order to inform responsibilities with regards to Aboriginal cultural heritage in the area. In addition to the basic tasks required for a due diligence assessment, an extended background review, as well as an archaeological survey in accordance with the Code of Practice for Archaeological Investigation of Aboriginal Objects in New South Wales (DECCW 2010b) was conducted, in order adequately map areas of high, moderate and low archaeological sensitivity.

1.2

Scope of the assessment

The following is a summary of the major objectives of the assessment:

1.3



Conduct background research in order to recognise any identifiable trends in site distribution and location, including a search of the Aboriginal Heritage Information Management System (AHIMS).



Undertake archaeological survey as per Requirement 5 of the Code of Practice for Archaeological Investigation of Aboriginal objects in New South Wales 2010, with particular focus on landforms with high potential for heritage places within the Project Area, as identified through background research.



Record and assess sites identified during the survey in compliance with the guidelines endorsed by the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH).



Determine levels of archaeological and cultural significance of the Project Area.



Make recommendations to mitigate and manage any cultural heritage values identified within the Project Area.

Aboriginal consultation

Consultation with the Aboriginal community is not a formal requirement of the Due Diligence process and has not been undertaken as part of this assessment. Any further cultural heritage works at this site may require Aboriginal community consultation. If Aboriginal heritage items are located during construction and will be impacted by the construction then Aboriginal heritage stakeholder consultation must be undertaken as outlined in the Aboriginal cultural heritage consultation requirements for proponents (DECCW 2010c). .

Moree

Bourke Broken Hill

Parkes Sydney Canberra

Ballina

Newcastle Wollongong

Albury

Legend Project Area Acknowledgement: Topo (c) NSW Land and Planning Information (2011); Overivew (c) State of NSW (c.2003)

Figure 1: Location of the Project Area Matter: 21045 Date: 20 November 2015, Biosis Pty Ltd Ballarat, Brisbane, Canberra, Melbourne, Checked by: ALA, Drawn by: ANP, Last edited by: lharley Newcastle, Sydney, Wangaratta & Wollongong Location:P:\21000s\21045\Mapping\

2.5

5 Kilometers

7.5

Scale 1:250,000 @ A4, GDA 1994 MGA Zone 55

2 Desktop assessment A desktop assessment has been undertaken to review existing archaeological studies for the Project Area and surrounding region. This Desktop Assessment has been prepared in accordance with requirements 1 to 4 of the Code of Practice for the Archaeological Investigation of Aboriginal Objects in New South Wales (DECCW 2010).

2.1

Geology, soils and landforms

The Project Area runs through a total of six geological units including the Oakdale formation, Blayney Volcani unit, Wombiana Formation, Carcoar Granodiorite unit, Stokefield Metagabbro unit and Coombing Formation. Soil landscapes have distinct morphological and topological characteristics that result in specific archaeological potential, because they are defined by a combination of soils, topography, vegetation and weathering conditions. Soil landscapes are essentially terrain units that provide a useful way to summarise archaeological potential and exposure. The Project Area dissects a total of nine soil landscapes which have been summarised in Table 1. The majority of the Project Area was located in either the Spring Hill or Vittoria - Blayney soil landscapes. Both these landscapes have a relative depth of 1.15 to 1.10 metres. Table 1 Soil landscape characteristics (Kovac1990) Soil name

Soil Type

Description

Borenore-Lyndhurst

Red Poszolic Soil

Four soil layers to a depth of 1.13 metres.

Carcoar-Barry

Red Poszolic Soil

Contains a total of six soil layers and goes to a depth of 00.95 metres.

Macquarie

Alluvial soils

Shallow soils with four soil layers to a depth of 0.80 metres.

Razorback

Shallow soils

Stock-burnt yards

Krasnozems

Three soil layers with a depth of 0.90 metres.

Spring Hill

Krasnozems

A total of four soil layers to a depth of 1.15 metres.

North orange

Red earths

Five soil layers to a depth of 2.90 metres.

Panuara

Red podzolic soils

Contains a total of five soil layers and goes to a depth of 2 metres.

Vittoria-Blayney

Red earths

A total of four soil layers to a depth of 1.10 metres.

There are a number of hydrological features within and in proximity to the Project Area, primarily in the form of small creeks and streams. Within the northern section of the Project Area, near Orange, are the newly formed Suma Park Reservoir and the Spring Creek Reservoir. These reservoirs have been created from existing drainage lines and small creeks within the area which would have been a good source of water in the past. Within the south of the Project Area the Belubula River is dissected. This river runs from the Lake Carcoar, which is another recent water reservation area. The section of Belubula River that is within the Project Area has not been altered by recent water infrastructure. As mentioned above, the soil landscape within this

ÂŠ Biosis 2015 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Leaders in Ecology and Heritage Consulting

section of the Project Area would have an approximate depth of 1.13 metres, which would be sufficient to find cultural material. .

2.2

Flora and fauna

The Project Area is located within areas that have been cleared or retain pockets of disturbed native vegetation, with intact remnant vegetation situated along the creek line corridors. The Project Area is located within the South Eastern Highlands Biogeographic region. The subregion near Orange is known for yellow box and Blakely's red gum with Stringybark and white gum across the plateau. Ribbon gums are found on the lower slopes and river oak along main streams (NPWS 2003). These species would have provided a range of resources for Aboriginal people. Food, tools, shelter and ceremonial items were derived from floral resources, with the locations of many campsites predicated on the seasonal availability of resources. Many of the plants found within the Project Area were important to Aboriginal people and were used for numerous purposes.

2.3

Resource statement

Resources in the vicinity of the Project Area would have provided adequate sources of nutrition for subsistence activities; however these resources would be largely tied to seasonal variations and the flow of the nearby rivers. A selection of resources has been compiled into Table 2 to give an indication of the resources available to local Aboriginal groups. Notably, the majority of the food sources mentioned in Table 2 are located within or in close proximity to rivers and lakes. This has partially to do with the greater availability of resources in these environments, particularly in the summer months, but it is also tied to early ethnographic observations made by explorers and surveyors such as Oxley, Mitchell, and Sturt. Table 2 Landscape resources available to local Aboriginal groups Plant / Animal

Aboriginal use

Emus / emu eggs

Food source (Allen 1974), bones could be used for tools, the fat for medicine, and feathers as ornaments (Martin 2010)

Fish species

Food source, fat from these animals could also be used in medicine (Martin 2010)

Freshwater snail

Food source (Martin 2010)

Lignum

Food source – fresh shoots could be eaten raw (Martin 2010)

Marsh clubrush

Food source (Martin 2010)

Possum

Food source, skin could also be used to make cloaks (Martin 2010)

Red / grey kangaroo

Food source, also used to make bags to hold seeds or water (Allen 1974), bone was used for bone points, and the teeth for fish hooks (Martin 2010)

River mussel/ Lake mussel

Food source (Martin 2010)

Rush

Used to make nets for hunting (Martin 2010)

Snakes

Food source (Martin 2010)

Termites

Food source, termite nests could also be used for a heat retainer over (Martin 2010)

Water ribbon

Food source – roots could be baked, and small fruits eaten (Martin 2006, 2010)

Plant / Animal

Aboriginal use

Waterfowl / other aquatic

Food source available in summer months in Riverine environments (Allen 1974)

birds

ÂŠ Biosis 2015 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Leaders in Ecology and Heritage Consulting

Molong

SUMA PARK RESERVOIR

Manildra Cudal

Orange

Cargo

SPRING CREEK RESERVOIR

MACQUARIE RIVER

Canowindra

Spring Hill

Lyndhurst

Millthorpe

Bathurst

Blayney

Carcoar

Woodstock Cowra

Legend Project Area NSW Waterbodies Lake

Reservoir

Watercourse River

Figure 2: Hydrology within the Project Area

CARCOAR LAKE

1,600

3,200

4,800

Acknowledgements: © Land and Property Information (a division of the Department of Finance and Services) 2012

8,000

Metres Scale: 1:160,000 @ A3 Coordinate System: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 55

Biosis Pty Ltd

LAKE ROWLANDS

6,400

Ballarat, Brisbane, Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney,Wangaratta & Wollongong M a tter: Da te: 24 N ovem b er 2015, Ch ecked by: lh a rley, G en erated by: lh a rley Location :P:\21000s\21045\M a pp in g\ 21045_F2 _H yd rology.m xd

Okf

Cpg

Smal

Dn Cpgj

Smac

Smb Smu

Dcb

Oco

Cigc

Ocos

Ocy

Legend Tp

Cigb

LL HE Y TC WA MI IGH H

Project Area

Geological Units (1:250,000) Unnamed

Anson Formation

Sma

Barnby Hills Shale

Barry Granodiorite

Swc

Bay Formation

Blayney Volcanics

Otd

Swl

Bundella Syenite Ofe

Byng Volcanics

Cadia Coach Formation

Ols

Sac Monzonite Cadia Hill

Campbells Formation Carcoar Granodiorite

Cobblers Creek Limestone

Ocf

Coombing Formation

Cunningham Formation Errowan Monzonite

Fairbridge Volcanics

Ocft

Fernside Monzodiorite Forest Reefs Volcanics

Smz

Orm

Glen Ayr Syenite

Glendale Quartz Monzonite Glendalough Formation

Ocbl

Otm

Ocwt

N ER AY T ES W W IGH D H MI

Ocb

Ocfb

Scg

Ocfc

Icely Granite

Junction Reefs Monzodiorite

Smzl

Lewis Ponds Granite Ogm

Marangulla Syenite Osp

Millamolong Oem Porphyry Moorilda Monzonite

Ogs Lake

Mullions Range Volcanics

Omp

Oakdale Formation

Osg

Ojm

Stokefield Metagabbro

Omm

Ofd

Ocwm

Oms

Swallow Creek Porphyry Ocws Tallwood Oi Monzonite

Tettenhall Monzodiorite

Ofi

Tunbridge Wells Diorite Ocw

Sbg

Oko

Weemalla Formation Weemalla Formtion

Wombiana Formation

Smc

Figure 3: Geology within the Project Area Biosis Pty Ltd

Acknowledgements: Topo (c) NSW Land and Planning Information (2012); Geology (c) Raymond O.L. and Pogson D.J., et al, 1998, Bathurst 1:250 000 Geological Sheet SI/55-08, 2nd edition, Geological

Ballarat, Brisbane, Canberra, Melbourne, Newcastle, Sydney, Wangaratta & Wollongong Matter: 21045 Date: 24 November 2015, Checked by: SAS, Drawn by: LH, Last edited by: lharley Location:P:\21000s\21045\Mapping\ 21045_F3_Geology

1,200

2,400

3,600

4,800

6,000

Metres Scale 1:120,000 @ A3 Coordinate System: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 55

Âą

WATER

bd bg

bg qu bg

vb mk mq

MI HI TCH GH E W LL AY

mq qu

Legend Project Area

Soil landscape units (1:100,000)

BORENORE-LYNDHURST, RED PODZOLIC SOILS BURRENDONG, SHALLOW SOILS BYNG, BROWN CLAYS

CANOBOLAS, SHALLOW SOILS

CARCOAR-BARRY, RED PODZOLIC SOILS EVANS PLAINS, ALLUVIAL SOILS

GOLF, EARTHY SANDS

LACHLAN, ALLUVIAL SOILS oe qu

sb pu

D MI

E ST

PANUARA, RED PODZOLIC SOILS oe

AY HW

PINE MOUNTAIN, SHALLOW SOILS QUARRY, SILICEOUS SANDS

RAZORBACK, SHALLOW SOILS ROCKS, SILICEOUS SANDS

SPRING HILL, KRASNOZEMS

ONE EYE, RED PODZOLIC SOILS

oe WATER

MOOKERAWA, SOLOTHS

NORTH ORANGE, RED EARTHS

MACQUARIE, ALLUVIAL SOILS

STOKE-BURNT YARDS, KRASNOZEMS

TOWAC, KRASNOZEMS

TRUNKEY, YELLOW PODZOLIC SOILS bl

WATER vb

VITTORIA-BLAYNEY, RED EARTHS

WATER, WATER

Figure 4: 1:100,000 soil landscapes near the Project Area Biosis Pty Ltd

Acknowledgements: Topo (c) NSW Land and Planning Information (2012); Soil landscapes (c) Kovac, M, Murphy, BW and Lawrie, JW 1989, Soil Landscapes of the Bathurst 1:250,000 Sheet Map, Soil

1,200

2,400

3,600

4,800

6,000

Metres Scale 1:120,000 @ A3 Coordinate System: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 55

3 Landscape context 3.1

Ethnohistory history

The Project Area falls within in an area identified by Tindale (1974) as being within the boundaries of the Wiradjuri linguistic group. The Wiradjuri linguistic group covers a large portion of the central west. The linguistic groups Darkinjang and Daruk are located east of Orange and Gandangara and Ngunwal east of Cowra. Owing to the disturbance of Aboriginal culture by the arrival and colonisation of Australia by Europeans in the 18th and 19th centuries, the actual boundaries of these groups are difficult to identify with great confidence. Martin (2006) studied ethnographic sources from early European observers in an attempt to define these boundaries.

3.1.1 Previously identified Aboriginal archaeological sites A search of the NSW OEH Aboriginal Information Management System (AHIMS) database was conducted on 23 November 2015. The search identified 65 Aboriginal archaeological sites within a 10 kilometres search area, centred on the proposed Project Area (see Table 3). None of these registered sites are located within the Project Area (see Figure 4). The mapping coordinates recorded for these sites were checked for consistency with their descriptions and location on maps from Aboriginal heritage reports where available. These descriptions and maps were relied on but notable discrepancies occurred. It should be noted that the AHIMS database reflects Aboriginal sites that have been officially recorded and included on the list. Large areas of NSW have not been subject to systematic, archaeological survey; hence AHIMS listings may reflect previous survey patterns and should not be considered a complete list of Aboriginal sites within a given area. Table 3 AHIMS search results. AHIMS site no Site name

Site status

Site type

44-2-0115

O-C1; Orange Cadia

Valid

Artefact

44-2-0116

O-C-IF 1; Orange Cadia

Valid

Artefact

44-2-0117

O-C2; Orange Cadia

Valid

Artefact

44-2-0129

SPR-6

Destroyed

Artefact

44-2-0130

SPR-7

Destroyed

Artefact

44-2-0131

SPR-8

Destroyed

Artefact

44-2-0124

SPR-1

Destroyed

Artefact

44-2-0125

SPR 2

Destroyed

Artefact

44-2-0126

SPR-3

Destroyed

Artefact

44-2-0127

SPR-4

Destroyed

Artefact

44-2-0128

SPR-5

Valid

Artefact

44-2-0147

Bloomfield Hospital Grounds

Valid

Potential Archaeological Deposit: 1

ÂŠ Biosis 2015 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Leaders in Ecology and Heritage Consulting

AHIMS site no Site name

Site status

Site type

44-5-0126

FCWF-IF-03

Valid

Artefact

44-5-0127

FCWF-PAD-01

Valid

Potential Archaeological Deposit

44-5-0128

FCWF-PAD-02

Valid

Potential Archaeological Deposit

44-5-0129

FCWF-S-01

Valid

Artefact

44-5-0130

FCWF-S-02

Valid

Artefact

44-5-0131

FCWF-S-03

Valid

Artefact

44-5-0132

FCWF-S-04

Valid

Artefact

44-2-0157

The Springs, Orange

Valid

Artefact , Habitation Structure, Potential Archaeological Deposit

44-5-0124

FCWF-IF-01

Valid

Artefact

44-5-0125

FCWS-IF-02

Valid

Artefact

51-5-0050

DR-OS-1

Valid

Artefact

44-5-0007

Browns Creek (YLS/5)

Valid

Artefact

44-5-0008

Longview (YLS/6)

Valid

Artefact

44-2-0001

Carlton Road

Not a Site

Art (Pigment or Engraved)

44-5-0069

OFC 9

Valid

Artefact

44-5-0070

Dirty Creek; DC-ST-1

Valid

Modified Tree

44-2-0094

Moulder Hill ST-1; MH/ST-1

Valid

Modified Tree

44-2-0095

Rifle Range;

Valid

Stone Quarry, Artefact

44-2-0035

Spring Mountain; Roseneath;

Valid

Stone Quarry, Artefact

44-2-0036

Spring Mountain; Roseneath;

Valid

Artefact

44-2-0037

Lewis Ponds 10

Valid

Artefact

44-2-0065

Lower Lewis Ponds 1

Valid

Artefact , Stone Quarry, Aboriginal Ceremony and Dreaming

44-5-0002

Blayney Golf Course

Valid

Artefact

51-5-0048

DR-OS-2

Valid

Artefact

44-2-0182

W20 A15

Valid

Artefact : 1, Potential Archaeological Deposit (PAD) : 1, Stone Arrangement : 1

44-2-0183

MPA1

Partially Destroyed

Artefact : 1, Potential Archaeological Deposit : 1

44-2-0166

W20 PAD 5

Valid

Potential Archaeological Deposit : 1

44-2-0167

W20 PAD 6

Valid

Potential Archaeological Deposit: 1

44-2-0168

W20 A16

Valid

Artefact : 1, Potential Archaeological Deposit: 1

ÂŠ Biosis 2015 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Leaders in Ecology and Heritage Consulting

AHIMS site no Site name

Site status

Site type

44-2-0172

W20 A22

Valid

Artefact : 1, Potential Archaeological Deposit: 1

44-2-0173

W20 A23

Valid

Artefact : 1, Potential Archaeological Deposit: 1, Stone Arrangement : 1

44-2-0174

W20 A24

Valid

Artefact : 1, Potential Archaeological Deposit: 1

44-2-0176

W20 A21

Valid

Artefact : 1

44-2-0158

WOODVILLE ROAD PAD

Valid

Potential Archaeological Deposit: 1

44-2-0159

WOODVILLE ROAD 3

Valid

Artefact : 1

44-2-0160

WOODVILLE ROAD 2

Valid

Artefact : 1

44-2-0178

W2O A21

Valid

Artefact

44-2-0179

W2O A22

Valid

Artefact, Potential Archaeological Deposit

44-2-0180

W2O A23

Valid

Artefact, Potential Archaeological Deposit, Stone Quarry

44-2-0181

W2O A16

Valid

Artefact, Potential Archaeological Deposit

44-5-0158

Kentucky Road

Valid

Modified Tree

44-2-0215

South Orange 1

Valid

Artefact

44-2-0216

South Orange 2

Valid

Artefact

44-3-0106

BSC-IF-1

Valid

Artefact

44-5-0106

E-IF-1

Valid

Artefact

44-2-0140

Rifle Rage SQ

Valid

Stone Quarry : 1

44-2-0141

Rifle Range ST2

Valid

Modified Tree: 1

44-2-0142

Rifle Range ST1

Valid

Modified Tree: 1

44-2-0139

Area B Artefact Scatter

Valid

Artefact : 28

44-2-0144

Burrendong 1

Valid

Artefact

44-2-0143

M-OS1 with PAD

Valid

Artefact : 40

44-2-0156

Rural Fire Service Scar Tree

Valid

Modified Tree (Carved or Scarred) : 1

44-2-0214

Bloomfield-1

Valid

Artefact, Potential Archaeological Deposit

A simple analysis of the Aboriginal cultural heritage sites registered within 10 kilometers of the Project Area (Table 3) indicates that the most dominant site type is an artefact scatter, representing 75.4 percent (n = 49), followed by potential archaeological deposits at 26.2 percent (n = 17), modified trees 9.2 percent (n = 6), stone quarries 6.2 percent (n = 4), stone arrangements 3.1 percent (n = 2), habitation structures 2 percent (n = 1), art 2 percent (n = 1) and Aboriginal ceremony and dreaming sites 2 percent (n = 1).

ÂŠ Biosis 2015 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Leaders in Ecology and Heritage Consulting

44-3-0106

( !

44-2-0144

( !

44-2-0147

( ! ! (

44-2-0139

44-2-0183 44-2-0094

( !

44-2-0179 44-2-0172

44-2-0140 44-2-0142 44-2-0095 44-2-0141 ( ! ( 44-2-0216 ! (! 44-2-0157

( !! ( ( !

44-2-0156

( !

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

44-2-0215 44-2-0214

( !

Molong

44-2-0128 44-2-0127 44-2-0126 44-2-0125 44-2-0131 44-2-0130 44-2-0129

( !

44-2-0124 44-2-0180

44-2-0065

Cudal

44-2-0173

( ( ! !! (

44-2-0178 44-2-0176

( ( ! !( !

44-2-0168

Carcoar

Cowra

44-2-0181

Legend

( !

( AHIMS records ! Project Area

( !

44-2-0115 44-2-0143

( ! ! (

Blayney

Woodstock

44-2-0182

44-2-0116

44-2-0160

Millthorpe Bathurst

Canowindra

44-2-0174 44-2-0167

44-2-0037

44-2-0117

Orange

Cargo

44-2-0166

44-2-0001

Manildra

( !

44-2-0035

( !

44-2-0159

44-2-0036

44-2-0158

44-5-0126

44-5-0128

! ( ( !

( !

44-5-0132

( ! 44-5-0124

! ( 44-5-0129 ( !

44-5-0008

( !

44-5-0007

( !

44-5-0002

( !

44-5-0125

44-5-0130 44-5-0131

Figure 5: AHIMS records near the Project Area

( !

44-5-0127

( !

44-5-0070

( !

44-5-0106 44-5-0069

( !

Metres Scale: 1:200,000 @ A3 Coordinate System: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 55

44-5-0158

51-5-0048 Acknowledgements: ÂŠ Land and Property Information (a division of the Department of Finance and Services) 2012

( ! ! (

51-5-0050

1,900 3,800 5,700 7,600 9,500

( !

Biosis Pty Ltd

Âą

4 Archaeological survey A field survey of the Project Area was undertaken between the 2 to the 6 November 2015. The field survey sampling strategy, methodology and a discussion of results are provided below.

4.1

Archaeological survey aims

The principle aims of the survey were to: 

To undertake a systematic survey of the Project Area targeting areas with the potential for Aboriginal heritage.



Identify and record Aboriginal archaeological sites visible on the ground surface.



Identify and record areas of Aboriginal archaeological and cultural sensitivity.

4.2

Survey methods

The archaeological survey was conducted on foot. Recording during the survey followed the archaeological survey requirements of the Code of Practice for Archaeological Investigation of Aboriginal Objects in New South Wales (DECCW 2010) and industry best practice methodology. Information that was recorded during the survey included: 

Aboriginal objects or sites present in the Project Area during the survey.



Survey coverage.



Any resources that may have potentially have been exploited by Aboriginal people.



Landform elements, distinguishable areas of land approximately 40 m across or with a 20 m radius (Speight 2009).



Photographs of the site indicating landform.



Ground surface visibility (GSV) and areas of exposure.



Observable past or present disturbances to the landscape from human or animal activities; and,



Aboriginal artefacts, culturally modified trees or any other Aboriginal sites.

Where possible, Identification of natural soil deposits within the Project Area was undertaken. Photographs and recording techniques were incorporated into the survey including representative photographs of survey units, landform, vegetation coverage, ground surface visibility and the recording of soil information for each survey unit where possible. Any potential Aboriginal objects observed during the survey were documented and photographed. The location of Aboriginal cultural heritage and points marking the boundary of the landform elements were recorded using a hand-held Global Positioning System and the Map Grid of Australia (94) coordinate system.

4.3

Constraints to the survey

With any archaeological survey there are several factors that influence the effectiveness (the likelihood of finding sites) of the survey. The factors that contributed most to the effectiveness of the survey within the Project Area were the high levels of modern disturbance and the low levels of visibility. In most archaeological reports and guidelines visibility refers to ground surface visibility (GSV), and is usually a percentage estimate of the ground surface that is visible and allowing for the detection of (usually stone) artefacts that may be present on the ground surface. There were varying degrees of GSV within the Project Area because of its overall length. The majority of the Project Area has a low level of GSV, approximately two to five percent, due to the low-lying vegetation. Overall the GSV within the Project Area was considered poor (see Plate 1, Plate 2 and Plate 3). Exposure refers to the geomorphic conditions of the local landform being surveyed, and attempts to describe the relationship between those conditions and the likelihood the prevailing conditions provide for the exposure of (buried) archaeological materials. Whilst also usually expressed as a percentage estimate, exposure is different to visibility in that it is in part a summation of geomorphic processes, rather than a simple observation of the ground surface (Burke and Smith 2004: 79). There were also small areas of exposure throughout the Project Area, which were the target of spot visits (see Plate 3). Disturbance in the Project Area is associated with natural and human agents. Natural agents generally affect small areas and include the burrowing and scratching in soil by animals. Some sections of the Project Area are currently being used to hold live stock and there is substantial disturbance to the soils as a result. Disturbances associated with recent human activities are also prevalent in the Project Area. A large portion of the Project Area is located in existing road corridors so there are large areas of disturbances, related to the construction of the roads themselves, their associated infrastructure and the residential properties which adjoin them (see Plate 1 and Plate 2). Plate 1 Example of visibility and disturbance within the Project Area (scale = 2 metres)

ÂŠ Biosis 2015 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Leaders in Ecology and Heritage Consulting

Plate 2 Example of road corridor within the Project Area (scale = 2 metres)

Plate 3 Example of exposures within the Project Area subject to spot checks (scale = 2 metres)

4.4

Aboriginal survey results and discussion

This section summarises the results of the archaeological survey in accordance with Requirement 10 of the Code (DECCW 2010). The Archaeological survey was conducted across four day with two Biosis Archaeologists. The weather was varied throughout the field survey. A number of transects were walked within the Project Area and other areas were subject to spot visits. The results of the field survey have been summarised in Table 4 below and transect locations are provided in Figure 6.

ÂŠ Biosis 2015 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Leaders in Ecology and Heritage Consulting

Table 4 Aboriginal sites recorded during the survey Site name

Site description

Site area (m2)

Carcoar PAD 1

Potential archaeological deposit

33283.1

Carcoar Modified Tree 1

Modified Tree

Based upon the desktop assessment and archaeological survey Biosis has been able to identify two areas of high archaeological potential (Carcoar PAD 1 and Carcoar Modified Tree 1). The field survey did reveal that parts of the Project Area had been subject to disturbances. Although these processes would displace surface cultural material, it would not affect deeper buried archaeological deposits. The assessment for areas that have low or high archaeological potential within the Project Area is based on a number of factors, including environmental conditions, geomorphological processes, past land use activities, results of previous archaeological studies, surveys and test excavations, results of the current survey and site predictive modelling for the region.

5 Impact assessments and mitigation measures 5.1

Impact assessments

Within the Project Area, there are two Aboriginal sites. Strategies to avoid or minimising harm to Aboriginal heritage in the Project Area are discussed below 9 (see Table 5). Table 5 Statements of impacts for Aboriginal sites within the Project Area Site Name

Carcoar PAD 1

Carcoar Modified Tree 1

5.2

Degree of harm

Management recommendati ons

Development Impact

Discussion

Mitigation measures

Direct Impact

The preposed work zone boundary is located within the boundary of the Aboriginal site.

Stay within the previously disturbed 2 metre corridor surrounding the existing pipeline.

Partial

Recommendati on 1

Indirect Impact

The preposed work zone boundary is located adjacent to the Aboriginal site. The Aboriginal site is located sufficiently far outside the preposed work zone boundary as to not be affected. There are no measurable impacts to this heritage item.

Maintain a suitable distance from the tree during all construction activities.

Partial

Recommendati on 1

Potential risks to Aboriginal cultural heritage

The proposed development will include the following activities that could impact Aboriginal heritage: 

Heavy vehicle movement within Project Area with potential compaction of surface soils



Bulk earthworks, which will involve the removal of topsoil and subsoil.

These activities have potential to completely remove or disturb archaeological deposits and Aboriginal objects through earthworks and construction activities.

5.3

Management and mitigation measures

Harm can be avoided to Aboriginal sites within the Project Area. Changes were made to the proposed pipelines alignment during the field consultations. These changes were made in order to minimalize the harm to the Aboriginal sites. Avoidance of impact to archaeological and cultural heritage sites through design of the development is the primary mitigation and management strategy, and should be implemented where practicable. All contractors should be provided maps of the Aboriginal sites. On the ground, sites boundaries should be marked and the impact corridor clearly identifiable. Vehicles should not be driven on any Aboriginal sites. The following specific management measures should be implemented for the following sites: Carcoar PAD 1: This Aboriginal site is a potential archaeological deposit (PAD) located on the banks of the Coombing Creek. The proposed pipelines alignment will dissect this site. The site survey revealed that there is a corridor of disturbance within the site from the installation of a previous pipeline. The mitigation measures for the current proposed pipeline is that they remain in the already present area of disturbance, as close to the existing pipeline as possible, no further then 2 meters away. This mitigation measure will insure that the current proposed pipeline will not impact on the Aboriginal site. Carcoar Modified Tree 1: This Aboriginal site is a culturally modified tree. The site is located outside of the proposed works construction zone. As a result no harm will occur to this site if the proposed works stays within their current work zone.

ÂŠ Biosis 2015 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Leaders in Ecology and Heritage Consulting

Clifton Grove

Orange

Central Orange Heritage Conservation Area

Spring Hill

Central Orange Heritage Conservation Area

Blayney

Central Orange Heritage Conservation Area

M IT HI CHE GH LL W A

Carcoar Lyndhurst

Legend

Bowen Terrace

Project Area GPS tracks

East Orange Heritage Conservation Area

NSW Roads HydroArea Hydroline

Indigenous Potential Area High Low

Historical Potential Area

Historical heritage potential area

Glenroi Heritage Conservation Area

Historic Items SHR Selection

Historic Items LEP Selection

Conservation Area - General Item - General

Figure 6.1: Sensitivity mapping within the Project Area

O1 0

0.07

0.14

0.21

0.28

Kilometers Scale: 1:7,500 @ A3 Coordinate System: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 55

Biosis Pty Ltd

PHAS 2 & O2

0.35

Ballarat, Brisbane, Canberra, Melbourne, Newcastle, Sydney, Wangaratta & Wollongong M a tter: 21045 Da te: 01 D ecem b er 2 015, Ch ecked by: SAS, Dra w n by: LH , L ast ed ited by: lh a rley Location :P:\21000s\21045\M a pp in g\ 21045_F6 _Sensitivity

Clifton Grove

Orange

PHAS 2 & O2

Spring Hill Blayney

Carcoar Lyndhurst

Legend

Project Area GPS tracks

NSW Roads HydroArea Hydroline

Indigenous Potential Area High Low

PHAS 3

MI TC HIG HELL HW AY

Historical Potential Area

Historical heritage potential area

Historic Items SHR Selection

Historic Items LEP Selection Item - General

O5 O5

Figure 6.2: Sensitivity mapping within the Project Area

0.07

0.14

0.21

0.28

0.35

Kilometers Scale: 1:7,500 @ A3 Coordinate System: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 55

Biosis Pty Ltd

Ballarat, Brisbane, Canberra, Melbourne, Newcastle, Sydney, Wangaratta & Wollongong

M a tter: 21045 Da te: 01 D ecem b er 2 015, Ch ecked by: SAS, Dra w n by: LH , L ast ed ited by: lh a rley Location :P:\21000s\21045\M a pp in g\ 21045_F6 _Sensitivity

Clifton Grove

Orange

Bloomfield Hospital

Spring Hill

Blayney

Carcoar Lyndhurst

Legend

Project Area GPS tracks

NSW Roads HydroArea Hydroline

Indigenous Potential Area High Low

Historical Potential Area

Historical heritage potential area

Historic Items SHR Selection

Historic Items LEP Selection Item - General

Figure 6.3: Sensitivity mapping within the Project Area

0.07

0.14

0.21

0.28

0.35

Kilometers Scale: 1:7,500 @ A3 Coordinate System: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 55

Biosis Pty Ltd

Ballarat, Brisbane, Canberra, Melbourne, Newcastle, Sydney, Wangaratta & Wollongong

M a tter: 21045 Da te: 01 D ecem b er 2 015, Ch ecked by: SAS, Dra w n by: LH , L ast ed ited by: lh a rley Location :P:\21000s\21045\M a pp in g\ 21045_F6 _Sensitivity

Clifton Grove

Orange

Spring Hill Blayney

Carcoar Lyndhurst

Legend

Project Area GPS tracks

NSW Roads HydroArea Hydroline

Indigenous Potential Area High Low

Historical Potential Area

Historical heritage potential area

Historic Items SHR Selection

Historic Items LEP Selection Item - General

Figure 6.4: Sensitivity mapping within the Project Area

0.07

0.14

0.21

0.28

0.35

Kilometers Scale: 1:7,500 @ A3 Coordinate System: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 55

Biosis Pty Ltd

Ballarat, Brisbane, Canberra, Melbourne, Newcastle, Sydney, Wangaratta & Wollongong

M a tter: 21045 Da te: 01 D ecem b er 2 015, Ch ecked by: SAS, Dra w n by: LH , L ast ed ited by: lh a rley Location :P:\21000s\21045\M a pp in g\ 21045_F6 _Sensitivity

Clifton Grove

Orange

Spring Hill Blayney

Carcoar Lyndhurst

Legend

Project Area GPS tracks

NSW Roads HydroArea Hydroline

Indigenous Potential Area High Low

Historical Potential Area

Historical heritage potential area

Historic Items SHR Selection

Figure 6.5: Sensitivity mapping within the Project Area

0.07

0.14

0.21

0.28

0.35

Kilometers Scale: 1:7,500 @ A3 Coordinate System: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 55

Biosis Pty Ltd

Ballarat, Brisbane, Canberra, Melbourne, Newcastle, Sydney, Wangaratta & Wollongong

M a tter: 21045 Da te: 01 D ecem b er 2 015, Ch ecked by: SAS, Dra w n by: LH , L ast ed ited by: lh a rley Location :P:\21000s\21045\M a pp in g\ 21045_F6 _Sensitivity

Clifton Grove

Orange

Spring Hill Blayney

Carcoar Lyndhurst

Legend

Project Area GPS tracks

NSW Roads HydroArea Hydroline

Indigenous Potential Area High Low

Historical Potential Area

Historical heritage potential area

Historic Items SHR Selection

Figure 6.6: Sensitivity mapping within the Project Area

0.07

0.14

0.21

0.28

0.35

Kilometers Scale: 1:7,500 @ A3 Coordinate System: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 55

Biosis Pty Ltd

Ballarat, Brisbane, Canberra, Melbourne, Newcastle, Sydney, Wangaratta & Wollongong

M a tter: 21045 Da te: 01 D ecem b er 2 015, Ch ecked by: SAS, Dra w n by: LH , L ast ed ited by: lh a rley Location :P:\21000s\21045\M a pp in g\ 21045_F6 _Sensitivity

Clifton Grove

Orange

Spring Hill Blayney

Carcoar Lyndhurst

Legend

Project Area GPS tracks

NSW Roads HydroArea Hydroline

Indigenous Potential Area High Low

Historical Potential Area

Historical heritage potential area

CC1

Historic Items SHR Selection

Historic Items LEP Selection

Conservation Area - General Item - General

Figure 6.7: Sensitivity mapping within the Project Area

Spring Hill Heritage Conservaion Area

0.07

0.14

0.21

0.28

0.35

Kilometers Scale: 1:7,500 @ A3 Coordinate System: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 55

Biosis Pty Ltd

Clifton Grove

Orange

Spring Hill Blayney

Carcoar Lyndhurst

Legend

Project Area GPS tracks

NSW Roads HydroArea Hydroline

Indigenous Potential Area High Low

Historical Potential Area

Historical heritage potential area

Historic Items SHR Selection

Figure 6.8: Sensitivity mapping within the Project Area

0.07

0.14

0.21

0.28

0.35

Kilometers Scale: 1:7,500 @ A3 Coordinate System: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 55

Biosis Pty Ltd

Ballarat, Brisbane, Canberra, Melbourne, Newcastle, Sydney, Wangaratta & Wollongong

M a tter: 21045 Da te: 01 D ecem b er 2 015, Ch ecked by: SAS, Dra w n by: LH , L ast ed ited by: lh a rley Location :P:\21000s\21045\M a pp in g\ 21045_F6 _Sensitivity

Clifton Grove

Orange

Spring Hill Blayney

Carcoar Lyndhurst

Legend

Project Area GPS tracks

NSW Roads HydroArea Hydroline

Indigenous Potential Area High Low

Historical Potential Area

Historical heritage potential area

Historic Items SHR Selection

Historic Items LEP Selection Item - General

Figure 6.9: Sensitivity mapping within the Project Area

0.07

0.14

0.21

0.28

0.35

Kilometers Scale: 1:7,500 @ A3 Coordinate System: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 55

Biosis Pty Ltd

Ballarat, Brisbane, Canberra, Melbourne, Newcastle, Sydney, Wangaratta & Wollongong

B17

B15

M a tter: 21045 Da te: 01 D ecem b er 2 015, Ch ecked by: SAS, Dra w n by: LH , L ast ed ited by: lh a rley Location :P:\21000s\21045\M a pp in g\ 21045_F6 _Sensitivity

Clifton Grove

Orange

Spring Hill Blayney

B17 Carcoar Lyndhurst

B15

B16

Legend

Project Area GPS tracks

B16 & M1

NSW Roads HydroArea

Hydroline

Indigenous Potential Area High Low

Historical Potential Area

Historical heritage potential area

Historic Items SHR Selection Millthorpe Heritage Conservation Area

Historic Items SHR Selection

Historic Items LEP Selection

Conservation Area - General

Grand Western Lodge (former)

B14

Item - General

Figure 6.10: Sensitivity mapping within the Project Area

0.07

0.14

0.21

0.28

0.35

Kilometers Scale: 1:7,500 @ A3 Coordinate System: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 55

Biosis Pty Ltd

Âą

Ballarat, Brisbane, Canberra, Melbourne, Newcastle, Sydney, Wangaratta & Wollongong

Acknowledgements: Basemap ÂŠ Land and Property Information 2015

M a tter: 21045 Da te: 01 D ecem b er 2 015, Ch ecked by: SAS, Dra w n by: LH , L ast ed ited by: lh a rley Location :P:\21000s\21045\M a pp in g\ 21045_F6 _Sensitivity

Clifton Grove

Orange

Spring Hill Blayney

Carcoar Lyndhurst

Legend

Project Area GPS tracks

NSW Roads HydroArea Hydroline

Indigenous Potential Area High Low

Historical Potential Area

Historical heritage potential area

Historic Items SHR Selection

Historic Items LEP Selection Item - General

Figure 6.11: Sensitivity mapping within the Project Area

0.07

0.14

0.21

0.28

0.35

Kilometers Scale: 1:7,500 @ A3 Coordinate System: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 55

Biosis Pty Ltd

Ballarat, Brisbane, Canberra, Melbourne, Newcastle, Sydney, Wangaratta & Wollongong

M a tter: 21045 Da te: 01 D ecem b er 2 015, Ch ecked by: SAS, Dra w n by: LH , L ast ed ited by: lh a rley Location :P:\21000s\21045\M a pp in g\ 21045_F6 _Sensitivity

Clifton Grove

Orange

Spring Hill Blayney

Carcoar Lyndhurst

Legend

Project Area GPS tracks

NSW Roads HydroArea Hydroline

Indigenous Potential Area High Low

Historical Potential Area

Historical heritage potential area

Historic Items SHR Selection

Figure 6.12: Sensitivity mapping within the Project Area

0.07

0.14

0.21

0.28

0.35

Kilometers Scale: 1:7,500 @ A3 Coordinate System: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 55

Biosis Pty Ltd

Ballarat, Brisbane, Canberra, Melbourne, Newcastle, Sydney, Wangaratta & Wollongong

M a tter: 21045 Da te: 01 D ecem b er 2 015, Ch ecked by: SAS, Dra w n by: LH , L ast ed ited by: lh a rley Location :P:\21000s\21045\M a pp in g\ 21045_F6 _Sensitivity

Clifton Grove

Orange

Spring Hill Blayney

Carcoar Lyndhurst

Legend

Project Area GPS tracks

NSW Roads HydroArea Hydroline

Indigenous Potential Area High Low

Historical Potential Area

Historical heritage potential area

Historic Items SHR Selection

Figure 6.13: Sensitivity mapping within the Project Area

0.07

0.14

0.21

0.28

0.35

Kilometers Scale: 1:7,500 @ A3 Coordinate System: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 55

Biosis Pty Ltd

Ballarat, Brisbane, Canberra, Melbourne, Newcastle, Sydney, Wangaratta & Wollongong

M a tter: 21045 Da te: 01 D ecem b er 2 015, Ch ecked by: SAS, Dra w n by: LH , L ast ed ited by: lh a rley Location :P:\21000s\21045\M a pp in g\ 21045_F6 _Sensitivity

Clifton Grove

Orange

Spring Hill Blayney

Carcoar Lyndhurst

Legend

Project Area GPS tracks

NSW Roads I78

HydroArea Hydroline

Indigenous Potential Area High Low

Historical Potential Area

Historical heritage potential area

Historic Items SHR Selection B5

Historic Items SHR Selection

Historic Items LEP Selection Item - General

Figure 6.14: Sensitivity mapping within the Project Area

0.07

0.14

0.21

0.28

0.35

Kilometers Scale: 1:7,500 @ A3 Coordinate System: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 55

Biosis Pty Ltd

Ballarat, Brisbane, Canberra, Melbourne, Newcastle, Sydney, Wangaratta & Wollongong

M a tter: 21045 Da te: 01 D ecem b er 2 015, Ch ecked by: SAS, Dra w n by: LH , L ast ed ited by: lh a rley Location :P:\21000s\21045\M a pp in g\ 21045_F6 _Sensitivity

Clifton Grove

Orange

Spring Hill Blayney

Carcoar

Lyndhurst

Legend

Project Area GPS tracks

NSW Roads

HydroArea Hydroline

Indigenous Potential Area High Low

Historical Potential Area

Historical heritage potential area

Historic Items SHR Selection

Historic Items LEP Selection Item - General

N ER T ES AY W W H ID M HI G

Figure 6.15: Sensitivity mapping within the Project Area

0.07

0.14

0.21

0.28

0.35

Kilometers Scale: 1:7,500 @ A3 Coordinate System: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 55

Biosis Pty Ltd

Ballarat, Brisbane, Canberra, Melbourne, Newcastle, Sydney, Wangaratta & Wollongong

M a tter: 21045 Da te: 01 D ecem b er 2 015, Ch ecked by: SAS, Dra w n by: LH , L ast ed ited by: lh a rley Location :P:\21000s\21045\M a pp in g\ 21045_F6 _Sensitivity

Clifton Grove

Orange

Spring Hill Blayney

Carcoar Lyndhurst

Legend

Project Area GPS tracks

NSW Roads HydroArea

E DW

N ER

Y WA H G HI

Hydroline

Indigenous Potential Area High Low

Historical Potential Area

Historical heritage potential area

Historic Items SHR Selection

Figure 6.16: Sensitivity mapping within the Project Area

0.07

0.14

0.21

0.28

0.35

Kilometers Scale: 1:7,500 @ A3 Coordinate System: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 55

Biosis Pty Ltd

Ballarat, Brisbane, Canberra, Melbourne, Newcastle, Sydney, Wangaratta & Wollongong

M a tter: 21045 Da te: 01 D ecem b er 2 015, Ch ecked by: SAS, Dra w n by: LH , L ast ed ited by: lh a rley Location :P:\21000s\21045\M a pp in g\ 21045_F6 _Sensitivity

Clifton Grove

Orange

Spring Hill Blayney

Carcoar Lyndhurst

Legend

Project Area GPS tracks

NSW Roads HydroArea Hydroline

Indigenous Potential Area High Low

Historical Potential Area

Historical heritage potential area

Historic Items SHR Selection

M ID

H W AY

Historic Items SHR Selection

Figure 6.17: Sensitivity mapping within the Project Area

0.07

0.14

0.21

0.28

0.35

Kilometers Scale: 1:7,500 @ A3 Coordinate System: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 55

Biosis Pty Ltd

Ballarat, Brisbane, Canberra, Melbourne, Newcastle, Sydney, Wangaratta & Wollongong

M a tter: 21045 Da te: 01 D ecem b er 2 015, Ch ecked by: SAS, Dra w n by: LH , L ast ed ited by: lh a rley Location :P:\21000s\21045\M a pp in g\ 21045_F6 _Sensitivity

Clifton Grove

Orange

Spring Hill Blayney

Carcoar Lyndhurst

Legend

Project Area GPS tracks

NSW Roads Hydroline

Indigenous Potential Area High

M ID

H W AY

HydroArea

Low

Historical Potential Area

Historical heritage potential area

Historic Items SHR Selection

Figure 6.18: Sensitivity mapping within the Project Area

0.07

0.14

0.21

0.28

0.35

Kilometers Scale: 1:7,500 @ A3 Coordinate System: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 55

Biosis Pty Ltd

Ballarat, Brisbane, Canberra, Melbourne, Newcastle, Sydney, Wangaratta & Wollongong

M a tter: 21045 Da te: 01 D ecem b er 2 015, Ch ecked by: SAS, Dra w n by: LH , L ast ed ited by: lh a rley Location :P:\21000s\21045\M a pp in g\ 21045_F6 _Sensitivity

Clifton Grove

Orange

Spring Hill Blayney

Carcoar Lyndhurst

Legend

Project Area GPS tracks

NSW Roads HydroArea Hydroline

Indigenous Potential Area High Low

Historical Potential Area

Historical heritage potential area

Historic Items SHR Selection

Figure 6.19: Sensitivity mapping within the Project Area

0.07

0.14

0.21

0.28

0.35

Kilometers Scale: 1:7,500 @ A3 Coordinate System: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 55

Biosis Pty Ltd

Clifton Grove

Orange

Spring Hill Blayney

Carcoar Lyndhurst

Legend

Project Area GPS tracks

NSW Roads

RN ES T E

W M ID Y HWA HI G

HydroArea Hydroline

Indigenous Potential Area High Low

Historical Potential Area

Historical heritage potential area

Historic Items SHR Selection

Figure 6.20: Sensitivity mapping within the Project Area

0.07

0.14

0.21

0.28

0.35

Kilometers Scale: 1:7,500 @ A3 Coordinate System: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 55

Biosis Pty Ltd

Ballarat, Brisbane, Canberra, Melbourne, Newcastle, Sydney, Wangaratta & Wollongong

M a tter: 21045 Da te: 01 D ecem b er 2 015, Ch ecked by: SAS, Dra w n by: LH , L ast ed ited by: lh a rley Location :P:\21000s\21045\M a pp in g\ 21045_F6 _Sensitivity

Clifton Grove

Orange

Spring Hill Blayney

Carcoar Lyndhurst

P9A1 ER MID WE S T HIGHWA Y

Legend

Project Area GPS tracks

NSW Roads HydroArea Hydroline

Indigenous Potential Area High Low

Historical Potential Area

Historical heritage potential area

Historic Items SHR Selection

PHAS 7 & P7A2

B10 Old Rectory

Carcoar Heritage Conservation Area

Historic Items LEP Selection

Conservation Area - General Item - General

Figure 6.21: Sensitivity mapping within the Project Area

PHAS 8 & B9 B8

Carcoar School Saddlery, of Arts The

PHAS 8 & P8A3 B9

Carcoar Heritage Conservation Area

0.07

0.14

0.21

0.28

0.35

Kilometers Scale: 1:7,500 @ A3 Coordinate System: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 55

Biosis Pty Ltd

Ballarat, Brisbane, Canberra, Melbourne, Newcastle, Sydney, Wangaratta & Wollongong

M a tter: 21045 Da te: 01 D ecem b er 2 015, Ch ecked by: SAS, Dra w n by: LH , L ast ed ited by: lh a rley Location :P:\21000s\21045\M a pp in g\ 21045_F6 _Sensitivity

Carcoar Heritage Conservation Area

Clifton Grove

Orange

Spring Hill Blayney

Carcoar Lyndhurst

N ER T ES Y W A ID HW M IG H

Legend

Project Area GPS tracks

NSW Roads HydroArea

B11

Hydroline

Indigenous Potential Area High Low

B11

Historical Potential Area

Historical heritage potential area

Historic Items SHR Selection

Historic Items LEP Selection

Conservation Area - General Item - General

Figure 6.22: Sensitivity mapping within the Project Area

B12/B13

0.07

0.14

0.21

0.28

0.35

Kilometers Scale: 1:7,500 @ A3 Coordinate System: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 55

Biosis Pty Ltd

Ballarat, Brisbane, Canberra, Melbourne, Newcastle, Sydney, Wangaratta & Wollongong

M a tter: 21045 Da te: 01 D ecem b er 2 015, Ch ecked by: SAS, Dra w n by: LH , L ast ed ited by: lh a rley Location :P:\21000s\21045\M a pp in g\ 21045_F6 _Sensitivity

Clifton Grove

Orange

B12/B13

Spring Hill

CarCoar PAD 1

Blayney

Carcoar Lyndhurst

Legend

Project Area GPS tracks

NSW Roads HydroArea Hydroline

Indigenous Potential Area High Low

Historical Potential Area

Historical heritage potential area

Historic Items SHR Selection B12/B13

Historic Items SHR Selection

Historic Items LEP Selection Item - General

Figure 6.23: Sensitivity mapping within the Project Area

0.07

0.14

0.21

0.28

0.35

Kilometers Scale: 1:7,500 @ A3 Coordinate System: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 55

Biosis Pty Ltd

Ballarat, Brisbane, Canberra, Melbourne, Newcastle, Sydney, Wangaratta & Wollongong

M a tter: 21045 Da te: 01 D ecem b er 2 015, Ch ecked by: SAS, Dra w n by: LH , L ast ed ited by: lh a rley Location :P:\21000s\21045\M a pp in g\ 21045_F6 _Sensitivity

Clifton Grove

Orange

Carcoar Modified Tree 1

Spring Hill Blayney

Carcoar Lyndhurst

Legend

Project Area GPS tracks

NSW Roads HydroArea Hydroline

Indigenous Potential Area High

B12/B13

Low

Historical Potential Area

Historical heritage potential area

Historic Items SHR Selection

Historic Items LEP Selection Item - General

Figure 6.24: Sensitivity mapping within the Project Area

0.07

0.14

0.21

0.28

0.35

Kilometers Scale: 1:7,500 @ A3 Coordinate System: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 55

Biosis Pty Ltd

Ballarat, Brisbane, Canberra, Melbourne, Newcastle, Sydney, Wangaratta & Wollongong

M a tter: 21045 Da te: 01 D ecem b er 2 015, Ch ecked by: SAS, Dra w n by: LH , L ast ed ited by: lh a rley Location :P:\21000s\21045\M a pp in g\ 21045_F6 _Sensitivity

Clifton Grove

Orange

Spring Hill Blayney

Carcoar Lyndhurst

Legend

Project Area GPS tracks

NSW Roads HydroArea Hydroline

Indigenous Potential Area High Low

Historical Potential Area

Historical heritage potential area

Historic Items SHR Selection

Historic Items LEP Selection Item - General

Figure 6.25: Sensitivity mapping within the Project Area

0.07

0.14

0.21

0.28

0.35

Kilometers Scale: 1:7,500 @ A3 Coordinate System: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 55

Biosis Pty Ltd

Ballarat, Brisbane, Canberra, Melbourne, Newcastle, Sydney, Wangaratta & Wollongong

M a tter: 21045 Da te: 01 D ecem b er 2 015, Ch ecked by: SAS, Dra w n by: LH , L ast ed ited by: lh a rley Location :P:\21000s\21045\M a pp in g\ 21045_F6 _Sensitivity

6 Recommendations 6.1

Recommendations

The following management recommendations have been developed relevant to the Project Area and influenced by: 

Predicted impacts to Aboriginal cultural heritage.



The planning approvals framework.



Current best conservation practise, widely considered to include: –

Ethos of the Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter; and,

–

The Code of Practice for Archaeological Investigation of Aboriginal Objects in NSW (DECCW 2010)

Prior to any impacts occurring within the Project Area, the following is recommended: Recommendation 1: No further archaeological assessment is required for the Aboriginal Heritage No further archaeological work is required in the Project Area. Recommendation 2: Discovery of Unanticipated Aboriginal Objects All Aboriginal objects and Places are protected under the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974. It is an offence to knowingly disturb an Aboriginal site without a consent permit issued by the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH). Should any Aboriginal objects be encountered during works associated with this proposal, works must cease in the vicinity and the find should not be moved until assessed by a qualified archaeologist. If the find is determined to be an Aboriginal object the archaeologist will provide further recommendations. These may include notifying the OEH and Aboriginal stakeholders. Recommendation 3: Discovery of Aboriginal Ancestral Remains Aboriginal ancestral remains may be found in a variety of landscapes in NSW, including middens and sandy or soft sedimentary soils. If any suspected human remains are discovered during any activity you must: 1. Immediately cease all work at that location and not further move or disturb the remains 2. Notify the NSW Police and OEH’s Environmental Line on 131 555 as soon as practicable and provide details of the remains and their location 3. Not recommence work at that location unless authorised in writing by OEH.

7 Historical assessment 7.1

Introduction

Biosis Pty Ltd has been commissioned by Geolyse to undertake a preliminary heritage assessment of the Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Pipeline Project in Central West, NSW (the Project Area) (see Figure 1). This assessment incorporates a comprehensive historical research which has encompassed the entire Project footprint, however the heritage assessment presented in this chapter consists of a constraints analysis designed to mitigate impacts to heritage items and where applicable recommends further approvals, which will be required for the project to proceed. The assessment has identified known and unknown heritage items within the Project Area and presented impact mitigation measures for those items. The Project involves the construction of a pipeline connecting Orange to Blayney and Carcoar, via Millthorpe. The pipeline and associated pumps would all the bi-directional transfer of potable water between two water utilities and provide potable water supplies to the various demand centres along its route.

7.2

Assessment objectives

The following is a summary of the major objectives of the assessment: 

Identify and assess the potential heritage values and any potential archaeological deposits in the Project Area and any visual impacts to heritage items within the vicinity of the Project Area. The assessment aims to achieve this objective by: –

Provide a brief summary of the principle historical influences that have contributed to creating the present – day built and archaeological environment of the Project Area through using resources already available and some limited new research.

–

Identification of sites and features within the Project Area which are already recognised for their heritage value through statutory and non – statutory heritage listings.

–

Identification of the heritage significance of sites and features within the Project Area which are not recognised through statutory heritage listings.

–

Identification of known or potential heritage items and archaeological sites within or adjacent to the Project Area.



Assess the impact of the proposed works on the heritage items within the vicinity of the Project Area.



Recommend measures to avoid or mitigate any negative impacts on the heritage items within the Project Area.

8 Historical analysis The historical analysis consists of historical research which has been undertaken to identify the land use history of the Project Area, identify key phases in its history and identify the location of any archaeological resources within the Project Area. The historical research places the history of the Project Area into the broader historical context of NSW. Upon the completion of the historical research a site survey was undertaken with the aim of establishing the location of known and previously unidentified heritage values within the Project Area.

8.1

Archival research

The historical research mainly focused on published secondary sources. Research using primary sources was undertaken for the Project Area at the following locations: 

Orange City Library.



State Records NSW.



NSW Department Property Information (LPI) (former Land Titles).



The National Libraries Digital Archive – Trove.



NSW Department of Public Works.



Millthorpe Golden Memories Museum – Millthorpe Historical Society.

Contextual analysis is undertaken to place the history of a particular site within relevant historical contexts in order to gauge how typical or unique the history of a particular site actually is. This is usually ascertained by gaining an understanding of the history of a site in relation to the broad historical themes characterising Australia at the time. Such themes have been established by the Australian Heritage Commission and the NSW Heritage Office and are outlined in synoptic form in New South Wales Historical Themes, issued by the NSW Heritage Office. A thematic study has been prepared for central west by the NSW Heritage Office.1

8.2

Statutory and non-statutory registers

During the historical research the following statutory registers were searched: 

The State Heritage register (SHR) - Items that are listed on the SHR have been assessed to be of significance to the state of NSW.



Section 170 Heritage and Conservation Registers - Culturally significant items or places managed or owned by Government agencies are listed on the Heritage and Conservation register.



Local Environmental Plans (LEP) – A LEP is a legal document prepared by local councils and approved by the State Government, to regulate land use and development.

The following non - statutory registers were searched:

1 Kass T. 2003. A thematic History of the Central West: Comprising the NSW Historical Regions of Lachlan and Central Tablelands. (NSW Heritage Office: Parramatta).



8.3

The Register of the National Estate – The register was established under the Australian Heritage Commission Act 1975 (repealed). The Register of the National Estate was closed in 2007 and is no longer a statutory list.

Site survey

The purpose of the site visit was to better understand the heritage character of existing heritage items and to more accurately determine the nature and extent of the archaeological resources within the Project Area. During the site visit all previously identified heritage items were physically assessed. All built structures were inspected externally and a photographic record was prepared. A field inspection of the Project Area was undertaken between the 2 to the 6 November 2015, attended by Amanda Atkinson and Shannon Smith. The principal aims of the survey were to identify heritage items within the Project Area, to identify any previously unrecorded heritage items which may be present. An analysis of the potential for the site to contain archaeological remains was undertaken based upon the surface conditions.

8.4

Results

The results from the historical analysis are presented below.

8.4.1 Brief historical context The European settlement of the Central West reflects the broader movement of people throughout NSW. In 1813 Surveyor George Evans crossed the Blue Mountains and entered the Central Tablelands, which begun an era of official exploration. It was in1815 that Surveyor George Evans explored the area around Carcoar, which is within the Project Area. A number of commercial industries contributed in the increase in settlement in the region. The identification and mining of earth materials has been an important industry within the Central West since the 1840s. Settlers were attracted to the area by mining during both the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Within Australia the mineral Copper was first mined in NSW and in 1845 a number of copper mines were in operation in the Central West. Copper was discovered in Carcoar in the 1840s and in 1851 gold was discovered in Bathurst. Within the Project Area there are a number of historical items that relate to this era of mining, including the Blayney Copper Mine and the Carcoar Iron Ore quarry. Agriculture was also a large industry that increased settlement in the region, with farmers from east NSW, Victoria and South Australia moving into the area. This industry also brought in a seasonal migration with works associated with the yearly harvest, planting or searing. There are the number of heritage listed farming homesteads and planting throughout the region. The Highfield homestead and tree plantings are one such example within the current Project Area. The earliest public enterprise in the Central West was the building of a road over the Blue Mountains, to assist in the movement of settlers. In many areas of NSW the settlement of an area predates the building of major roadways. However, for the Central West the settlement could only occur once this infrastructure was built. The railway line reached Bathurst on the 4 April 1876. The construction of the railway altered settlement patterns. With the twelve years the railway took to reach Carcoar being too long a period for the village to

regain its regional importance.2 Once again the remnants of this era are evident throughout the Project Area with a number of heritage items relating to the railway including the Blayney railway subway. A review of the contextual history in conjunction with the Thematic History of the Central West has identified a number of historical themes which relates to the occupational history of the Project Area. This is summarised in Table 6. Table 6 Identified historical themes fir the Project Area3 Australian Theme

New South Wales Theme

Peopling Australia

Migration Convict

Developing local, regional and national economies

Agriculture Commerce Environment Exploration Forestry Health Mining Transport

Educating

Education

Governing

Defence Government and Administration Law and order

Developing Australia's Cultural Life

Domestic life Leisure Religion Sport

Marking the phases of life

Birth and Death

8.4.2 Built heritage items As a result of the historical analysis a number of built heritage items and conservation areas have been identified within the Project Area (see Table 7).

2 Kass T. 2003. A thematic History of the Central West: Comprising the NSW Historical Regions of Lachlan and Central Tablelands. (NSW Heritage Office: Parramatta). Latona, K. 1976. Carcoar: Future Option for an Historic Village.The National Trust of Australia (New South Wales) 3 Kass T. 2003. A thematic History of the Central West: Comprising the NSW Historical Regions of Lachlan and Central Tablelands. (NSW Heritage Office: Parramatta).

ÂŠ Biosis 2015 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Leaders in Ecology and Heritage Consulting

Table 7 Summary of built heritage items and conservation areas within or adjacent to the Project Area Biosis ID Heritage Item / conservation area

Local Suburb Environment Plan (LEP) ID

Item address

Legal description

Listings / reference

Significance

Lots 1–4, DP 1093631; Lot 1, DP 402949; Lots 1 and 2, DP 1106952

99 Plumb Street

BLEP 2012

Local

Lot 2, DP 881499

BLEP 2012, Register of the National Estate ID: (RNE) 101358

Local

Blayney LEP 2012 (BLEP 2012) B1

Blayney Copper Mine (former)

I98

Blayney

B2 Marsden Family Vault

I99

Blayney

101 Plumb Street

Railway subway

I101

Blayney

Blayney–Demondrille Line Quamby Place (adjacent) Railway Reserve

BLEP 2012

Cottage and Garden

I78

Blayney

274 Millthorpe Road

Lot 1, DP 168843

BLEP 2012

Local

Blayney Lime Kilns

I44

Blayney

339 Millthorpe Road

Lot 1, DP 125639

BLEP 2012

Local

Roman Catholic Church group including Church of the Immaculate Conception and Shalom House of Prayer

Lots 16–20, Section 10, DP 758225

BLEP 2012, State Heritage Local Register (SHR) (GZ 35)

I131

Carcoar

7–13 Collins Street

Local

Biosis ID Heritage Item / conservation area B7 B8

Local Suburb Environment Plan (LEP) ID

Item address

Legal description

Listings / reference

Significance

Residence (former Presbyterian Manse)

I143

Carcoar

8 Icely Street

Lot 1, Section 10, DP 758225

BLEP 2012

Local

The Saddlery (former)

I145

Carcoar

11 Icely Street

Lot 1, Section 19, DP 758225

BLEP 2012, SHR (GZ 35)

State

Local

Public school buildings and old growth tree plantings

I146

Carcoar

13 Icely Street

Lot 91, DP 1043599

BLEP 2012, SHR (GZ35), RNE ID 883

Roman Catholic Presbytery (former) and outbuildings

I168

Carcoar

19–33 Rodd Street

Lots 13–20, Section 11, DP 758225

BLEP 2012

Local

B11

“Highfield”, homestead and tree planting

I137

Carcoar

21 Fell Timber Road

Lot 58, DP 255576

BLEP 2012

Local

B12

Carcoar Iron Ore Quarry

I138

Carcoar

594 Fell Timber Road

Lot C, DP 160649

BLEP 2012

Local

B13

“Coombing Park”, homestead and outbuildings

I150

Carcoar

5607 Mid Western Highway

Lot B, DP 160649

BLEP 2012, SHR (GZ35), RNE ID 871

Local

B14

Semi-detached cottages

I259

Millthorpe

8–10 Blake Street

Lots 91 and 92, DP 1068468

BLEP 2012

Local

B15

“The Wattles”, driveway plantings and garden

I310

Millthorpe

1400 Victoria Road

Lot 3, DP 1122378

BLEP 2012

Local

B16

St Canice’s Roman Catholic Church

I286

Millthorpe

70 Park Street

Lot 1, DP 922879

BLEP 2012

Local

B10

Biosis ID Heritage Item / conservation area B17

P7A2

Local Suburb Environment Plan (LEP) ID

Item address

Legal description

Listings / reference

Significance

“Spring Grove”, house, garden and outbuildings

I274

Millthorpe

1334 Millthorpe Road

Lot 91, DP 1119710

BLEP 2012

Local

17 Mandurama Street

n/a

Carcoar

17 Mandurama Street, Carcoar NSW 2791

Unregistered

n/a

Local

Carcoar Wooden Bridge

n/a

Carcoar

5 Coombing Streeet, Carcoar NSE 2791

Unregistered

n/a

Local

Brick culverts

n/a

Carcoar

Mid Western Hwy

Unregistered

n/a

Local

Bowan

Lone Pine Avenue

MCP 4445, Section 3090

OLEP 2011, RNE ID 101162

Local

Orange

Lone Pine Avenue (corner of Bathurst Road)

Road reserve, corner of Bathurst Road and Lone Pine Avenue, adjacent to Lot 414, DP 712625

OLEP 2011

Local

OLEP 2011

Local

OLEP 2011, RNE ID

Local

P8A3

P9A1

Orange LEP 2011 (OLEP 2011) O1

Orange Cemeteries “Old Portion“

I52

O2 The Lone Pine

I352

Railway infrastructure, including bridges and culverts

I353

Spring Hill

Huntley Road and Kinghorne Lane

Railway reserve adjacent to Lot 341, DP 1176618; Lot 1, DP 152629; Lot 1, DP 195413; Lot 1, DP 828893

Spring Hill Cemetery

I346

Spring Hill

13 Warburton Lane

Lot 1, DP 1121921; Lot 7300, DP 1144772

Biosis ID Heritage Item / conservation area

Local Suburb Environment Plan (LEP) ID

Item address

Legal description

Listings / reference

Significance

100307 O5

Clearview House

Summer Hill

18 Steeles Lane

Lot 131, DP 750401

OLEP 2011, SHR (GZ57)

Local

I228

Spring Hill

23 Carcoar Street

Lot 1, DP905110

CCLEP 2012

Local

Millthorpe

Park Street Millthorpe

RNE ID 101903

Historical

I61

Caboone Council LEP 2012 (CCLEP 2012) CC1

Uniting Church

Millthorpe General Cemetery

Conservation areas CA1

Spring Hill Heritage Conservation Area

Orange

n/a

OLEP 2011

Local

CA2

Carcoar Heritage Conservation Area

Blayney

n/a

BLEP 2012

Local

CA3

Millthorpe Heritage Conservation Area

Blayney

n/a

BLEP 2012

Local

8.4.3 Archaeological assessment The potential archaeological resource relates to the predicted level of preservation of archaeological resources within the Project Area. Archaeological potential is influenced by the geographical and topographical location, the level of development, subsequent impacts, levels of onsite fill, factors influencing preservation such as soil type and where the potential archaeological resource has the ability to yield evidence which cannot be derived from any other source. An assessment of archaeological potential has been derived from the historical analysis and site survey undertaken during the preparation of this report. This section discusses the archaeological resources within the Project Area. The purpose of the analysis is to outline what archaeological deposits or structures are likely to be present within the Project Area and how these relate to the history of land use associated with the Project Area. The archival research and site survey identified a number of archaeological values not recorded on statutory registers, which need to be considered. Within the Project Area there are eight areas of potential historical archaeological sensitivity (PHAS) detailed below: 

PHAS 1: section of the alignment within Orange along Lone Pine Avenue.



PHAS 2: section of the alignment at the junction of Lone Pine Avenue & the Mitchell Hwy.



PHAS 3: section of the alignment in Orange, at the junction of Lone Pine Avenue and Blowes Road.



PHAS 4: section of the alignment, along Huntly road and Dane Lane.



PHAS 5: section of the alignment in Spring Hill, along Whiley Road.



PHAS 6: section, which is north of the Mid Western Highway near Carcoar.



PHAS 7: northern section of the alignment through Carcoar.



PHAS 8: southern section of the alignment through Carcoar.

Discussion of the archaeological potential are discussed in Table 8. Table 8 Archaeological potential within the Project Area PHAS

Archaeological potential

Location

During the site inspection no surface relics were located within this area (see Figure 7). However, within Area 4 the proposed works enter the curtilage of the Orange Cemetery (O1).

Section of the alignment within Orange along Lone Pine Avenue.

During the site inspection relics were located within this area (see Figure 8). The pipeline route has potential to impact these relics of local significance.

Section of the alignment within Orange at the junction of Lone Pine Avenue and the Mitchell Hwy.

During the site inspection relics were located within area 1 and 2 (see Figure 9). The pipeline route has potential to impact these relics of local significance.

Section of the alignment in Orange, at the junction of Lone Pine Avenue and Blowes Road.

No relics were identified in this area (see Figure 10). A large amount of disturbance is evident in this area. Relics were

Section of the alignment, along Huntly road and Dane Lane,

Although no surface relics were identified within this

Section of the alignment in Spring Hill,

PHAS

Archaeological potential

Location

area, the proposed work will enter the curtilage of the Spring Hill cemetery (O4) (see Figure 11). The pipeline route has potential to impact these relics of local significance.

along Whiley Road.

This section was not surveyed due to changes in the pipelines route (see Figure 12).

North of the Mid Western Highway near Carcoar.

During the site visit relics were located within Areas 2 Northern section of the alignment through (see Figure 13). The pipeline route has potential to Carcoar. impact these relics of local significance. An unregistered built structure was also located P7A2.

During the site visit relics were located within Areas 2 (see Figure 14, Plate 4 and Plate 5). ). The pipeline route has potential to impact these relics of local significance. An unregistered built structure was also located P8A3.

Southern section of the alignment through Carcoar.

Figure 7 PHAS 1 within Orange 1878 (NSW Crown Plan Cat. No.R 1624.1603) PHAS 1: Within this section of the alignment within Orange along Lone Pine Avenue there are four areas of archaeological potential that have been identified (see Figure 7). The crown plan for this area shows 'huts' and the original Orange cemetery boundaries.

ÂŠ Biosis 2015 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Leaders in Ecology and Heritage Consulting

Figure 8 PHAS 2 within Orange (NSW Crown Plan) PHAS 2: Within this section of the alignment within Orange at the junction of Lone Pine Avenue and the Mitchell Hwy there is one area of archaeological potential (see Figure 8). The crown plan indicates a structure called the 'old toll house'.

Figure 9 PHAS 3 within Orange 1863 (NSW Crown Plan Cat. No.R 419-1564) PHAS 3: Within this section of the alignment in Orange, at the junction of Lone Pine Avenue and Blowes Road, there are three areas of archaeological potential (see Figure 9). The crown plan shows two 'old marked tree line' and a number of built structures.

ÂŠ Biosis 2015 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Leaders in Ecology and Heritage Consulting

Figure 10 PHAS 4 within Orange 1914 (NSW Crown Plan Cat. No.R.13518.1603) PHAS 4: Within this section of the alignment, along Huntly road and Dane Lane, there are three areas of archaeological potential (see Figure 10). The crown plan shows a number of 'huts' in association with the railway line.

Figure 11 PHAS 5 within Spring Hill 4 PHAS 5: Within this section of the alignment in Spring Hill, along Whiley Road, there is one location of archaeological potential (see Figure 11). The original diagram for the Spring Hill cemetery is shown adjacent to the road reserve.

4 Cook, K. 2001. A History Springs to Mind: A History of Spring Hill. Orange City Council, Orange NSW.

ÂŠ Biosis 2015 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Leaders in Ecology and Heritage Consulting

Figure 12 PHAS 6 near Carcoar (NSW Crown Plan Cat. No.R508.2009) PHAS 6: Within this section, which is north of the Mid Western Highway near Carcoar, there are three areas of archaeological potential (see Figure 12). The crown plan shows a number of built structures within the Project Area.

Figure 13 PHAS 7 within Carcoar 1882 (NSW Crown Plan Cat. No.R12256) PHAS 7: Within this northern section of the alignment through Carcoar, there are seven areas of archaeological potential. The crown plan from 1882 shows a number of built structures (see Figure 13).

ÂŠ Biosis 2015 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Leaders in Ecology and Heritage Consulting

Figure 14 PHAS 8 within Carcoar 1882 (NSW Crown Plan Cat. No.R12256) PHAS 8: Within southern section of the alignment through Carcoar, there are six areas of Archaeological potential. The crown plan from 1882 shows a number of built structures (see Figure 14, Plate 4 and Plate 5)

Plate 4 Location of Area 2, within PHAS 8, showing public school yards 1872 (state records of NSW 15051_A047_002522)

Plate 5 Location of Area 2 within PHAS 8 showing pub at the corner of Coombing Street and Icely Street 1873 (NSW State Library – Carcoar Hotel and the Public School in Belubula Street, Carcoar 1873, a2824841)

9 Impact assessment Impacts from the proposed works can be classified under three main categories: direct impacts, indirect impacts and no impact. These kinds of impacts are dependent on nature of the heritage item and its associated curtilage. Direct impacts Direct impacts are where the completion of the project will result in a physical loss or alteration to a heritage item. Direct impacts can be divided into whole or partial impacts. 

Physical impact - whole: where the project will have a whole impact on a heritage item resulting in the complete physical loss of the item. This normally occurs where a heritage item falls entirely within the preposed works boundary and needs to be demolished.



Physical impact - partial: where the project will have a partial impact on an item, which could result in the loss or reduction in heritage significance. The degree of impact through partial impacts is dependent on the nature and setting of a heritage item. These impacts are typically minor impacts to a small proportion of a curtilage of an item or works occurring within the curtilage of a heritage item, which may impact on its setting (i.e. gardens and plantings).

Indirect impacts Indirect impacts to a heritage item relate to alterations to the environment or setting of a heritage item, which will result in a loss of heritage value. This includes visual impacts caused during construction and after the implementation of a project. Indirect impacts diminish the significance of an item through altering its relationship to its surroundings; this in turn impacts its ability to be appreciated for its historical, functional or aesthetic values No impact Where the project does not constitute a measurable direct or indirect impact to the heritage item.

9.1

Statement of heritage impact

A statement of heritage impact for each registered heritage item, conservation area and unregistered archaeological relic, within or adjacent to the Project Area is detailed within Table 5 and Figure 6.

Table 9 Statements of heritage impacts for registered heritage items, heritage conservation areas and unregistered archaeology located within the Project Area Biosis ID

Details

Impact

Discussion

Mitigation measures

Management recommendations

No Impact

The proposed work zone boundary is located adjacent to the heritage item. The heritage item is located sufficiently far outside the proposed work zone boundary as to not be affected. There are no measurable impacts to this heritage item.

n/a

None

No Impact

None

Indirect impact

The proposed work zone boundary is located adjacent to the heritage item. The heritage item is in close proximity to the works.

Maintain a distance of 2 Recommendation metres from this structure 1: Proceed with during all construction caution. activities.

Built Heritage

Blayney Copper Mine (former)

Marsden Family Vault

Railway subway

Cottage and Garden

No Impact

n/a

None

Blayney Lime Kilns

No Impact

The proposed work zone boundary is located adjacent to the heritage item. The heritage item is located sufficiently n/a far outside the proposed work zone boundary as to not be

None

ÂŠ Biosis 2015 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Leaders in Ecology and Heritage Consulting

Biosis ID

Details

Impact

Discussion

Mitigation measures

Management recommendations

affected. There are no measurable impacts to this heritage item.

Roman Catholic Church group including Church of the Immaculate Conception and Shalom House of Prayer

Residence (former Presbyterian Manse)

No Impact

None

No Impact

None

No Impact

None

The Saddlery (former)

Public school buildings and Direct Impact – old growth tree Partial plantings

During the archival research it is evident that a built structure was previously located within the grounds of the currently heritage listed Public school. During the site visit relics were located within this area. The proposed works will impact this area of the heritage item.

Recommendation 2 No measures can be taken and 3: Section 140 to avoid this area. permit.

Biosis ID

B10

B11

Details Roman Catholic Presbytery (former) and outbuildings “Highfield”, homestead and tree planting

B12

Carcoar Iron Ore Quarry

B13

“Coombing Park”, homestead and outbuildings

Impact

Discussion

Mitigation measures

No Impact

The proposed work zone boundary is located adjacent to the heritage item. The heritage item is located sufficiently far outside the proposed work zone boundary as to not be n/a affected. There are no measurable impacts to this heritage item. Maintain a 1 metre distance from all built structures and a 2 metre distance from the tree plantings during all construction activities.

Management recommendations

None

Direct Impact – Partial

The proposed work zone is located within this heritage items curtilage. The built heritage is located in close proximity to the work.

No Impact

None

No Impact

None

B14

Semi-detached cottages

No Impact

B15

“The Wattles”,

No Impact

The proposed work zone boundary is located adjacent to

n/a

Recommendation 1: Proceed with caution.

Biosis ID

Details

Impact

driveway plantings and garden (Hawthorne bushes).

B16

St Canice’s Roman Catholic Church

B17

“Spring Grove”, house, garden and outbuildings (Hawthorne bushes)

Discussion

Mitigation measures

Management recommendations

the heritage item. The heritage item is located sufficiently far outside the proposed work zone boundary as to not be affected. There are no measurable impacts to this heritage item.

Direct Impact – Partial

The creation of a 'No go' area, which is temporary The proposed work boundary is located within the fenced for contractors. heritage items curtilage. During the site visit relics were Work can only be located in front of the property. The proposed work will conducted within that impact the area near the heritage item. This heritage designated area. No item is also located in close proximity to heritage item storage of construction M1. material in this area (see Figure 15). .

Recommendation 1 and 4: Proceed with caution and a 'No –go' areas. For full recommendations see Section 10 Recommendations.

No Impact

None

P7A2

17 Mandurama Direct Impact – Street Partial

During the site visit a built structure was located.

Recommendation 1 and 6: Proceed with Maintain a 1 metre distance caution and from the structure. submission of inventory forms.

P8A3

Carcoar Direct Impact – Wooden Bridge Partial

During the site visit a wooden bridge was located crossing a tributary of Belubula River.

When suspending the Recommendation 1 pipeline from this bridge do and 6: Proceed with not impact the structure. caution and

Biosis ID

Details

Impact

Discussion

Mitigation measures

Management recommendations submission of inventory forms.

P9A1

Brick Culverts

Orange Cemeteries “Old Portion“

The Lone Pine

Railway infrastructure, including bridges and culverts

Direct Impact – Partial

During the site visit a two brick culverts were located.

From the archival research it is evident that the original cemeteries layout was located within the current road Direct and reserve, outside of the heritage items boundary. The Indirect Impact – proposed works would impact this area. Any above Partial and visual ground structures built would affect the aesthetic setting of the heritage item.

Do not excavate above these culverts to a depth further than 1.5 metres. Insure their structural integrity before construction activities.

Recommendation 1 and 6: Proceed with caution and submission of inventory forms.

No measures can be taken to avoid this area.

Recommendation 1 and 5: Proceed with caution and retention of existing colour schemes. For full recommendations see Section 10 Recommendations.

Maintain a 2 metre distance from this structure during all construction activities

Recommendation 1: Proceed with caution.

Indirect Impact

The proposed work zone boundary is located adjacent to the heritage item. The heritage item is located sufficiently far outside the proposed work zone boundary as to not be affected. This heritage item is also located within investigation Phase 2.

No Impact

None

Biosis ID

Details

Impact

Discussion

Mitigation measures

Spring Hill Cemetery

Direct Impact – Partial

From the archival research it is evident that the original cemeteries layout was located within the current road reserve, outside of the heritage items boundary. The proposed work would impact this area.

No measures can be taken to avoid this area.

Clearview House

Indirect impact

The proposed work zone boundary is located adjacent to the heritage item. The heritage item is in close proximity to the works.

Maintain a 1 metre distance Recommendation 1: from the root systems of Proceed with the pine trees associated caution. with the heritage item.

No Impact

CC1

Uniting Church

Millthorpe General Cemetery

Indirect Impact

The proposed work zone boundary is located adjacent / within the heritage items curtilage. This heritage item is located adjacent to heritage item B16.

The creation of a 'No go' area, which is temporary fenced for contractors. Work can only be conducted within that designated area. No storage of construction material in this area (see Figure 15).

Direct impact partial

The proposed work will have an impact within this conservation area.

Do not impact heritage items within this area.

Management recommendations Recommendation 1: Recommendation 1: Proceed with caution..

None

Recommendation 1 and 4: Proceed with caution. And No go areas For full recommendations see Section 10 Recommendations.

Refer to specific areas heritage items recommendations

Conservation areas

CA1

Spring Hill Heritage Conservation Area

Biosis ID

Details

Impact

Discussion

Mitigation measures

Management recommendations

CA2

Carcoar Heritage Conservation Area

Direct impact partial

The proposed work will have an impact within this conservation area.

Do not impact heritage items within this area.

Refer to specific areas heritage items recommendations

CA3

Millthorpe Heritage Conservation Area

Direct impact partial

The proposed work will have an impact within this conservation area.

Do not impact heritage items within this area.

Refer to specific areas heritage items recommendations

Direct Impact – Partial

During the archival research on the Crown plans the location of a 'toll house' was marked. During the site visit relics were located in this area. The proposed work zone boundary will be located in close proximity to this area.

Maintain a suitable distance from the relics during all construction activities.

Recommendation 1: Proceed with caution.

Direct Impact – Partial

During the archival research an 'old marked tree line' was identified on the Crown plans. During the site visit approximately 62 pine trees were identified along Blowes road. The proposed works will enter the curtilage of these relics.

Maintain a suitable distance from the trees root system.

Recommendation 1: Proceed with caution

No Impact

Archaeology PHAS 1

PHAS 2

PHAS 3

PHAS 4

Refer to O1 above for statement of impact and recommendation.

None

Biosis ID PHAS 5

PHAS 7

PHAS 8

Details

Impact

Discussion

Mitigation measures

Management recommendations

Refer to O4 above for statement of impact and recommendation. -

Direct Impact – Partial

During the site visit relics were located within Area 2.

No measures can be taken to avoid this area.

Direct Impact – Partial

During the site visit relics were located within Area 2. Heritage Item B9 is within this area.

No measures can be taken to avoid this area.

Recommendation 2 and 3: Section 140 permit. Recommendation 2 and 3: Section 140 permit.

Clifton Grove

Orange

Spring Hill

B17

Blayney

Carcoar Lyndhurst

Legend

Project Area NSW Roads Hydroline

B16

No go areas

Historical Potential Area

B16/M1

Historical heritage potential area

Historic Items LEP Selection

Conservation Area - General Item - General

Millthorpe Heritage Conservation Area

Figure 15: No go areas within the Project Area M1

B15

0.0075 0.015 0.0225 0.03 0.0375

Kilometers Scale: 1:800 @ A3 Coordinate System: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 55

Biosis Pty Ltd

Âą

Ballarat, Brisbane, Canberra, Melbourne, Newcastle, Sydney, Wangaratta & Wollongong

Acknowledgements: Basemap ÂŠ Land and Property Information 2015

M a tter: Da te: 01 D ecem b er 2 015, Ch ecked by: , Dra w n by: , La st ed ited b y: lh arley Location :P:\21000s\21045\M a pp in g\ 21045_F1 5_N oG oA rea s

10 Recommendations 10.1 Recommendations These recommendations have been formulated to respond to client requirements and the significance of the site. They are guided by the ICOMOS Burra Charter with the aim of doing as much as necessary to care for the place and make it useable and as little as possible to retain its cultural significance. Recommendation 1:

The works may proceed with caution

The proposed works are considered to be an appropriate, but caution must be taken. Any loss of significance that may be experienced will be mitigated through implementing recommendations 2 to 5. Recommendation 2:

Application of a Section 140 Permit

A section 140 permit must be obtained for the works to commence. In NSW, archaeological sites of State or Local significance are considered "relics", which are protected by the Heritage Act 1977. In NSW impacts to relics are only permitted with a Section 140 approval (excavation permit) from the Heritage Council of New South Wales. Approval through this permit must also be obtained prior to excavating any land in NSW where there is a possibility that archaeological relics may be disturbed. The NSW Heritage Act 1977 currently affords statutory protection to relics of local or state significance that form part of archaeological deposits. This protection is extended to potential relics, that is, unconfirmed but probably existing archaeological sites. Consultation and discussion with the Heritage Branch should begin well before lodging an application for a permit to disturb or destroy a historical archaeological site. The Heritage Act also provides automatic protection to "relics". The Act defines "relics" as: 

Any deposit, artefact, object or material evidence that: (a) relates to the settlement of the area that comprises NSW, not being Aboriginal settlement, and (b) is of State or local heritage significance

Section 139 of the Heritage Act states that: (1) A person must not disturb or excavate any land knowing or having reasonable cause to suspect that the disturbance or excavation will or is likely to result in a relic being discovered, exposed, moved, damaged or destroyed unless the disturbance or excavation is carried out in accordance with an excavation permit. (2) A person must not disturb or excavate any land on which the person has discovered or exposed a relic except in accordance with an excavation permit. Recommendation 3:

Archaeological monitoring required

The assessment has determined that there is the potential for unrecorded archaeological relics, which are likely to have local significance if encountered, associated with: 

PHAS 7 / P7A2 – Historical relics and structure.



PHAS 8 / B9 – Public school historical relics.

Works associated with implementing an archaeological monitoring program will consist of: 

Preparation of a research design and section 140 permit application for submission to the NSW Heritage Division (part of OEH) which will detail the premise, aim, objects and methods which

underpin the archaeological monitoring program (see Recommendation 3 for details of the approvals process). Note that NSW Heritage Council has a 28 day timeframe for processing section 140 permit applications. 

The conditions of the section 140 permit should be integrated into the Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) for the project. This will require Council, the construction contractor and nominated excavation director to liaise closely to formulate a program of archaeological monitoring at the four locations outlined above.



Monitoring will need to be conducted by the nominated excavation director and will consist of a process where the archaeological team works with the construction contractor during the excavation of the pipeline to identify and record archaeological remains of significance. Where significant archaeological remains are encountered it will need to be established whether they can be preserved through being left in insitu or if they need to be recorded prior to removal. This will ensure that any impacts to archaeological "relics" considered to be significant at a state or local level are mitigated.

Prior to, during and upon the completion of the monitoring works, the nominated excavation director in accordance with the section 140 approval must keep NSW Heritage Division informed of the proposed timeframe for monitoring, the results and submit a final report which details the findings. Recommendation 4:

'No go' areas and temporary fencing during construction

Two 'No go' areas should be established within B16 and M1 (see Figure 15). These 'No go' area should be established at an appropriate distance to protect the heritage items, but allow construction to proceed unhindered. 'No go' areas should be marked on all construction plans and incorporated into inductions/tool box talks with contractors undertaking work within the vicinity. Recommendation 5:

Retention of existing neighbouring colour schemes

Any newly built above ground structures in association with heritage items, or within heritage conservation areas, should adopt the colours associated with the surrounding landscape to integrate the development with the surrounding locality. Recommendation 6

Submission of inventory forms

During the site survey Biosis has identified that there are three unregistered built heritage items (P7A2 – 17 Mandurama Street, P8A3 – Carcoar Wooden Bridge and P9A1 – Brick culverts). Inventory forms for these heritage items should to be submitted to the relevant local council for addition into their local environmental plan.

11 References Allen, J. 1974. The Bagundji of the Darling Basin: Cereal Gatherers in an Uncertain Environment. World Archaeology 5(3): 309 – 322. Attenbrow, V J. 2010. Sydney’s Aboriginal Past: Investigating the archaeological and historical records. University of New South Wales Press Ltd, Sydney. Burke, H & Smith C. 2004. The Archaeologists Field Handbook. Allen & Unwin, NSW. DECCW 2010a. Aboriginal cultural heritage consultation requirements for proponents 2010. NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water, Sydney NSW. DECCW 2010b. Code of Practice for Archaeological Investigation of Aboriginal Objects in New South Wales. NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water, Sydney NSW. Kovac M., Murphy B.W. and Lawrie J.A. 1990. Soil Landscapes of the Bathurst 1:250,000 Sheet report, Soil Conservation Service of NSW, Sydney. Martin, S. 2006. Inscribing the Plains: Constructed Conceptualised and Socialised Landscapes of the Hay Plain, South-eastern Australia. Unpublished PhD. University of New England, Armidale. Martin, S. 2010. Archaeological Research, Characterisation and Predictive Modelling Project. Part of the Recording of Aboriginal Use and Values on the Lowbidgee and Lower Lachlan Rivers Wetlands Under the NSW Rivers Environmental Restoration Program (RERP). Report to Department of Environment Climate Change and Water. NPWS 2003. The Bioregions of New South Wales: their biodiversity, conservation and history NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service. NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service, Hurstville. Speight, J.G. 2009. Landform. In McDonald, R C & Isbell R F. (eds.). Australian Soil and Land Survey Field Handbook, p: 9 - 57. Goanna Print, Canberra Australian. Stewart, K & Percival, B. 1997. Bush Foods of New South wales. A Botanic Record and Aboriginal Oral History. Royal Botanic Gardens Sydney. Tindale, N.B. 1974. Aboriginal Tribes of Australia, Australian National University, Canberra.