epbc act listed ecological communities mapping …€¦ · web viewhunter valley remnant open...

Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and CommunitiesEPBC Act Listed Ecological Communities Mapping in the Lower HunterPRN 1213-023619 December 2013

Document information

Client: Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and CommunitiesTitle: EPBC Act Listed Ecological Communities Mapping in the Lower HunterSubtitle: PRN 1213-0236Document No: 2117361B-ECO-REP-001 RevCDate: 19 December 2013

Rev Date Details

A 15/05/2013 Draft

B 07/06/2013 Final

C 19/12/2013 Final

Author, Reviewer and Approver details

Prepared by: Selga Harrington, Tanya Bangel Date: 19/12/2013 Signature:

Reviewed by: Alex Cockerill Date: 19/12/2013 Signature:

Approved by: Alex Cockerill Date: 19/12/2013 Signature:

Distribution

Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Parsons Brinckerhoff file

©Parsons Brinckerhoff Australia Pty Limited 2013

Copyright in the drawings, information and data recorded in this document (the information) is the property of Parsons Brinckerhoff. This document and the information are solely for the use of the authorised recipient and this document may not be used, copied or reproduced in whole or part for any purpose other than that for which it was supplied by Parsons Brinckerhoff. Parsons Brinckerhoff makes no representation, undertakes no duty and accepts no responsibility to any third party who may use or rely upon this document or the information.

The views and opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Australian Government or the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. While reasonable efforts have been made to ensure that the contents of this publication are factually correct, the Commonwealth does not accept responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of the contents, and shall not be liable for any loss or damage that may be occasioned directly or indirectly through the use of, or reliance on, the contents of this publication.

Document owner

Parsons Brinckerhoff Australia Pty LimitedABN 80 078 004 798

Level 2 54 Marcus Clarke Street Canberra ACT 2600GPO Box 331 Canberra ACT 2601 AustraliaTel: +61 2 6281 9500Fax: +61 2 6281 9501Email: [email protected]

Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, AS/NZS 4801 A GRI Rating: Sustainability Report 2011

Funded by the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population, and Communities through the Sustainable Regional Development Program

Creative CommonsThis report is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia licence(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/deed.en).

Recommended citation: Cockerill, A., Harrington, S and Bangel, T. (2013). EPBC Act Listed Ecological Communities Mapping in the Lower Hunter. Report funded by the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population, and Communities through the Sustainable Regional Development Program. Parsons Brinckerhoff, Canberra.

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/deed.en

ContentsPage number

Abbreviations iii

Executive summary v

1. Introduction 1

1.1 Background 1

1.2 Matters of National Environmental Significance 1

1.3 Project aims 2

2. Methodology 3

2.1 Personnel 3

2.2 Desktop review 3

2.3 GIS 8

2.4 Expert workshop and stakeholder engagement 9

2.5 Limitations 9

3. Threatened Ecological Communities mapping 11

3.1 White Box-Yellow Box-Blakely’s Red Gum Grassy Woodland and Derived Native Grassland 11

3.2 Littoral Rainforest and Coastal Vine Thickets of Eastern Australia 11

3.3 Lowland Rainforest of Subtropical Australia 12

3.4 Subtropical and temperate coastal saltmarsh 15

3.5 Hinterland Sand Flats Forest and Woodland of the Sydney Basin Bioregion 15

3.6 Hunter Valley Remnant Woodlands and Open Forests 16

4. Threatened species assessment 23

5. Conservation values of region 25

5.1 Matters of National Environmental Significance 25

5.2 Wildlife corridors 26

6. High priority conservation areas for TECs 29

7. Key threatening processes 35

8. Conclusions and recommendations 41

References 45

Parsons Brinckerhoff | 2117361B-ECO-REP-001 RevC i

Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and CommunitiesDepartment of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and CommunitiesEPBC Act Listed Ecological Communities Mapping in the Lower Hunter PRN 1213-0236PRN 1213-0236

List of tablesPage number

Table 2.1 Study team 3Table 2.2 Existing vegetation mapping data reviewed 3Table 2.3 Threatened Ecological Communities 4Table 2.4 Species likelihood of occurrence categories 6Table 2.5 Parameters and weighting used for High Priority Conservation Areas mapping 7Table 3.1 Vegetation communities corresponding to Littoral Rainforest and Coastal Vine

Thickets of Eastern Australia 12Table 3.2 Vegetation communities corresponding to Lowland Rainforest of Subtropical

Australia 12Table 3.3 Vegetation communities corresponding to Subtropical and Temperate Coastal

Saltmarsh 15Table 3.4 Vegetation communities corresponding to Hinterland Sand Flats Forest and

Woodland of the Sydney Basin Bioregion 16Table 3.5 Vegetation communities corresponding to Hunter Valley Remnant Woodlands and

Open Forests 17Table 4.1 Total number of EPBC Act - listed fauna and flora species recorded or predicted to

occur within Lower Hunter region and EPBC Act – listed ecological communities 23Table 6.1 Areas of Threatened Ecological Communities of high conservation areas within the

Lower Hunter region 30Table 7.1 EPBC Act - listed Key Threatening Processes (KTPs) 35

List of figuresPage number

Figure 3.1 Littoral Rainforest and Coastal Vine Thickets of Eastern Australia – listed as Critically Endangered under the EPBC Act 13

Figure 3.2 Lowland Rainforest of Subtropical Australia – listed as Critically Endangered under the EPBC Act 14

Figure 3.3 Subtropical and Temperate Coastal Saltmarsh – nominated for listing under the EPBC Act 19

Figure 3.4 Hinterland Sand Flats Forest and Woodland of the Sydney Basin Bioregion – nominated for listing under the EPBC Act 20

Figure 3.5 Hunter Valley Remnant Woodlands and Open Forests – nominated for listing under the EPBC Act 21

Figure 5.1 Conservation values of the region 28Figure 6.1 High priority conservation areas 34

List of appendicesAppendix A Correlation assessment for EPBC Act communitiesAppendix B EPBC Listed species and communities

ii Parsons Brinckerhoff | 2117361B-ECO-REP-001 RevC


AbbreviationsCBMP Cessnock Biodiversity Management Plan

GHM Greater Hunter Native Vegetation Mapping (Sivertsen et al. 2011Sivertsen et al. 2011)

HPCA High Priority Conservation Area

LHCCREMS Lower Hunter and Central Coast Regional Environmental Management Strategy (Lower Hunter and Central Coast Regional Environmental Management Strategy 2003b)

KTP Key Threatening Processes

LGA Local Government Area

LHRS Lower Hunter Regional Strategy

MNES Matters of National Significance

OEH The Office of Environment and Heritage

RCP Regional Conservational Plan

RDP Rapid Data Point survey

SEWPaC The Commonwealth Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities

TEC Threatened Ecological Community – for the purposes of this report this includes ecological communities listed or nominated under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1995.

Parsons Brinckerhoff | 2117361B-ECO-REP-001 RevC iii


iv Parsons Brinckerhoff | 2117361B-ECO-REP-001 RevC


Executive summaryAs part of the Australian Government’s sustainable population strategy, the Commonwealth Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (SEWPaC) is undertaking the Sustainable Regional Development program in high growth areas, including the Lower Hunter. The Lower Hunter region covers 429,741 ha and encompasses five Local Government Areas (LGAs) (Cessnock, Newcastle, Port Stephen, Lake Macquarie and Maitland), and is located within the broader Hunter Valley region, approximately 120 km north-west of Sydney, NSW. This is one of Australia’s largest urban areas and a major centre of economic activity with high levels of growth and development expected in the region in the coming decades. This report describes the distribution of Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) listed and nominated ecological communities and high priority conservation areas within the Lower Hunter region to assist in sustainable planning in the region.

Identification of EPBC Act listed or nominated ecological communities (Threatened Ecological Communities), correlation of EPBC Act – listed species and identification of areas of conservation significance were based on a desktop review of available information and mapping as well as stakeholder input (including an expert workshop).

Mapping of Threatened Ecological Communities was achieved through the correlation of existing vegetation mapping within the region with the characteristics of the Threatened Ecological Communities outlined in the listing and conservation advice. This included assessment and mapping of:

White Box-Yellow Box-Blakely’s Red Gum Grassy Woodland and Derived Native Grassland – listed as Critically Endangered. This community was determined as unlikely to occur within the Lower Hunter region.

Littoral Rainforest and Coastal Vine Thickets of Eastern Australia – listed as Critically Endangered. This community was found to occur in small patches within 2 km of the coast and cover 56 ha.

Lowland Rainforest of Subtropical Australia – listed as Critically Endangered. This community was found to occur predominantly along the border of Lake Macquarie and Cessnock LGAs and cover 1760 ha.

Subtropical and temperate coastal saltmarsh – nominated for listing. This community was mapped as occurring in estuarine areas of the Hunter River and wetlands and floodplains along the coast and covers 6427 ha.

Hinterland Sand Flats Forest and Woodland of the Sydney Basin Bioregion - nominated for listing. Based on the current nomination and community definition this community is likely to be concentrated in the Cessnock-Kurri Kurri region and cover approximately 4007 ha.

Hunter Valley Remnant Open Forests and Woodlands – nominated for listing. Based on the current nomination and broad community definition this community is likely to cover approximately 60,568 ha within the region.

For the latter two communities, the assessment of nomination and listing process is in the early stages and as such the mapping provided is preliminary and may change significantly as the community definition changes.

The mapping of the Threatened Ecological Communities is based on desktop review of available information and is strongly reliant on the description of the communities provided in the listing advice or nomination form. The mapping is indicative of where each community is likely to occur based on available information and each site would need to be ground truthed to see that the vegetation meets the description and condition thresholds in the listing/conservation advice for the Threatened Ecological Community.

Parsons Brinckerhoff | 2117361B-ECO-REP-001 RevC v


Based on a review of species databases, 111 species have been assessed and are known to occur or are predicted as likely to occur within the study area. Their likelihood of occurrence within each Threatened Ecological Community was assessed based on species records and known habitat requirements.

High priority conservation areas for Threatened Ecological Communities within the region were modelled and mapped based on a range of parameters including patch size, threatened biodiversity and connectivity. Weightings were applied to each parameter to ensure the most important parameters were modelled as higher priority in the mapping process. Other areas of high conservation priority were identified in existing conservation plans for the region and through the expert workshop and consultation with key stakeholders.

Key threatening processes within the Lower Hunter region were identified, the principal threat being land clearance. Other key threats within the region include: loss and degradation of native plant and animal habitat by invasion of escaped garden plants, including aquatic plants; and loss of climatic habitat caused by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases. Recommendations for the management of these threats were provided.

This mapping will aid in filling the gaps of knowledge of the distribution of EPBC Act – listed ecological communities within the Lower Hunter region. Through the identification and mapping of High Priority Conservation Areas, including Threatened Ecological Communities, this project also provides a suitable resource to support regional sustainability planning, particularly the preparation of the Lower Hunter Regional Strategy and Regional Conservational Plan.

vi Parsons Brinckerhoff | 2117361B-ECO-REP-001 RevC


1. Introduction

1.1 BackgroundThe Lower Hunter region, encompassing five local government areas (Newcastle, Lake Macquarie, Port Stephens, Maitland and Cessnock) is one of Australia’s largest urban areas and a major centre of economic activity. Continued growth and development in this area is expected and the NSW Government's 25 year land use strategy for the region includes:

new urban areas for a projected population growth of 160,000 people new commercial and industrial land to cater for up to 66,000 new jobs creation, management and conservation of green corridors with high environmental value

protection of high quality agricultural land, and natural resources such as water aquifers and extractive materials (NSW Department of Planning 2006).

As part of the Australian Government’s sustainable population strategy, the Commonwealth Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (SEWPaC) is undertaking the Sustainable Regional Development program in high growth areas, including the Lower Hunter.

The Sustainable Regional Development program aims to provide a comprehensive approach to planning and development in the region which in turn will ensure the region develops in a strong and sustainable way. Specifically, the program aims to protect Matters of National Environmental Significance (MNES) whilst helping to streamline environmental approvals and thus provide greater certainty for businesses, and state and local governments in development and investment in this high growth region.

As part of the Sustainable Regional Development program for the Lower Hunter region, a key knowledge gap has been identified by local, state and Australian governments, namely data gaps in the mapping of EPBC Act – listed or nominated Ecological Communities (henceforth referred to as Threatened Ecological Communities). Correlation of the extant vegetation in the Lower Hunter with Threatened Ecological Communities is needed to support the regional sustainability planning in the Lower Hunter region, in particular the ability to identify MNES including threatened ecological communities and species.

1.2 Matters of National Environmental SignificanceThe Lower Hunter region contains a range of biodiversity values that are recognised as MNES. MNES include matters that fit into one of the categories below:

listed threatened species and ecological communities migratory species protected under international agreements Ramsar wetlands of international importance the Commonwealth marine environment World Heritage properties National Heritage places Great Barrier Reef marine Park, and nuclear actions.

The Lower Hunter region provides habitat for a number of threatened and migratory species, ecological communities, World Heritage areas and National Heritage areas considered MNES. Mapping and correlating these MNES will allow for High Priority Conservation Areas to be identified and will allow informed strategic planning in this high growth region to occur.

Parsons Brinckerhoff | 2117361B-ECO-REP-001 RevC 1


1.3 Project aimsThe overall objective of this mapping project is to provide a suitable resource to support regional sustainability planning, particularly the preparation of the Lower Hunter Regional Strategy (LHRS) and Regional Conservational Plan (RCP). The primary objective of this project was to address the key gap in the knowledge of the regions distribution and occurrence of Threatened Ecological Communities. Specifically, the project aimed to:

map the extent of Threatened Ecological Communities within the Lower Hunter region (Cessnock, Newcastle, Lake Macquarie, Port Stephens and Maitland LGAs)

review and analyse the likelihood of occurrence of EPBC Act listed flora and fauna within the Threatened Ecological Communities

identify and provide recommendations regarding High Priority Conservation Areas within the region identify and provide recommendations regarding Key Threatening Processes that have the potential to

impact EPBC Act – listed ecological communities and threatened flora and fauna.

2 Parsons Brinckerhoff | 2117361B-ECO-REP-001 RevC


2. MethodologyThe Threatened Ecological Communities mapping project included gathering data from external sources and desk-based review of existing mapping data to assess and identify High Priority Conservation Areas and Key Threatening Processes acting on EPBC Act – listed species and Threatened Ecological Communities. This section outlines the specific methods used in mapping and assessment of the vegetation and conservation values of the region.

2.1 PersonnelThe contributors to the preparation of this paper, their qualifications and roles are listed in Table 2.1.

Table 2.1 Study team

Name Qualifications Position and role

Alex Cockerill BSc (Hons) Project Director – report review, consultation, expert workshop

Selga Harrington BSc (Hons) Project Manager – report preparation, consultation, expert workshop

Debbie Landenberger BSc (Hons) Botanist – mapping consolidation, report preparation

Allan Richardson BEnvSc (Hons) Ecologist – threatened species assessment

Tanya Bangel BSc (Hons) Ecologist – desktop review, report preparation

Sam Wilkin Dip GIS GIS team lead

Rob Suansri BSc GIS specialist

Ashley Trinder BSc GIS specialist

Emily Mitchell BDevStud, Cert IV SIS GIS specialist

2.2 Desktop reviewA desktop review was undertaken of the vegetation mapping data, acquired from federal, state and local government. The desktop review of vegetation mapping data included the vegetation mapping projects outlined in Table 2.2.

Table 2.2 Existing vegetation mapping data reviewed

Mapping project Reference

Vegetation Survey, Classification and Mapping Lower Hunter and Central Coast Region (LHCCREMS)

Lower Hunter and Central Coast Regional Environmental Management Strategy (2003a)

Greater Hunter Native Vegetation Mapping (GHM) Sivertsen et al. (2011)

Vegetation of the Cessnock-Kurri region, Cessnock LGA, New South Wales: Survey, Classification and Mapping

Bell S and Driscoll C (2007)

State Forests Mapping of NSW State Forest NSW State Forests (undated)



Mapping project Reference

The Native Vegetation of Yengo and Parr Reserves and Surrounds Department of Environment & Climate Change (2008)

Vegetation of the Tomago and Tomaree Sandbeds, Port Stephens, New South Wales. Management of Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems.

Bell S and Driscoll C (2006b)

The Natural Vegetation of the Maitland LGA Hill L (2003)

Vegetation Mapping of the Lake Macquarie LGA: Stages 1-3 Bell S and Driscoll C (2012)

Vegetation of Werakata, National Park, Hunter Valley, New South Wales

Bell S (2004)

Glenrock State Conservation Area and Awabakal Nature Reserve Vegetation Survey

Bell S (2006)

Vegetation mapping of Watagans National Park and Jilliby State Conservation Area

Bell S and Driscoll C (2006a)

Wollemi National Park Vegetation Survey (1998) Bell S (1998)

Blue Gum Hills Vegetation (Blue Gum Hills Vegetation' 1997)

Vegetation and floristics of Columbey National Park, lower Hunter Valley, New South Wales

Bell S (2009)

Yengo National Park and Parr State Conservation Area Vegetation Survey for use in fire management

Bell S et al. (1993)

2.2.1 Correlation assessment

The existing vegetation mapping projects within the Hunter Valley, outlined in Table 2.2, have been assessed to determine the equivalency of mapped vegetation communities to Threatened Ecological Communities. Threatened Ecological Communities assessed are provided below in Table 2.3.

Table 2.3 Threatened Ecological Communities

Ecological community name under EPBC Act Conservation Status

Ecological communities listed under the EPBC Act

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

Critically Endangered

Littoral Rainforest and Coastal Vine Thickets of Eastern Australia Critically Endangered

Lowland Rainforest of Subtropical Australia Critically Endangered

Ecological communities nominated for listing under the EPBC Act

Subtropical and temperate coastal saltmarsh Nominated

Hinterland Sand Flats Forest and Woodland of the Sydney Basin Bioregion Nominated

Hunter Valley Remnant Woodlands and Open Forests Nominated

The correlation assessment was based upon key characteristics of Threatened Ecological Communities contained in the conservation listing and other policy documents for each community. This included the assessment of key criteria (such as soil substrate, vegetation composition and structure), size of polygons and condition indices which determined the identity of each vegetation community. The key criteria for each community are summarised in Appendix A. The map units in existing vegetation mapping were assessed against these criteria and a short list of communities likely to correspond to each Threatened Ecological



Community was produced. This draft list was then provided to key stakeholders for review and discussion at the expert workshop (Section 2.4). This identification process for Threatened Ecological Communities is provided in Section 3.2.

2.2.2 Threatened species assessment

A desktop assessment was undertaken to analyse the presence of EPBC Act - listed threatened flora and fauna species within the Threatened Ecological Communities. The desktop study used the following resources:

conservation listing advice and nominations for each of the ecological communities (Department of Sustainability Environment Water Population and Communities 2013b)

ecological and threatened species recovery plans Department of Sustainability Environment Water Population and Communities 2013b)

SEWPaC Protected Matters Search Tool (Department of Sustainability Environment Water Population and Communities 2013a)

NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) Threatened species, populations and communities database (Office of Environment and Heritage 2013b)

NSW OEH Bionet search (including Atlas of NSW Wildlife) (Office of Environment and Heritage 2013a) PlantNet database (Royal Botanic Gardens 2013) Council-sourced threatened species information.

A Commonwealth SEWPaC Protected Matter Search and Bionet Atlas of NSW Wildlife records were conducted of the five Lower Hunter LGAs (Cessnock, Newcastle, Port Stephens, Lake Macquarie and Maitland). The search identified threatened species known or considered likely to occur within the region. These species were then assessed for their likelihood of occurrence within each of Threatened Ecological Communities.

The likelihood of occurrence for this assessment were determined using known records of species combined with their habitat requirements and information on the type of habitat within each of the ecological communities. An assessment matrix, on the occurrence or likelihood of occurrence, of threatened species within the region and each Threatened Ecological Community was developed (Table 2.4).

A species was determined to be unknown to occur within a community if:

it had not been recorded previously in the community it is dependent on specific habitat types or resources that are not present in the community species distribution is not within the study area.

2.2.3 Key Threatening Processes

Key Threatening Processes acting on Threatened Ecological Communities were determined in light of threats identified in ecological recovery plans and conservation listing advice, in combination with our local ecological knowledge of threats operating in the Hunter Valley region and discussions with key stakeholders and at the expert workshop (see Section 2.4). This process was used to determine those threats most likely to have an impact upon the ecological values in the region.



Table 2.4 Species likelihood of occurrence categories

Occurrence Occurrence in region Occurrence in Threatened Ecological Community

Known Includes species that fit one or more of the following criteria:

Species or species habitat have been identified as being ‘Known’ to occur within the region through EPBC searches (Department of Sustainability Environment Water Populations and Communities 2013).

Have been recorded as being ‘Known’ to occur within the region by the species Threatened Profile (Office of Environment and Heritage 2013b).

Have been recorded previously within the region (Office of Environment and Heritage 2013a).

This includes species that fit one or more of the criteria below:

Have been identified as being ‘Recorded’ or ‘Associated’ with the TECs in the community profiles (Department of Sustainability Environment Water Population and Communities 2013).

Have been recorded as being ‘Known’ to occur within the TEC by the species Threatened Profile (Office of Environment and Heritage 2013b).

Mapped records of species occurs within mapped occurrence of TEC

Have been infrequently recorded in the TEC or surrounds (i.e. vagrant individuals)

Predicted Includes species that fit one or more of the following criteria:

Species or species habitat have been identified as being, ‘Likely’ or ‘May’ occur within the region (Department of Sustainability Environment Water Populations and Communities 2013).

Have been identified as being ‘Predicted’ to occur within the region by the species Threatened Profile (Office of Environment and Heritage 2013b).

This includes species not known to occur within the TEC that fit one or more of the following criteria:

May use habitat types or resources that are present in the TEC.

Are known or likely to maintain resident populations in surrounding areas

Are likely to visit the TEC during regular seasonal movements or migration.

Are cryptic species whose distribution or habitat is not entirely known and therefore may still utilise the TEC.

2.2.4 High Priority Conservation Areas

The distribution of Threatened Ecological Communities in combination with the occurrence of other MNES were analysed to determine High Priority Conservation Areas.

High priority conservation areas within the region were modelled and mapped based on a range of parameters including patch size, threatened biodiversity and connectivity. Weightings were applied to each parameter to ensure the most important parameters were modelled as higher priority in the mapping process (Table 2.5). An Analytical Hierarchy Process was adopted to rank and weight each parameter used in the model. The parameter was assigned individual values (e.g. 1 to 3) where sub criteria needed to be considered or a true-false (0 or 1) classification. Following the ranking process each criteria was assigned a multiplier value dependant on its relative importance in the model. The aggregate score was the combined sum of the different criteria values. The criteria scores and associated weightings are provided in Table 2.5.

Other areas of high conservation priority were identified in existing conservation plans for the region and through the expert workshop and consultation with key stakeholders (see Section 2.4).



Table 2.5 Parameters and weighting used for High Priority Conservation Areas mapping

Parameter Description Weighting Approach

EPBC-listed or nominated Threatened Ecological Communities

A number of vegetation types are listed or nominated at the Commonwealth level as being threatened. .

10 Vegetation was scored as 10 (Listed), 7 (Nominated) or 5 (Further investigation required). Rationale for not using a 3 to 1 range was to not over-inflate the importance the EPBC listing in relation to the other criteria. Where overlaps occurred higher sensitivity areas took precedence.

Connectivity specifically to nature reserves

Direct connectivity of native vegetation to existing nature reserves is considered to be an important factor in determining lands that may be priority areas.

7 Extent of vegetated area in relation to nature reserves was assessed. Only vegetation patches that were overlapping or adjoining were defined as being connected. These patches were scored as 1 (true) or 0 (false)

Threatened flora habitat value

The occurrence of threatened flora and related habitat is considered of high importance.

7 The NSW Atlas of Wildlife Database records and any SEWPAC ERIN datasets were used to identify patches that are known to contain threatened flora under the TSC and EPBC Acts. This was modelled and scored as patches either containing threatened flora or not containing threatened flora. A recognised limitation of this method is the intensity of surveys being skewed towards populated areas. These patches were scored as 1 (true) or 0 (false)

Threatened fauna habitat value

The occurrence of threatened fauna and related habitat is considered of high importance.

7 The NSW Atlas of Wildlife Database records and any SEWPAC ERIN datasets were used to identify patches that are known to contain threatened fauna under the TSC and EPBC Acts. This would be modelled and scored as patches either containing threatened fauna or not containing threatened fauna. A recognised limitation of this method is the intensity of surveys being skewed towards populated areas. These patches were scored as 1 (true) or 0 (false)

Patch size Patch size is a consideration when considering integrity of native vegetation within each patch. Generally, the greater the patch size, the greater the integrity or condition. Vegetation integrity reflects general biodiversity values of patches.

5 Patch sizes were categorised as over 500 ha (3), 100–500 ha (2) or <100 ha (1).



Parameter Description Weighting Approach

Habitat Connectivity

Habitat connectivity is considered to be important for native flora and fauna and genetic exchange.

5 The following corridor mapping was used for determining habitat connectivity:

OEH regional north coast key corridors

Lower Hunter Regional Strategy green corridor

Cessnock Biodiversity Management plan “Landscape Conservation Corridors”.

Using spatial analysis the area of habitat corridor for each overlapping TEC area was determined. A coverage percentage was calculated and any TEC area that was covered by a percentage 50% or more was scored as 1 (true). All other areas were scored as 0 (false)

2.3 GIS

2.3.1 Preliminary work

Existing GIS vegetation data was identified and sourced by the project team from local, state and Commonwealth governments. From these GIS data layers ecological communities correlated to Threatened Ecological Communities were identified by the ecologists and supplied back the GIS team for data extraction. After reviewing the listed communities and their associated vegetation data sources a methodology for compiling the data was established, as well as a structure for the final Geodatabase to be supplied.

2.3.2 Geodatabase

A centralised GIS database (Geodatabase) was developed and used to store all relevant GIS data including existing vegetation mapping, analysis and processing extents, as well as other relevant topographic information. The Geodatabase was used throughout the life of the project for all GIS processing and reporting purposes. The final vegetation feature class stored within the Geodatabase has been topologically checked and attributed with associated metadata.

2.3.3 Data compilation

Once the ecology team had identified the map units that correlate to each Threatened Ecological Community and what existing GIS data layers they originated from, the GIS team compiled the layers into the Geodatabase and isolated the communities. As agreed in the expert workshop, the precautionary principle was applied to ensure that all identified occurrences of map units correlated to Threatened Ecological Communities are mapped without assessment of the accuracy of the mapping projects. In this way, the maximum known extent of these Threatened Ecological Communities was identified.

The identified map units were then combined into a singular vegetation base layer using a GIS union process. The union process allowed all communities to retain their extents without priority been given to any sourced community, and it will allow data to be analysed extensively through various GIS methods in the future. The attribute data structure has also tried to retain as much important data as possible across the 10+ existing vegetation layers used.

Once data was compiled topology rules were established across the consolidated vegetation layer to eliminate overlapping and gap issues. Metadata was also added to the layer to explain the data compilation process and associated GIS parameters.



2.4 Expert workshop and stakeholder engagementAn expert workshop was run on the 22 April. Attendees included representatives from SEWPaC Regional Sustainability Planning, SEWPaC Environmental Resources Information Network, SEWPaC Ecological Communities, the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH), Lake Macquarie City Council, Newcastle City Council, the Hunter Central Coast Regional Environment Management Strategy team (HCCREMS) and Stephen Bell (Eastcoast Flora Survey). Other key stakeholders unable to attend were invited to provide comments and input.

The aims of the expert workshop were to revise the correlation assessment and mapping methodology for determining Threatened Ecological Communities from existing mapping. Listing and mapping methodology advice was sought from SEWPaC and experts present. Input from the attendees was also sought regarding the desktop assessment findings on the likelihood of occurrence of threatened species and Key Threatening Processes and conservation priority areas.

Outcomes of the expert workshop included:

agreement on taking a precautionary approach when identifying areas likely to include Threatened Ecological Communities. All corresponding map units from each mapping project to be provided and mapped without assessment of accuracy of mapping project

identified additional vegetation mapping projects to be incorporated

revised list of correlated mapping units from existing vegetation mapping projects with the EPBC Act – listed ecological communities

identified additional information required to update threatened species likelihood of occurrence each of the LGAs and ecological communities

identified additional High Priority Conservation Areas

identified and prioritised Key Threatening Processes relevant to the Lower Hunter Region.

Additional stakeholder engagement has occurred with the relevant Council, OEH and SEWPaC staff throughout the project to ensure that the project outputs are fit for purpose.

2.5 Limitations

2.5.1 Ecological limitations

Parsons Brinckerhoff has relied upon data, surveys, analyses, plans and other information provided by the client and key stakeholders. Except as otherwise stated in the study, Parsons Brinckerhoff has not verified the accuracy or completeness of the data. To the extent that the statements, opinions, facts, information, conclusions and/or recommendations in this study (conclusions) are based in whole or part on the data, those conclusions are contingent upon the accuracy and completeness of the data. Parsons Brinckerhoff will not be liable in relation to incorrect conclusions should any data, information or condition be incorrect or have been concealed, withheld, misrepresented or otherwise not fully disclosed to Parsons Brinckerhoff.

This study provides a broad overview of the EPBC Act - listed ecological values of the region suitable for regional planning. This study does not take into consideration biodiversity of local or state significance.

This study is a desk-based review with additional input from key local experts. No field surveys or verification was undertaken and as such the findings of this report are based on current available information and is strongly reliant on the description of the communities provided in the listing advice or nomination form. Mapping of the Threatened Ecological Communities is only indicative of where it is likely to occur. Each site needs to be ground truthed to see that the vegetation meets the description and condition thresholds in the



listing/conservation advice for the Threatened Ecological Community. The condition, extent and distribution of MNES may differ from that described in this report and field verification is recommended where certainty is required.

Three of the ecological communities assessed are currently only nominated for listing (Subtropical and temperate coastal saltmarsh; Hinterland Sand Flats Forest and Woodland of the Sydney Basin Bioregion; Hunter Valley Remnant Woodlands and Open Forests). For the latter two nominated communities, the assessment of nomination and listing process is in the early stages. As such the mapping provided is preliminary and may change significantly as the community definition changes.

2.5.2 GIS limitations

Data was combined through a union GIS process that allows the extents all identified ecological communities to be retained for accurate investigation of the data. This follows the precautionary principle ensuring that all identified occurrences of map unit correlated to Threatened Ecological Communities are identified in the mapping. A consequence of conducting this process over the 10+ existing vegetation sources means that the data will be complex in geographical structure. The reason for this is when you conduct a union with multiple overlapping layers all meandering extents are retained, and their extents may become convoluted as the layers intertwine. GIS methods of identifying certain feature attributes have ensured the data is more than useable, but the detailed structure of the data must be acknowledged.

Due to the complexity of the attributes stored within each dataset, it would be unwise to retain all stored attribute data for each existing vegetation dataset, as certain information is only relevant to certain features and not for others. We have tried to retain as much common information across the datasets to give the most detailed description of the data. Updating information to certain features (to maintain consistency) is a complex and assumed process that is not included in the scope of this project.

Overlapping topology errors were identified within supplied data and as agreed upon with the SEWPaC project team, we have not amended the supplied data.



3. Threatened Ecological Communities mapping

The key characteristics of each of the Threatened Ecological Communities, used in the correlation assessment, are provided in Appendix A. Based on these key characteristics, the correlation assessment (Appendix A) identified the vegetation communities that are likely to correspond to Threatened Ecological Communities. These were then discussed and revised during the expert workshop.

The mapping of the Threatened Ecological Communities is based on desktop review of available information and is strongly reliant on the description of the communities provided in the listing advice or nomination form. The mapping is indicative of where each community is likely to occur based on available information and each site would need to be ground truthed if certainty is required to verify that the vegetation meets the description and condition thresholds in the listing/conservation advice for the Threatened Ecological Community.

The occurrence, distribution and correlated map units for each Threatened Ecological Community are discussed below.

3.1 White Box-Yellow Box-Blakely’s Red Gum Grassy Woodland and Derived Native Grassland

White Box-Yellow Box Blakely’s Red Gum Grassy Woodland and Derived Native Grassland is listed as a Critically Endangered Ecological community under the EPBC Act. This community originally occurred along the western slopes and tablelands of the Great Dividing Range, throughout Victoria, Australian Capital Territory, western New South Wales and southern Queensland. The community now exists as isolated patches throughout these areas, with less than 5% remaining in good condition as a result of clearing, over grazing and weed invasion Department of Environment and Conservation 2005).

Based on the correlation assessment and consultation with local experts, it was concluded that White Box-Yellow Box-Blakely’s Red Gum Grassy Woodland and Derived Native Grassland is unlikely to occur within the Lower Hunter Region. Justification for exclusion of map units is provided in Appendix A.

3.2 Littoral Rainforest and Coastal Vine Thickets of Eastern Australia

Littoral Rainforest and Coastal Vine Thickets of Eastern Australia is listed as a Critically Endangered community under the EPBC Act. This community occurs close to the coast from northern Queensland and extends southwards to eastern Victoria and on offshore islands. The community occurs naturally within a range of landforms, as natural disjunct stands, that have been influenced by coastal processes such as on headlands, dunes and flats (Department of the Environment Water Heritage and the Arts 2009b).

Littoral Rainforest and Coastal Vine Thickets of Eastern Australia occupies approximately 56 ha of the Lower Hunter Region occurring within 2 km of the coast from Hawks Nest south to Gwandalan. Vegetation communities corresponding to the EPBC Act – listed Littoral Rainforest and Coastal Vine Thickets of Eastern Australia are presented in Table 3.6. The distribution of this community is illustrated in Figure 3.1. Justification for inclusion/exclusion of map units is provided in Appendix A.



Table 3.6 Vegetation communities corresponding to Littoral Rainforest and Coastal Vine Thickets of Eastern Australia

Mapping project Map unit Community description

Lake Macquarie LGA (Bell S & Driscoll C 2012)

4 Littoral Rainforest

LHCCREMS (Lower Hunter and Central Coast Regional Environmental Management Strategy 2003b)

4 Littoral Rainforest

GHM (Sivertsen et al. 2011) 19 Tuckeroo/Yellow Tulipwood/ Red fruited Olive Plum Littoral Rainforest of the lower North Coast

GHM (Sivertsen et al. 2011) 18 Tuckeroo/Lilly Pilly/Coast Banksia Littoral Rainforest

Tomago and Tomaree (Bell S & Driscoll C 2006b)

14 Nerong Littoral Rainforest

Glenrock/Awabakal Bell S 2006) 8 Littoral Rainforest

3.3 Lowland Rainforest of Subtropical AustraliaLowland Rainforest of Subtropical Australia is listed as a Critically Endangered community under the EPBC Act. This community predominately occurs between Maryborough in Queensland to the Clarence River in New South Wales and as isolated patches between the Clarence River and the Hunter region within NSW. Lowland Rainforest of Subtropical Australia is differentiated from the Littoral Rainforest and Coastal Vine Thickets of Eastern Australia (described above) by the level of coastal or estuarine influence. Typically the Lowland Rainforest of Subtropical Australia occurs more than 2 km from the coast, however may intergrade with Littoral Rainforest and Coastal Vine Thickets of Eastern Australia (TThreatened Species Scientific Commitee 2011).

Lowland Rainforest of Subtropical Australia occupies approximately 1760 ha within the Lower Hunter Region predominantly located in the south, within the Cessnock and Lake Macquarie LGAs. Vegetation communities corresponding to the EPBC Act - listed Lowland Rainforest of Subtropical Australia are presented in Table 3.7. The distribution of this community is illustrated in Figure 3.2. Justification for inclusion/exclusion of map units is provided in Appendix A.

Table 3.7 Vegetation communities corresponding to Lowland Rainforest of Subtropical Australia


Cessnock Kurri Kurri (Bell S & Driscoll C 2007) 1b Bow Wow Subtropical Rainforest


1a Coastal Warm Temperate – Subtropical Rainforest

Lake Macquarie LGA (Bell S & Driscoll C 2012) 1a Coastal Warm Temperate – Subtropical Rainforest

GHM (Sivertsen et al. 2011 16 Black Booyong/Giant Stinging Tree/Rosewood/Moreton Bay Fig lowland subtropical rainforest of the lower north coast

GHM (Sivertsen et al. 2011) 17 Black Booyong/Brown Beech/Soft Coachwood/Rosewood Subtropical Rainforest on the escarpment of the lower north Coast

Watagans and Jilliby (Bell S & Driscoll C 2006a) 1a Coastal Warm Temperate – Subtropical Rainforest

Watagans and Jilliby (Bell S & Driscoll C 2006a) 1b Red Cedar – Stinging Tree Subtropical Rainforest

Wollemi National Park (Bell 1998) RF3 Sandstone Gorge Sub-tropical Rainforest



This page should be replaced with the corresponding GIS figure once the document has been pdf'd. This caption page must follow an even numbered page if the figure is A3 size or larger.

Figure 3.1 Littoral Rainforest and Coastal Vine Thickets of Eastern Australia – listed as Critically Endangered under the EPBC Act




Figure 3.2 Lowland Rainforest of Subtropical Australia – listed as Critically Endangered under the EPBC Act



3.4 Subtropical and temperate coastal saltmarshSubtropical and temperate coastal saltmarsh is nominated for listing under the EPBC Act. This community is largely restricted to the intertidal zone (including islands of the coast of Australia) within estuaries, estuarine coastal lagoons, and sheltered embayments of subtropical and temperate areas (Department of the Environment Water Heritage and the Arts 2010a). This community typically occurs as small patches within a mangrove/saltmarsh mosaic. As such, taking the precautionary approach, areas mapped as mangrove estuarine complex have been included as they are likely to contain small patches of saltmarsh.

Subtropical and temperate coastal saltmarsh occupies approximately 6427 ha within of the Lower Hunter Region predominantly within the east of Lake Macquarie, Newcastle and Port Stephens LGAs. Vegetation communities corresponding to the EPBC Act – nominated Subtropical and temperate coastal saltmarsh are presented in Table 3.8. The distribution of this community is illustrated in Figure 3.3. Justification for inclusion/exclusion of map units is provided in Appendix A.

Table 3.8 Vegetation communities corresponding to Subtropical and Temperate Coastal Saltmarsh



47 Mangrove Estuarine Complex

GHM (Sivertsen et al. 2011 228 Mangrove Estuarine Complex

Lake Macquarie LGA (Bell S & Driscoll C 2012) 47a Saltmarsh

Lake Macquarie LGA (Bell S & Driscoll C 2012) 47 Mangrove Estuarine Complex

3.5 Hinterland Sand Flats Forest and Woodland of the Sydney Basin Bioregion

Hinterland Sand Flats Forest and Woodland of the Sydney Basin Bioregion is nominated for listing under the EPBC Act. This community consists of a number of existing ecological communities that occur predominantly within the Cumberland Plain (Western Sydney – Castlereagh and Agnes Banks), Mellong Plateau and the Lower Hunter Valley of NSW. These communities have been nominated together, as a single listing, due to their similar characteristics. Approximately 44% of this community remains as highly fragmented remnants as a result of land clearing (Department of the Environment Water Heritage and the Arts 2010b).

The assessment of nomination and listing process for this community is in the early stages and as such the correlation assessment and mapping provided is preliminary and based on definition at time of report preparation and may change significantly as the community definition changes.

Hinterland Sand Flats Forest and Woodland of the Sydney Basin Bioregion occupies approximately 4007 ha of the Lower Hunter Region predominantly occurring within the Cessnock and Port Stephens LGAs. Vegetation communities corresponding to the EPBC Act – nominated Hinterland Sand Flats Forest and Woodland of the Sydney Basin Bioregion are presented in Table 3.9. The distribution of this community is illustrated in Figure 3.4. Justification for inclusion/exclusion of map units is provided in Appendix A.



Table 3.9 Vegetation communities corresponding to Hinterland Sand Flats Forest and Woodland of the Sydney Basin Bioregion


Cessnock Kurri Kurri (Bell S & Driscoll C 2007) 35a Kurri Sand Heath Woodland

Cessnock Kurri Kurri (Bell S & Driscoll C 2007) 35b Kurri Sand Dropping Red Gum – Stringybark Forest

Cessnock Kurri Kurri (Bell S & Driscoll C 2007) 35c(i) Kurri Sands Shrub Forest (main variant)

Cessnock Kurri Kurri (Bell S & Driscoll C 2007) 35c(ii) Kurri Sands Shrub Forest

Cessnock Kurri Kurri (Bell S & Driscoll C 2007) 35d Kurri Sands Stringybark Forest

Cessnock Kurri Kurri (Bell S & Driscoll C 2007) 35e Kurri Sands Paperbark Heath

Cessnock Kurri Kurri (Bell S & Driscoll C 2007) 35f(i) Kurri Sand Claypan Scrub (E. parramattensis variant)

Cessnock Kurri Kurri (Bell S & Driscoll C 2007) 35f(ii) Kurri Sand Claypan Scrub (E. fibrosa variant)

LHCCREMS LHCCREMS (Lower Hunter and Central Coast Regional Environmental Management Strategy 2003b)

35 Kurri Sand Swamp Woodland

Werakata National Park Bell S 2004) 4 Kurri Sand Swamp Woodland

Werakata National Park Bell S 2004) 5a Kurri Sands Melaleuca Scrub Forest

Werakata National Park Bell S 2004) 5b Kurri Sands Melaleuca Scrub Forest

3.6 Hunter Valley Remnant Woodlands and Open Forests

Hunter Valley Remnant Woodlands and Open Forests is nominated for listing under the EPBC Act. This community consists of a number of existing ecological communities that occur within the northern, central or southern areas within the Hunter Valley of NSW. These communities have been nominated together, as a single listing, due to the small area that these communities now occupy. The communities now exist as highly fragmented remnants as a result of land clearance for agriculture, mining and urban development (Department of the Environment Water Heritage and the Arts 2012).

The assessment of nomination and listing process for this community is in the early stages and as such the correlation assessment and mapping provided is preliminary and based on definition at time of report preparation and may change significantly as the community definition changes. The preliminary mapping and consultation indicates that this community as currently defined is widespread and that the floristic description does not restrict the community to the region.

Hunter Valley Remnant Woodlands and Open Forests occupies approximately 60,568 ha of the Lower Hunter Region predominantly scattered throughout the Cessnock, Maitland and Port Stephens LGAs but also present in the western sections of the Newcastle and Lake Macquarie LGAs. The definition of the community was found to be broad and is also likely to be consistent with a range of widespread communities including communities on the south coast. Vegetation communities occurring within the Lower Hunter region that correspond to the EPBC Act – nominated Hunter Valley Remnant Woodlands and Open Forests are presented in Table 3.10. Four of the communities were specifically mentioned in the determination while an additional 36 map units were determined to be likely to be consistent based on the floristic description provided in the nomination. The latter require further investigation based on refinement of the community description.



The distribution of this community is illustrated in Figure 3.5. This figure highlights the map units that are specifically mentioned in the nomination and also identifies the additional map units that are likely to also be consistent with the TEC. Justification for inclusion/exclusion of map units is provided in Appendix A.

Table 3.10 Vegetation communities corresponding to Hunter Valley Remnant Woodlands and Open Forests


Map units specifically mentioned in the nomination

GHM (Sivertsen et al. 2011) 75 Narrow leaved Ironbark/ Grey Box/ Spotted Gum shrub/ grass open forest

GHM (Sivertsen et al. 2011) 67 Spotted Gum/ Red Ironbark/ Large-fruited Grey Gum shrub/ grass open forest

GHM (Sivertsen et al. 2011Sivertsen et al. 2011)

121 Grey Box/ Slaty Box shrub/ grass woodland


156 Narrow-leaved Ironbark/ Grey Box grassy woodland

Additional map units that are likely to be consistent with the TEC

Cessnock Kurri Kurri (Bell S & Driscoll C 2007) 17(i) Lower Hunter Spotted Gum – Red Ironbark Forest (main variant)

Cessnock Kurri Kurri (Bell S & Driscoll C 2007) 17a(ii) Lower Hunter Spotted Gum – Red Ironbark Forest (E. longifolia variant)

Cessnock Kurri Kurri (Bell S & Driscoll C 2007) 17a(iii) Lower Hunter Spotted Gum – Red Ironbark Forest (E, placita variant)

Cessnock Kurri Kurri (Bell S & Driscoll C 2007) 17c Lower Hunter Beyer's Ironbark Low Forest

Cessnock Kurri Kurri (Bell S & Driscoll C 2007) 17i Lower Hunter Grey Box Grassy Forest

Cessnock Kurri Kurri (Bell S & Driscoll C 2007) 17 m Lower Hunter Narrow-leaved Ironbark Forest

Cessnock Kurri Kurri (Bell S & Driscoll C 2007) 18 Hunter Narrow-leaf Ironbark – Spotted Gum Forest

Cessnock Kurri Kurri (Bell S & Driscoll C 2007) 18a Hunter Bulloak-Spotted Gum Forest

Cessnock Kurri Kurri (Bell S & Driscoll C 2007) 18b Central Hunter Grey Box Grassy Forest

Cessnock Kurri Kurri (Bell S & Driscoll C 2007) 18c Hunter Spotted Gum – Cypress Forest

Cessnock Kurri Kurri (Bell S & Driscoll C 2007) 18h Hunter Red Ironbark – Spotted Gum Forest

Cessnock Kurri Kurri (Bell S & Driscoll C 2007) 18i Hunter Redgum – Ironbark Forest

Cessnock Kurri Kurri (Bell S & Driscoll C 2007) 110 Red Ironbark – Paperbark Forest

GHM (Sivertsen et al. 2011) 82 Spotted Gum/ Narrow-leaved Ironbark/ Grey Box shrub/grass open forest of the lower Hunter

GHM (Sivertsen et al. 2011) 83 Spotted Gum/ Narrow-leaved Ironbark. Red Ironbark shrub/ grass open forest of the central and lower hunter

GHM Sivertsen et al. 2011) 85 Narrow-leaved Ironbark/ Bull Oak/ grey Box shrub/ grass open forest of the Central Hunter and lower hunter

GHM (Sivertsen et al. 2011) 86 Narrow-leaved Ironbark/ Grey Box/ Spotted gum shrub/ grass open forest of the central and lower hunter




GHM Sivertsen et al. 2011) 172 Narrow-leaved Ironbark/Grey Box grassy Woodland on the Central and Upper Hunter


16 Seaham Spotted Gum – Ironbark Forest


17 Lower Hunter Spotted Gum – Ironbark Forest


18 Central hunter Ironbark – Spotted Gum – Grey Box Forest

Werakata National Park Bell S 2004) 1 Lower-Hunter Spotted Gum – Ironbark Forest

Yengo (Department of Environment & Climate Change 2008)

20 Hunter Range Ironbark Forest

Tomago and Tomaree (Bell S & Driscoll C 2006b)

1d Spotted Gum-Ironbark-Stringybark Forest


17o Hinterland Spotted Gum – Red Ironbark Forest

Blue Gum Hills (Blue Gum Hills Vegetation' 1997)

BH3 Dry Open forest


BH4 Dry Open forest – disturbed


BH5 Dry Open forest – regen


BH7 Dry Open forest – very disturbed

Columbey (Bell S 2009) 6 6 – Seaham Ironbark Forest

Columbey (Bell S 2009) 7 7 – Seaham Spotted Gum-Ironbark Forest

Columbey (Bell S 2009) 8 8 – Lower Hunter Spotted Gum-Ironbark Forest

Columbey (Bell S 2009) 9 9 – Red Ironbark Scrub-Forest

Wollemi National Park (Bell 1998) F1 Narrabeen Residual Spotted Gum Forest

Wollemi National Park (Bell 1998) W14 Goulburn Valley Alluvial Ironbark Woodland

Wollemi National Park (Bell 1998) W1 Narrabeen Goulburn Ironbark Woodland




Figure 3.3 Subtropical and Temperate Coastal Saltmarsh – nominated for listing under the EPBC Act




Figure 3.4 Hinterland Sand Flats Forest and Woodland of the Sydney Basin Bioregion – nominated for listing under the EPBC Act




Figure 3.5 Hunter Valley Remnant Woodlands and Open Forests – nominated for listing under the EPBC Act



4. Threatened species assessment

Threatened flora and fauna species identified as being known or considered likely to occur within the Lower Hunter region (Cessnock, Newcastle, Lake Macquarie, Port Stephens and Maitland LGAs) have been assessed for their likelihood to occur within the region and Threatened Ecological Communities. The results of this Threatened species assessment are presented in Appendix B.

Based on a review of species databases, a total of 118 Threatened species listed under the EPBC Act have been recorded previously or predicted to occur within the Lower Hunter region (Table 3.6 and Appendix B) according to database searches. Of these, 111 species have been assessed and are known to occur or are predicted as likely to occur within the study area. Details of these species and their habitat requirements are provided in Appendix B.

Table 4.11 Total number of EPBC Act - listed fauna and flora species recorded or predicted to occur within Lower Hunter region and EPBC Act – listed ecological communities

Species Category

Plants Amphibians Birds Fish Mammals Reptiles

Lower Hunter region

Lower Hunter region 67 6 20 2 9 7

EPBC Act - listed Endangered Ecological Community1,2

Littoral Rainforest 12 1 0 0 5 0

Lowland Rainforest 7 1 0 0 5 0

Saltmarsh 0 1 2 0 0 0

Sand Flats Forest 21 1 2 0 5 0

Remnant Open Forest 23 1 2 0 5 0

Notes:

1 EPBC Act - listed Ecological Communities:

Littoral Rainforest = Littoral Rainforest and Coastal Vine Thicket of Eastern Australia. Lowland Rainforest = Lowland Rainforest of Subtropical Australia. White Box-Yellow Box-Blakely’s Red Gum Grassy Woodland and Derived Native Grassland has been excluded from the

threatened species assessment as it is unlikely to occur within the region.

Currently nominated Ecological Endangered Communities: Saltmarsh = Subtropical and temperate coastal saltmarsh Sand Flats Forest = Hinterland Sand Flats Forest and Woodland of the Sydney Basin Bioregion. Remnant Open Forest = Hunter Valley Remnant Woodlands and Open Forests.

2 These communities also occur beyond the Lower Hunter region, however, the assessment of occurrence of threatened species is restricted to occurrence within region.



5. Conservation values of region

The biodiversity within the Lower Hunter region has high conservation value as it is both diverse and distinctive. The region contains a diverse range of fauna, fauna, communities and ecosystems that are threatened by a range of threats principally land clearance (see Section 5). The assessment of conservation value within the region is based on MNES, in particular EPBC Act – listed ecological communities.

5.1 Matters of National Environmental SignificanceThe Lower Hunter region or nearby areas contain a range of biodiversity that are recognised as MNES. These are discussed below and illustrated in Figure 5.6.

5.1.1 Threatened species and Threatened ecological communities

Two Critically Endangered Ecological Communities listed under the EPBC Act occur within the Lower Hunter region:

Littoral Rainforest and Coastal Vine Thickets of Eastern Australia Lowland Rainforest of Subtropical Australia.

Three ecological communities currently nominated for listing under the EPBC Act also occur within the region:

Subtropical and temperate coastal saltmarsh Hinterland Sand flat Forests and Woodlands of the Sydney Basin Bioregion Hunter Valley Remnant Open Forests and Woodlands.

The mapping provided as part of this assessment identifies the location and distribution of these communities within the region (see Section 3.2).

The Lower Hunter region provides habitat for 111 Threatened species listed under the EPBC Act (Appendix B). The records of threatened species and ecological communities, listed under the EPBC Act (Appendix B), indicate that threatened species records are numerous and widespread across the region and as such provide little information to distinguish areas of higher conservation value. However, record clumps were observed surrounding the towns of Kurri Kurri, Cessnock, Kitchener and Pelton as well as within the National Parks and State Forests located within the Cessnock LGA. Although the clumping of records could be a result of survey effort and observations, such as by locals or roadside observations, these areas should be considered when identifying high conservation priority areas.

Critical habitat is the whole or any part or parts of an area or areas of land comprising habitat critical to the survival of an endangered species, population or ecological community. Critical habitats are listed under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act) and the EPBC Act. No critical habitat has been listed within the Lower Hunter region to date. However, critical habitat would occur where an area meets the condition thresholds for critical habitat within an ecological community, these include:

habitat used during periods of stress for example during flood, drought or fire events habitat used to meet essential life cycle requirements such as foraging, breeding, nesting, roosting,

social behaviour patterns or seed dispersal processes



habitat used by important populations (population necessary for a species’ long-term survival and recovery)

habitat necessary to maintain genetic diversity and long-term evolutionary development habitat necessary for use as corridors to allow the species to move freely between sites used to meet

essential life cycle requirements habitat necessary to ensure the long-term future of the species or ecological community through

reintroduction or re-colonisation (Department of the Environment Water Heritage and the Arts 2009a).

5.1.2 Migratory species

Migratory species are protected under international agreements to which Australia is a signatory, including the Japan Australia Migratory Bird Agreement (JAMBA), the China Australia Migratory Bird Agreement (CAMBA), the Republic of Korea Australia Migratory Bird Agreement (ROKAMBA) and the Bonn Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals. Migratory species are considered to comprise MNES and are protected under the EPBC Act.

There are 64 Migratory species known or predicted to occur within the Lower Hunter region (Appendix B). Of particular importance to Migratory species within the region are the following areas:

Newcastle LGA: Hunter River estuary– this area is supports high number of migratory wading birds Kooragang, Ash

Island and Hexham Swamp.

Port Stephens LGA: estuarine habitats sand dunes in Stockton Bight – regularly used by small migratory waders for roosting.

Lake Macquarie LGA: estuarine habitats.

5.1.3 Wetlands of international importance

RAMSAR International Significance Wetlands are listed under the RAMSAR convention due to their high conservation value for wetland species. This listing of significant wetlands aims to maintain their ecological character and to plan their sustainable use. Two wetlands of international importance occur within the Lower Hunter region:

the Hunter Estuary Wetlands, within the Newcastle LGA Myall Lakes, within the Port Stephens LGA Environment Australia 2001a).

5.1.4 World Heritage and National Heritage

The Greater Blue Mountains was inscribed on the World Heritage list in 2000 and was included in the National Heritage list in 2007. Yengo National Park in the south western section of the Cessnock LGA forms part of the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area listing.

5.2 Wildlife corridorsWildlife corridors can be defined as ‘retained and/or restored systems of (linear) habitat which, at a minimum enhances connectivity of wildlife populations and may help them overcome the main consequences of habitat fragmentation’ (Wilson & Lindenmayer 1995). Wildlife corridors comprised of remnant vegetation within the Lower Hunter region, are of high conservation value.

The National Wildlife Corridors Plan (Department of Sustainability Environment Water Population and Communities Department of Sustainability Environment Water Population and Communities 2012) supports



the development of a network of wildlife corridors across the continent at a range of scales, national, regional and local-scale by:

identifying National Wildlife Corridors to create major landscape links enhancing existing major corridor initiatives

supporting local- and regional-scale corridor initiatives.

Wildlife corridors, such as those within the Lower Hunter region, provide ecological functions at a variety of spatial and temporal scales from daily foraging movements of individuals, to broad-scale genetic gradients across biogeographical regions. The Lower Hunter Regional Strategy (NSW Department of Planning 2006) identifies a key green corridor linking large vegetated areas allowing the movement and dispersal of biodiversity within the region. This corridor links the Watagans and Yengo National Parks with the coastal plains of the Tomago Sand beds, Stockton Bight and Port Stephens. The sections of this green corridor and the conservation values within each are outlined below:

south-western section links the ranges and the wetlands middle section contains koala habitat, heath and vulnerable aquifers that supply drinking water to the

region north-eastern section contains wetlands and lowland coastal forests, fringing the shores of Port

Stephens and containing the surface water catchment for Grahamstown Dam.

Key Habitats and Corridors have also been mapped within northern NSW to provide a framework of key fauna habitats and linking habitat corridors (Scotts 2001). These form a network across the region.

The Landscape Conservation Strategy developed as part of the Cessnock Biodiversity Management Plan (Office of Environment and Heritage 2011) has identified a number of HPCA that are predominantly located in the landscape conservation corridors listed below:

Bow Wow corridor Molly Morgan corridor Mount View corridor Ellalong corridor National Park corridor Richmond Vale corridor.




Figure 5.6 Conservation values of the region



6. High priority conservation areas for TECs

This project has identified areas of Threatened Ecological Communities of high conservation value within the Lower Hunter region. High Priority Conservation Areas were identified through the modelling of key parameters including:

patch size- larger patch size generally being of better condition and more resilient connectivity to existing reserves occurrence within wildlife corridor presence of EPBC Act – listed species.

This modelling was based on the parameters and weighting outlined in Section 2.2.4 and the conservation values outlined in Section 5 and mapped in Figure 5.6.

Through this process a number of High Priority Conservation Areas for Threatened Ecological Communities were identified within the Lower Hunter region (Table 6.12 and Figure 6.7). These generally corresponded to those high priority conservation areas identified during the expert workshop.

Due to the highly fragmented and isolated nature of the remnant vegetation within the Lower Hunter it is important that the remaining wildlife corridors are conserved to ensure connectivity between remnants is retained. In the case of Littoral Rainforest, which now only occurs as a few small isolated remnants, connectivity is virtually non–existent and all remnants require protection. Buffer zones should also be included for the High Priority Conservation Areas to reduce edge and barrier effects. Including buffer zones within the conservation areas will provide the core habitat protection against the establishment and spread of weeds species and predation of pest fauna species. In particular Threatened Ecological Communities, such as the Lowland Subtropical Rainforest and Littoral Rainforest and Coastal Vine Thickets of Eastern Australia, should include a buffer due to their susceptibility to invasive species and specific habitat requirements that are essential for their survival. Buffers may include any remnant vegetation outside of existing reserves, within private land or that located within road reserves.

High Priority Conservation Areas have been identified as priority areas for conservation of Threatened Ecological Communities in the region and should be preserved and managed in order to maintain and improve (through rehabilitation and revegetation) the biodiversity values within the Lower Hunter region. Conservation efforts will be more efficient and effective if they are concentrated in these High Priority Conservation Areas.



Table 6.12 Areas of Threatened Ecological Communities of high conservation areas within the Lower Hunter region

Threatened Ecological Community

Parameters used to identify High Priority Conservation Areas

High Priority Conservation

Area

Connectivity to nature reserves

Threatened flora habitat

Threatened fauna habitat

Patch size Habitat connectivity

Identified in expert workshop

Additional notes

Lowland Rainforest of Subtropical Australia

N Vegetation occurs adjacent to and forms part of Watagans National Park

Yes Yes Large patch size

Occurs within the Lower Hunter Regional Green Corridor

No

M No Yes, including Callistemon shiressii, Eucalyptus fergusonii ssp. dorsiventralis, acrozamia flexuosa.

Yes, including spotted-tail quoll, Long-nosed Potoroo, Giant Barred Frog

Moderate Is within the Bow Wow Corridor

Links Heaton and Aberdare State Forests

Yes Bow Wow Gorge is listed on the Register of the National Estate due to its scientific significance: the type locality for five to six Permian fossil species and contains congested masses of marine fossils and stalactites

Littoral Rainforest All areas of Littoral

Rainforest

P

(see Figure 3.1 for detailed mapping)

No Not known. Provides potential habitat for a range of species (see Appendix B)

Not known. Provides potential habitat for a range of species (see Appendix B)

Small Areas within Port Stephens LGA area within the Lower Hunter Regional Green Corridor

Yes Only isolated, narrow, restricted remnants of Littoral Rainforest remaining within the region

Best examples are found at Glenrock Conservation Area, Scobies, Green Point and Wallarah Peninsula






Area






Additional notes

Subtropical and temperate coastal saltmarsh

L Contains and is in proximity to Hunter Estuary National Park

Yes, Euphrasia arguta

Yes, specifically migratory wading birds

Large Forms part of Lower Hunter Regional Corridor

Yes RAMSAR listed, specifically due to their triggering RAMSAR threshold numbers for migratory wading birds

Identified in expert workshop as high priority

Hunter River estuary includes: Kooragang Island, Ash Island

C Yes, is adjacent to and forms part of Worimi Nature Reserve

Not known Yes, important habitat for migratory species

Large Forms part of the Lower Hunter Regional Corridor

Yes

F Yes, is adjacent to and forms part of Tilligery Nature Reserve

Not known Yes, important habitat for migratory species

Large Forms part of the Lower Hunter Regional

Yes

B Yes, in proximity to Karuah National Park

Not known Not known Moderate Corridor No






Area






Additional notes

Hinterland Sand Flats Forest and Woodland of the Sydney Basin Bioregion

and

Hunter Valley Remnant Woodlands and Open Forests

J Occurs in proximity to Werakata National Park

Yes, including Grevillea parviflora ssp parviflora, Acacia bynoeana, Eucalyptus glaucina, Eucalytpus parramattensis ssp decadens, Rutidosis heterogama

Yes, including, Swift Parrot, Regent Honeyeater, Koala, Grey-headed Flying-fox

Large Forms part of the Richmond Vale Corridor

Yes

H Yes, is adjacent to and forms part of Werakata National Park

Yes, including Grevillea parviflora ssp parviflora, Acacia bynoeana, Eucalyptus glaucina, Eucalytpus parramattensis ssp decadens, Rutidosis heterogama

Yes, including Swift Parrot, Regent Honeyeater, Koala, Grey-headed Flying-fox

Large Forms part of the Lower Hunter Regional Corridor

Yes

Hunter Valley Remnant Woodlands and Open Forests

A No Yes, Critically endangered Persoonia pauciflora known from only this location. Also, Macrozamia flexuosa

Yes, including Southern Bent-wing Bat, Swift Parrot

Large Occurs within Molly Morgan Corridor

Yes






Area






Additional notes

E No Not known Yes, including Spotted-tail Quoll, Southern Bent-wing Bat

Large No No

D No Yes, including Macrozamia flexuosa

Yes, including Southern Bent-wing Bat

Large No No

I Yes, connected to Werakata

Yes, including Macrozamia flexuosa

Yes, including Helmeted Honeyeater, Grey-headed Flying-fox

Large Yes, occurs within National Park Corridor

No

O Yes, Connected to Watagan National Park

Yes, including Prostanthera cineolifera

Yes, including Regent Honeyeater, Swift Parrot, Helmeted Honeyeater, Grey-headed Flying-fox

Large No No

K Connected to Awaba State Forest

Not known Yes, including Helmeted Honeyeater, Grey-headed Flying-fox

Large Yes, forms No




Figure 6.7 High priority conservation areas



7. Key threatening processesKey Threatening Processes (KTPs) are processes that threaten or potentially threaten the survival and/or establishment of biodiversity. The Hunter Valley region is subject to a number of KTPs listed under the EPBC Act that have the potential to impact threatened biodiversity (Table 7.13). The most threatening of these processes is ‘Land Clearance’ which is contributing to habitat loss and fragmentation directly impacting biodiversity. Land clearance and other KTPs can lead to consequences such as decreases in population size, species diversity, and area of occupancy for threatened species and the resilience of species. Although not listed as a KTP, infection and spread of Myrtle Rust is an emerging threat identified during the expert workshop with potentially catastrophic consequences within the region.

KTPs impact biodiversity with the potential to reduce or even completely remove entire species, populations or communities. The high diversity and distinct fauna, flora, ecological communities and ecosystems within the Cessnock, Newcastle, Port Stephens, Lake Macquarie and Maitland LGAs are susceptible to a number of these KTPs. In order to conserve the remnant biodiversity within the LGAs it is important that these KTPs are managed, in particular land clearance.

Table 7.13 EPBC Act - listed Key Threatening Processes (KTPs)

Priority EPBC KTPs Importance within region

Recommendations

Highest Land clearance Primary threat within region

Conservation – conserve areas that contain high biodiversity conservation value. Ensure these areas are protected in reserves, national parks or under legislation.

Rehabilitation programs – rehabilitate and revegetate areas that provide habitat for threatened species. Increase the quality of remaining habitat and revegetate areas that have been removed.

Threatened biodiversity – revise and assess species and ecological communities within the region for listing under the EPBC Act.

Community awareness – educate the community on the impacts associated with land clearing. Involve them in the rehabilitation programs such as Bushcare and Landcare (Tischendorf & Fahrig 2000).

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

Weed invasion is second greatest threat within the region, particularly at the interface of urban areas and native vegetation.

Priority areas – identify areas that would best benefit from coordinated weed control, specifically in areas with high biodiversity conservation value (for example areas that contain threatened species susceptible to weeds). Focus weed control budgets in these areas that are likely to be most effective, cost-efficient and protect threatened biodiversity.as above.

Noxious weeds – identify weeds of greatest concern in the region. Generate management plan to eradicate or limit the spread of these species.

Research – determine the significance of invasion of escaped garden and aquatic plants. Identify the level of control required to manage these such as chemical, manual, biological and/or mechanical controls.

Community awareness – educate community of the impacts and weed controls associated with escaped garden and aquatic plants (With 2004).




Recommendations

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

Although effects not currently known, this has potentially drastic, broadscale impacts, particularly for saltmarsh and littoral rainforest.

Energy efficiency – promote and educate the community to reduce the use of vehicles and machinery that emit large volumes of greenhouse gases.

Threatened species – adaptive requirements of species likely to be affected should be given a greater priority (Gray & Macnish 1985).

Moderate Competition and land degradation by rabbits

Not a major issue in the region, however, main threat to native vegetation as vectors to weeds

Priority areas – identify areas that would best benefit from coordinated rabbit control, specifically in areas with high biodiversity conservation value (for example areas that contain threatened species susceptible to rabbits). Focus rabbit control budgets in these areas that are likely to be most effective, cost-efficient and protect threatened biodiversity.

Research – conduct research on the benefits of different rabbit control methods and the effects rabbit control has for example on threatened species and communities.

Community involvement – educate the community and relevant landowners of rabbit control methods. Coordinate and integrated management between key groups.

Monitoring – undertake monitoring of strategies used to identify native species recovery and effectiveness of strategies. Modify management strategies according to results (Orell & Morris 1994).

Moderate Predation by European red fox

Not a major issue in the region, however, in coastal areas foxes are known to predate on coastal birds and also act as weed vectors, particularly asparagus weed

Priority areas – identify areas that would best benefit from coordinated fox control, specifically in areas with high biodiversity conservation value (for example areas that contain threatened species susceptible to foxes). Focus fox control budgets in these areas that are likely to be most effective, cost-efficient and protect threatened biodiversity.

Research – conduct research on the most cost-effective and effective methods in controlling foxes for example on threatened species and communities and within different habitat types.

Community involvement – educate the community and relevant landowners of fox control methods. Coordinate and integrated management between key groups.

Monitoring – undertake monitoring of strategies used to identify native species recovery and effectiveness of strategies. Modify management strategies according to results. (Thompson McRobert Edgeloe et al. 2009)

Low Predation by feral cats

Largely unknown in region, however predation by domestic cats likely to occur particularly at interface of urban and conservation areas.

The following recommendations are provided in the case that there is an increase in this KTP.

Priority areas – identify areas that would best benefit from coordinated feral cat control, specifically in areas with high biodiversity conservation value (for example areas that contain threatened species susceptible to cats). Focus cat control budgets in these areas that are likely to be most effective, cost-efficient and protect threatened biodiversity.

Strategies – undertake appropriate management strategies in the focus areas:

Sustained management: controls implemented on a continual basis; short term management to reduce impacts to an acceptable level.




Recommendations

Intermittent management: controls implemented during critical periods of the year when damage is greatest.

Experimental control: using control methods as research experiments.

Research – conduct research on management techniques most suitable for feral cat eradication (best method of controlling cats), impacts feral cats on native species.

Community involvement – educate the community and relevant landowners of fox control methods. Coordinate and integrated management between key groups.

Monitoring – undertake monitoring of strategies used to identify native species recovery and effectiveness of strategies. Modify management strategies according to results (Thompson McRobert Edgeloe et al. 2009).

Low Injury and fatality to vertebrate marine life caused by ingestion of, or entanglement in, harmful marine debris

Largely unknown in region, however injuries and fatality to marine life likely to occur within the coastal boundaries


Research – conduct appropriate research including degradable pathways of synthetic debris in the marine environment. Monitor and investigate marine life harmed and killed by marine debris. Coordinate abatement strategies and recovery plans.

Waste management – promote best practise waste management strategies on land and sea and implement appropriate measures for waste management.

Community involvements – raise public awareness and improve education campaigns about the prevention of littering on land and at sea.

Evaluation – conduct an independent review of the plan’s effectiveness in accordance with the EPBC Act. Review should involve all key stakeholders and provide recommendations to revise the plan.

Low Predation, Habitat Degradation, Competition and Disease Transmission by Feral Pigs

Largely unknown in region


Research – identify the distribution of feral pigs within the region and key management areas. These would include areas with high conservation value and areas free of or contain low numbers of feral pigs.

Collaborate current feral pig management with stakeholders and assess the need for development of more effective and humane techniques and strategies to manage feral pigs.

Management plans and natural resource planning – identify key concerns, establish protocols and use available funding to improve consistency and coordination of management.

Education – assess and update existing information regarding feral pigs, such as impacts and best management techniques. Prepare and distribute appropriate material to inform key groups concerned.

Monitoring – undertake monitoring of strategies used to identify native species recovery and effectiveness of strategies. Modify management strategies according to results (Dominelli 2000).




Recommendations

Low Competition and land degradation by unmanaged goats



Research – determine the significance of unmanaged goat competition and land degradation. Identify the level of control required to manage.

Control strategies – develop and implement control strategies to manage goats such as:

Localised control: localised eradication in specific areas of high conservation value; long term management.

Sustained management: controls implemented on a continual basis; short term management to reduce impacts to an acceptable level.

Intermittent management: controls implemented during critical periods of the year when damage is greatest.

Buffer zones: buffer zones developed with aid of all landowners to reduce or stop reinvasion of unmanaged goats in small areas.

Adaptive management: experimental control techniques used within a regional scale to integrate goat control with other biodiversity conservation programs.

Monitoring – undertake monitoring of strategies used to identify native species recovery and effectiveness of strategies. Modify management strategies according to results. (Environmental Risk Solutions 2010)

Low Infection of amphibians with chytrid fungus resulting in chytridiomycosis



Research – identify any infections. If present, monitor populations to gain a greater understanding of distribution and incidences of the fungus and to identify outbreaks.

Focus species – identify key threatened species to undertake management including restocking and treatment.

Education – educate community and promote research programs and community programs to aid in the management.

On-line database – developed and maintained to provide the latest data on where the disease has been observed for interested parties. (Department of the Environment and Heritage 2006)

Low Psittacine Circoviral (beak and feather ) Disease affecting endangered psittacine species



Education – education and materials are required for field workers and wildlife managers to detect the presence of the disease in the Cessnock LGA and priority psittacine species. This will allow for the true impact of the disease, if any, to be identified.

Protocols – develop and implement correct handling, post-mortem, quarantine and transport of psittacine infected individuals.

On-line database – develop and maintain an on-line database to provide the latest data on where the disease has been observed for interested parties (Department of the Environment and Heritage 2005).




Recommendations

Low The reduction in the biodiversity of Australian native fauna and flora due to the red imported fire ant, Solenopsis invicta (fire ant)



Research – identify areas that are or are likely to be affected by fire ants, specifically areas that have threatened biodiversity susceptible to fire ants.

Control Strategies – identify areas that most require management and select control strategies most effective to eradicate (Serena & Soderquist 1995).

Low Dieback caused by the root-rot fungus (Phytophthora cinnamomi)


Quarantine – monitor plant material entering NSW that has the potential to be infected by the pathogen, specifically in areas with high biodiversity and conservation value. Environment Australia 2001b)

Low The biological effects, including lethal toxic ingestion, caused by Cane Toads (Bufo marinus)

Cane toads uncommon in region.


Research – conduct research into control methods (for example biological) that will eradicate the Cane Toad and reduce their rapid spread. (Department of Environment and Resource Management 2011)

N/A Invasion of northern Australia by Gamba Grass and other introduced grasses

N/A Not applicable. Outside Lower Hunter region

N/A Incidental catch (or bycatch) of seabirds during oceanic longline fishing operations


N/A Incidental catch (bycatch) of Sea Turtle during coastal otter-trawling operations within Australian waters north of 28 degrees South


N/A Predation by exotic rats on Australian offshore islands of less than 1,000 km2 (100,000 ha)


N/A Loss of biodiversity and ecosystem integrity following invasion by the Yellow Crazy Ant (Anoplolepis gracilipes) on Christmas Island, Indian Ocean




8. Conclusions and recommendations

This project mapped Commonwealth EPBC Act - listed and nominated ecological communities (Threatened Ecological Communities) and identified High Priority Conservation Areas within the Lower Hunter region (Cessnock, Newcastle, Port Stephen, Lake Macquarie and Maitland LGAs).

Six Threatened Ecological Communities were assessed and mapped:

White Box-Yellow Box-Blakely’s Red Gum Grassy Woodland and Derived Native Grassland – listed as Critically Endangered. This community was determined as unlikely to occur within the Lower Hunter region.

Littoral Rainforest and Coastal Vine Thickets of Eastern Australia – listed as Critically Endangered. This community was found to occur in small patches within 2km of the coast and cover 56 ha.

Lowland Rainforest of Subtropical Australia – listed as Critically Endangered. This community was found to occur predominantly along the border of Lake Macquarie and Cessnock LGAs and cover 1760 ha.

Subtropical and temperate coastal saltmarsh – nominated for listing. This community was mapped as occurring in estuarine areas of the Hunter River and wetlands and floodplains along the coast and covers 6427 ha.

Hinterland Sand Flats Forest and Woodland of the Sydney Basin Bioregion – nominated for listing. Based on the current nomination and community definition this community is likely to be concentrated in the Cessnock – Kurri Kurri region and cover approximately 4006 ha.

Hunter Valley Remnant Open Forests and Woodlands – nominated for listing. Based on the current nomination and broad community definition this community is likely to cover approximately 60,568 ha of the region.

For the latter two communities, the assessment of nomination and listing process is in the early stages and as such the mapping provided is preliminary and may change significantly as the community definition changes.

The mapping of the Threatened Ecological Communities is based on desktop review of available information and is strongly reliant on the description of the communities provided in the listing advice or nomination form. The mapping is indicative of where each community is likely to occur based on available information and each site would need to be ground truthed to see that the vegetation meets the description and condition thresholds in the listing/conservation advice for the Threatened Ecological Community.

Threatened species were assessed for their likelihood to occur within the Lower Hunter region and Threatened Ecological Communities based on species records and known habitat requirements. Based on this assessment, 111 species are known to occur or are predicted as likely to occur within the study area. The Threatened Ecological Communities in which they are known or predicted to occur were identified.

High priority conservation areas for Threatened Ecological Communities within the region were modelled and mapped based on a range of parameters including patch size, threatened biodiversity and connectivity. Weightings were applied to each parameter to ensure the most important parameters were modelled as higher priority in the mapping process. Other areas of high conservation priority were identified in existing conservation plans for the region and through the expert workshop and consultation with key stakeholders. Specific conservation areas are identified within the report. Broadly, these focus on larger areas of good



condition remnants of EPBC Act – listed communities that maintain corridors and/or support threatened or migratory species listed under the EPBC Act.

The identified High Priority Conservation Areas should be considered for preservation and appropriate management to maintain and improve biodiversity values in the region, particularly in relation to Threatened Ecological Communities. Conservation efforts would be more efficient and effective if they are concentrated in these High Priority Conservation Areas.

Key Threatening Processes within the Lower Hunter region were identified, the principal threat being land clearance which is contributing to habitat loss and fragmentation directly impacting biodiversity. The highest priority threats in the region are:

Land clearance – key recommendations are to:

minimise further clearing of native vegetation in the region where possible, particularly within High Priority Conservation Areas

ensure that listings under the EPBC Act of species and ecological communities are regularly assessed and revised to take into consideration ongoing land clearance

educate the community on the impacts associated with land clearing. Involve the community in the rehabilitation programs such as Bushcare and Landcare

provide long-term protection for suitable areas of native vegetation within the region, such as through new national parks or under legislation.

Loss and degradation of native plant and animal habitat by invasion of escaped garden plants, including aquatic plants – key recommendations are to:

identify areas that would best benefit from coordinated weed control with reference to High Priority Conservation Areas

identify weeds of greatest concern in the region and generate management plan to eradicate or limit the spread of these species

undertake research to identify significance of invasion and control methods

educate community of the impacts and weed controls associated with escaped garden and aquatic plants.

Loss of climatic habitat caused by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases – key recommendations are to:

promote and educate the community in energy efficiency

prioritise adaptive requirements of species.

As a result of this study, it is recommended that:

Refinement of this mapping be undertaken as resources allow including:

undertaking floristic analysis and ground truthing of mapping to verify this desk top based assessment

undertaking additional review and correlation of existing vegetation mapping projects which were not available at time of this assessment, including mapping of:

– Wollemi conservation lands – Sugarloaf State Conservation Area – Singleton army base – Themeda Coastline Mapping - Bushland Inventory Quadrats, Creekline Vegetation Surveys

(Newcastle LGA)



– Coal and Allied areas

– Mapping the habitats of NSW estuaries (Creese et al. 2009).

The definition of Hunter Valley Remnant Woodlands and Open Forests be refined to provide a more specific floristic or regional definition as the description in the nomination is very broad and is likely to correspond to a range of communities including widespread communities located outside the region.

Revise the High Priority Conservation Areas based on final definitions of Threatened Ecological Communities, particularly the Hunter Valley Remnant Woodland and Open Forests.

Although not listed as a KTP, infection and spread of Myrtle Rust is an emerging threat with potentially catastrophic consequences within the region. Consideration should be given to the listing of spread and infection of Myrtle Rust as a Key Threatening Process.

The mapping of Threatened Ecological Communities and High Priority Conservation Areas be considered for regional planning in the Lower Hunter.

This assessment was a desk-based review of available information with input from key stakeholders. This mapping provides a sound baseline assessment for future refinement and will aid in filling the gaps of knowledge of the distribution of Threatened Ecological Communities within the Lower Hunter region. Through the identification and mapping of Threatened Ecological Communities and High Priority Conservation Areas, this project also provides a suitable resource to support regional sustainability planning, particularly the preparation of the Lower Hunter Regional Strategy and Regional Conservational Plan.



ReferencesBell, S 1998, Wollemi National Park vegetation survey. A fire management document. Volumes 1 & 2. Eastcoast Flora Survey. Report to NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service, Upper Hunter District.

Bell S 1998, Woolemi National Park Vegetation Survey- A Fire Management Document, NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service Upper Hunter District, Hunter Valley.

Bell S 2004, 'Vegetation of Werakata National Park, Hunter Valley, New South Wales', Cunninghamia, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 331-47.

Bell S 2006, Glenrock State Recreation Area and Awabakal Nature Reserve Vegetation Survey.

Bell S 2009, 'Vegetation and floristics of Columbey National Park, lower Hunter Valley, New South Wales', Cunninghamia, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 241-75.

Bell S & Driscoll C 2006a, Vegetation mapping of Watagans National Park and Jilliby State Conservation Area Parks and Wildlife Division and Department of Environment and Conservation.

Bell S & Driscoll C 2006b, Vegetation of the Tomago and Tomaree Sandbeds, Port Stephens, New South Wales. Management of Groundwater Ecosytems. Part 1-2., Eastcoast Flora Survey, September 2006, Unpublished report to Hunter Water.

Bell S & Driscoll C 2007, Vegetation of the Cessnock-Kurri Region, Cessnock LGA, New South Wales: Survey, Classification & Mapping, Unpublished report to the Department of Environment & Climate Change.

Bell S & Driscoll C 2012, Vegetation mapping of Lake Macquarie LGA: Stages 1-3, Lake Macquarie City Council.

Bell S, Vollmer J & Gellie N 1993, Yengo National Park and Parr State Conservation Area Vegetation Survey for use in fire management.

'Blue Gum Hills Vegetation', 1997.

Creese, RG, Glasby, TM, West, G & Gallen, CR 2009, Mapping the habitats of NSW estuaries, Report to the Hunter Central Rivers Catchment Management Authority. HCRCMA project no. HCR 07_458.

Department of Environment & Climate Change 2008, The Native Vegetation of Yengo and Parr Reserves and Surrounds, Department of Environment and Climate Change, Hurstville, NSW.

Department of Environment and Conservation 2005, White Box Yellow Box Blakely's Red Gum Woodland - profile, Department of Environment and Conservation, viewed 9 August 2011, <http://www.threatenedspecies.environment.nsw.gov.au/tsprofile/profile.aspx?id=10837>.

Department of Environment and Resource Management 2011, Bell’s Turtle, Department of Environment and Resource Management, viewed 21/12 2011.

Department of Primary Industries 2007, Current management and control options for Chilean needle grass (Nasella neesiana) in Australia, State Government of Victoria,

Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities 2012, National Wildlife Corridors Plan: A framework for landscape-scale conservation, Department of Sustainability Environment Water Population and Communities, Canberra.



Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities 2013a, Protected Matters Search Tool

Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities 2013b, Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of Sustainability Environment Water Population and Communities, viewed 15 March 2013, <http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/sprat.pl>.

Department of the Environment and Heritage 2005, Threat abatement plan for beak and feather disease affecting endangered Psittacine species, Natural Heritage Trust and the Department of the Environment and Heritage, Canberra.

Department of the Environment and Heritage 2006, Threat Abatement Plan for infection of amphibians with chytrid fungus resulting in chytridiomycosis Department of Environment and Heritage, viewed 15 March 2013, <http://www.deh.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/tap/chytrid/index.html>.

Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts 2009a, EPBC Act Policy Statement 1.1: Significant impact guidelines - matters of national environmental significance, Department of the Environment Water Heritage and the Arts.

Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts 2009b, Littoral Rainforest and Coastal Vine Thickets of Eastern Australia - A nationally threatened ecological community, Canberra.

Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts 2010a, Threatened Ecological Community Nomination Form - for listing or changing the status of an ecological community under the Environment Protection and Biodiveristy Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) - Subtropical and Temperate Coastal Saltmarsh Canberra.

Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts 2010b, Threatened Ecologuical Community nomination Form - for listing or changing the status of an ecological community under the Environemnt Protection and Biodiveristy Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) - Hinterland sand flats and woodlands of the Sydney Basin Bioregion, Canberra,

Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts 2012, Thraetened Ecological Community Nomination Form 2012 Assessment Period - Hunter Valley remnants woodlands/open forests.

Dominelli, S 2000, Distribution, roost requirements and foraging behaviour of the Greater Long-eared Bat (Nyctophilus timoriensis) and the Little Pied Bat (Chalinolobus picatus) in the Bookmark Biosphere Reserve, Unpublished report, Bookmark Biosphere Trust, South Australia,

Environment Australia 2001a, A directory of important wetlands in Australia third edition, Environment Australia, Canberra.

Environment Australia 2001b, Threat Abatement Plan for Dieback Caused by the Root-rot Fungus Phytophthora cinnamomi, Department of Environment and Heritage, Canberra.

Environmental Risk Solutions 2010, Kemerton Industrial Park Quantitative Risk Assessment, Environmental Risk Solutions, Applecross.

Gray, HJ & Macnish, SE 1985, Land Management Field Manual Wandoan District, Queensland Department of Primary Industries.

Hill L 2003, The Natural Vegetation of the Maitland LGA, New South Wales, Maitland.

Hunter J & Alexander J 2000, Vegetation and Floristics of Myall Lakes National Park.



James, W 2007, Kemerton Strategy Plan Landscape Assessment Study - final report to Landcorp William James Landscape Architect, Margaret River, WA.

Lower Hunter and Central Coast Regional Environmental Management Strategy 2003a, Lower Hunter and Central Coast Regional Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Technical Report 2003, Digital Aerial Photo Interpretation and Updated Extant Vegetation Community Map, Lower Hunter and Central Coast Regional Environmental Management Strategy, Callaghan, NSW.

Lower Hunter and Central Coast Regional Environmental Management Strategy 2003b, Lower Hunter Central Coast Extant Vegetation Community Map, Lower Hunter and Central Coast Regional Environmental Management Strategy, Thornton.

NSW Department of Planning 2006, Lower Hunter Regional Strategy, NSW Department of Planning, Sydney.

Office of Environment and Heritage 2011, Cessnock Biodiversity Management Plan.

Office of Environment and Heritage 2013a, 'Bionet Atlas of NSW Wildlife website'.

Office of Environment and Heritage 2013b, 'Threatened species, populations and ecological communities of NSW online database'.

Orell, P & Morris, K 1994, Chuditch Recovery Plan 1992-2001. [Online], WA Government Department of Conservation and Land Management, Wanneroo.

Royal Botanic Gardens 2013, 'PlantNet - The Plant Information Network System of Botanic Gardens Trust (version 2.0)'.

Scotts, D 2001, Key habitats and corridors for fauna of north-east NSW limitations and decision rules inherent within the mapping, NPWS, Coffs Harbour.

Serena, M & Soderquist, TR 1995, 'Western quoll', in R Strahan (ed.), The Mammals of Australia, Reed New Holland, Sydney, pp. 62-4.

Sivertsen, D, Roff, A, Somerville, M, Thonell, J & Denholm, B 2011, Greater Hunter Native Vegetation Mapping Geobase Guide (Version 4.0), Internal report for the Office of Environment and Heritage, Department of Premier and Cabinet, Sydney, Australia.

Thompson McRobert Edgeloe, Coffey Environments & William James Landscape Architects 2009, Kemerton Industrial Park Strategy Plan Report on Submissions, Prepared for LandCorp and the Department of State Development.

Threatened Species Scientific Commitee 2011, Commonwealth Listing Advice on Lowland Rainforest of Suptropical Australia, Canberra.

Tischendorf, L & Fahrig, L 2000, 'How should we measure landscape connectivity?', Landscape Ecology, vol. 15, pp. 633-41.

Vesk, PA & Mac Nally, R 2006, 'The clock is ticking--Revegetation and habitat for birds and arboreal mammals in rural landscapes of southern Australia', Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, vol. 112, no. 4, pp. 356-66.

Wilson, A & Lindenmayer, DB 1995, Wildlife Corridors and the Conservation of Biodiversity: A Review., National Corridors of Green Program, Green Australia Ltd., Canberra.



With, KA 2004, 'Metapopulation dynamics: perspectives from landscape ecology', in I Hanski & O Gaggiotti (eds), Ecology, Genetics and Evolution of Metapopulations, Elsevier, San Diego, pp. 23-44.



Appendix ACorrelation assessment for EPBC Act communities

A1. Correlation assessment of EPBC Act communities

The correlation assessment for each of the Threatened Ecological Communities predicted to occur within the region is provided below.

A1.1 White Box–Yellow Box-Blakely’s Red Gum Grassy Woodland and Derived Native Grassland

The key identifying characteristics of this community are presented in Table A.1. These characteristics were then used to correlate map units from existing vegetation mapping projects (Table A.2).

Table A.1 White Box–Yellow Box-Blakely’s Red Gum Grassy Woodland and Derived Native Grassland key identifying characteristics

Identifying characteristics White Box-Yellow Box- Blakely’s Red Gum Grassy Woodland and Derived Native Grassland

Size

(Minimum patch size to form the community)

If the community has a predominantly native understorey the patch has to be 0.1 ha.

If the community does not have a predominantly native understorey the patch has to be 2.0 ha.

Dominant canopy species Eucalyptus albens (White Box), E. melliodora (Yellow Box) or E. blakelyi (Blakely’s Red Gum).

Dominant shrub layer species Acacia implexa, Acacia paradoxa, Cassinia quinquefaria, Dodonaea viscosa, Exocarpus cupressiformis and Jacksonia scorparia.

Dominant groundcover species Generally grasses and herbaceous species characterise the ground layer including Themeda australis, Poa sieberiana, Austrostipa aristiglumis, Dianella revoltua, Aristida ramosa, Asperula conferta and Brunoniella australis.

Vegetation structure Occurs as either woodland or derived grassland (a grassy woodland from which the trees have been removed). The community has a sparse, scattered shrub layer and ground layer comprised of native tussock grasses and herbs.

Parsons Brinckerhoff | 2117361B-ECO-REP-001 RevC A-1


Identifying characteristics White Box-Yellow Box- Blakely’s Red Gum Grassy Woodland and Derived Native Grassland

Condition criteria Areas of vegetation that from part of the listed EEC must contain at least one of the dominant tree species, be equal to or greater than 0.1 ha and have either:

an intact tree layer and a predominantly native ground layer; or an intact native ground layer with a high diversity of native plants species but no remaining tree layer.

A patch with a continuous shrub layer of more than 30% is no longer considered part of a grassy woodland and is excluded from the community.

Soil substrate Occurs on relatively fertile soils.

Landscape (e.g. floodplain) Occurs on tablelands and western slopes of NSW at altitudes between 170-1200 m.

Other If a patch of vegetation contains less than 12 or more native understorey species, there must at least be one important species. The patch must also be greater than 2 ha and have an average of 20 or more mature trees per hectare or have natural regeneration of the dominant overstorey eucalypts.

Threatened species habitat Superb Parrots, Regent honeyeaters, Squirrel Gliders

A-2 Parsons Brinckerhoff | 2117361B-ECO-REP-001 RevC


Table A.2 Correlation assessment of map units in existing mapping projects to White Box-Yellow Box-Blakely’s Red Gum Grassy Woodland and Derived Native Grassland

Map unit assessed Assessment of consistency against key identifying characteristics Expert advice

Inclusion in TEC

Mapping project

Map unit

Community name

Dominant species

Vegetation structure

Soil Substrate

Landscape

GHM (Sivertsen et al. 2011)

MU176 White Box grassy woodland on basalts of the Hunter and Liverpool Ranges

Yes. Likely to be consistent



Occurs on tablelands

Not within study area

No. Although likely to be consistent, this community does not occur within the study area


MU177 Yellow Box grassy woodland on basalt soils of the upper Hunter








MU175 Yellow Box Rough-barked Apple grassy woodland of the upper Hunter and Liverpool ranges







Wollemi National Park (Bell 1998)

W21 Dry Basalt Cap Woodland

No. Not consistent with listing


Yes, occurs on basalt caps

Not consistent with listing

Not consistent with TEC

No. Not consistent with TEC

Wollemi National Park (Bell 1998)

F18 Dry Basalt Diatreme Forest

No. Not consistent with listing


Yes, occurs on basalt caps

Not consistent with listing



Note: Size of community was assessed during the mapping process with polygons smaller than 0.1 ha filtered out.



A1.2 Littoral RainforestThe key identifying characteristics of this community are presented in Table A.3. These characteristics were then used to correlate map units from existing vegetation mapping projects (Table A.4).

Table A.3 Key identifying characteristics of Littoral Rainforest and Coastal Vine Thickets of Eastern Australia

Identifying characteristics Littoral Rainforest and Coastal Vine Thickets of Eastern Australia

Size


Vegetation patch must be greater than 0.1 ha.

Dominant canopy species Large diversity of species dependant on location may include Eugenia reinwarditana, Ficus sp. and Acacia sp. This community typically has tall trees as part of its canopy but not always and may include species including Araucaria, Banksias or Eucalypts.

Dominant shrub layer species Pittosporum revolutum, Livistona australis, Micromelum minutum and Morinda jasminoides.

Dominant groundcover species Doodia aspera, Asplenium australasicum, Stephonia japonica, Smilax australis, Eustrephus latifolius and Hibbertia scandens.

Vegetation structure The vegetation type appears to be a complex of rainforest and vine thickets with a structurally diverse range of native trees, shrubs, vines and ground layers. This community generally has a closed canopy but may be more open in exposed situations or as a result of natural disturbances (such as tree falls and storms).

Condition criteria Areas of vegetation must be equal to or greater than 0.1 ha in size.

The cover of transformer weed species must be 70% or less as they have the potential to alter the function and structure of the community. This threshold recognises the resilience and recoverability of the community.

At least 25% of the native plant species present within the vegetation must occur on the indicative plant Species List for the associated bioregion of this community; or

At least 30% of the canopy cover in the patch must be from one or more of the rainforest canopy species (trees or shrubs) that are on the indicative bioregional plant Species lists excluding Banksia and Eucalyptus species.

Soil substrate Is not associated with any particular soil type however occurs on a variety of landforms including sand dunes and headlands.

Landscape (e.g. floodplain) Occurs on coastal headlands, dunes, sea-cliffs or any other places influenced by the sea. Typically the ecological community occurs within two kilometres of the coast or adjacent to a large salt water body, such as an estuary and thus is influenced by the sea.

Other A patch has of vegetation can be excluded from the listed ecological community for being too heavily degraded. If this vegetation is suitably managed and improved to a point that it fits the condition criteria can be regarded as part of the ecological community.



Identifying characteristics Littoral Rainforest and Coastal Vine Thickets of Eastern Australia

Threatened species habitat Southern Cassowary, Grey-headed Flying-fox and Phaius australis.

Table A.4 Correlation assessment of map units in existing mapping projects to Littoral Rainforest and Coastal Vine Thickets of Eastern Australia


Inclusion in TEC

Mapping project

Map unit

Community name

Dominant species


Soil Substrate

Landscape


MU4 Littoral Rainforest Yes. Consistent with listing advice

Yes, consistent with listing advice

Yes. Consistent with listing advice


Consistent with TEC

Yes, consistent with TEC


MU4 Littoral Rainforest Yes. Consistent with listing advice




Consistent with TEC



MU019 Tuckeroo/ Yellow Tulipwood/ Red fruited Olive Plum Littoral Rainforest of the lower North Coast





Consistent with TEC



MU018 Tuckeroo/Lilly Pilly/Coast Banksia littoral Rainforest





Consistent with TEC


Tomago and Tomaree LGA (Bell S & Driscoll C 2006b)

MU14 Nerong Littoral Rainforest





Consistent with TEC





Inclusion in TEC

Mapping project

Map unit

Community name

Dominant species


Soil Substrate

Landscape

Glenrock/awabakal (Bell S 2006)

8 Littoral Rainforest Yes. Consistent with listing advice




Consistent with TEC


Glenrock/awabakal (Bell S 2006)

7 Permian Coastal Gully Forest

Some species consistent


No. Not consistent with listing advice


Not consistent with TEC- mostly dominated by angophora and peppermint


Tomaree (Bell S & Driscoll C 2006b)

1 Depauperate relic rainforest

Some species consistent








A1.3 Lowland Rainforest of Subtropical Australia The key identifying characteristics of this community are presented in Table A.5. These characteristics were then used to correlate map units from existing vegetation mapping projects (Table A.6).

Table A.5 Key identifying characteristics of Lowland Rainforest of Subtropical Australia

Identifying characteristics Lowland Rainforest of Subtropical Australia

Size


Vegetation patch must be greater than 0.1 ha (Condition A and B).

Vegetation patch must be greater than 2.0 ha (Condition C).

Dominant canopy species Large diversity of species including Hoop pine, Ficus sp., Argyrodendron trifoliolatum/Heritiera trifoliolata (White booyong), Castanospermum austral (Black bean), Cryptocarya (White walnut), Dendrocnide excels (Giant stinging tree), Diploglottis australis (native tamarind), Dysoxylum fraserianum (rosewood), Dysoxylum mollissimum (red bean), Elattostachys nervosa (green tamarind), Endiandra pubens (hairy walnut), Flindersia schottiana (bumpy ash, cudgerie, silver ash), Gmelina leichhardtii (white beech), Neolitsea australiensis (bolly gum), Neolitsea dealbata (white bolly gum), Sloanea australis (maiden‟s blush), Sloanea woollsii (yellow carabeen), Toona ciliata (red cedar), and epiphytes such as Platycerium spp. and Asplenium australasicum (bird‟s nest fern).

Can also include sub-emergent Eucalyptus spp. <30%).

Dominant shrub layer species Cordyline stricta (Narrow-leaved palm lily), Linospadix monostachya (Walking Stick palm), Neolitsea dealbata (white bolly gum), Notelaea johnsonii (veinless mock olive), Pittosporum multiflorum (orange thorn), Triunia youngiana (native honey-suckle bush), Wilkiea austroqueenslandica (smooth wilkiea) and Wilkiea huegeliana (veiny wilkiea).

Dominant groundcover species Calamus muelleri, Cissus antarctica, Cissus hypoglauca, Dioscorea transversa, Flagellaria indica, Morinda jasminoides, Pandorea floribunda, Smilax australis, Adiantum hispidulum, Doodia aspera, Lastreopsis decomposita and Lastreopsis marginans.

Vegetation structure Typically a tall (20-30 m) closed forest, often with multiple canopy layers with a discontinuous layer of emergent and a sparse shrub layer.

Condition criteria Three patch types are identified, A, B & C. They are defined as follows: The vegetation must be a remnant evident by the persistence of mature trees from the indicative species list (Condition A), some residual trees and/or evidence of natural regeneration (Condition B) or supplementary plantings that have the structure and quality that is reflective of the community description (Condition C).

Be greater than 0.1 ha (Condition A and B) or greater than 2 ha (Condition C). The emergent/canopy/sub-canopy must be greater than 70%.

Must contain greater than 40 species (Condition A) or 30 species (Condition B and C) of native woody species from the indicative species list.

Vegetation must be greater than 70% (Condition A) or 50% (Condition B and C) native.



Identifying characteristics Lowland Rainforest of Subtropical Australia

Soil substrate Occurs on basalt and alluvial soils, including sand and old or elevated alluvial soils as well as floodplain alluvia. Does also occasionally occur on enriched rhyolitic soils and basaltically enriched metasediments.

Landscape (e.g. floodplain) Generally occurs more than 2km from the coast unlike the ‘Littoral Rainforest and Coastal Vine Thickets of Eastern Australia’ community. Generally occurs at altitudes less than 300 m.

Other Occasionally integrates with ‘Littoral Rainforest and Coastal Vine Thickets of Eastern Australia’. Typically once the canopy is lower than 25% die to coastal or estuarine influences the Littoral Rainforest community typically replaces the Lowland Rainforest Community.

Threatened species habitat Giant Barred Frog and Wompoo Fruit-dove.

Table A.6 Correlation assessment of map units in existing mapping projects to Lowland Rainforest of Subtropical Australia

Map unit assessed Assessment of consistency against key identifying characteristics

Expert advice

Inclusion in TEC

Mapping project

Map unit

Community name

Dominant species


Soil Substrate

Landscape

Cessnock Kurri Kurri (Bell S & Driscoll C 2007)

MU1b Bow Wow Subtropical Rainforest








MU1 Coastal Wet Gully Forest

No, not consistent with listing advice





No, not consistent with TEC












Expert advice

Inclusion in TEC

Mapping project

Map unit

Community name

Dominant species


Soil Substrate

Landscape


MU1a Coastal Warm Temperate- Subtropical Rainforest








MU46a Freshwater Carex Rainforest Sedgeland

No, dominated by Carex and other sedgeland species

No, wetland structure






MU46a Freshwater Carex Rainforest Sedgeland

No, dominated by Carex and other sedgeland species

No, wetland structure






MU1a Coastal Warm Temperate- Subtropical Rainforest
















MU016 Black Booyong/ Giant Stinging Tree/ Rosewood/ Moreton Bay Fig lowland subtropical rainforest of the lower north coast










Expert advice

Inclusion in TEC

Mapping project

Map unit

Community name

Dominant species


Soil Substrate

Landscape


MU017 Black Booyong/Brown Beech/Soft Coachwood/Rosewood Subtropical Rainforest on the escarpment of the lower North Coast








MU009 Bangalow Palm/Coachwood/Sassafras gully warm temperate rainforest of the Central Coast


No, vegetation warm temperate rainforest, not consistent with listing advice






MU006 Socketwood/Lilly Pilly dry subtropical rainforest in Towarri NP and Cedar Brush NR








MU007 Sandpaper Fig/Whalebone Tree warm temperate rainforest







Yengo (Department of Environment & Climate Change 2008)

MU02 Sydney Hinterland Warm Temperate Rainforest










Expert advice

Inclusion in TEC

Mapping project

Map unit

Community name

Dominant species


Soil Substrate

Landscape

Watagans and Jilliby (Bell S & Driscoll C 2006aBell S & Driscoll C 2006a)

MU1a Coastal Warm Temperate – Subtropical Rainforest







Watagans and Jilliby (Bell S & Driscoll C 2006aBell S & Driscoll C 2006a)

MU1b Red Cedar – Stinging Tree Subtropical Rainforest







Columbey (Bell S 2009Bell S 2009)

MU1 Gully Rainforest No, not consistent with listing advice






Wollemi National Park (Bell 1998Bell 1998)

RF3 Sandstone Gorge Sub-tropical Rainforest








RF2 Sandstone Gorge Warm Temperate Rainforest









A1.4 Subtropical and temperate coastal saltmarsh (nominated)The key identifying characteristics of this community are presented in Table A.7. These characteristics were then used to correlate map units from existing vegetation mapping projects (Table A.8).

Table A.7 Key identifying characteristics of Subtropical and temperate coastal saltmarsh

Identifying characteristics Subtropical and temperate coastal saltmarsh

Size


Vegetation patches greater than 0.4 ha in size.

Dominant canopy species -

Dominant shrub layer species Tecticornia pergranulata,

Dominant groundcover species Sporobolus virginicus (Salt couch), Sarcocornia quinqueflora (beaded glasswort/samphire), Juncus kraussii, Samolus repens (Creeping Brookweed), Suaeda australis (Seabite), Triglochin striata (three-ribbed arrowgrass) and Gahnia filum (Clumped sedge).

Vegetation structure Is composed of mainly salt-tolerant vegetation including grasses, herbs, reeds, sedges and shrubs. Succulent herbs and grasses generally dominate and vegetation is generally less than half a meter tall. The community also contains non-vascular plants including epiphytic algae, diatoms and cyanobacterial mats.

Condition criteria Ecotones: Must contain 50% or more of the groundcover/understorey coastal saltmarsh vegetation.

Patch definition: discrete and continuous area that may include bare patches of substrate (e.g. salt pans etc) or small-disturbances (e.g. tracks, water courses) or variations in vegetation that do not influence the communities functionality.

Patch size: Must be greater than 0.4 ha. Patches that are a mosaic and within 30 m of each other, and are collectively 0.4 ha or more.

Tidal connection: Requires ongoing connection with the tidal regime. May occur in both surface/groundwater, intertidal/supratidal or regular/periodic/ intermittent tides.

Exclusions include salt marsh:

occurring on in land soils with no tidal connection occurring on seepage zones on seacliffs and elevated rock platforms above tide limit and on elevated headlands subject to aerosolic salt patches that contain greater than 50% weeds patches witin coastal margin that have become disconnected from a tidal regime but were once connected. If reconnected to the tidal

regime then the patch become the community once again. land already permanently



Identifying characteristics Subtropical and temperate coastal saltmarsh

Soil substrate Generally associated with soft substrate shores of estuaries and embayments (sandy and/or muddy) and on some low wave energy coasts. Occur on sediments consisting of poor-sorted anoxic sandy silts and clays which might have higher salinity levels that are much higher than seawater due to evaporation. Tides can influence distribution of flora species within the community.

Landscape (e.g. floodplain) Coastal areas under tidal influence. It is typically restricted to the upper intertidal environment, generally between the elevation of the mean high tide and mean spring tide.

Table A.8 Correlation assessment of map units from existing mapping projects to Subtropical and temperate coastal saltmarsh


Inclusion in TEC

Mapping project

Map Community description

Dominant species


Soil Substrate

Landscape

LHCCREMS (Lower Hunter and Central Coast Regional Environmental Management Strategy 2003bLower Hunter and Central Coast Regional Environmental Management Strategy 2003b)


Yes, consistent with nomination advice


Consistent with nomination advice

Yes, occurs in coastal areas under tidal influence

A mosaic community including areas that will be consistent with TEC

Yes. This map unit includes patches that will be consistent with TEC












Inclusion in TEC

Mapping project

Map Community description

Dominant species


Soil Substrate

Landscape

Lake Macquarie LGA (Bell S & Driscoll C 2012Bell S & Driscoll C 2012)

47a Saltmarsh Yes, consistent with nomination advice




Consistent with TEC

Yes. Consistent with TEC.









Myall Lakes (Hunter J & Alexander J 2000Hunter J & Alexander J 2000)

538 Sand/Rock/Bare Ground/Water/Saltmarsh

In part, Vegetated areas would be dominated by species consistent with TEC

Vegetated areas would have consistent vegetation strructure

In part, also includes sand and rock areas and well as water

In parts. Also includes beaches, and rock platforms away from tidal influence.

Other mapping within region is more accurate and should identify saltmarsh in this area.

No. Although may contain some patches of saltmarsh, map unit is too broad and includes unvegetated areas.

Note: Size of community was assessed during the mapping process with polygons smaller than 0.4 ha filtered out.



A1.5 Hinterland Sand Flats Forest and Woodlands of the Sydney Basin Bioregion (nominated)

The key identifying characteristics of this community are presented in Table A.9. These characteristics were then used to correlate map units from existing vegetation mapping projects (Table A.10).

Table A.9 Key identifying characteristics of Hinterland Sand Flats Forest and Woodlands of the Sydney Basin Bioregion

Identifying characteristics Hinterland Sand Flats Forest and Woodlands of the Sydney Basin Bioregion

Size(Minimum patch size to form the community)

Suggested that 0.5 ha should be the minimum patch size.

Dominant canopy species Eucalyptus sclerophylla, Angophora bakeri and Eucalyptus parramattensis.

Dominant shrub layer species Banksia aemula, Banksia serrata, Banksia oblongifolia, Banksia spinulosa, Conospermum taxifolium, Leptospermum trinervium, Dillwynia sericea, Monotoca scoparia, Melaleuca linariifolia, Acacia longifolia, Melaleuca thymifolia, Pultenaea villosa and Platysace ericoides.

Dominant groundcover species Lepidosperma urophorum, Leptospermum continentale, Lomandra longifolia, Entolasia stricta, Hemarthria uncinata, Cyathochaeta diandra, Lepyrodia scariosa, Mitrasacme polymorpha, Trachymene incisa subsp. incisa and Stylidium graminifolium.

Vegetation structure Is an open woodland, 10-20 m tall with a predominantly more shrubby understorey and a sparse to moderate graminoid groundcover.

Threatened species habitat Squirrel Glider, Speckled Warbler, Brown Tree Creeper, Grey-headed Flying Fox, Acacia bynoeana, Acacia pubescens, Allocasuarina glareicola, Dillwynia tenuifolia, Eucalyptus parramattensis subsp. parramattensis, Grevillea juniperina, Grevillea parviflora subsp. parviflora, Micromyrtus minutiflora, Persoonia nutans, and Pultenaea parviflora.

Condition criteria Inclusions: Remnants that have an understorey or reasonable prospects for regeneration of understorey, but lack canopy of have less than 10% canopy.Exclusions: Remnants that retain only the canopy and have no or negligible prospects for assisting natural regeneration of the understorey.

Soil substrate Occurs on primarily Tertiary sands and gravels which contain infertile soils of gravelly clay loams and sands. Secondary association with Quaternary alluvium and has a very rare and highly localised association with Cretaceous sands. The community occurs on the sandiest alluvium that have very good drainage and very low soil nutrient content

Landscape (e.g. floodplain) Occurs at relatively low altitudes that are associated with form floodplains of hinterland rivers such as the Hawkesbury-Nepean and the Hunter. The exceptions are Mellong Plateau (up to 340 m) and at Thirlmere Lakes NP (approximately 310 m).



Identifying characteristics Hinterland Sand Flats Forest and Woodlands of the Sydney Basin Bioregion

Other Previously known as Sydney Sand Flats Dry Sclerophyll Forest (Keith, 2004; subsequently Tozer, 2006) and Hinterland Sand Flats Dry Sclerophyll Forest (Keith, 2002).

Table A.10 Correlation assessment of map units in existing mapping projects to Hinterland Sand Flats Forest and Woodlands of the Sydney Basin Bioregion


Inclusion in TEC

Mapping project

Map unit

Community name

Dominant species


Soil Substrate

Landscape


35a Kurri Sand Heath Woodland





Consistent with TEC

Yes. Consistent with TEC


35b Kurri Sand Dropping Red Gum - Stringybark Forest





Consistent with TEC



35c(i) Kurri Sands Shrub Forest (main variant)





Consistent with TEC



35c(ii) Kurri Sands Shrub Forest





Consistent with TEC



35d Kurri Sands Stringybark Forest





Consistent with TEC



35e Kurri Sands Paperbark Heath





Consistent with TEC



35f(i) Kurri Sand Claypan Scrub (E. parramattensis variant)





Consistent with TEC



35f(ii) Kurri Sand Claypan Scrub (E. fibrosa variant)





Consistent with TEC





Inclusion in TEC

Mapping project

Map unit

Community name

Dominant species


Soil Substrate

Landscape

LHCCREMS LHCCREMS (Lower Hunter and Central Coast Regional Environmental Management Strategy 2003bLower Hunter and Central Coast Regional Environmental Management Strategy 2003b)






Consistent with TEC


Werakata National Park (Bell S 2004Bell S 2004)






Consistent with TEC



5a Kurri Sands Melaleuca Scrub Forest





Consistent with TEC



5b Kurri Sands Melaleuca Scrub Forest





Consistent with TEC


Yengo (Bell S et al. 1993Bell S et al. 1993)

6a Woodland on Perched Sands

Broadly consistent






Yengo (Bell S et al. 1993Bell S et al. 1993)

MU6b Swamp Woodland - Perched Sands

Broadly consistent









Inclusion in TEC

Mapping project

Map unit

Community name

Dominant species


Soil Substrate

Landscape

Tilligerry (Bell S & Driscoll C 2006bBell S & Driscoll C 2006b)

MU43 Earp's Gum Sedge Woodland

Broadly consistent






Tilligerry (Bell S & Driscoll C 2006bBell S & Driscoll C 2006b)

MU9 Earp's Gum-Peppermint Scrubby Forest

Broadly consistent






Yengo (Department of Environment & Climate Change 2008Department of Environment & Climate Change 2008)

MU28 Mellong Sands Scribbly Gum Woodland

Broadly consistent




Could be consistent. Need to review

This map unit does not occur within the study area and has not been mapped



A1.6 Hunter Valley Remnant Woodlands and Open Forests (nominated)The key identifying characteristics of this community are presented in Table A.11. These characteristics were then used to correlate map units from existing vegetation mapping projects (Table A.12).

Table A.11 Key identifying characteristics of Hunter Valley Remnant Woodlands and Open Forests

Identifying characteristics Hunter Valley Remnant Woodlands and Open Forests

Size


N/A

Dominant canopy species Eucalyptus moluccana (Grey Box), Eucalyptus crebra (Narrow-leaved Ironbark) and Corymbia maculata (Spotted Gum). Allocasuarina luehmannii (Bull Oak) is also present in most communities aside from Lower Hunter Spotted-Gum- Ironbark sub-community.

Dominant shrub layer species Shrub layer species vary greatly but is likely to include Bursaria spinosa subsp. spinosa.

Dominant groundcover species Groundcover species varies greatly but is likely to include Cheilanthes sieberi subsp. sieberi, Microlaena stipoides subsp. stipoides, Cymbopogon refractus, Lomandra multiflora subsp. multiflora, Dichondra repens, Desmodium varians and Eremophila debilis.

Vegetation structure This community is an open forest or woodland dominated by Eucalyptus species with a middle shrub layer of variable densities and a grassy understorey that occur in the Hunter Valley and in adjoining areas of the NSW Central Coast.

Condition criteria Good condition: absence of significant disturbance from clearing and grazing resulting in the modification of the understorey. Absence of weed invasion, minimal impact of inappropriate fire regimes and relatively intact and diverse tree, shrub and ground cover.

Exception: derived native grasslands that persist in the absence of tree cover. These should be considered in good condition if there are few weeds and many native species on ground layer.

Medium condition: Either small isolated remnants in relatively good condition but vulnerable to the pressures of edge effects, or large remnants that have been subject to grazing over long periods where the groundcover has been significantly modified. This condition has the potential to recover is management is changed.

Poor condition: Patches are small, heavily fragmented as a result of clearing and understorey is heavily modified as a result of clearing, inappropriate fire regimes or past logging. The community structure and function has been modified as a result of weed species incursions.

Soil substrate Generally occurs on Permian sediments associated with rich deposits of coal, with the exception of Southern Hunter Escarpment Spotted Gum Woodland (Department of Primary Industries 2007) which occurs on colluvium derived from Triassic sandstone, usually where it interfaces with Permian sediments.



Identifying characteristics Hunter Valley Remnant Woodlands and Open Forests

Landscape (e.g. floodplain) Mostly occurs on hillslopes and valley floors in undulating country with the exception of Southern Hunter Escarpment Spotted Gum Woodland which occurs on hot, dry, exposed slopes and ridges, mostly with a northern aspect.

Other This broad community encompasses the existing communities:

1. Central Hunter Grey Box-Ironbark Woodland in the Sydney Basin Bioregion (also known as Central Hunter Box-Ironbark Woodland (Department of Primary Industries 2007) and Narrow-leaved Ironbark-Grey Box Grassy Woodland (James 2007James 2007; Vesk & Mac Vesk & Mac Nally 2006)).

2. Central Hunter Ironbark-Spotted Gum- Grey Box Forest in the Sydney Basin Bioregion (also known as Barrington Slopes Dry Spotted Gum Forest and Central Hunter Ironbark-Spotted Gum-Grey Box Forests (Department of Primary Industries 2007) and Narrow-leaved Ironbark-Grey Box-Spotted Gum shrub/grass open forest (James 2007James 2007; Vesk & Mac Vesk & Mac Nally 2006)).

3. Lower Hunter Spotted Gum – Ironbark Forest in the Sydney Basin Bioregion (also known as Southern Hunter Escarpment Spotted Gum Woodland and Lower Hunter Spotted Gum-Ironbark Forest (Department of Primary Industries 2007) and Spotted Gum/Red Ironbark/Large-fruited Grey Gum shrub/grass open forest (James 2007James 2007; Vesk & Mac Vesk & Mac Nally 2006)).

4. Hunter Valley Footslopes Slatey Gum Woodland in the Sydney Basin Bioregion (also known as Narrabeen Footslopes Slatey Box Woodland (Department of Primary Industries 2007) and Grey Box-Slatey Gum shrub/grass Woodland (James 2007James 2007; Vesk & Mac Vesk & Mac Nally 2006)).

Vegetation types targeted for coal extraction.

Table A.12 Correlation assessment of map units in existing mapping projects to Hunter Valley Remnant Woodlands and Open Forests


Inclusion in TEC

Mapping project

Map unit

Community name

Dominant species


Soil Substrate

Landscape


17(i) Lower Hunter Spotted Gum - Red Ironbark Forest (main variant)





Broadly consistent

Yes, based on current broad definition.


17a(ii) Lower Hunter Spotted Gum - Red Ironbark Forest (E. longifolia variant)





Broadly consistent





Inclusion in TEC

Mapping project

Map unit

Community name

Dominant species


Soil Substrate

Landscape


17a(iii) Lower Hunter Spotted Gum - Red Ironbark Forest (E, placita variant)





Broadly consistent



17c Lower Hunter Beyer's Ironbark Low Forest





Broadly consistent



17i Lower Hunter Grey Box Grassy Forest





Broadly consistent



17 m Lower Hunter Narrow-leaved Ironbark Forest





Broadly consistent



18 Hunter Narrow-leaf Ironbark - Spotted Gum Forest





Broadly consistent



18a Hunter Bulloak-Spotted Gum Forest





Broadly consistent



18b Central Hunter Grey Box Grassy Forest





Broadly consistent



18c Hunter Spotted Gum - Cypress Forest





Broadly consistent





Inclusion in TEC

Mapping project

Map unit

Community name

Dominant species


Soil Substrate

Landscape


18h Hunter Red Ironbark - Spotted Gum Forest





Broadly consistent



18i Hunter Redgum - Ironbark Forest





Broadly consistent



110 Red Ironbark - Paperbark Forest





Broadly consistent



82 Spotted Gum/ Narrow-leaved Ironbark/ Grey Box shrub/grass open forest of the lower Hunter





Broadly consistent



83 Spotted Gum/ Narrow-leaved Ironbark. Red Ironbark shrub/ grass open forest of the central and lower hunter





Broadly consistent



85 Narrow-leaved Ironbark/ Bull Oak/ grey Box shrub/ grass open forest of the Central Hunter and lower hunter





Broadly consistent





Inclusion in TEC

Mapping project

Map unit

Community name

Dominant species


Soil Substrate

Landscape


75 Narrow-leaved Ironbark/ Grey Box/ Spotted Gum shrub/ grass open forest





Broadly consistent

Yes, specifically mentioned in nomination


67 Spotted Gum/ Red Ironbark/ Large-fruited Grey Gum shrub/ grass open forest





Broadly consistent



121 Grey Box/ Slaty Box shrub/ grass woodland





Broadly consistent



86 Narrow-leaved Ironbark/ Grey Box/ Spotted gum shrub/ grass open forest of the central and lower hunter





Broadly consistent



172 Narrow-leaved Ironbark/Grey Box grassy Woodland on the Central and Upper Hunter





Broadly consistent



156 Narrow-leaved Ironbark/ Grey Box grassy woodland





Broadly consistent





Inclusion in TEC

Mapping project

Map unit

Community name

Dominant species


Soil Substrate

Landscape


16 Seaham Spotted Gum - Ironbark Forest





Broadly consistent



17 Lower Hunter Spotted Gum - Ironbark Forest





Broadly consistent





Inclusion in TEC

Mapping project

Map unit

Community name

Dominant species


Soil Substrate

Landscape


18 Central hunter Ironbark - Spotted Gum - Grey Box Forest





Broadly consistent



1 Lower-Hunter Spotted Gum - Ironbark Forest





Broadly consistent


Yengo (Department of Environment & Climate Change 2008Department of Environment & Climate Change 2008)

20 Hunter Range Ironbark Forest





Broadly consistent





Inclusion in TEC

Mapping project

Map unit

Community name

Dominant species


Soil Substrate

Landscape

Tomago and Tomaree LGA (Bell S & Driscoll C 2006bBell S & Driscoll C 2006b)

1d Spotted Gum-Ironbark-Stringybark Forest





Broadly consistent



17o Hinterland Spotted Gum - Red Ironbark Forest





Broadly consistent


Blue Gum Hills ('Blue Gum Hills Vegetation' 1997'Blue Gum Hills Vegetation' 1997)

BH3 Dry Open forest Yes, consistent with nomination advice




Broadly consistent



BH4 Dry Open forest - disturbed





Broadly consistent





Inclusion in TEC

Mapping project

Map unit

Community name

Dominant species


Soil Substrate

Landscape


BH5 Dry Open forest - regen





Broadly consistent



BH7 Dry Open forest - very disturbed





Broadly consistent



6 Seaham Ironbark Forest





Broadly consistent



7 Seaham Spotted Gum-Ironbark Forest





Broadly consistent



8 Lower Hunter Spotted Gum-Ironbark Forest





Broadly consistent



9 Red Ironbark Scrub-Forest





Broadly consistent



F1 Narrabeen Residual Spotted Gum Forest





Broadly consistent





Inclusion in TEC

Mapping project

Map unit

Community name

Dominant species


Soil Substrate

Landscape


W14 Goulburn Valley Alluvial Ironbark Woodland





Broadly consistent



W1 Narrabeen Goulburn Ironbark Woodland





Broadly consistent


Glenrock/Awabakal (Bell S 2006Bell S 2006)

12 F4 Permian Macq. shrubby forest

No, not consistent Yes, consistent with nomination advice



Not consistent No. Not consistent with nomination


13 F5 Permian Macq. grassy forest






14 F6 Permian-Kahibah coastal forest





Myall Lakes (Hunter J & Alexander J 2000Hunter J & Alexander J 2000)

4693 Dry Sclerophyll Forest/Hardwood Plantation

No. Vegetation classification too broad

Likely to be consistent



Not consistent with nomination

No. Not consistent with nomination



Appendix BEPBC Listed species and communities

epbc act listed ecological communities mapping …€¦ · web viewhunter valley remnant open...

Documents