transformer art installation, ida bay

Andrew North [email protected] Philip Barker [email protected]

163 Campbell Street Hobart TAS 7000 Telephone 03. 6231 9788 Facsimile 03. 6231 9877

Transformer – Art Installation, Ida Bay

Flora and Fauna Habitat Assessment,

Including Collision Risk

1st December 2020

For DarkLab, MONA

Transformer, Ida Bay

Flora and Fauna Habitat Assessment

North Barker Ecosystem Services

MON016: 2020_12_01

v. 2.0

i

SUMMARY

The proponent DarkLab, of the MONA (Museum of Old and New Art) group, are in the planning

phase for a proposed permanent art installation called Transformer at Ida Bay.

North Barker Ecosystem Services (NBES) have been engaged to undertake a flora and fauna

habitat assessment of the project area, including a collision risk assessment for the swift parrot.

Vegetation

Four native TASVEG vegetation units have been recorded within the project area, none of which

are threatened under the EPBCA or the NCA:

- DOB – Eucalyptus obliqua dry forest

- MBS – buttongrass moorland with emergent shrubs

- SHW – wet heathland

- SMR – Melaleuca squarrosa scrub

Threatened Flora

The footprint does not overlap with any known occurrences of threatened flora and it is not

expected to have any unanticipated impacts in relation to undocumented occurrences.

Weeds

The survey area was found to be relatively free of serious weeds. Only two declared weeds were

recorded in small amounts.

No symptomatic evidence of Phytophthora cinnamomi was observed within the site, but the

wet heath community is particularly susceptible to its impacts.

Threatened Fauna

The property and the broader Ida Bay contains potential foraging and nesting habitat for the

swift parrot, including habitat patches and elements (such as hollow-bearing trees) around the

proposed footprint.

Conclusions and Recommendations

In terms of natural values, potential direct impacts (e.g. habitat clearance) due to works from

the present proposal will be relatively minor on account of the footprint being relatively small

and having limited intersection with conservation significant values. The most significant value

associated with the site is potential foraging and nesting habitat for the swift parrot. Our

assessment has however shown that the proposal will require negligible levels of impact to

potential swift parrot habitat and poses only a low level of risk in relation to collision-induced

mortalities.

The following recommendations are made regarding general management of the proposal area

and to ensure minimal impacts to conservation significant values.

Native Vegetation

- Concentrate direct and irreversible clearance within areas of non-native vegetation

(modified land) as much as possible.

- Apply a micro-siting approach (with the aid of an ecologist) to areas of the final

footprint within native vegetation – the micro-siting should aim to make minor

adjustments to the footprint on the ground by selecting localised areas with relatively

less important values (e.g. lower condition areas), as well as maintaining variation within

a community across the project area and local areas containing important values.




MON016: 2020_12_01

v. 2.0

ii

- In cases of redesign or additions, maximise the proportion of the footprint within non-

native (modified) vegetation and avoid native vegetation (as well as habitat for

threatened species).

- Clearly demarcate the permitted impact area either in situ and/or clearly on

construction plans and specify on all contractor agreements that works, vehicles and

materials must be confined within the designated impact areas.

- Areas of native vegetation beyond the impact footprint should be designated as

exclusion zones and marked on the ground and in construction plans to the degree

necessary to ensure no inadvertent impacts occur.

- Incorporate a revegetation plan into the post-construction requirements, covering

areas where clearance of native vegetation is not required to be a permanent loss (e.g.

borrow pits [if required], temporary access routes and temporary construction

disturbance footprints). The plan should outline suitable species for revegetation

(sourced from the local environment), as well as revegetation specifics, such as seed

application rates, use of established plants, specific planting details, etc.

Introduced Plants and Pathogens

- Prior to and during construction:

o A Construction Environmental Management Plan (or similar instrument) should

include requirements for the contractor or proponent to undertake primary

control (eradication) of the blackberry and Spanish heath infestations

presented in Figure 4, as well as general hygiene principles (particularly the use

of clean and disinfected plant and equipment) that limit the potential for

introduction of weeds or pathogens.

- Post works:

o During the next spring/summer season at least three months after construction

is completed (not sooner), the proponent should arrange a weed and pathogen

inspection of the site, with scope for subsequent control actions if required.

- During operations:

o Users should be directed to stay on paths/tracks and other formed surfaces

with signage.

o The proponent may consider an educational sign within the visitor centre (or

elsewhere) that covers weeds and pathogens.

o The operators should install (prior to opening) and maintain a shoe wash

station at the start of the path consistent with those used in national parks and

reserves.

o At least one staff member should be trained in basic identification of weeds

(including blackberry and Spanish heath) and symptomatic evidence of PC,

supported by an action plan that outlines what to do if weeds or disease

symptoms are observed.

o The proponent should arrange biennial spring/summer weed and disease

inspections of the site, with scope for subsequent control actions if required.




MON016: 2020_12_01

v. 2.0

iii

Threatened Fauna

- Implement a monitoring program of both swift parrot use of the site and collision

incidences. The program should include:

o Annual pre-season checks on foraging trees and the likelihood of flowering

food plants within the vicinity of the development.

o Utilisation surveys within seasons where food plants on site are flowering

and/or the Southern Forests SPIBA is known to be host to significant numbers

of breeding pairs.

o Regular systematic patrols around the development buildings to document

bird collision mortalities.

o Mitigation strategies for if mortalities occur in relation to particular design

elements or habitat variables (e.g. flowering events) – mitigation options may

include alterations to the building designs or facades to the degree necessary.




MON016: 2020_12_01

v. 2.0

iv

File Control and Contributors

Project Transformer – art installation

Location PID: 5267994, title ref: 238040/1, 328 Lune River Road, Ida Bay, Tasmania –

part of the Ida Bay State Reserve

Proponent DarkLab, Museum of Old and New Art (MONA)

Proponent contact Tim Lathouris - [email protected]

NBES job code MON016

NBES project manager Grant Daniels – 0400 104 649

[email protected]

Field inspections and photos General flora and fauna: Grant Daniels

- 29/11/2020

Collision risk: Dave Sayers and Erin Harris

- 2/6/2020; 19/11/20

Reporting Grant Daniels*, Erin Harris**, Dave Sayers** and Phil Barker**

* general report; ** collision risk contributions only

Mapping Jacques Demange

External consultations Dejan Stojanovic, Australian National University – assessment of swift parrot

habitat on site to aid collision risk assessment.

Alister Hodgman, Element Tree Services – arborist assessment

Permit to take native flora DA 18246

Version Date Author / Comment

Draft 0.1 19/11/2020 Grant Daniels completed preliminary draft for Dark

Lab, incorporating collision risk assessment from EH,

DS and PB, derived in part from assessment of earlier

proposal

Draft 0.2 23/11/2020 GD and EH incorporated visitor centre collision risk

assessment

Version 1.0 24/11/2020 Grant Daniels delivered to DarkLab

Version 2.0 1/12/2020 Report updated for additional construction access




MON016: 2020_12_01

v. 2.0

v

North Barker Ecosystem Services Pty Ltd, 2020. This work is protected under

Australian Copyright law. The contents and format of this report cannot be used

by anyone for any purpose other than that expressed in the service contract for

this report without the written permission of North Barker- Ecosystem Services Pty Ltd.




MON016: 2020_12_01

v. 2.0

vi

Table of Contents and Figures

1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Background .................................................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Project Area and Existing Environment .............................................................................................. 1

1.2.1 Project area and location characteristics ...................................................................................... 1

1.2.2 Survey/study area .................................................................................................................................. 1

1.2.3 Geology and Geoheritage .................................................................................................................. 2

1.2.4 Topography and altitude .................................................................................................................... 2

1.2.5 Climate characteristics ......................................................................................................................... 2

Figure 1: Site location and general layout ................................................................................................... 2

Figures 2a: Digital representation of proposed installation and reflections. ................................. 3

Figures 2b: Digital representation of proposed installation containing exterior heights of

the development components .............................................................................................. 3

Figures 2c: Aerial view of the floor plan of the proposed visitor centre showing its

attachment to the existing Ida Bay railway and café building. ................................. 4

Figures 2d: Side on view of the proposed visitor centre (in grey) and its attachment to the

existing Ida Bay railway and café building. ....................................................................... 4

2 FLORA SURVEY, FAUNA HABITAT AND COLLISION ASSESSMENT ......................................... 5

2.1 Background Research – Supporting Data .......................................................................................... 5

2.2 Survey Timing ............................................................................................................................................... 5

2.3 Flora Field Methods .................................................................................................................................... 5

2.3.1 Vegetation mapping ............................................................................................................................. 5

2.3.2 Floristic surveys, including threatened flora searches ............................................................. 6

2.4 Fauna Field Methods .................................................................................................................................. 6

2.4.1 Swift parrot habitat collision risk assessment ............................................................................. 6

2.5 Limitations ...................................................................................................................................................... 7

3 BIOLOGICAL VALUES ................................................................................................................................. 7

3.1 Vegetation ...................................................................................................................................................... 7

3.1.1 Dry forest and woodland .................................................................................................................... 8

3.1.2 Heathland, scrub and moorland ...................................................................................................... 9

3.2 Threatened and Conservation Significant Flora ........................................................................... 13

3.2.1 Threatened flora .................................................................................................................................. 13

3.3 Introduced Plants (Weeds) and Plant Pathogens ........................................................................ 14

3.3.1 Weeds ...................................................................................................................................................... 14

3.3.2 Plant pathogens .................................................................................................................................. 14

Figure 4: Distribution of declared weeds observed within the property.................................. 15




MON016: 2020_12_01

v. 2.0

vii

3.4 Fauna of Conservation Significance .................................................................................................. 16

3.4.1 General survey observations and habitat assessment ......................................................... 16

3.4.2 Swift parrot ............................................................................................................................................ 16

Figure 5: Distribution of potential threatened fauna habitat within the property ............... 18

Figure 6a: Potential flight path risks between habitat elements and Transformer .............. 19

Figure 6b: Potential flight path risks between habitat elements and visitor Centre ........... 20

4 POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION ........................................................................................ 25

4.1 Native Vegetation and Ecological Communities ......................................................................... 25

4.1.1 Extent of impact and conservation significance ..................................................................... 25

4.1.2 Potential for mitigation .................................................................................................................... 25

4.1.3 Summary of recommendations for native vegetation ......................................................... 25

4.2 Threatened and Conservation Significant Flora ........................................................................... 26

4.2.1 Potential impacts and context ....................................................................................................... 26


4.3 Introduced Plants and Pathogens...................................................................................................... 26

4.3.1 Potential impacts and context ....................................................................................................... 26


4.3.3 Summary of recommendations for weeds and pathogens ................................................ 28

4.4 Threatened Fauna..................................................................................................................................... 28

4.4.1 Swift parrot ............................................................................................................................................ 28

Figures 7a-c: Predicted flight paths between habitat elements across the installation site

– nodes for habitat elements represent canopy tops ................................................ 30

Figures 7d-e: Predicted flight paths between habitat elements across the installation site

– nodes for habitat elements represent canopy tops ................................................ 31

Figures 8a-f: Predicted flight paths between habitat elements across the visitor centre –

nodes for habitat elements represent canopy tops ................................................... 33

Figure 9: From Pfennigwerth (2008, artist Robyn McNicol), showing how a low or flat

position below canopies presents a lower threat than a higher position

relative to the canopy level .................................................................................................. 34

5 LEGISLATIVE IMPLICATIONS AND ASSESSMENT ........................................................................ 35

5.1 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBCA)....................... 35

5.1.1 Threatened ecological communities ........................................................................................... 35

5.1.2 Threatened flora .................................................................................................................................. 35

5.1.3 Threatened fauna - swift parrot .................................................................................................... 36

5.2 Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 (TSPA) .................................................. 36

5.3 Tasmanian Nature Conservation Act 2002 (NCA) ....................................................................... 36

5.4 Tasmanian Weed Management Act 1999 ...................................................................................... 36




MON016: 2020_12_01

v. 2.0

viii

5.5 Tasmanian National Parks and Reserves Management Act 2002 ......................................... 37

5.6 Forest Practices Act 1985 ...................................................................................................................... 37

5.7 Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 (LUPAA) ................................................................ 37

5.8 Huon Valley Interim Planning Scheme 2015 ................................................................................. 38

5.8.1 Rural Resource Zone 26.0 ................................................................................................................ 38

5.8.2 Biodiversity Code E10 ........................................................................................................................ 38

6 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................... 39

6.1 Native Vegetation .................................................................................................................................... 39

6.2 Introduced Plants and Pathogens...................................................................................................... 40

6.3 Threatened Fauna..................................................................................................................................... 40

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................................ 42

APPENDIX A – COARSE HABITAT MAPPING .................................................................................................. 44

APPENDIX B – VASCULAR PLANT SPECIES LIST ............................................................................................ 45




MON016: 2020_12_01

v. 2.0

ix

TABLE OF PLATES

Plate 1: Eucalyptus ovata canopy over cleared land (FAC), around the the visitor centre .......... 8

Plate 2: Dry Eucalyptus obliqua forest upslope from the proposed Transformer location .............. 9

Plate 3: SMR scrub along the tributary of Tea Tree Creek ................................................................ 10

Plate 4: Buttongrass moorland with emergent shrubs, near tributary of Tea Tree Creek .............. 10

Plate 5: Wet heathland vegetation (SHW) around the site of the Transformer development ..... 11

Plate 6: SHW around the Transformer, looking upslope towards a patch of DOB forest .............. 11

Plate 7: Small blackberry recorded around the railway line near Lune River Road buildings ...... 14

Plate 8: Stand of stringybark (E. obliqua) with nesting and foraging potential ............................. 17

Plate 9: Typical density and size distribution of E. ovata in wet heathland .................................... 21

Plate 10: Hollow-bearing E. ovata on the margin of a patch of DOB............................................. 21




MON016: 2020_12_01

v. 2.0

1

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

The proponent DarkLab, of the MONA (Museum of Old and New Art) group, are in the planning

phase for a proposed permanent art installation called “Transformer” at 328 Lune River Road, Ida

Bay (formerly used for the station of the Ida Bay Railway) (Figure 1).

The Transformer installation aims to capture the surrounding scenery through a kaleidoscopic lens

using precisely angled mirrored metal which opens to the landscape at three large tunnel

entrances (8 m wide by 4.8 m high) where the light enters. The entrances protrude out from within

the slope, so the body of the pavilion is effectively underground (Figure 2). The installation is

proposed at ground level within a slope with the aim to capture the reflection of the lower

landscape rather than the sky and other higher components of the landscape. To achieve this

reflection, the mirrors on the large side walls will be angled at 6.7 degrees from the central axis of

each tunnel, or 83.3 degrees from the plane of the end of the tunnel. The back wall of each tunnel

will face downwards at an angle of 13.6 degrees from vertical and the roof mirror is at 10.6 degrees

angle from horizontal, other than the central tunnel in which the back wall mirror is perpendicular

to the floor. With this arrangement, the mirrors will primarily reflect the external landscape to

observers standing inside the building (Figure 2a shows the modelled prediction of what will be

reflected to external observers) but will not show reflections of the landscape externally. The

installation is proposed to be linked by a gravel footpath to a visitor welcome centre (Figure 2c

and 2d) (with carpark at bus turning circle) around the location of the old railway office (Figure 1).

North Barker Ecosystem Services (NBES) have been engaged to undertake a flora and fauna habitat

assessment of the project area. Because the location is within a swift parrot important breeding

area (SPIBA), and reflective surfaces (as well as imperceptible structures) can present a collision

risk to the species, a collision risk assessment is included. The assessments can inform natural

values considerations within a development application and inform the proponent if the proposal

is compatible with the persistence of swift parrots in the area. Based on the assessments we make

recommendations to minimise impacts to threatened natural values, with specific reference to the

swift parrot.

1.2 Project Area and Existing Environment

1.2.1 Project area and location characteristics

The property (PID: 5267994, title ref: 238040/1, 328 Lune River Road, Ida Bay, Tasmania) comprises

part of the Ida Bay State Reserve, being the only part of the reserve on the west of Lune River

Road. The property is in the Tasmanian Southern Ranges bioregion and the jurisdiction of the

Huon Valley Council. The property covered by a Biodiversity Protection Area overlay under the

local planning scheme.

The property has been subject to some degree of clearance and development along the frontage

of the Lune River Road, where a collection of buildings are present, some of which were used in

the past as part of a train ride tourism operation along the Ida Bay railway line.

1.2.2 Survey/study area

The survey was concentrated on the development area for the installation, a visitor centre and a

proposed route for a walking path between the two (defined as the direct impact footprint by the

proponent) (Figure 1) – locations for the latter two were approximate at the time of the general

flora and fauna survey, having not been positioned definitively at that time. The collision risk and

swift parrot survey extended beyond the footprint to a greater degree, covering the entire property

and areas of adjacent properties with contiguous or associated habitat.




MON016: 2020_12_01

v. 2.0

2

1.2.3 Geology and Geoheritage

Soils throughout the property consist of undifferentiated Quaternary sediments.

The property falls within the mapped extent of two listed geoconservation values: Lune River Area

Jurassic Basalts and Gemfield Association, and Western Tasmania Blanket Bogs.

1.2.4 Topography and altitude

The property is relatively flat, with a slight northwest facing slope around an altitude of 30 m asl1.

1.2.5 Climate characteristics2

Mean rainfall for the area is around 870 mm per annum, with relatively low precipitation between

January and April limited seasonal variation in precipitation and a peak in August. Rainfall is

moderately inversely correlated with temperature in the area.

Figure 1: Site location and general layout

1 Above sea level 2 Using climatological data from the nearest weather station at Dover, 43.3330°S 146.9980°E 20m AMSL,

commencing in 1901




MON016: 2020_12_01

v. 2.0

3

Figures 2a: Digital representation of proposed installation and reflections

Figures 2b: Digital representation of proposed installation containing exterior

heights of the development components




MON016: 2020_12_01

v. 2.0

4

Figures 2c: Aerial view of the floor plan of the proposed visitor centre showing

its attachment to the existing Ida Bay railway and café building

Figures 2d: Side on view of the proposed visitor centre (in grey) and its

attachment to the existing Ida Bay railway and café building




MON016: 2020_12_01

v. 2.0

5

2 FLORA SURVEY, FAUNA HABITAT AND COLLISION RISK

ASSESSMENT

2.1 Background Research – Supporting Data

The following sources were used for biological records from the region to supplement field data

collected by NBES:

• Protected Matters database3 – all matters of national environmental significance that

may occur in the area or relate to the area in some way.

• Tasmanian Natural Values Atlas (NVA)4 – this Department of Primary Industries, Parks,

Water and the Environment, Tasmania (DPIPWE) database includes biological records.

• TASVEG 4.0 (and TASVEG Live) digital data – this layer has been field-truthed during

ground surveys.

• The LISTmap.

2.2 Survey Timing

Surveys by NBES ecologists were undertaken on the 26/5, 29/9, and 19/11, 2020.

2.3 Flora Field Methods

Flora field data were recorded using handheld non-differential GPS units with average location

accuracy < 10 m.

2.3.1 Vegetation mapping

In Tasmania, the primary source on the distribution of vegetation is the statewide TASVEG5

mapping database (with TASVEG 4.0 being the latest iteration, and current distribution data

available in the TASVEG Live database version). It is standard practice to truth TASVEG data using

recent imagery and ground sampling6.

The image interpretation process for the current proposal involved several satellite images

accessed via Google Earth Pro7. The images had a resolution of no more than 2.5 m, with a capture

date of 27/7/2017.

Ground sampling was undertaken during each field visit. When a patch was ground sampled, the

observer assessed the requisite traits of vegetation structure, floristics, geology and environment

to discriminate the patch from any other possible TASVEG units using the descriptions and

stepwise keys within the online versions of the current TASVEG companion manual8. Boundary

discrimination was based on image interpretation and aided by point data collected on a hand-

held GPS unit. All ground sampling was undertaken during the daytime, mostly in fine weather

due to the potential sampling constraints associated with reduced visibility from rain and/or low

light.

3 EPBC Act Protected Matters report, (Commonwealth of Australia) – PMST_ AU39TJ 4 NVA report_ nvr_1_09-Sep-2020 (DPIPWE) – with the database checked manually at later dates for new

records 5 DPIPWE (2013) 6 TVMMP (2013) 7 Google Earth Pro (2020), August 2020 – DigitalGlobe, TerraMetrics, CNES/ Airbus 8 Kitchener and Harris (2013)




MON016: 2020_12_01

v. 2.0

6

This combination of image interpretation followed by stratified ground sampling and interpolation

is consistent with the DPIPWE guidelines for natural values assessments (section 7, DPIPWE

2015a9).

Following ground sampling and the collation of data, TASVEG units observed on site were cross-

referenced against all vegetation communities listed as threatened under the Tasmanian Nature

Conservation Act 2002 (NCA) and/or the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity

Conservation Act 1999 (EPBCA).

2.3.2 Floristic surveys, including threatened flora searches

To support the determination of TASVEG units (as per DPIPWE guidelines, 2015a) and provide

general floristic data, within each native community at least one full vascular plant species list was

taken in representative ¼ ha plots using a Timed Meander Search Procedure10; this method

requires the observer to continue survey effort until survey yields (new species observations)

diminish towards zero. Outside the ¼ ha plots, threatened species observations, and observations

of additional non-threatened plant species were noted as encountered while traversing the site

and while conducting all other observations – where nodes of additional plants were present,

additional plots were undertaken. Surveys for the current assessment included 8 floristic plots

distributed across the project area (but concentrated in potential impact areas). While outside

plots, flora survey effort was applied disproportionately within locations considered likely to

contain threatened species habitat (based on NBES knowledge and DPIPWE guidelines) or simply

contain species not noted earlier (based on observations of habitat variation at the sub-community

scale). Similar to the defined plots, meandering searches within potential threatened species

habitat or at previously reported locations, continued until a point in time when it was apparent

the likelihood of more observations was too low to warrant further effort.

Declared11 and environmental weeds, as well as symptomatic evidence of plant pathogens, were

searched for and recorded where evident within or close to (such as on an adjacent road) the

project area.

Botanical nomenclature follows the current census of Tasmanian plants12.

2.4 Fauna Field Methods

Observations of habitat suitability for fauna (particularly threatened fauna) were made

independently of the flora ground surveys across the project area other than in the general survey

on the 29/9, which combined survey effort for flora and fauna. Across the field surveys, particular

reference and/or targeted searching was undertaken in relation to:

• The suitability of habitat, and the way the distribution of habitat may influence collision

risk for the swift parrot.

2.4.1 Swift parrot habitat collision risk assessment

2.4.1.1 Coarse habitat assessment

The distribution of potential swift parrot habitat around the project area was provided at coarse

scale by ANU swift parrot researcher Dejan Stojanovic (Appendix A) and refined by NBES.

9 DPIPWE (2015a) 10 Goff et al. (1982) 11 Tasmanian Weed Management Act 1999 12 de Salas & Baker (2020)




MON016: 2020_12_01

v. 2.0

7

2.4.1.2 Habitat locations and heights, visibility, and flight paths

Particular habitat trees or patches were selected for the basis of the collision risk assessment,

representing potential departure and landing points (e.g. for plausible flight paths across the

proposed building locations based on the locations intersecting (or approximately so) a line

representing the shortest straight line distance between two habitat elements (Figure 3). The

selected habitat trees for this assessment were GPS located and the heights of the top and bottom

of the canopy visually estimated. The respective heights were adjusted for altitude for the purposes

of the risk assessment, to factor in the relative height differences associated with topography (e.g.

a 10 m tree located at 20 m asl would have a relative height of 30 m, giving it relative clearance of

10 m over an adjacent 10 m development located at 10 m asl – this is referred to as relative height).

For patches of trees, the height of the tallest trees and the lowest canopies were estimated (and

the constituent species noted) and were used as proxies for the patch.

Line of sight cross sections were graphed for the highest risk flight paths across the installation

and visitor centre, using relative heights of habitat elements and lateral separation between the

habitat elements and the points of interest calculated in GIS.

2.5 Limitations

Due to seasonal variations in detectability and accurate discrimination (i.e. identification of closely

related species), there may be some herb, orchid and/or graminoid species present in the survey

area that have been overlooked due to flowering at times of the year other than when the surveys

were undertaken, or being absent at the time of surveys due to seasonality and/or the absence of

requisite germination triggers.

The collision risk assessment is based on visual estimate of heights only, which could be refined

with precision instruments (e.g. an ultrasound hypsometer). The method assumes that within a

patch the tallest trees and those on the edge present the greatest risk of collision events associated

with sight lines (e.g. smaller and interior trees are screened). The method treats straight flight paths

as a proxy for other potential flight paths; while the selected potential flight paths are not likely to

represent the only flight paths utilised on site, they are intended to demonstrate the risk associated

with the highest risk scenarios.

3 BIOLOGICAL VALUES

3.1 Vegetation

Four native TASVEG vegetation units have been recorded within the project area, none of which

are threatened under the EPBCA or the NCA:





In addition, part of the modified land component (i.e. non-natural vegetation) near Lune River

Road contains a canopy of Eucalyptus ovata over cleared land Plate 1), which has subsequently

been mapped as FAC to denote that it retains a native canopy while being a non-natural

community.

Compared to earlier mapping presented in the TASVEG database, our field verification resulted in

verification of the absence of DOV (scattered E. ovata are emergent from areas of wet heath, but




MON016: 2020_12_01

v. 2.0

8

nothing meeting the woodland or forest definitions of DOV [or DOW] were observed13) and WOU

(no wet forest vegetation dominated by E. obliqua was observed), and refinement of the relatively

distributions of MBS and SHW as determined by the proportional coverage of key species,

including buttongrass Gymnoschoenus sphaerocephalus.

Native vegetation types are described below within groupings derived from similarities in floristics

and structure. Vascular plant species lists from sampling points are given in Appendix B. The

distribution of TASVEG units recorded within the study area is illustrated in Figure 3.

Plate 1: Eucalyptus ovata canopy over cleared land (FAC), around the proposed location of the visitor

centre

3.1.1 Dry forest and woodland


Eucalyptus obliqua is the only native forest unit observed on the property14 and is present in five

disjunct patches within a matrix of non-forest heathland, scrub and moorland (Figure 3). The DOB

is dominated by > 25 m tall E. obliqua with occasional E. ovata and very occasional E. pulchella

(Plate 2). The subcanopy is relatively free of small trees but includes some Exocarpos

cupressiformis. A variably dense small shrub layer exists from ground level to around 2 m, including

thickets of Leptospermum scoparium and less dense occurrences of Lomatia tinctoria, Daviesia

ulicifolia, Pultenaea juniperina and Leptomeria drupacea. A typical mixture of graminoids, ferns

and low shrubs is present at ground level, with prominent Pteridium esculentum and variable

amounts of Epacris impressa, Acrotriche serrulata, Gleichenia dicarpa and Diplarrena moraea.

13 The EPBCA listed community Tasmanian Forests and Woodlands dominated by black gum or Brookers

gum (Eucalyptus ovata / E. brookeriana) is thus not considered to be present on site. 14 Although it is noted that DOV may have been presented in the past, based on the number of E. ovata

present in the cleared land near Lune River Road (FAC). However, it is also noted that E. ovata is highly

suited to colonising cleared land and, in some cases, the colonisation of a clearing by this species can

create the impression of past dominance that is not reality; this is potentially supported by the relatively

young age of many of the E. ovata in the area of FAC, suggesting that the young trees could simply be

recent colonists derived from a few remnant trees from clearance of whatever the earlier community was

(potentially DOB given that E. ovata are occasional within the patches of DOB on site).




MON016: 2020_12_01

v. 2.0

9

Plate 2: Dry Eucalyptus obliqua forest upslope from the proposed Transformer location

3.1.2 Heathland, scrub and moorland




These communities occupy the lowest-lying parts of the site (and broader landscape), being

generally associated with poor drainage. The SMR occupies the wettest niche within this area,

being restricted to a narrow band around the tributary of Tea Tree Creek that bisects the eastern

end of the property in a north to south alignment. The SMR is relatively species poor with a

prominent tall shrub layer of Melaleuca squarrosa and Leptospermum lanigerum over sparse

sedges and rushes. The riparian SMR is bordered to the west by a patch of buttongrass moorland

with emergent shrubs, dominated by in excess of 70 % cover of Gymnoschoenus sphaerocephalus,

with emergent M. squarrosa and L. lanigerum. An additional patch of MBS was mapped near the

centre of the property between patches of forest. It is likely other patches of MBS could be

differentiated from the surrounding non-forest mosaic with finer scale targeted mapping (beyond

the scope or need of this assessment). However, it is noted that the large patch of MBU reported

on TASVEG prior to our assessment was redetermined in the field as SHW on the basis of the

relatively low cover of buttongrass (15-30 %) and floristics, including a moderately diverse

assemblage of small shrubs including Boronia pilosa subsp. pilosa, Epacris lanuginosa, Sprengelia

incarnata, Acacia myrtifolia, Aotus ericoides, Hibbertia appressa and Almaleea subumbellata, in

addition to various graminoids, such as Baumea tetragona, Diplarrena latifolia, Diplarrena moraea,

Gahnia grandis, Leptocarpus tenax and Schoenus lepidosperma subsp. lepidosperma. Small and

scattered Eucalyptus ovata are present throughout the SHW. The SHW is the most widespread and

extensive community on site.




MON016: 2020_12_01

v. 2.0

10

Plate 3: SMR scrub along the tributary of Tea Tree Creek

Plate 4: Buttongrass moorland with emergent shrubs, near tributary of Tea Tree Creek




MON016: 2020_12_01

v. 2.0

11

Plate 5: Wet heathland vegetation (SHW) around the proposed site of the Transformer development

Plate 6: Wet heathland vegetation (SHW) around the proposed site of the Transformer development,

looking upslope towards a patch of DOB forest




MON016: 2020_12_01

v. 2.0

12

Figure 3: Distribution of verified vegetation types on the property




MON016: 2020_12_01

v. 2.0

13

3.2 Threatened and Conservation Significant Flora

3.2.1 Threatened flora

The survey documented 96 vascular plant species (including 13 exotics) within the survey area

(Appendix B). No threatened flora were observed and none are likely to have been overlooked.

Indeed, no threatened flora have been reported from within 500 m of the site according to NVA

records, and only two species have been reported from within 5 km (Table 1) – neither of these

species is considered highly likely to be present on the property and even less likely to occur

within the footprint or the range of potential impacts (Table 1) – primarily this is simply due to

the small footprint in relation to widespread available habitat and sparsely distributed species.

Similarly, five species considered to have potential habitat in the area based on habitat mapping

in the EPBCA protected matters search tool 15 are not considered to have better than a very low

likelihood of occurring within the footprint for the same reasons in addition to less suitable

habitat (the species being Caladenia caudata, Euphrasia gibbsiae ssp. psilantherea,

Prasophyllum pulchellum, Thelymitra jonesii, and Xerochrysum palustre).

Table 1: Threatened flora species with observations (Tasmanian Natural Values Atlas) or

predicted habitat (EPBCA Protected Matters database) from within a 5 km radius of the site 16

Species Status17 TSPA /

EPBCA

Potential to

occur on site,

or relative

size of

population if

present

Observations and preferred habitat18

Previously reported from within 5 km radius

Corunastylis

morrisii

bearded midge-

orchid

endangered/ - Very low

Occurs in near-coastal lowland habitats in buttongrass

moorland and sedgy open eucalypt woodland on

moderately-drained sites, including raised clay pans in

poorly drained peaty sedgeland. Has potential habitat on

site within the SHW and MBS communities, but with only 4

records within 5 km (the last observation being 1993) it

would be very unlikely to occur within the project impact

area purely due to the small area and the rarity of the

species. It is noted that the survey was undertaken outside

of the viable survey period for the species, however the low

likelihood of it being present is not considered to warrant

a targeted summer/autumn survey.

Thelymitra

holmesii

bluestar sun-

orchid

rare/ - Very low

Occurs in wet heath habitats equivalent to those on site.

The survey was undertaken at the beginning of the

potential flowering period for the species, although most

flowering (and optimal survey timing) is from November to

December. Based on the survey results, in which no

15 EPBC Act Protected Matters report PMST_AU39TJ 16 Natural Values Report # 1_09-Sep-2020, DPIPWE, 2020 17 Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995, Commonwealth Environment Protection and

Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 18 Threatened Species Section (2020)




MON016: 2020_12_01

v. 2.0

14

Species Status17 TSPA /

EPBCA

Potential to

occur on site,

or relative

size of

population if

present

Observations and preferred habitat18

Thelymitra leaves were observed and relatively few orchids

were present overall, it was not considered to warrant a

follow-up survey. With only 1 record ever lodged from

within 5 km and such a small amount of potential habitat

within the proposed impact area, it would appear very

unlikely the species might occur within the footprint of the

development.

3.3 Introduced Plants (Weeds) and Plant Pathogens

3.3.1 Weeds

The survey area was found to be relatively free of serious weeds. Only two declared weeds were

recorded, with Spanish heath restricted to an adjacent part of Lune River Road (Figure 4), and

blackberry occurring as small, slashed plants and seedlings within the FAC community (Plate 7).

3.3.2 Plant pathogens

No symptomatic evidence of Phytophthora cinnamomi was observed within the site, but the

wet heath community is particularly susceptible to its impacts.

Plate 7: Small blackberry recorded around the railway line near Lune River Road buildings




MON016: 2020_12_01

v. 2.0

15

Figure 4: Distribution of declared weeds observed within the property




MON016: 2020_12_01

v. 2.0

16

3.4 Fauna of Conservation Significance

3.4.1 General survey observations and habitat assessment

The ground surveys established that the property contains typical faunal habitats associated

with the vegetation present on site and the location within southern Tasmania. For most

threatened species with potential habitat on site, including those with known observations

and/or core habitat mapped within 500 m (Table 2), the extent of potential habitat on site can

be seen as non-critical to the local persistence of species, due to large areas of equivalent

habitat present beyond the potential impact area and the absence of critical habitat elements

(such as ground dens or potential nest sites) within the footprint19. The exception warranting

further consideration is the swift parrot.

3.4.2 Swift parrot

The swift parrot is listed as endangered under the TSPA and Critically Endangered under the

EPBCA. Swift parrots are endemic breeders to Tasmania, migrating from south-eastern mainland

Australia where they spend the winter. The threatened status is a result of population decline

associated with the loss of foraging and nesting habitat, predation by sugar gliders (Petaurus

breviceps) and collisions with man-made objects20. Any infrastructure can create a potential

collision hazard to birds if it is not clearly visible and avoidable. In almost all scenarios, the risk

that buildings pose to bird collisions relates to the design and location of windows and any

other reflective surfaces. Threats posed by such surfaces can be classified into two main

categories: reflections and transparency. Reflection: A reflection can imitate continuous habitat.

When seen from the outside of a building, glass often has a reflective quality, mirroring the sky,

trees and other features. Transparency: Birds perceive a passageway between clear glass and

attempt to fly straight through. Glass lobbies, balconies, windows, glass walls that meet at a

corner, or aligned windows (windows installed parallel to each other, on opposite sides of the

building) may provide an unobstructed view of habitat and sky on the other side.

There are a number of dwellings in the Ida Bay area that have windows that may already pose

a risk to swift parrots, however no records of bird strike in the area are reported in Pfennigwerth

(2008) or on the Natural Values Atlas. This may be due to the low level of built infrastructure in

the area relative to available flight paths, facilitating avoidance through chance or adaptation

and also a lack reporting or discovery of dead birds

Swift parrots nest in tree hollows of mature eucalypts within range (generally less than 10 km)

of bulk food sources. Foraging habitat is primarily comprised of stands of blue gum (Eucalyptus

globulus) and black gum (Eucalyptus ovata). The flowers of these species are utilised before and

during the breeding season between August and February. Because patches of food plants

flower with varying intensity each year, the swift parrot population can breed in different areas

in different years.

The Ida Bay area around the project property supports numerous stands of black gums (in

conjunction with stands of blue gums around nearby Southport) and is consequently an

important swift parrot foraging area. The area also contains mature forest elements, particularly

those dominated by stringybark forest (Eucalyptus obliqua – TASVEG DOB) (Plate 8). The project

area itself, including components of the proposed footprint (or very close to it), contains stands

of DOB forest that are considered to be potentially viable foraging (scattered E. ovata) and

19 Noting that no raptor nests are known within 500 m or 1 km line of sight of the property, with the closest

known nest being a white-bellied sea eagle nest 3.5 km to the east (nest ID 1966) 20 Threatened Species Link – Swift Parrots (Lathamus discolor)




MON016: 2020_12_01

v. 2.0

17

nesting habitat (viable hollow-bearing trees), as well as areas of E. ovata (with relatively large

trees in the area of FAC [Figure 3] and varying densities of small to medium trees throughout

the wet heathland habitat) that are viable foraging habitat only (Figure 5, Plate 8). Trees in the

forest patches and the FAC are estimated to range in height from 18-35 m, with an average of

around 30 m, and an average canopy depth of around 10 m. The scattered heathland trees are

generally less than 10 m tall similarly reduced canopy depths. Five trees supporting hollows

potentially suitable for nesting of this species were observed within the survey area (Figure 5)

(Plates 2 and 9).

The footprint of the installation occurs in an area of wet heathland with limited direct habitat value to swift parrots, other than small, scattered E. ovata less than 10 m in height and with relatively low value as potential foraging trees and no potential nesting habitat value – the closest examples of the small trees are marked in Figure 5. A patch of tree with viable nesting elements occurs upslope of the installation and close to the proposed edge of the excavation area. Within this patch, two confirmed hollow-bearing trees occur close to the proposed alignment of the footpath (Figure 5). The visitor centre occurs within a patch of FAC with around 50 potential foraging trees of E. ovata.

The installation site is situated at a relatively lower (slightly) point in the landscape compared

to adjacent DOB forest patches (which tend to be situated on slight rises [better drainage] but

is at comparable relative height to the small scattered heathland trees. The visitor centre occurs

on the same relief as the surrounding FAC.

Eleven potential risk flight paths have been examined in relation to the locations of the

installation and the visitor centre intersecting with direct paths between viable habitat elements

(Figure 6a and b).

Plate 8: Stand of stringybark (E. obliqua) with nesting and foraging potential to the southwest of the

property




MON016: 2020_12_01

v. 2.0

Figure 5: Distribution of potential threatened fauna habitat within the property




MON016: 2020_12_01

v. 2.0

19

Figure 6a: Potential flight path risks between habitat elements and

Transformer




MON016: 2020_12_01

v. 2.0

20

Figure 6b: Potential flight path risks between habitat elements and visitor

centre




MON016: 2020_12_01

v. 2.0

21

Plate 9: Typical density and size distribution of E. ovata (potential foraging trees) scattered throughout

the wet heathland on and around the property

Plate 10: Hollow-bearing E. ovata on the margin of a patch of DOB near the proposed path




MON016: 2020_12_01

v. 2.0

22

Table 2: Fauna species of conservation significance known or with core habitat present within

a 500 m radius of the survey area 21

Species Status TSPA /

EPBCA

Potential to

occur Observations and preferred habitat22

Reported from within 500 m23

Accipiter

novaehollandiae

grey goshawk

Endangered / - Very low

The core habitat for this species is generally

below 600 m with high priority nesting habitat

occurring along watercourses in old growth

wet forests. This species inhabits large tracts of

wet and swamp forest, particularly patches

with closed canopies above an open

understorey and with dense stands of prey

habitat nearby. Mature blackwood (Acacia

melanoxylon) is the preferred nesting tree.

There are no sightings of this species within

500 m of the property and only one within 5

km. May be transient in the area. Although

core habitat is listed as occurring within 500 m,

none is present on the property. It is highly

unlikely the species would visit the potential

development area enough to suffer

measurable detrimental impacts.

Ceyz azureus ssp.

diemenensis

(Alcedo azurea subsp.

diemenensis)

azure kingfisher

Endangered /

ENDANGERED Very low

This species is found along rivers in the south,

west, north and northwest of Tasmania with

outlying and/or vagrant occurrences

elsewhere. This species occurs in the forested

margins of major river systems where it

perches on branches overhanging rivers

waiting for prey items such as small fish,

insects and freshwater crayfish to come down

the river. This species nests in holes along the

top of riverbanks and is therefore susceptible

to clearing and modification of river-side

vegetation. There is thought to be fewer than

250 mature individuals left in Tasmania with

the overall distribution of Tasmania’s azure

kingfisher reflecting the higher rainfalls in the

west and north-west regions of Tasmania.

The creek on site is not suitable for occupation

by this species in terms of being a regular

foraging habitat nor viable for breeding in any

way. The only likelihood of the species

occurring on site would be as a stop-over

21 NVA report_ nvr_1_09-Sep-2020, DPIPWE, 2020; EPBC Act Protected Matters Report, Commonwealth of

Australia, PMST_AU39TJ – note that the thylacine (Thylacinus cynocephalus) has been excluded from

Table 1 on the basis of being declared extinct, although it is noted an accepted observation of the

species is listed on the NVA from 1985 within 500 m of the property. 22 Threatened Species Section (2020) 23 Natural Values Report: nvr_1_09_Sep_2020




MON016: 2020_12_01

v. 2.0

23


EPBCA

Potential to


during dispersal between other habitats, or a

random dispersal from a bird living on the

Lune River. The single record from the edge of

the property (attributed to a “signpost in the

middle of the township of Lune River right

next to railway office” is likely to be derived

from one such event. It is unlikely to visit the

potential development area enough to suffer

measurable detrimental impacts.

Dasyurus viverrinus

eastern quoll - / ENDANGERED

Foraging:

low -

moderate

Denning:

very low

The eastern quoll is widespread in Tasmania

and was previously widespread in mainland

south-eastern Australia but has been

effectively extinct there since 1963 (some

reintroductions have occurred). Not currently

listed as threatened species within Tasmania

under the TSPA.

Records from the NVA indicate that the

eastern quoll occurs in most parts of Tasmania

but is recorded infrequently in the wetter

western third of the state. The species’

distribution is associated with areas of low

rainfall and cold winter minimum

temperatures. It is found in a range of

vegetation types including open grassland

(including farmland), tussock grassland, grassy

woodland, dry eucalypt forest, coastal scrub

and alpine heathland, but is typically absent

from large tracts of wet eucalypt forest and

rainforest.

Only one observation record is known within 5

km of the property, although the potential for

core habitat is listed within 500 m. The habitat

on site is moderately suitable within the

forested areas. Although denning on the

property is unlikely, it may be used as part of

a foraging range and/or for dispersal.

Lathamus discolor

swift parrot

Endangered /

CRITICALLY

ENDANGERED

High

Swift parrots are a migratory species,

undertaking annual flights from Tasmania to

the mainland of Australia. When in Tasmania

they are semi-nomadic, crossing much to the

state to coincide with the erratic and patchy

flowering patterns of their preferred food

plants, Eucalyptus globulus and Eucalyptus

ovata. Breeding occurs in hollow-bearing trees

within 10 km of flowering food stands.

The property occurs within the Southern

Forest SPIBA, which contains nesting and

other observations. Although the species has

not been reported to have been observed




MON016: 2020_12_01

v. 2.0

24


EPBCA

Potential to


within 500 m of the property according to data

on the NVA, with both potential foraging and

breeding habitat present, it can reasonably be

expected to be present in years when regional

conditions are suitable (e.g. flowering of key

food resources).

Sarcophilus harrisii

Tasmanian devil

Endangered /

ENDANGERED

Foraging:

moderate

Denning:

very low

The Tasmanian devil lives in a wide range of

habitats across Tasmania, especially in

landscapes with a mosaic of pasture and

woodland. Populations have declined

substantially since the first observations of the

infectious cancer Devil Facial Tumour Disease

(DFTD). DFTD has now spread across much of

Tasmania. The reduced population is also

likely to be more sensitive to additional threats

such as death by roadkill, competition with

cats and foxes, and loss or disturbance of areas

surrounding traditional dens where young are

raised. The protection of breeding

opportunities is particularly important for the

species due to the mortalities from

demographic pressures.

Records of Tasmanian devil are not

uncommon anywhere there are roads and

people in Tasmania. Within 500 m of the

property there are 2 observations records,

with the most recent from 2013. It is likely the

species is still present in the area and although

denning on the property is unlikely, it may be

used as part of a foraging range and/or for

dispersal.

Tyto novaehollandiae

masked owl

Endangered/

VULNERABLE

Low -

moderate

Masked owls are a nocturnal species that

favour the edges of dry forests, utilising

hollows >15 cm in diameter for nesting.

Therefore, significant habitat for this species is

limited to large eucalypts within dry eucalypt

forest in their core range. Their core foraging

habitat includes mature native forests and

woodlands typically below 600 m altitude as

well as mosaics of both native vegetation and

agricultural patches.

The forest areas of DOB on the property

constitute quality foraging habitat for the

species, but no potentially suitable nesting

hollows were observed nor are likely to have

been overlooked given their size. Although

nesting and roosting on the property is

unlikely, it may be used as part of a foraging

range and/or for dispersal.




MON016: 2020_12_01

v. 2.0

25

4 POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION




associated with the site is potential foraging and nesting habitat for the swift parrot –

subsequently, limiting impacts to this habitat, and minimising collision risks posed by new

infrastructure are the highest priorities.

4.1 Native Vegetation and Ecological Communities

4.1.1 Extent of impact and conservation significance

The current expected losses of native vegetation are considered to be negligible in relation to

the overall extent and conservation statuses of the communities to be impacted.

• Overall, the impact footprint is expected to impact four native vegetation units (Table 3),

none of which are listed as threatened under the EPBCA or NCA.

• The extent of impact on this native vegetation is 0.37 ha, which constitutes 2.24 % of the

property’s native vegetation.

• Proportional losses to vegetation are very low at scales beyond the property (Table 3).

4.1.2 Potential for mitigation

If any further additions are required to the footprint, it is recommended that direct and

irreversible clearance is concentrated within the areas of modified land (FUM and FAC) as much

as possible (although taking into account the threatened fauna habitat values in the FAC).

Where impacts to native vegetation is unavoidable, micro-siting at a local scale may be able to

direct impacts into localised areas with less contribution to the overall value (e.g. a rocky area

containing minimal vegetation, or a localised area with lower quality vegetation than the

surrounds). As well as representative examples of all communities, the project should aim to

protect localised variations within units and areas that contain other important values (e.g.

threatened species habitat).

To further minimise net losses, revegetation could be considered as a minor form of mitigation

in areas where clearance of native vegetation is not required to be a permanent loss (e.g. borrow

pits [if required], temporary access routes and temporary construction disturbance footprints).

Suitable species for revegetation should be sourced from the local environment (see species

lists in Appendix B). Revegetation specifics, such as seed application rates, use of established

plants, specific planting details, etc., are best outlined in a revegetation plan once specific

project details, timing, locations, etc., are finalised, and may be included as a requirement in a

post-construction management plan.

Prior to the commencement of works, the impact area should be marked (either in situ and/or

clearly on construction plans) and all contractor agreements should specify that works, vehicles

and materials must be confined within the designated impact areas. Areas of native vegetation

beyond the impact footprint should be designated as exclusion zones and marked on the

ground and/or in construction plans to ensure no inadvertent impacts occur.

4.1.3 Summary of recommendations for native vegetation






MON016: 2020_12_01

v. 2.0

26

- Apply micro-siting approach (with the aid of an ecologist) to areas of the final footprint

within native vegetation – the micro-siting should aim to make minor adjustments to

the footprint on the ground by selecting localised areas with relatively less important

values (e.g. lower condition areas), as well as maintaining variation within a community

across the project area and local areas containing important values.








exclusion zones and marked on the ground and/or in construction plans to the degree








4.2 Threatened and Conservation Significant Flora

4.2.1 Potential impacts and context

The footprint does not overlap with any known occurrences of threatened flora and it is not

expected to have any unanticipated impacts in relation to undocumented occurrences.


No specific mitigation or additional survey effort is warranted for the current footprint.

4.3 Introduced Plants and Pathogens

4.3.1 Potential impacts and context

Due to the very minor occurrences of weeds within the property and around the impact area,

the proposal presents a very low risk of spreading weeds beyond the site. It is possible however

that earthworks associated with clearance and infrastructure construction may result in the

proliferation of propagules already present on site or introduce new species. The latter can be

expected to be a continued threat during operations.

Although no symptomatic evidence of the root rot fungus Phytophthora cinnamomi (PC) has

been observed on site, it is known within 1.5 km (where it is common around the Southport

Lagoon track) and the SHW vegetation in particular is highly susceptible to infection. Civil works

plant and personnel pose a risk of introducing PC to the site and an ongoing risk will be posed

by pedestrian traffic during operations.




MON016: 2020_12_01

v. 2.0

27

Table 3: Proportional and quantitative vegetation losses from the impact footprint

Proposed losses from impact footprint Context24

Community/ unit

Extent in

project area

(ha)

Total (ha)

Total loss %

of extent in

council area

Total loss %

of extent in

bioregion

Total loss %

of extent in

State

(DOB) Eucalyptus obliqua dry forest 4.63 0.098 0.0004 0.0002 0.0001

(MBS) buttongrass moorland with

emergent shrubs 0.79 0.013 0.00006 0.0001 0.00001

(SHW) wet heathland 10.47 0.348 0.02 0.02 0.002

(SMR) Melaleuca squarrosa scrub 0.63 0.013 0.0003 0.0008 0.00008

24 DPIPWE (2014) – noting that the accuracy of the proportional calculations is subject to the mapping limitations of the base data in DPIPWE 2014




MON016: 2020_12_01

v. 2.0

28


The risks of weed and pathogen spread or incursions into the site can be managed within

construction and operational phases of the proposal with hygiene protocols that comply with

the principles of DPIPWEs Weed and Disease Planning and Hygiene Guidelines25.

4.3.3 Summary of recommendations for weeds and pathogens








- Post works:






with signage.





reserves.



supported by an action plan that outlines what to do if weeds or pathogen


o The proponent should arrange biennial spring/summer weed and pathogen


4.4 Threatened Fauna

4.4.1 Swift parrot

4.4.1.1 Habitat clearance/impacts

None of the small E. ovata in the vicinity of the installation require direct removal and none are indicated as being at risk from root damage by the arboricultural assessment26. The arboricultural assessment raised a risk of decline in a E. obliqua from potential root impacts on the eastern end of the excavation footprint – the excavation area was subsequently shifted further from this tree in accordance with the arborist recommendations. This tree was not

25 DPIPWE (2015b) 26 Element Tree Services (2020)




MON016: 2020_12_01

v. 2.0

29

identified in our assessment as containing potential nesting hollows but is within a patch of trees with mature elements and other confirmed hollow-bearing trees.

The footpath construction and operation is not considered to pose a risk to tree health or require removal of limbs and thus is not expected to compromise the health of nearby potential nesting trees27.

The visitor centre and associated works will require the removal of one E. ovata potential foraging tree (identified as tree 4 in the arboricultural assessment28). An additional E. ovata (tree 6 in the arboricultural assessment) has also been identified as a likely mortality without permeable materials being used for surfacing.

The requirement for direct removal and/or risk of decline of potential swift parrot habitat elements is thus considered to be very low for this proposal, with a total of only one habitat tree requiring direct removal or considered to be at risk of decline.

4.4.1.2 Collision risk – Transformer installation and potential flight paths

Figures 7a-e show the potential relationship between the installation location and the

potential flight paths between habitat elements considered to present the greatest collision

risk, represented as cross sections showing relative heights and lateral separation. Due to the

combination of tree height (estimated range from 15-35 m high for highest risk elements, with

average of around 30 m, and altitude ranging from around 25-45 m) being greater than the

installation (around 4-5 m at around 32 m asl), no direct intersections are predicted by straight

line flight paths. The closest predicted paths (i.e. those with the least predicted separation)

are those involving the shorter statured potential foraging trees scattered within the

heathland. Due to the small canopies on these trees (and subsequent less scope for flowering),

they can be expected to be an infrequently utilised resource. As a result, they are not

considered to present a high collision risk. Habitat patches represented by patches of DOB

contain much taller trees, which result in much greater predicted separation of potential

direct flight paths, even when an average of 10 m is allowed for canopy depth. These patches

of habitat are thus considered to represent a very low risk of collisions from direct flight paths.

Flights departing from tree 10 may be a possible exception due to proximity to the installation

and the fact that a swift parrot may momentarily lose altitude as they depart from a canopy –

the installation however will appear as a solid obstruction from that angle (see section 4.4.1.4)

and combined with the fact that is has a relatively small lateral footprint (Figure 2), it is not

considered to pose a high collision risk in that context.

4.4.1.3 Collision risk – visitor centre and potential flight paths

Figures 8a-f show the potential relationship between the visitor centre location and the

potential flight paths between habitat elements considered to present the greatest collision

risk, represented as cross sections showing relative heights and lateral separation. Due to the

combination of tree height (estimated range from 10-30 m high for highest risk elements, with

average of around 20 m, and altitude ranging from around 20-35 m) being greater than the

visitor centre (around 3-4 m at around 20 m asl), no direct intersections are predicted by

straight line flight paths. The closest predicted paths (i.e. those with the least predicted

27 Element Tree Services (2020) 28 Element Tree Services (2020)




MON016: 2020_12_01

v. 2.0

30

separation) are those involving the shorter statured potential foraging trees scattered within

the heathland. Due to the small canopies on these trees (and subsequent less scope for

flowering), they can be expected to be an infrequently utilised resource. As a result, they are

not considered to present a high collision risk. Habitat patches represented by patches of DOB

contain much taller trees, which result in much greater predicted separation of potential

direct flight paths, even when an average of 10 m is allowed for canopy depth. These patches

of habitat are thus considered to represent a very low risk of collisions from direct flight paths.

Flights departing from several trees directly surrounding the visitor centre to tree 19 may be

a possible exception due to proximity to the visitor centre, the short stance of tree 19 and the

fact that a swift parrot may momentarily lose altitude as they depart from a canopy – the

visitor centre however will appear as a solid obstruction from that angle (see section 4.4.1.5)

and combined with the fact that is has a relatively small lateral footprint and is being

developed in a location that already consists of existing buildings (i.e. the Ida Bay railway and

café building is 7 m tall, 3 m higher than the proposed visitor centre) (Figure 2d), it is not

considered to pose a high collision risk in that context.

Figures 7a-b: Predicted flight paths between habitat elements across the

installation site – nodes for habitat elements represent canopy tops

36

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

-700 -600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400

real

tive

hei

ght

(m)

distance (m)

Tree 12 to tree 14 via tree 9

36

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

-800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600

rela

tive

hei

ght

(m)

distance (m)





MON016: 2020_12_01

v. 2.0

31

Figures 7c-e: Predicted flight paths between habitat elements across the

installation site – nodes for habitat elements represent canopy tops

36

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

-900 -800 -700 -600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200

real

tive

hei

ght

(m)

distance (m)

Tree 11 to tree 10

36

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

-1000 -800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400

real

tive

hei

ght

(m)

distance (m)

Tree 16 to scattered E. ovata in north

36

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

-1000 -800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400

rela

tive

hei

ght

(m)

distance (m)

Tree 15 to scattered E. ovata in north




MON016: 2020_12_01

v. 2.0

32

Figures 8a-c: Predicted flight paths between habitat elements across the

visitor centre – nodes for habitat elements represent canopy tops

24

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

-800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600

rela

tive

hei

ght

(m)

distance (m)


24

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

-700 -600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200

rela

tive

hei

ght

(m)

distance (m)

Tree 14 to tree 20

24

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

-300 -250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100

rela

tive

hei

ght

(m)

distance (m)

Tree 18 to 5 via tree 1




MON016: 2020_12_01

v. 2.0

33

Figures 8d-f: Predicted flight paths between habitat elements across the

visitor centre – nodes for habitat elements represent canopy tops

24

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

rela

tive

hei

ght

(m)

distance (m)

Tree 2 to tree 5

24

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

-100 0 100 200 300 400 500

rela

tive

hei

ght

(m)

distance (m)


24

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

-100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

rela

tive

hei

ght

(m)

distance (m)

Tree 7 to tree 23




MON016: 2020_12_01

v. 2.0

34

4.4.1.4 Collision risk – building design – Transformer installation

For swift parrots that fly over the installation, the fact the building is very low (in part due to

being embedded into the slope) gives it an inherently low risk of creating collisions with a

canopy bird such as the swift parrot (Figure 9), which when foraging generally fly within the

height range of the canopies29. Although swift parrots do sometimes land on the ground (for

food or water), we are not aware of records of this happening in the type of habitat that

immediately surrounds the installation, nor have we recorded any habitat elements at ground

level that we believe will induce this behaviour. In addition to being quite low (particularly

compared to the relative heights of surrounding habitat elements, as shown in section 4.4.1.2),

the installation is not expected to have any throughways (i.e. sight line transparencies where a

false impression of an unobstructed passageway is created by having two windows opposite

one another). Although the interior surfaces are covered with mirrors, the far mirror in the back

of the pavilion for two out of three tunnels and the mirrors on the walls of the entrances (i.e.

the mirrors potentially most visible when looking straight down one of the entrances) are angled

in such a fashion that the modelling (Figure 2a) predicts that reflections will be off the interior

floor or ceiling when viewed from outside – by reflecting the interior solid surfaces to external

observers, the installation will not create the impression of continuous habitat or sky, despite

the reflections shown to internal observers being comprised of these elements. No other

aspects of the building construction have the potential to be reflective of transparent in a way

that could create collision risk. The installation design is subsequently considered low risk for

collisions from swift parrots.

Figure 9: From Pfennigwerth (2008, artist Robyn McNicol), showing how a

low or flat position below canopies presents a lower threat than a higher

position relative to the canopy level

4.4.1.5 Collision risk – building design – visitor centre

For swift parrots that fly over the visitor centre, the fact the building is very low, < 4 m and

lower than the existing Ida Bay railway and café building which is 7 m at its peak and 4 m at the

gutters) gives it an inherently low risk of creating collisions with a canopy bird such as the swift

29 Smales (2005)




MON016: 2020_12_01

v. 2.0

35

parrot (Figure 9), which when foraging generally fly within the height range of the canopies30.

Although swift parrots do sometimes land on the ground (for food or water), we are not aware

of records of this happening in the type of habitat that immediately surrounds the installation,

nor have we recorded any habitat elements at ground level that we believe will induce this

behaviour. In addition to being quite low (particularly compared to the relative heights of the

surrounding buildings and habitat elements, as shown in section 4.4.1.3), the visitor centre will

be attached to the western side of the existing railway and café building (Figure 2c) and will not

have any throughways (i.e. sight line transparencies where a false impression of an unobstructed

passageway is created by having two windows opposite one another). The visitor centre design

is subsequently considered low risk for collisions from swift parrots.

4.4.1.6 Summary of further avoidance and mitigation recommendations for swift

parrots

It would appear that the proposed levels of habitat clearance and the collision risks proposed

by the development are relatively low should the development proceed as per the current

design and location. Nonetheless, it is prudent as a safeguard to design and implement a

monitoring program of both swift parrot use of the site and collision incidences. The program

should include:

- Annual pre-season checks on foraging trees and the likelihood of flowering food plants

within the vicinity of the development.

- Utilisation surveys within seasons where food plants on site are flowering and/or the

Southern Forests SPIBA is known to be host to significant numbers of breeding pairs.

- Regular systematic patrols around the development buildings to document bird

collision mortalities.

- Mitigation strategies for if mortalities occur in relation to particular design elements or

habitat variables (e.g. flowering events) – mitigation options may include alterations to

the building designs or facades to the degree necessary.

5 LEGISLATIVE IMPLICATIONS AND ASSESSMENT

5.1 Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity

Conservation Act 1999 (EPBCA)

The project is not considered to be a risk of resulting in significant impacts to Matters of

National Environmental Significance (MNES) under the definitions for assessment requirements

under this Act. Based on this it does not warrant referral to the federal Minister for consideration

as a controlled action.

5.1.1 Threatened ecological communities

The project area has not been found to support EPBCA listed threatened ecological

communities and as such there is no potential for significant impacts to MNES of this type.

5.1.2 Threatened flora

The project area has not been found to support EPBCA listed flora and as such there is no

potential for significant impacts to MNES of this type.

30 Smales (2005)




MON016: 2020_12_01

v. 2.0

36

5.1.3 Threatened fauna - swift parrot

The following criteria must be considered in relation to the swift parrot and the potential for

significant impacts in relation to this Act.

• Likelihood of breeding disturbance and therefore adverse impacts on habitat critical to

the survival of the species, potential to disrupt the breeding cycle of a population,

potential to lead to a long-term decrease in the size of a population and impacts to

habitat to the extent that the species is likely to decline.

• Possible fragmentation effects.

• Likelihood of introduction of disease or harmful invasive species.

• Potential for interference with the recovery of the species.

• A meaningful reduction in the area of occupancy of the species.

Taken these criteria into account and the general test of significance under the EPBCA31, the

proposal is not considered likely to result in a significant on the swift parrot.

5.2 Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 (TSPA)

Under the TSPA, a person cannot knowingly, without a permit, ‘take’ a listed species. With the

definition of ‘take’ encompassing actions that kill, injure, catch, damage, destroy and/or collect

threatened species or vegetation elements that support threatened species, e.g. nests and dens.

No permit is currently required for the project in relation to threatened species impacts.

5.3 Tasmanian Nature Conservation Act 2002 (NCA)

A permit to take products of wildlife may be required for this project if any hollow-bearing trees

are required to be impacted, but at this point none have been proposed for impacts.

5.4 Tasmanian Weed Management Act 1999

Two species of declared weeds have been observed around the proposal area. The relevant

statutory weed management plans define the respective municipalities as Zone B municipalities

for both Spanish heath and blackberry.

According to the provisions of the Weed Management Act 1999, Zone B municipalities are those

which host moderate or large infestations of the declared weed that are not deemed eradicable

because the feasibility of effective management is low at this time. Therefore, the objective is

containment of infestations. This includes preventing spread of the declared weed from the

municipality or into properties currently free of the weed or which have developed or are

implementing a locally integrated weed management plan for that species. As well there is a

requirement to prevent spread of the weeds to properties containing sites with significant flora,

fauna and vegetation communities.

31 The particular facts and circumstances of a proposed action need to be taken into account in

determining whether that action is likely to have a significant impact on a Matter of National

Environmental Significance (MNES). The general test for significance is whether an impact is ‘important,

notable or of consequence, having regard to its context or intensity’. This general test is informed by

the significant impact criteria but not necessarily entirely, as it provides scope for interpretation of

impacts beyond the generic and finely-worded significant impact criteria.




MON016: 2020_12_01

v. 2.0

37

5.5 Tasmanian National Parks and Reserves Management Act 2002

The Parks and Wildlife Service (PWS) Tasmania are responsible for maintaining the significant

values protected within lands reserved under this Act, including values of biological diversity,

geological diversity, water quality, sites/areas of cultural significance, and areas of high

wilderness quality. PWS are also charged with encouraging certain forms of use of reserves and

assessing proposed uses. The Reserve Activity Assessment (RAA) process is the Environmental

Impact Assessment system PWS uses to assess whether activities proposed on PWS managed

land are environmentally, socially and economically acceptable, and to ensure that proposals

are consistent with any approved management plan that applies to the land. Activities that

require an RAA are new or recurrent works/activities that over a period of time have the

potential for adverse environmental, social or economic impacts. Activities that do not require

an RAA are usually routine or general maintenance activities that are often done on a day-to-

day basis. They have low potential environmental, social or economic impacts even if they are

conducted over a long period of time. The RAA process applies to both PWS and external

proponents’ activities on PWS managed land. The RAA process complements other external

planning assessment processes covered under each of the Acts discussed in this section.

The current proposal will require an RAA due to the proposed use occurring within the Ida Bay

State Reserve and the proposal meeting the definition of a new or recurrent work/activity that

over a period of time has the potential for adverse environmental, social or economic impacts.

5.6 Forest Practices Act 1985

A Forest Practices Plan will be required under this Act for any forest practices that don’t fit the

definitions of works in which FPPs are not required, in accordance with the clauses of section 4

of the Forest Practices Regulations 2017. The current proposal meets the definitions of the

exemption clause 4 (j):

the harvesting of timber or the clearing of trees on any land, or the clearance and

conversion of a threatened native vegetation community on any land, for the

purpose of enabling –

(i) the construction of a building within the meaning of the Land Use Planning and

Approvals Act 1993 or of a group of such buildings; or

(ii) the carrying out of any associated development –

if the construction of the buildings or carrying out of the associated development is

authorised by a permit issued under that Act;

However, the proponent have been advised that they may require an FPP due to the

requirement for landowner consent from Sustainable Timbers Tasmania to use their fire trail

between South Lune Road and the installation site for construction access during works.

5.7 Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 (LUPAA)

LUPAA states that ‘in determining an application for a permit, a planning authority must

(amongst other things) seek out the objectives set out in Schedule 132.

Schedule 1 includes ‘The objectives of the Resource Management and Planning System of

Tasmania’ which are (amongst other things):

32 Section 51(2)(b) – Part 4 Enforcement of Planning Control – Division 2 Development Control (LUPPA

1993)




MON016: 2020_12_01

v. 2.0

38

‘To promote sustainable development of natural and physical resources and the maintenance

of ecological processes and genetic diversity’.

Sustainable development includes ‘avoiding, remedying or mitigating any adverse effects of

activities on the environment’33.

The intent of LUPAA will be met through compliance with the above Acts and the Huon Valley

Interim Planning Scheme 2015 and this study suggests these provisions can be achieved.

5.8 Huon Valley Interim Planning Scheme 2015

5.8.1 Rural Resource Zone 26.0

The only applicable development standard (D26.4) that pertains to natural values relevant to

the scope of our assessment is D26.4.3. A1(c), which specifies that:

To ensure that the location and appearance of buildings and works minimises adverse impact on the rural landscape. The location of buildings and works must comply with any of the following:

(c) be located in and area not require the clearing of native vegetation and not on a skyline or ridgeline.

The installation relies on being embedded in the slope and facing a scenic vista, which does not

provide scope for relocation into already cleared land such as is being used by the visitor centre

proposal. There are unlikely to be other layout configurations that would enable the proposal

to remain functional and give the same likelihood of success while avoiding clearance of native

vegetation entirely. The proposal thus is seen to meet the following performance criteria:

(c) be located in and area requiring the clearing of native vegetation only if:

(i) there are no sites clear of native vegetation and clear of other significant site constraints such as access difficulties or excessive slope, or the location is necessary for the functional requirements of infrastructure;

(ii) the extent of clearing is the minimum necessary to provide for buildings, associated works and associated bushfire protection measures.

5.8.2 Biodiversity Code E10

Based on the values present, the proposal must been the requirements pertaining to Moderate

Priority Biodiversity Values under the definitions of E10.1 unless it is undertaken in accordance

with a certified Forest Practices Plan, which will make it exempt from E10 under clause E10.4.1.

(b).

To comply with E.10 the proposal must meet the conditions of E10.7.1, which have the objective

to ensure that development for buildings and works that involves clearance and conversion or

disturbance within a Biodiversity Protection Area does not result in unnecessary or unacceptable

loss of priority biodiversity values.

As the proposal does not meet any of the definitions of Acceptable Solutions under E10.7.1 A1,

it must meet the following Performance Criteria P1 (b) for moderate priority biodiversity values:

(i) development is designed and located to minimise impacts, having regard to constraints such as topography or land hazard and the particular requirements of the development;

33 page 56 – LUPPA 1993

https://iplan.tas.gov.au/pages/plan/book.aspx?exhibit=huoips

https://iplan.tas.gov.au/pages/plan/book.aspx?exhibit=huoips




MON016: 2020_12_01

v. 2.0

39

The installation relies on being embedded in the slope and facing a scenic vista, which does

not provide scope for relocation into already cleared land. The visitor centre is located in

modified land surrounded by existing buildings and next to the main road. There are unlikely

to be other layout configurations that would enable the proposal to remain functional and

give the same likelihood of success while further limiting impacts to moderate priority

biodiversity values. The proposal thus meets this criterion.

(ii) impacts resulting from bushfire hazard management measures are minimised as far as reasonably practicable through siting and fire-resistant design of habitable buildings;

We have not been informed the proposal will include hazard management.

(iii) remaining moderate priority biodiversity values on the site are retained and improved through implementation of current best practice mitigation strategies and ongoing management measures designed to protect the integrity of these values;

This will be achieved by implementing the recommendations of this report and the

arboricultural assessment.

(iv) residual adverse impacts on moderate priority biodiversity values not able to be avoided or satisfactorily mitigated are offset in accordance with the Guidelines for the Use of Biodiversity Offsets in the Local Planning Approval Process, Southern Tasmanian Councils Authority 2013 and any relevant Council policy.

Our assessment has shown that impacts on moderate priority biodiversity values have been avoided and or satisfactorily mitigated to a degree that offsets are not warranted at this time. Should monitoring as part of mitigation reveal unanticipated levels of impacts, there are various mechanisms available to achieve suitable offsets, such as habitat supplements, covenants, management agreements, and monetary contributions to research and conservation.

6 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS




associated with the site is potential foraging and nesting habitat for the swift parrot. Our

assessment has however shown that the proposal will require negligible levels of impact to

potential swift parrot habitat and poses only a low level of risk in relation to collision-induced

mortalities.

The following recommendations are made regarding general management of the proposal area

and to ensure minimal impacts to conservation significant values.

6.1 Native Vegetation



- Apply micro-siting approach (with the aid of an ecologist) to areas of the final footprint

within native vegetation – the micro-siting should aim to make minor adjustments to

the footprint on the ground by selecting localised areas with relatively less important

values (e.g. lower condition areas), as well as maintaining variation within a community

across the project area and local areas containing important values.







MON016: 2020_12_01

v. 2.0

40





exclusion zones and marked on the ground and/or in construction plans to the degree








6.2 Introduced Plants and Pathogens








- Post works:






with signage.





reserves.



supported by an action plan that outlines what to do if weeds or pathogen


o The proponent should arrange biennial spring/summer weed and pathogen


6.3 Threatened Fauna

- Implement a monitoring program of both swift parrot use of the site and collision

incidences. The program should include:

o Annual pre-season checks on foraging trees and the likelihood of flowering

food plants within the vicinity of the development.




MON016: 2020_12_01

v. 2.0

41

o Utilisation surveys within seasons where food plants on site are flowering

and/or the Southern Forests SPIBA is known to be host to significant numbers

of breeding pairs.

o Regular systematic patrols around the development buildings to document

bird collision mortalities.

o Mitigation strategies for if mortalities occur in relation to particular design

elements or habitat variables (e.g. flowering events) – mitigation options may

include alterations to the building designs or facades to the degree necessary.




MON016: 2020_12_01

v. 2.0

42

REFERENCES

Commonwealth of Australia (2020). Protected Matters Search Tool, www.environment.gov.au.

Report – PMST_AU39TJ.

Commonwealth of Australia (1999). Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act

1999. No. 91, 1999.

Department of the Environment (2020). Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of

the Environment, Canberra. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat.

de Salas M.F. and Baker M.J. (2020). A Census of the Vascular Plants of Tasmania. Tasmanian

Herbarium, Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery.

DPIPWE (2020). Natural Values Report # 1_09-Sept-2020, DPIPWE, Natural Values Atlas,

Threatened Species Section, Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and

Environment, Hobart.

DPIPWE (2015a). Guidelines for Natural Values Surveys - Terrestrial Development Proposals.

Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (Natural and Cultural

Heritage Division).

DPIPWE (2015b). Weed and Disease Planning and Hygiene Guidelines - Preventing the spread

of weeds and diseases in Tasmania. (Eds.) Karen Stewart and Michael Askey-Doran.

Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment, Hobart, Tasmania.

DPIPWE (2014). Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment. TASVEG 3.0

area by VEGCODE. Tasmanian Vegetation Monitoring and Mapping Program, Resource

Management and Conservation Division.

DPIPWE (2013). Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment. TASVEG 3.0,

Released November 2013. Tasmanian Vegetation Monitoring and Mapping Program,

Resource Management and Conservation Division.

Element Tree Services (2020). Development Impact Assessment, Ida Bay Railway, 2nd November

2020.

Goff, F.G, Dawson, G.A. and Rochow, J.J. (1982). Site examination for threatened and endangered

plant species. Environmental Management 6 (4) pp 307-316.

Google Earth Pro (2020). Various images referenced in text, by DigitalGlobe, TerraMetrics and

CNES/ Airbus. Accessed November 2020.

Harris, S. and Kitchener, A. (2005). From Forest to Fjaeldmark: Descriptions of Tasmania’s

Vegetation. Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment, Printing

Authority of Tasmania, Hobart.

IBRA 7 (2012). Interim Biogeographic Regionalisation for Australia, Version 7. Map produced by

Environment Resources Information Network (ERIN), Australian Government

Department of the Environment and Energy, Canberra, Commonwealth of Australia.

Kirkpatrick, J.B. and Nunez, M. (1980). Vegetation-radiation relationships in mountainous

terrain: eucalypt-dominated vegetation in the Risdon Hills, Tasmania. Journal of

Biogeography v. 7, pp. 197-208.

Kitchener, A. and Harris, S. (2013). From Forest to Fjaeldmark: Descriptions of Tasmania's

Vegetation. Edition 2. Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment,

Tasmania.

Kuchler, A.B. and Zonneveld, S. (2012). Vegetation Mapping. Kluwer Academic Publishers,

United States, pp. 648.




MON016: 2020_12_01

v. 2.0

43

Pfennigwerth, S. (2008). Minimising the swift parrot collision threat. Guidelines and

recommendations for parrot-safe building design. World Wildlife Fund – Australia.

Saunders, D.L. and Tzaros, C.L. (2011). National Recovery Plan for the Swift Parrot Lathamus

discolor, Birds Australia, Melbourne

Smales, I. (2005). Modelled cumulative impacts on the swift parrot of wind farms across the

species ranges in south-eastern Australia. Report for the Department of Environment

and Heritage. Biosis Research.

Tasmanian State Government (1993). Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993. No.70 of 1993.

Government Printer, Hobart, Tasmania

Tasmanian State Government (1995). Threatened Species Protection Act 1995. No.83 of 1995.

Government Printer, Hobart, Tasmania

Tasmanian State Government (1999). Weed Management Act 1999. No.105 of 1999.

Government Printer, Hobart, Tasmania.

Tasmanian State Government (2002). Nature Conservation Act 2002. No.63 of 2002.

Government Printer, Hobart, Tasmania.

Tasmanian State Government (2006). Nature Conservation Amendment (Threatened Native

Vegetation Communities) Act 2006. Government Printer, Hobart, Tasmania.

Tasmanian Vegetation Monitoring and Mapping Program/ TVMMP (2013). TASVEG 3.0

Metadata Statement. DPIPWE, Conservation Values Information Section, Hobart,

Tasmania.

The Nature Conservancy (1994). Field Methods for Vegetation Mapping – USGS/NPS Vegetation

Mapping Program. Report prepared for the United States Department of Interior,

United States Geology Survey and the United States National Parks Service.

Threatened Species Section (2020). Species Management Profiles from Tasmania's Threatened

Species Link. http://www.threatenedspecieslink.tas.gov.au. Department of Primary

Industries, Parks, Water and Environment, Tasmania.

Triggs, B. (1996). Tracks, Scats and Other Traces – A field guide to Australian Mammals. Oxford

Press, pp. 352.

Wapstra, M. (2018). Flowering Times of Tasmanian Orchids: A Practical Guide for Field

Botanists, 4th edition. Self-published by the author (July 2018 version).




M MON016: 2020_12_01

v. 2.0

44

APPENDIX A – COARSE HABITAT MAPPING (STOJANOVIC)




MON016: 2020_12_01

v. 2.0

45

APPENDIX B – VASCULAR PLANT SPECIES LIST

Status codes:

ORIGIN NATIONAL SCHEDULE STATE SCHEDULE

i - introduced EPBC Act 1999 TSP Act 1995

d - declared weed WM Act CR - critically endangered e - endangered

en - endemic to Tasmania EN - endangered v - vulnerable

t - within Australia, occurs only in Tas. VU - vulnerable r - rare

Sites: 1 SHW - E491596, N5189897 26/05/2020 Dave Sayers 2 FAC with emergent E. ovata - E492187, N5189983 26/05/2020 Dave Sayers 3 SHW with buttongrass component of 15-30% - E491552, N5189928 29/09/2020 Grant Daniels 4 DOB stand with scattered E. ovata particularly around edges - 29/09/2020 Grant Daniels E491667, N5189891 5 SHW indicative species between DOB patches - E491788, N5189855 29/09/2020 Grant Daniels 6 SMR creekline - E492080, N5189890 29/09/2020 Grant Daniels 7 MBS - button grass moorland with emergent paperbark and tea tree - 29/09/2020 Grant Daniels E492065, N5189905 8 FAC with emergent E. ovata and FUM - E492173, N5189957 29/09/2020 Grant Daniels

Site Name Common name Status

DICOTYLEDONAE ASTERACEAE 2 Cirsium vulgare spear thistle i 4 Coronidium scorpioides curling everlasting 4 Euchiton japonicus common cottonleaf 8 Hypochaeris glabra smooth catsear i 2 Olearia phlogopappa dusty daisy bush 2 Senecio linearifolius var. linearifolius common fireweed groundsel 8 Senecio minimus shrubby fireweed

CARYOPHYLLACEAE 2 Spergula arvensis corn spurrey i

CLUSIACEAE 8 Hypericum japonicum matted st johns-wort

CUNONIACEAE 1 3 7 Bauera rubioides wiry bauera

DILLENIACEAE 3 4 Hibbertia appressa southern guineaflower

DROSERACEAE 3 Drosera pygmaea dwarf sundew

ERICACEAE 4 Acrotriche serrulata ants delight 4 Epacris impressa common heath 1 3 5 Epacris lanuginosa swamp heath 2 Erica lusitanica spanish heath d 1 3 5 6 7 Sprengelia incarnata pink swampheath FABACEAE 3 4 Acacia myrtifolia redstem wattle 3 Acacia verticillata subsp. verticillata prickly moses 3 Almaleea subumbellata wiry bushpea 1 3 Aotus ericoides golden pea 4 Daviesia ulicifolia subsp. ulicifolia yellow spiky bitterpea 2 Lotus sp. trefoil i 4 Pultenaea juniperina prickly beauty




MON016: 2020_12_01

v. 2.0

46

GENTIANACEAE 2 Centaurium erythraea common centaury i

GERANIACEAE 8 Geranium potentilloides var. mountain cranesbill

HALORAGACEAE 3 Gonocarpus micranthus subsp. creeping raspwort 4 Gonocarpus tetragynus common raspwort

HEMEROCALLIDACEAE 8 Dianella revoluta var. revoluta spreading flax-lily

LAURACEAE 1 3 Cassytha pubescens downy dodderlaurel

LOGANIACEAE 3 Mitrasacme pilosa hairy mitrewort

MYRTACEAE 2 8 Eucalyptus amygdalina black peppermint en 3 8 Eucalyptus nitida western peppermint en 2 4 8 Eucalyptus obliqua stringybark 2 3 4 5 8 Eucalyptus ovata var. ovata black gum 2 4 8 Eucalyptus pulchella white peppermint en 1 6 7 Leptospermum lanigerum woolly teatree 3 4 7 8 Leptospermum scoparium common tea-tree 2 Leptospermum scoparium var. common teatree 1 3 5 6 7 Melaleuca squarrosa scented paperbark

PLANTAGINACEAE 2 Plantago lanceolata ribwort plantain i

POLYGALACEAE 4 Comesperma volubile blue lovecreeper

PROTEACEAE 1 Hakea epiglottis beaked hakea en 3 4 5 Hakea epiglottis subsp. milliganii western beaked needlebush 4 Lomatia tinctoria guitarplant en

ROSACEAE 2 8 Acaena novae-zelandiae common buzzy 8 Rubus anglocandicans blackberry d RUTACEAE 3 Boronia parviflora swamp boronia 3 4 Boronia pilosa subsp. pilosa hairy boronia

SANTALACEAE 4 Exocarpos cupressiformis common native-cherry 4 Leptomeria drupacea erect currantbush

SCROPHULARIACEAE 2 Verbascum thapsus great mullein i

STYLIDIACEAE 1 3 Stylidium graminifolium narrowleaf triggerplant

THYMELAEACEAE 4 Pimelea humilis dwarf riceflower 1 Pimelea linifolia slender riceflower

MONOCOTYLEDONAE ASPARAGACEAE 2 Lomandra longifolia sagg

CYPERACEAE 3 Baumea tetragona square twigsedge




MON016: 2020_12_01

v. 2.0

47

1 Gahnia filum chaffy sawsedge 1 2 3 4 5 Gahnia grandis cutting grass 1 3 4 5 6 Gymnoschoenus sphaerocephalus buttongrass 7

1 Isolepis sp. club rush 1 4 5 6 7 Lepidosperma filiforme common rapiersedge 8 Lepidosperma laterale variable swordsedge 1 8 Schoenus apogon common bogsedge 3 4 6 7 Schoenus lepidosperma subsp. slender bogsedge lepidosperma

IRIDACEAE 3 5 Diplarrena latifolia western flag-iris en 1 3 4 8 Diplarrena moraea white flag-iris 1 Patersonia occidentalis long purpleflag

JUNCACEAE 2 8 Juncus pallidus pale rush 2 Juncus subsecundus finger rush

ORCHIDACEAE 4 Acianthus caudatus mayfly orchid 4 Pterostylis melagramma blackstripe greenhood POACEAE 2 8 Agrostis capillaris brown top bent grass i 2 Aira caryophyllea silvery hairgrass i 2 Anthoxanthum odoratum sweet vernalgrass i 2 Austrostipa sp. speargrass 2 Deyeuxia sp. bent grass 2 Lolium perenne perennial ryegrass i 2 8 Microlaena stipoides weeping grass 1 5 8 Poa labillardierei silver tussockgrass 4 6 Poa sp. poa 2 Poa tenera scrambling tussockgrass 2 4 8 Rytidosperma sp. wallabygrass 3 Tetrarrhena distichophylla hairy ricegrass

RESTIONACEAE 1 4 5 6 7 Empodisma minus spreading roperush 7 Eurychorda complanata flat cordrush 1 2 Hypolaena fastigiata tassel roperush 3 4 5 6 7 Leptocarpus tenax slender twinerush 5 Sporadanthus tasmanicus branching scalerush

XYRIDACEAE 7 Xyris gracilis yelloweye 6 7 Xyris operculata tall yelloweye

PTERIDOPHYTA DENNSTAEDTIACEAE 2 4 8 Pteridium esculentum subsp. esculentum bracken

DICKSONIACEAE 8 Dicksonia antarctica soft treefern

GLEICHENIACEAE 1 2 4 5 6 Gleichenia dicarpa pouched coralfern

LINDSAEACEAE 3 Lindsaea linearis screw fern

LYCOPODIACEAE 1 Lycopodiella sp. clubmoss

transformer art installation, ida bay

Documents