BULGANA WIND FARM FLORA AND FAUNA ASSESSMENT

Transcription

1 BULGANA WIND FARM FLORA AND FAUNA ASSESSMENT Prepared by Brett Lane & Associates Pty Ltd (BL&A) Suite 5, Camberwell Road, Hawthorn East VIC 3123 PO Box 337, Camberwell VIC 3124 Ph (03) Fax (03) Client Bulgana Wind Farm Pty Ltd December 2014 BL&A Report No (7.4)

2 CONTENTS 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Flora and vegetation assessment Habitat hectare assessment Targeted surveys for listed threatened flora Listed threatened ecological communities Impacts on native vegetation and listed threatened flora species and ecological communities Fauna assessment and impact analysis Regulatory implications for the development Planning and Environment Act Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act Environment Effects Act Mitigation recommendations INTRODUCTION SITE DESCRIPTION LEGISLATIVE BACKGROUND Planning and Environment Act Local provisions State provisions EPBC Act FFG Act EE Act FLORA AND FAUNA ASSESSMENT Flora and fauna methodology Existing information Field methodology Limitations of field assessments Determination of impact extent Flora and native vegetation results Remnant patches Scattered trees Flora species Page ii

3 Targeted survey for listed threatened flora species Fauna results Fauna habitats Fauna species Listed fauna species Threatened ecological communities Existing information Assessment results BIRD UTLISATION SURVEY Introduction Methods Fixed-point bird count method Incidental observations Limitations Results Survey representativeness Species composition Flight heights Threatened Species Raptors Waterbirds Conclusions SWIFT PARROT TARGETED SURVEY Introduction Background Information Description Distribution and habitat Threats Population numbers and legislative protection Methodology Existing information Field methodology Limitations of field assessment Results Page iii

4 Existing information Targeted field survey Habitat assessment Implications of findings TARGETED NOCTURNAL BIRD SURVEY Introduction Background Information Barking Owl Powerful Owl Bush Stone-curlew Masked Owl Methodology Existing Information Field Methodology Limitations of field assessment Results Existing Information Habitat assessment Call playback and spotlighting Implications of findings Barking Owl Powerful Owl Bush Stone-curlew Masked Owl BAT SURVEYS Introduction Methods Bat recordings Timing and location of the bat surveys Limitations Results Late spring survey Summer survey Discussion Page iv

5 Wind farm impacts on bats Potential impacts to Southern Bentwing Bat Conclusions IMPACTS AND REGULATORY IMPLICATIONS Proposed development Design response to mitigate impacts on flora and fauna Residual impacts of proposed development under state provisions Risk based assessment pathway Strategic biodiversity score Important habitat Losses in Biodiversity Equivalence Units (BEUs) Implications for the proposed development Planning and Environment Act State Provisions EPBC Act FFG Act EE Act DEPI advisory lists Recommendations for further mitigation REFERENCES TABLES Table 1: Summary of the assessment process and offset requirements Table 2: Description of habitat zones in the study area Table 3: Summary of habitat hectare assessment results Table 4: Scattered trees size classes in the proposed infrastructure zone of the study area Table 5: FFG Act and EPBC Act listed flora species and potential habitat in the study area Table 6: Listed fauna species and potential to occur in the study area Table 7: Times when points were counted for each fixed-point bird count survey day Table 8 Habitat associated with each impact and reference point Table 9: Number and height distribution of bird species at impact sites during the summer season survey at Bulgana Wind Farm site Page v

6 Table 10: Number and height distribution of bird species at reference sites during the summer season survey at Bulgana Wind Farm site Table 11: Summary of birds recorded at the three flight heights Table 12: Raptor species recorded at impact survey points during the summer (February 2014) surveys at Bulgana Wind Farm Table 13: Sites of potential Swift Parrot habitat suitability in and adjacent the study area, and likelihood of utilisation Table 14: Number of call playback and spotlight surveys for Barking Owl at each site. 116 Table 15: Number of call playback and spotlight surveys for Powerful Owl at each site 116 Table 16: Number of call playback and spotlight surveys for Bush Stone-curlew at each site Table 17: Number of call playback and spotlight surveys for Masked Owl at each site. 117 Table 18: Bat species recorded at the Bulgana Wind Farm during late spring Table 19: Summary of the frequency with which bats were recorded at each of the nine recording sites Table 20: Summary of the number and average call per nights of bats recorded during 14 nights from nine sites Table 21: Bat species recorded at the Bulgana Wind Farm during summer 2014 survey Table 22: Summary of the number of nights each bat species was recorded at sites 2-7 and FIGURES Figure 1: Location of Bulgana Wind Farm Figure 2: Bioregions and planning overlays in the study area (DEPI 2013b) Figure 3: Search region buffers. Source: Victorian Biodiversity Atlas (2013) Figure 4: Study area and native vegetation - overview Figure 5: Study area and native vegetation - detailed Figure 6: Study area and native vegetation - detailed Figure 7: Study area and native vegetation - detailed Figure 8: Study area and native vegetation detailed Figure 9: Study area and native vegetation - detailed Figure 10: Study area and native vegetation - detailed Figure 11: Study area and native vegetation - detailed Figure 12: Study area and native vegetation - detailed Figure 13: Study area and native vegetation - detailed Page vi

7 Figure 14: Study area and native vegetation detailed Figure 15: Study area and native vegetation - detailed Figure 16: Study area and native vegetation - detailed Figure 17: Study area and native vegetation - detailed Figure 18: Study area and native vegetation - detailed Figure 19: Study area and native vegetation - detailed Figure 20: Study area and native vegetation - detailed Figure 21: Threatened flora and fauna recorded in the study area - overview Figure 22: Threatened flora and fauna recorded in the study area - detailed Figure 23: Threatened flora and fauna recorded in the study area - detailed Figure 24: Threatened flora and fauna recorded in the study area - detailed Figure 25: Threatened flora and fauna recorded in the study area - detailed Figure 26: Threatened flora and fauna recorded in the study area - detailed Figure 27: Threatened flora and fauna recorded in the study area - detailed Figure 28: Map of proposed Wind farm showing the location of bird utilisation survey points Figure 29: The cumulative number of species of birds recorded during consecutive counts at the impact points on the Bulgana Wind Farm Figure 30: Distribution of Swift Parrot in Victoria Figure 31: Swift Parrot records from the VBA 30 kilometre buffer search region (June 2014) Figure 32: Habitat surveyed for Swift Parrot at the proposed Bulgana Wind Farm Figure 33 Location of nocturnal bird survey sites Figure 34: Threatened bird species records from the VBA within 30 kilometre of the wind farm Figure 35: Location of bat utilisation survey points Figure 36: Comparison of average number of bat calls from three habitat types Figure 37: Design response - overview Figure 38: Design response - detailed Figure 39: Design response - detailed Figure 40: Design response - detailed APPENDICES Appendix 1: Flora species recorded in the study area and threatened species known (or with the potential) to occur in the search region Page vii

8 Appendix 2: Vertebrate terrestrial fauna species that occur or are likely to occur in the study area Appendix 3: Detailed habitat hectare assessment results Appendix 4: Scattered trees in the proposed infrastructure zone of the study area Appendix 5: Guidelines for impacts to indigenous trees Appendix 6: EVC Benchmarks Appendix 7: Biodiversity assessment report (DEPI) Appendix 8: Biodiversity assessment report detailed tables (calculated by DEPI) Appendix 9: Nocturnal bird survey results using call playback and spotlighting March to June Page viii

9 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Bulgana Wind Farm Pty Ltd engaged Brett Lane & Associates Pty. Ltd. (BL&A) to conduct a Flora and Fauna Assessment for an approximately 7,524 hectare area of road reserves (public land) and private land proposed for the development of a wind farm. The wind farm lies within the Bulgana, Joel Joel, South Joel, Congongella and Great Western districts, located in central western Victoria. It lies approximately 11.7 kilometres north of Ararat, at its southern extent, and 11.2 kilometres east of Stawell, at its north-west extent. Great Western is the nearest significant sized settlement approximately two kilometres to the south-west of the site. The subject land is proposed for the development of the Bulgana Wind Farm, including the construction of up to 63 wind turbines and associated infrastructure including transmission cabling, construction/maintenance access roads/tracks, substations, facilities building, anemometer towers and switch yard (Figure 1). This investigation was commissioned to provide information on the extent and condition of native vegetation and fauna habitat in the study area. This report outlines any implications under various national, state and local legislation and policy. The assessment found that the study area comprised a large area of land currently utilised for stock grazing (principally sheep) on improved dry-land pastures. Very little of the original native woodland and forest vegetation communities remained intact. Where these vegetation communities do remain, they are currently limited in extent to small, isolated clumps and linear windbreaks on private land, and linear strips along road reserves. The highest quality remnant native vegetation observed in the study area was along such road reserves. The study area supported a number of soil types, derived principally from sedimentary and granitic underlying geologies. The topography of the majority of the study area comprised low-lying gentle rolling hills, dissected by numerous minor drainages. The majority of the proposed infrastructure zone (particularly turbines and access roads) was situated on abrupt (mostly sedimentary) ridgelines, rising up to 200 metres above the surrounding landscape. Significant watercourses in the study area included: Sandy Creek, Six Mile Creek, Seven Mile Creek and Surridge Creek, which appeared to be in degraded states with a high incidence of bank erosion. Numerous farm dams of varying size and depth were also observed throughout the study area, although appeared to offer little quality habitat to fauna species. For the most part, remnant treed native vegetation that was recorded in the proposed infrastructure zone comprised: Small patches of highly degraded Heathy Dry Forest (Ecological Vegetation Class (EVC) 20) and Grassy Woodland (EVC 175) within private land; Alluvial Terraces Herb-rich Woodland (EVC 67) and Creekline Grassy Woodland (EVC 68) surrounding the network of creeks that flow through the study area. These EVCs were found on both private land and public road reserves. Linear strips of relatively high quality Grassy Woodland (EVC 175) along public road reserves. Page 1

10 1.1. Flora and vegetation assessment The flora and vegetation assessments were carried out between the 24 th September 2013 and 13 th August 2014, and involved a habitat hectare assessment of all native vegetation within the proposed infrastructure zone and targeted surveys for listed threatened flora species within suitable habitat Habitat hectare assessment During the habitat hectare assessment, 106 habitat zones were recorded throughout the proposed infrastructure zone, which equated to a total of hectares ( habitat hectares). The habitat zones comprised the following Ecological Vegetation Classes (EVC s): Heathy Dry Forest (EVC 20); Heathy Woodland (EVC 48); Box Ironbark Forest (EVC 61); Alluvial Terraces Herb-rich Woodland (EVC 67); Creekline Grassy Woodland (EVC 68); Low-rises Grassy woodland (EVC 175_61); and Granite Grassy Woodland (EVC 175_62) A total of 710 scattered trees were recorded within the proposed infrastructure zone, of which 194 were very large, 222 were large, 111 were medium, 163 were small and 20 were not size rated Targeted surveys for listed threatened flora Existing information from the search region and type and condition of habitat in the proposed infrastructure zone indicated that the following listed threatened flora species could potentially occur there: Brilliant Sun-orchid (EPBC Act - vulnerable, FFG Act listed) Buloke (FFG Act listed) Clover Glycine (EPBC Act - vulnerable, FFG Act listed) Pale Leek-orchid (syn. Pink-lip Leek-orchid) (EPBC Act - vulnerable, FFG Act listed) Pomonal Leek-orchid (EPBC Act - endangered, FFG Act listed) Purple Eyebright (EPBC Act - endangered, FFG Act listed) Small Milkwort (FFG Act listed) Spiral Sun-orchid (EPBC Act - vulnerable, FFG Act listed) Trailing Hop-bush (EPBC Act - vulnerable). Page 2

11 A targeted survey for the above-listed flora species was conducted between the 7 th October and the 1 st November 2013, during which the following flora species were recorded in the proposed infrastructure zone of the study area: Buloke numerous individuals were recorded in habitat zones E, F, H and CA, and 17 scattered trees were Buloke (trees 159, 222, 336 to 341, 422, 461, 462, 1298 and 1334 to 1338). Golden Cowslips (listed as vulnerable on the DEPI threatened species advisory list) - 16 plants were recorded in Habitat Zone AP. Consequently, those above-listed species that were not detected during the targeted surveys were deemed unlikely to occur in the proposed infrastructure zone. However, as a result of changes to the proposed wind farm infrastructure layout following these targeted surveys, four additional habitat zones were recorded within the revised wind farm infrastructure zone, which were considered to potentially support EPBC Act and FFG Act listed flora species. Targeted flora surveys have yet to be carried out in these habitat zones, which include CX, DI, DK and DL. Therefore, targeted flora surveys will be carried out in these habitat zones at the appropriate time of year for the species concerned. It should be noted that these four habitat zones do not support higher quality native vegetation than those previously surveyed. Given that no EPBC Act or FFG Act listed species were recorded during the targeted surveys in the higher quality native vegetation, it is considered unlikely that any other listed species would occur in those habitat zones that are yet to be surveyed Listed threatened ecological communities Existing information from the search region and type and condition of habitat in the proposed infrastructure zone indicated that the following listed threatened ecological communities could potentially occur there: Listed under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act): o Buloke Woodlands of the Riverina and Murray Darling Depression Bioregions o Grey Box (Eucalyptus microcarpa) Grassy Woodland and Derived Grasslands Ecological community Listed under the State Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (FFG Act): o Victorian Temperate-woodland Bird Community o Creekline Grassy Woodland (Goldfields) Community o Grey Box - Buloke Grassy Woodland Community During the habitat hectare assessment, one listed threatened ecological community was identified in the proposed infrastructure zone of the wind farm. This was Grey Box - Buloke Grassy Woodland Community. Habitat zones E and F constituted this community Impacts on native vegetation and listed threatened flora species and ecological communities The proposed development will involve the construction of up to 63 wind turbines and associated infrastructure, including transmission cabling, construction/maintenance Page 3

12 access roads/tracks, construction equipment lay down areas, substations, facilities building, anemometer towers and switch yards. This infrastructure will be largely situated on freehold land within the study area, although a small proportion will be situated within public road reserves. The project design has undergone several iterations since its inception. The current layout was designed to meet the strategies outlined in Victoria s Biodiversity assessment guidelines (the Guidelines ) through the adoption of design measures which were recommended to reduce the overall impact on flora, fauna and native vegetation. The current development footprint will result in the loss of hectares of native vegetation comprising: The loss of hectares of native vegetation from remnant patches; and The loss of 100 scattered trees. Scattered tree losses have been converted to a hectare extent of loss by multiplying the number of trees (100) by a standard area of hectares; equating to an area loss of hectares. Based on the criteria outlined in the Guidelines, the proposal will be assessed under the moderate risk assessment pathway and a general offset will apply to any approved native vegetation removal. As determined by DEPI Transitional Support, the proposed development will result in the loss of general biodiversity equivalence units (BEUs) under this pathway. The current development footprint will result in some removal of the listed threatened ecological community - Grey Box - Buloke Grassy Woodland Community, and the removal of numerous Buloke trees from within Habitat zones E and F. Buloke is listed as threatened under the FFG Act. It will also result in potential impacts on Golden Cowslips in Habitat Zone AP. Golden Cowslips is listed on DEPI s Advisory List of Rare and Threatened Plants in Victoria Fauna assessment and impact analysis Cleared agricultural land that provides low quality habitat for fauna occurred across the majority of the site. Other habitat included remnant patches of woodland that varied from low to high quality habitat for fauna; rocky outcrops along ridges (high quality) and degraded aquatic habitat including eroded ephemeral creeks and drainage lines, and farm dams (low quality habitat for fauna). Existing information from the search region and type and condition of habitat in the proposed infrastructure zone indicated that the following listed threatened fauna species could potentially occur there: Barking Owl (FFG Act listed; DEPI endangered) Black-chinned Honeyeater (DEPI near threatened) Brown Treecreeper (DEPI near threatened) Bush Stone-curlew (FFG Act listed; DEPI endangered) Diamond Firetail (FFG Act listed; DEPI near threatened) Hooded Robin (FFG Act listed; DEPI near threatened) Masked Owl (FFG Act listed; DEPI endangered) Powerful Owl (FFG Act listed; DEPI vulnerable) Page 4

13 Rainbow Bee-eater (EPBC migratory) Speckled Warbler (FFG Act listed; DEPI vulnerable) Swift Parrot (EPBC Act endangered; FFG Act listed; DEPI endangered) White-throated Needletail (EPBC migratory; DEPI vulnerable) Brush-tailed Phascogale (FFG Act listed; DEPI vulnerable) Common Dunnart (DEPI vulnerable) Fat-tailed Dunnart (DEPI near threatened) Southern Bentwing Bat (EPBC Act critically endangered; FFG Act listed; DEPI critically endangered) Squirrel Glider (FFG Act listed; DEPI endangered) Eastern Bearded Dragon (DEPI near threatened) A bird utilisation survey was carried out from 4-10 February Treeless areas supported a low diversity and abundance of common, predominantly farmland birds, while woodland areas supported woodland species that mostly do not fly at RSA height. Three listed threatened species (Hooded Robin, Diamond Firetail and Brown Treecreeper) were recorded during bird utilisation surveys in woodland habitat. This patch of woodland habitat will not be impacted by the current proposal. Three pairs of Wedge-tailed Eagle are expected to utilise habitat within Bulgana Wind Farm. The Wedge-tailed Eagle is not threatened but is considered vulnerable to collision with operating turbines because of their soaring habits while foraging. Based on recommendations from an earlier report, Bulgana Wind Farm Pty Ltd relocated the location of one turbine that was close to a Wedge-tailed Eagle nest, so that the turbine is now at least 300 metres away. Wedge-tailed Eagle has been known to successfully rear young within 300 metres of wind turbines (BL&A unpublished). By moving the position of a turbine near an eagle nest, impacts on the local population of this species are not anticipated to be significant. Targeted surveys were carried out for Barking Owl, Powerful Owl, Masked Owl, Bush Stone Curlew and Swift Parrot to determine their potential presence in the study area and vulnerability to impacts. An individual Barking Owl was observed during daylight hours roosting at the proposed wind farm site in December During seven weeks of targeted surveys in March and April 2014, the species was heard responding to call-playback on 12th March 2014 in scattered trees on farmland just south of Joel Joel Nature Conservation Reserve (NCR). A second round of weekly owl surveys was carried out for five weeks in late May and June, prior to breeding season when Barking Owl are known to be particularly responsive to call playback. The species was not recorded again, and no evidence of Barking Owl (white wash, pellets, nesting or roosting trees) was recorded during diurnal searches. A detailed risk assessment was carried out for the Barking Owl based on an earlier version of the development layout, detailed in BL&A (2014). The assessment included a survey of suitable nesting trees for Barking Owl within 300 metres of turbines. A risk assessment for individual turbines was also undertaken, based on the presence, location and height of suitable vegetation and hollow trees surrounding the turbine, topography and overall presence of Barking Owl in the area. As a result of the assessment, three turbines that were located in areas surrounded by woodland or scattered trees were Page 5

14 removed from the development layout. Barking Owl was recorded in the remnant patch of woodland that was avoided. This woodland also provided habitat for other threatened bird species that were recorded here including Brown Treecreeper, Hooded Robin and Diamond Firetail. Bulgana Wind Farm Pty Ltd has avoided and minimised impacts to woodland habitat where possible. Powerful Owl was recorded in Ararat Regional Park, a large remnant bush block adjacent to the study area in the south. Powerful Owl is probably resident in Ararat Regional Park (approximately 1.5 kilometres from the closest turbine), but is unlikely to regularly occur in the wind farm itself due to a lack of large continuous forest or woodland blocks, or riparian zones of permanent streams. It may occur infrequently at Joel Joel NCR to the north of the wind farm. Impacts of Bulgana Wind Farm on Powerful Owl are expected to be negligible due to the low expected incidence of birds passing through the wind farm footprint. The Bush Stone-curlew and Masked Owl were not recorded during extensive targeted surveys of the study area. The findings suggest that the species are neither widespread nor abundant on the proposed wind farm site and significant impacts to the species are unlikely. A targeted survey for Swift Parrot was carried out in May 2013, when the species had been confirmed as occurring on the mainland. The species was not recorded during the survey, however it may occasionally utilise the large block of remnant vegetation to the north of the study area in Joel Joel NCR. The nearest turbine is 1.5 kilometres away from this area. Given the turbines are located on top of ridges and away from areas of suitable habitat that are likely to attract the Swift Parrot, operation of the wind farm is unlikely to have a significant impact on the species. However, given the potential presence of Swift Parrot occasionally, an EPBC Act referral is recommended for the project. Black-chinned Honey Eater, Brown Treecreeper, Diamond Firetail, Hooded Robin and Speckled Warbler are species that are found in woodland areas. These species generally do not leave their woodland habitats and do not fly above the tree canopy. These species are unlikely to be significantly impacted by the construction and operation of Bulgana Wind Farm. Rainbow Bee-eater was recorded and is likely to occur in woodlands areas or cleared land with scattered trees, from October to March. The White-throated Needletail is a highly nomadic species that is likely to occur in the study area occasionally. Both species are aerial foragers that may be susceptible to occasional turbine casualties. However impacts to their overall population numbers are unlikely to be significant. Brush-tailed Phascogale and Squirrel Glider may occur in woodland habitats of the wind farm, particularly along the roadsides with large old hollow-bearing trees with good connectivity to larger areas of suitable habitat such as Ararat Hill Regional Park. Where potential habitat that cannot be avoided is to be removed (i.e. large hollow-bearing trees), a salvage protocol during construction works is recommended to avoid any potential impacts. Given the limited scale of impacts on native vegetation and trees, significant impacts on the regional populations of these two species are considered unlikely. There is potential for Common Dunnart and Eastern Bearded Dragon to occur in the woodland areas of the wind farm where there is fallen woody debris and leaf litter. Removal of woodland vegetation has been minimised. Impacts to Common Dunnart and Page 6

15 Eastern Bearded Dragon are low, and the species are expected to recover from any temporary disturbance to the local population. Fat-tailed Dunnart may occur in areas of the wind farm supporting open, bare ground, rocky habitats and grassland. The habitat available for Fat-tailed Dunnart is fairly consistent throughout the wind farm (ie. one area is not better than the other). Given the wide availability of habitat throughout the wind farm, impacts to the local population are unlikely to be significant. Bat surveys were carried out at ten sites in late spring (November December 2013) and summer (January February 2014). Twelve species were recorded across the two sites, including the threatened Southern Bentwing Bat. The majority of bat species recorded utilizing the wind farm site during both the spring and summer surveys were common, widespread and secure species; the majority of such species are common in treed farmland habitats in south-eastern Australia. Five bat species were recorded flying at rotor swept area, including White-striped Freetail, Eastern Freetail, Southern Freetail, Large Forest and Gould s Wattle Bats. These species are at greater risk of interacting with operating wind turbines, however none of them are listed as threatened and impacts to the populations of each species are unlikely to be significant. The Southern Bentwing Bat was restricted in both seasons to one recording site (site 10) and was recorded at comparatively low activity levels (i.e. numbers of calls). There are five historical records of the species from within 100 kilometres of the wind farm, the closest being 67 kilometres south west of the wind farm from The two maternity caves upon which Southern Bentwing Bats are likely to be dependent, are located at Warrnambool and Naracoote, 130 and 190 kilometres from the wind farm respectively. Habitat for the species on the wind farm is considered to be low quality, given the lack of suitable caves for roosting and the degraded nature of water sources around which the species would preferentially feed. The findings suggest that the species is neither widespread nor abundant on the proposed wind farm site. Significant impacts to the species from the construction and operation of the wind farm are unlikely to occur, based on consideration of the EPBC Act significant impact criteria. The findings suggest that the species is neither widespread nor abundant on the proposed wind farm site. Impacts to the species from the construction and operation of the wind farm are unlikely to be significant based on consideration of the significant impact criteria. However, due to the presence of the species, the project should be referred under the EPBC Act Regulatory implications for the development Planning and Environment Act 1987 For the development proposal, a planning permit under Clause of the North Grampians Planning Scheme would be required for the removal of remnant native vegetation. Another requirement under the North Grampians Planning Scheme is that for any proposed infrastructure in those parts of the study area which are subject to the Environmental Significance Overlay Schedule 1 (ESO1) (as presented in Figure 2), the proponent will be required to demonstrate that such works will not contravene the intention of this ESO. Therefore, it is recommended that the highest priority for minimising the accentuation of ridge erosion be given to avoiding the removal of native vegetation in such areas. Further advice should also be sought from the North Page 7

16 Grampians Shire on best practice techniques for mitigating the accentuation of ridge erosion during construction works. Moreover, the development would trigger a referral to the Department of the Environment and Primary Industries (DEPI) as it meets the specified criteria. Based on the application of the 1.5 times risk factor for general offsets, in accordance with the Guidelines, offset requirements for this native vegetation removal, if approved, are summarised as follows: general biodiversity equivalence units located within the Wimmera Catchment Management Authority area or the North Grampians local government area and must have a minimum strategic biodiversity score of 0.290; and No offsets can occur within 150 metres of any dwellings and associated buildings on the subject land or adjoining properties covered by a BMO or within 50 metres of these structures on all other land occurring within Bushfire Prone Areas. Under the Guidelines all offsets must be secured prior to the removal of native vegetation. The offset target for the current proposal may be achieved within the study area given the above requirements and the presence of a suitable area of remnant native vegetation there. Otherwise, it is recommended that suitable offsets be sourced through a third party offset provider Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 Given the record of Southern Bentwing Bat on the wind farm and the potential presence of Swift Parrot occasionally, an EPBC Act referral is recommended for the project. Two migratory species, the Rainbow Bee-Eater and White-throated Needletail are also likely to occur occasionally. Impacts to the species are unlikely to be significant Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 For the removal of the following values listed under this Act, a licence would be required from DEPI: Buloke, a tree species listed as threatened under this Act, removal required from public land in the study area (from habitat zones E and F see Figure 7); Grey Box - Buloke Grassy Woodland Community, a listed threatened ecological community under this Act, removal required from public land in the study area (from habitat zones E and F see Figure 7); and Removal of numerous flora species listed as protected under this Act from public land within the study area Environment Effects Act 1978 A Referral to the state Minister for Planning under the EE Act has been prepared and submitted Mitigation recommendations Mitigation recommendations for impacts on flora and/or fauna, and native vegetation and Best-practice development and construction recommendations are provided in this report to ensure impacts are minimised to flora and/or fauna, and native vegetation. Page 8

17 2. INTRODUCTION Bulgana Wind Farm Pty Ltd engaged Brett Lane & Associates Pty. Ltd. (BL&A) to conduct a Flora and Fauna Assessment for an approximately 7,524 hectare area of public and private land proposed for the development of a wind farm. The wind farm lies within the Bulgana, Joel Joel, South Joel, Congongella and Great Western districts, located in central western Victoria. It lies approximately 11.7 kilometres north of Ararat, at its southern extent, and 11.2 kilometres east of Stawell, at its north-west extent. Great Western is the nearest significant sized settlement approximately two kilometres to the south-west of the site. The subject land is proposed for the development of the Bulgana Wind Farm, including the construction of up to 63 wind turbines and associated infrastructure including transmission cabling, construction/maintenance access roads/tracks, substations, facilities building, anemometer towers and switch yard (Figure 1). This investigation was commissioned to provide information on the extent and condition of native vegetation in the study area according to Victoria s Biodiversity assessment guidelines (DEPI 2013e), as well as any potential impacts on flora and fauna matters listed under the state Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 and the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act This report outlines any implications under relevant national, state and local legislation and policy frameworks. This report updates BL&A Report (2.0) (BL&A 2013b) to bring the contained information in line with recently gazetted changes to Victoria s native vegetation removal regulations. The scope of the current investigation included a detailed flora and fauna survey, a spring targeted flora survey, various fauna species targeted surveys, a bird utilisation survey and a bat survey. The following activities were undertaken: Detailed flora and fauna assessment The Department of Environment and Primary Industries (DEPI) Victorian Biodiversity Atlas database and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) Protected Matters Search Tool was reviewed for listed threatened species and ecological community records or modelled potential habitat. Site surveys were carried out, involving: o Mapping of habitat zones and habitat scoring within and around the proposed infrastructure zone to ascertain vegetation condition in each habitat zone, consistent with the methodology required for a biodiversity equivalence analysis under the state vegetation planning provisions; o Assessment of the nature and quality of native fauna habitat; o Assessment of the likelihood of occurrence of threatened flora, fauna and ecological communities in and around the proposed infrastructure zone; and o Compilation of flora and fauna species lists for the site. The preparation of maps of the site, showing the results of the native vegetation and fauna habitat assessment; and Refinement to the recommendations for targeted flora and fauna surveys required that were outlined in BL&A (2013a). Page 9

18 Targeted flora surveys Transect surveys were undertaken in Spring in areas of suitable habitat for the following EPBC Act and FFG Act listed flora species: o Brilliant Sun-orchid o Clover Glycine o Pale Leek-orchid (syn. Pink-lip Leek-orchid) o Pomonal Leek-orchid o Purple Eyebright o Spiral Sun-orchid o Trailing Hop-bush o Small Milkwort o Buloke Maps were prepared of the site, showing the results of the targeted surveys. Targeted fauna surveys Targeted fauna surveys were undertaken at the appropriate time of year for the following listed threatened fauna species: o Barking Owl o Powerful Owl o Masked Owl o Bush Stone Curlew o Swift Parrot o Brush-tailed Phascogale o Squirrel Glider Maps were prepared of the site, showing the results of the targeted surveys. Bird utilisation survey Baseline data on bird species and activity levels at the site was collected from a bird utilisation survey, which was consistent with the guidance in AusWEA s interim bird risk assessment standards. The survey aimed to quantify bird activity by species at representative sites within and adjacent to the wind farm. This involved: o Fixed point censuses of birds at 10 impact monitoring points within the wind farm and two reference monitoring points nearby (>500m from the nearest turbine); and o Concurrent with the point census, records of the flight paths (distance from observer, beginning and end locations, as well as start and finish times) of flights across the site were made by any species of concern recorded. Maps were prepared of the site, showing the results of the bird utilisation survey. Page 10

19 Bat survey The Bat Activity Assessment took into account the objectives, methodology and reporting recommendations outlined in Guidelines for bat surveys in relation to wind farm developments (DSE 2007). The bat survey was undertaken in spring (October to November) and summer (late January early February) to account for the peak activity seasons. The surveys involved: o Anabat or SongMeters ultrasonic bat detectors were placed at each survey point (maximum of ten survey points) for a total period of 14 nights over the two survey periods to collect bat calls. Information on environmental conditions was recorded for each night, including, but not limited to, rainfall, wind speed, cloud cover and moon phase. Maps were prepared of the site, showing the results of the bat surveys. This report is divided into the following sections: Section 3 provides an overview of the characteristics of the study area. Section 4 provides the legislative background including details of all relevant Commonwealth, State and local legislation and policies. Section 5 presents the assessment results, describing the native vegetation, flora and fauna of the study area, including the sources of information, including the methods used for the field survey. Section 6 Presents the bird utilisation survey, including the sources of information, results and implications. Section 7 Presents the Swift Parrot targeted survey, including the sources of information, results and implications. Section 8 Presents the targeted nocturnal bird survey, including the sources of information, results and implications. Section 9 Presents the bat activity surveys, including the sources of information, results and implications. Section 10 discusses the proposed impacts of the project and details the implications of the findings under the relevant legislation and policy, and provides mitigation recommendations. This investigation was undertaken by a team from BL&A, comprising Brett Macdonald (Senior Ecologist), Justin Sullivan (Senior Ecologist), Curtis Doughty (Ecologist), Peter Lansley (Senior Ecologist), Rani Sherriff (Botanist), Margaret Brennan (Botanist), Kylie Payze (Botanist), Mahsa Ghasemi (GIS Analyst), Annabelle Stewart (Senior Ecologist & Project Manager) and Brett Lane (Principal Consultant). Page 11

20 Legend Bulgana Wind Farm Boundary Tracks November 2014 Turbines November Kilometers Figure 1: Location of Bulgana Wind Farm Project: Bulgana Wind Farm Client: Bulgana Wind Farm Pty Ltd Project No.: Date: 4/12/2014 Created By: M. Ghasemi/ A. Stewart

21 3. SITE DESCRIPTION The site of the proposed Bulgana Wind farm covers approximately 7,524 hectares of private and public land located within the Bulgana, Joel Joel, South Joel, Congongella and Great Western districts, in central western Victoria. It lies approximately 11.7 kilometres north of Ararat, at its southern extent, and 11.2 kilometres east of Stawell, at its northwest extent (Figure 1). Great Western is the nearest significant sized settlement approximately two kilometres to the south-west of the site. Large areas of the site are currently utilised for stock grazing (principally sheep) on improved dry-land pastures, with some cropping land in isolated locations. Much of the site has been cleared of native woodland and forest vegetation. Where vegetation does remain, it is limited in extent to small isolated clumps and linear windbreaks on private land, and linear strips along road reserves. Numerous indigenous scattered trees exist throughout the site and locality. Areas of revegetation are present on the site, and these comprise indigenous and non-indigenous native planted trees between approximately three and 15 years old. The study area supports a number of soil types, derived principally from sedimentary and granitic underlying geologies. The topography of the majority of the study area comprises gentle to steep sloping hills and ridgelines, and undulating plains dissected by numerous water courses and drainage lines. The majority of the proposed infrastructure zone (particularly turbines and access roads) was situated on abrupt (mostly sedimentary) ridgelines, rising up to 200 metres above the surrounding landscape. Named waterways include Concongella Creek, Allanvale Creek, Salt Creek, Surridge Creek, Six Mile Creek, Seven Mile Creek and Wattle Creek, with numerous drainage lines feeding these named waterways. Numerous farm dams of varying size and depth were also observed throughout the study area, although appeared to offer little quality habitat to fauna species. The road network that runs through the site and locality comprises are range of sealed and unsealed local roads including Allanvale Road, Tuckers Hill Road, Wattle Gully Road, Green Hill Lane, Stocks Road, Metcalfe Road, Salt Creek Road, Bulgana Road, Gibsons Road, Joel South Road, Thomas Road, Landsborough Road, Joel Forest Road, Wyndarra Road, Vances Crossing Road and Vineyard Road. To the south and west of the site runs the Western Highway between Melbourne and Adelaide. Other improvements on the site and in the locality comprise typical farm residences and infrastructure including houses, outbuildings, sheds, dams of varying size and depth, fences, private roads and dirt tracks. DEPI s current EVC mapping of the study area (c. 2005) suggested that vast areas of remnant native vegetation occurred throughout. However, very little treed remnant native vegetation was observed throughout the proposed infrastructure zone, and very little occurs within the study area. For the most part, remnant treed native vegetation that was recorded in the proposed infrastructure zone comprised: Small patches of highly degraded Heathy Dry Forest (Ecological Vegetation Class (EVC) 20) within private land; Alluvial Terraces Herb-rich Woodland (EVC 67) and Creekline Grassy Woodland (EVC 68) surrounding the network of creeks that flow through the study area. These EVCs were found on both private land and public road reserves. Linear strips of relatively high quality Grassy Woodland (EVC 175) along public road reserves. Page 13

22 Surrounding land predominantly supported agricultural land with the exception of the Ararat Hills Regional Park and Joel Joel Nature Conservation Reserve. The vast majority of the study area lies within the Goldfields bioregion and the remainder in the south-west corner of the study area lies in the Central Victorian Uplands bioregion (Figure 3). The entire study area falls under the jurisdiction of the North Grampians Shire and within the Wimmera catchment. With the exception of road reserves, the entire study area is zoned Farm Zone (FZ). Road reserves are zoned Road Zone (RZ). An Environmental Significance Overlay Schedule 1 (ESO1) currently covers most of the ridge lines in the study area (Figure 3). Page 14

23 Legend Bulgana Wind Farm Boundary Development layout Kilometers Figure 2: Bioregions and planning overlays in the study area Bioregion boundary Planning overlays ESO1 WMO Only relevant where dwellings are proposed Project: Bulgana Wind Farm Client: Bulgana Wind Farm Pty Ltd Project No.: Date: 4/12/2014 Created By: M. Ghasemi / A. Stewart

24 4. LEGISLATIVE BACKGROUND 4.1. Planning and Environment Act 1987 Victoria s planning schemes are constituted under the Planning and Environment Act This section discusses planning provisions in the local planning scheme applicable to flora and fauna Local provisions Local Planning Policy Frameworks (LPPF s) LPPF Environment, in the North Grampians Planning Scheme, aims to protect water quality and native flora and fauna, and to mitigate salinity, soil erosion, flooding and wildfire in the shire. The strategy to protect native flora and fauna involves the following: Encourage the retention and regeneration of native flora; Reinforce existing wildlife corridors along road and railway reserves with supplementary revegetation in adjacent private lands to establish strong biolinks between important habitats; Protect and reinforce significant environmental nodes or biolinks on private land; and Encourage location of services to private cleared land rather than on roadsides. Implementation of the objectives and strategies outlined in LPPF is facilitated by the application of various planning overlays, such as Environmental Significance Overlay s (ESO s) regarding the protection of native flora and fauna. Overlays Most of the ridge lines in the study area are subject to an Environmental Significance Overlay Schedule 1 (ESO1) in the North Grampians Planning Scheme. The purpose of this overlay is discussed below, and its various locations within the study area are presented in Figure 2. ESO1 - Significant ridge environs Significance: There are significant ridges on the highest land in the municipality which display erosion characteristics and are susceptible to further environmental degradation. Objective: To protect significant ridges from development which may accentuate erosion; To maintain the natural beauty of the ridge system; To protect the remnant native vegetation and to encourage the re-establishment of native communities in degraded areas; To prevent erosion of the ridge system; and To maintain the landscape qualities of the ridge system especially when viewed from surrounding areas. Page 16

25 State provisions Destruction, lopping or removal of native vegetation on land which, together with all contiguous land in one ownership, has an area of 0.4 hectares or more requires a planning permit under Clause of all Victorian Planning Schemes. This includes the removal of dead trees with a DBH (diameter at breast height or 1.3 metres) of 40 centimetres or more and any individual scattered native plants. In May 2013 the Victorian Government announced the outcome of a major review of Victoria s native vegetation permitted clearing regulations. On 20 th December 2013 a planning scheme amendment was gazetted to implement a number of reforms to Victoria's native vegetation permitted clearing regulations, particularly Clauses (Biodiversity), (Native vegetation precinct plan) and (Native vegetation). As part of these reforms the previously incorporated document Victoria s Native Vegetation a Framework for Action was replaced by a new incorporated document, Permitted clearing of native vegetation Biodiversity assessment guidelines (DEPI 2013e). Before issuing a planning permit, Responsible Authorities are obligated to refer to Clause (Biodiversity) in the Planning Scheme. This refers in turn to the following online tool and document: The Native Vegetation Information Management (NVIM) system (DEPI 2014); and Permitted clearing of native vegetation Biodiversity assessment guidelines (DEPI 2013e). These are discussed below. Native Vegetation Information Management system (NVIM) The online Native Vegetation Information Management system (NVIM) is an interactive mapping tool, which provides some of the information required to accompany a permit to remove native vegetation. It does not replace the application process. The information provided by NVIM can include the following (described in more detail below): The location risk of the native vegetation; The condition of the native vegetation used for the low-risk assessment pathway only; The strategic biodiversity score of the native vegetation proposed to be removed; and The native vegetation offset requirement used for the low risk assessment pathway only. Biodiversity assessment guidelines Guidelines objective As set out in Permitted clearing of native vegetation Biodiversity assessment guidelines ( the Guidelines ) the objective for permitted clearing of native vegetation in Victoria is No net loss in the contribution made by native vegetation to Victoria s biodiversity. The key strategies for ensuring this outcome when considering an application to remove native vegetation are: Avoiding the removal of native vegetation that makes a significant contribution to Victoria s biodiversity; Page 17

26 Minimising impacts on Victoria s biodiversity from the removal of native vegetation; and Where native vegetation is permitted to be removed, ensuring it is offset in a manner that makes an equivalent contribution to Victoria s biodiversity made by the native vegetation to be removed. Note: if native vegetation does not meet the definition of either a remnant patch or scattered trees, the Guidelines are not required to be applied. Risk-based assessment pathways The first step in determining the type of assessment required for any site in Victoria is to determine the risk to biodiversity associated with the proposed native vegetation removal and therefore the risk-based assessment pathway for the proposed native vegetation removal. There are three risk-based pathways for assessing an application to remove native vegetation, below. Low risk Moderate risk High risk This risk-based assessment pathway is determined by two factors, outlined below. Extent risk the area in hectares proposed to be removed or the number of scattered trees. Note: extent risk also includes any native vegetation clearing for which permission has been granted in the last five years. Location risk the likelihood that removing native vegetation in a location will have an impact on the persistence of a rare or threatened species classified into three categories: Location A, Location B and Location C. The risk-based pathway for assessing an application to remove native vegetation is determined by the following matrices for remnant patches and scattered trees: Extent (remnant patches) Location A Location B Location C < 0.5 hectares Low Low High 0.5 hectares and < 1 hectare Low Moderate High 1 hectare Moderate High High Extent (scattered trees) Location A Location B Location C < 15 scattered trees Low Moderate High 15 scattered trees Moderate High High Notes: All native vegetation within any subdivision plot of less than 0.4 hectares is deemed to be lost; For applications with combined removal of both remnant patch and scattered trees, the extent of the scattered trees is converted to an area by assigning a standard area of hectares per tree the total extent is then used to determine the risk-based pathway. The presence of any Location B or Location C risk categories within an area of proposed native vegetation removal means this whole area of removal is considered to belong to that category for the purpose of determining the risk-based assessment pathway. Strategic biodiversity score The strategic biodiversity score generated by NVIM acts as a measure of the site s importance for Victoria s biodiversity relative to other locations across the landscape. It is Page 18

27 calculated based on a weighted average of scores across an area of native vegetation proposed for removal on a site. Habitat importance Habitat importance mapping produced by DEPI is based on one or a combination of habitat importance models, habitat distribution models or site record data. It identifies the following: Habitat importance for dispersed species based on habitat distribution models and assigned a habitat importance score ranging from 0 to 1; and Highly localised habitats considered to be equally important for a particular species and assigned a habitat importance score of 1. Habitat importance mapping is used to determine the type of offset required under the moderate and high risk assessment pathways. Biodiversity equivalence Biodiversity equivalence scores are used to quantify losses in the contribution to Victoria s biodiversity from removing native vegetation and gains in this contribution from a native vegetation offset. There are two types of biodiversity equivalence scores depending on whether or not the site makes a contribution to the habitat of a Victorian rare or threatened species. A general biodiversity equivalence score is a measure of the contribution native vegetation on a site makes to Victoria s biodiversity overall and applies when no habitat importance scores are applicable according to the equation: General biodiversity equivalence score = habitat hectares x strategic biodiversity score A specific biodiversity equivalence score is a measure of the contribution that native vegetation on a site makes to the habitat of a particular rare or threatened species calculated for each such species for which the site provides important habitat (using habitat importance scores provided by DEPI) according to the equation: Specific biodiversity equivalence score = habitat hectares x habitat importance score Offset requirements A native vegetation offset is required for the approved removal of native vegetation. Offsets conform to one of two types and each type incorporates a risk factor to address the risk of offset failing: A general offset applies if the removal of native vegetation impacts Victoria s overall biodiversity and has an offset risk factor of 1.5 applied according to the equation: General risk-adjusted offset requirement = general biodiversity equivalence score (clearing site) x 1.5 A specific offset applies if the native vegetation makes a significant impact to habitat for a rare or threatened species determined by a specific-general offset test. It applies to each species impacted and has an offset risk factor of 2 applied according to the equation: Page 19

28 Specific risk-adjusted offset requirement = specific biodiversity equivalence score (clearing site) x 2 Note: if native vegetation does not meet the definition of either a remnant patch or scattered trees an offset is not required. DEPI referral criteria Clause of the planning scheme determines the role of DEPI in the assessment of native vegetation removal permit applications. If an application is referred, DEPI may make certain recommendations to the responsible authority in relation to the permit application. An application to remove native vegetation must be referred to DEPI in the following circumstances: Applications where the native vegetation to be removed is 0.5 hectares or more; All applications in the high risk-based pathway; Applications where a property vegetation plan applies to the site; and Applications on Crown land which is occupied or managed by the responsible authority. Page 20

29 Summary of the assessment process The assessment process, decision guidelines and offset requirements for approved native vegetation removal are outlined in Table 1. Table 1: Summary of the assessment process and offset requirements Risk-based pathway Low Assessment quantum inputs Decision guidelines Offset requirements Habitat hectares* (NVIM) Strategic biodiversity score (NVIM) General biodiversity equivalence score An application for removal cannot be refused on biodiversity grounds (unless it is not in accordance with any property vegetation plan that applies to the site). Note: this guideline also applies to native vegetation that does not meet the definition of either a remnant patch or scattered trees. General offset applies: General offset = general biodiversity equivalence score (clearing site) x 1.5 Offset must be located in the same CMA^ or Local Government Area as the removal Offset must have a strategic biodiversity score at least 80% of the native vegetation removed Offset must be secured before the removal of native vegetation Moderate Habitat hectares* (site assessment) High Strategic biodiversity score (NVIM) Habitat importance scores for each Victorian rare and threatened species Specific biodiversity equivalence score for each rare and threatened species OR General biodiversity equivalence score if no habitat importance scores apply The responsible authority will consider: The strategic biodiversity score and habitat importance score of the native vegetation proposed to be removed Any property vegetation plan that applies to the site Whether reasonable steps have been taken to ensure that impacts of the proposed removal of native vegetation on biodiversity have been minimised with regard to the contribution to biodiversity made by the native vegetation to be removed and the native vegetation to be retained Whether an offset has been identified that meets the requirements The need to remove native vegetation to create defendable space to reduce the risk of bushfire In addition to the considerations for the moderate pathway (above) the responsible authority will determine whether the native vegetation to be removed makes a significant contribution to Victoria s biodiversity. This includes considering: Impacts on important habitat for rare or threatened species, particularly highly localised habitat Proportional impacts on remaining habitat for rare or threatened species If the removal of the native vegetation will contribute to a cumulative impact that is a significant threat to the persistence of a rare or threatened species The availability of, and potential for, gain from offsets If the specific biodiversity equivalence scores for any rare and threatened species fails the specific-general offset test, then a general offset applies (as above) Otherwise, a specific offset applies for each rare and threatened species: Specific offset = specific biodiversity equivalence score (clearing site) x 2 Offset must be located in the same species habitat anywhere in Victoria as determined by DEPI habitat importance mapping When a specific offset is required for multiple species, the offset site must satisfy the specific offset requirements for all of these species or multiple offset sites may be used Offset must be secured before the removal of native vegetation * Habitat hectares = condition score (out of 1) x extent (hectares) ^ Catchment Management Authority Note: All applications must provide information about the vegetation to be removed such as location and address of the property, description of the vegetation, maps and recent dated photographs. Page 21

30 4.2. EPBC Act The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 protects a number of threatened species and ecological communities that are considered to be of national conservation significance. Any significant impacts on these species require the approval of the Australian Minister for the Environment. If there is a possibility of a significant impact on nationally threatened species or communities or listed migratory species, a Referral under the EPBC Act should be considered. The Minister will decide after 20 business days whether the project will be a controlled action under the EPBC Act, in which case it cannot be undertaken without the approval of the Minister. This approval depends on a further assessment and approval process (lasting between three and nine months, depending on the level of assessment) FFG Act The Victorian Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (FFG Act) lists threatened and protected species and ecological communities (DEPI 2013c, DEPI 2013d). Any removal of threatened flora species or communities (or protected flora) listed under the FFG Act from public land requires a Protected Flora Licence or Permit under the Act, obtained from DEPI. The FFG Act does not apply to private land EE Act The Ministerial Guidelines for Assessment of Environmental Effects under the Environment Effects Act 1978 (DSE 2006), identifies the following criteria related to flora and fauna which assist in determining whether a Referral to the State Minister for Planning is required: Potential clearing of ten hectares or more of native vegetation from an area that is of an EVC identified as endangered by the Department of Environment and Primary Industries (DEPI 2013a); Potential long-term loss of a significant proportion (1 to 5% depending upon conservation status of species concerned) of known remaining habitat or population of a threatened species in Victoria; Potential long-term change to a wetland s ecological character, where that wetland is Ramsar listed, or listed in A Directory of Important Wetlands in Australia ; Potential major effects upon the biodiversity of aquatic ecosystems over the long term; Potential significant effects on matters listed under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act One or a combination of these criteria may trigger a requirement for a Referral to the Victorian Minister for Planning who will determine if an EES is required. Page 22

31 5. FLORA AND FAUNA ASSESSMENT 5.1. Flora and fauna methodology Existing information Existing information used for this investigation is described below. Note that study area refers to a 7,524 hectare area of private land (freehold farmland) and public land (road reserves), in central western Victoria, approximately 11 kilometres north of Ararat, at its southern extent, and seven kilometres east of Stawell, at its north-west extent (Figure 1). Existing reporting and documentation The reports, planning scheme and/or development plans below, relating to the study area were reviewed. Bulgana Wind Farm: Preliminary Flora and Fauna Scoping Assessment (BL&A 2013a) Planning panel reports and development applications for surrounding wind farms, including Ararat, Crowlands and Waubra; Best Practice Guidelines for Implementation of Wind Energy Projects in Australia (Clean Energy Council 2013); Australian Wind Energy Association interim standards for bird risk assessment (BL&A 2005); and Northern Grampians Shire Roadside Management Plan. Location and extent risk The likely risk-based pathway for assessment of any proposed vegetation removal relies on the location risk and extent risk determined with the assistance of the online Native Vegetation Information Management system (NVIM) administered by the Department of Environment and Primary Industries (DEPI 2014). NVIM online mapping was viewed to determine the mapped location risk of the study area and to gain a preliminary indication of the extent risk, described in Section Native vegetation Pre-1750 (pre-european settlement) vegetation mapping administered by DEPI was reviewed to determine the type of native vegetation likely to occur in the study area and surrounds. Information on Ecological Vegetation Classes was obtained from published EVC benchmarks. These sources included: Relevant EVC benchmarks for the Goldfields bioregion 1 (DEPI 2013a); and Biodiversity Interactive Maps (DEPI 2013b). 1 A bioregion is defined as a geographic region that captures the patterns of ecological characteristics in the landscape, providing a natural framework for recognising and responding to biodiversity values. In general bioregions reflect underlying environmental features of the landscape (DNRE 1997). Page 23

32 Listed matters Existing flora and fauna species records and information about the potential occurrence of listed matters was obtained from an area termed the search region, defined for this assessment as follows: For threatened flora and fauna species and ecological communities: a buffer area of 10 kilometres beyond the study area boundary, as depicted in Figure 2; and For listed migratory species: a buffer area of 30 kilometres beyond the study area boundary, as depicted in Figure 2. A list of the flora and fauna species recorded in the search regions was obtained from the Victorian Biodiversity Atlas (VBA), a database administered by DEPI (Victorian Biodiversity Atlas 2013). Species taxonomy used throughout this report follows the VBA nomenclature. The list of communities on the FFG Act Threatened List (DEPI 2013c) was reviewed to ascertain whether any Victorian listed ecological communities were likely to occur in the study area. The online Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) Protected Matters Search Tool (Department of the Environment 2013) was consulted to determine whether nationally listed species or communities potentially occurred in the search region based on existing records and habitat modelling. Page 24

33 10 kilometre buffer 30 kilometre buffer Figure 3: Search region buffers. Source: Victorian Biodiversity Atlas (2013) Page 25

34 Field methodology Field assessments for the detailed flora and fauna assessment were conducted between the 24 th September 2013 and the 13 th August Detailed mapping of native vegetation (including habitat hectare and scattered tree assessments) was undertaken in the proposed infrastructure zone, which includes the proposed turbine locations, access roads and transmission cabling routes (Figures 4 to 20). During the site visits, the existing overview report mapping (BL&A 2013a), aerial photography and EVC mapping of the site were viewed in detail to gain an appreciation of the extent of native vegetation cover in the proposed infrastructure zone. The infrastructure zone was then surveyed by 4WD vehicle, and areas supporting native vegetation were surveyed in greater detail on foot. Sites in the study area found to support native vegetation or habitat for rare or threatened fauna were mapped. Mapping was undertaken through a combination of aerial photograph interpretation and ground-truthing using a hand held GPS (accurate to approximately five metres). Native vegetation Native vegetation was assessed against criteria set out in the prevailing native vegetation permitted clearing regulations the Native Vegetation Management Framework (DNRE 2002), referred to herein as the Framework. The native vegetation assessment guidelines set out under the Framework and associated practice notes categorised native vegetation into the following relevant categories: Remnant patch; and Scattered trees. Under the current Biodiversity assessment guidelines (DEPI 2013e) native vegetation is also defined using these categories. The definitions of these categories under the Guidelines are provided below; along with the prescribed DEPI methods to assess them. Also provided below is a comparison of the current and former definitions under the Framework. Remnant patch A remnant patch of native vegetation is either: An area of native vegetation where at least 25 per cent of the total perennial understorey plant cover is native; and/or Any area with three or more native canopy trees 2 where the canopy foliage cover 3 is at least 20 per cent of the area. The Framework required the assessment of remnant patches using the habitat hectare assessment method (Parkes et al. 2003; DSE 2004), which remains unchanged under the Guidelines. Under the Framework, this definition did not refer to perennial plant 2 A canopy tree is a reproductively mature tree that is greater than 3 metres in height and is normally found in the upper layer of the relevant vegetation type. 3 Foliage cover is the proportion of the ground that is shaded by vegetation foliage when lit from directly above. Page 26

35 cover. However, following a review of the previous site assessment results it is considered that this change would not affect the identification of remnant patches in the study area. Under the habitat hectare method, components of native vegetation (e.g. tree canopy, understorey and ground cover) are assessed against an EVC benchmark. The score effectively measures the percentage resemblance of the vegetation to its original condition. Scattered trees The Biodiversity assessment guidelines define scattered trees as a native canopy tree 2 that does not form part of a remnant patch of native vegetation. The definition of a canopy tree remains substantially unchanged between the Framework and the Guidelines. Scattered trees are counted, the species identified and their DBH (diameter at breast height or 1.3 metres above ground) measured or estimated. Flora species and habitats Records of flora species were made in conjunction with sampling methods used to undertake habitat hectare assessments of native vegetation, described above. Specimens requiring identification using laboratory techniques were collected. The potential for habitats to support listed flora species was assessed based on the criteria outlined below: The presence of suitable habitat for flora species such as soil type, floristic associations and landscape context; and The level of disturbance of suitable habitats by anthropogenic disturbances and invasions by pest plants and animals. Targeted Flora survey A targeted survey for EPBC Act and FFG Act listed flora species was conducted between the 7 th October 2013 and the 10 th November 2013 for the species listed below: Brilliant Sun-orchid (September and October) Clover Glycine (September to December) Pale Leek-orchid (syn. Pink-lip Leek-orchid) (September to November) Pomonal Leek-orchid (October and November) Purple Eyebright (October to December) Spiral Sun-orchid (August to October). Trailing Hop-bush (December to February, although this species is conspicuous and distinguishable all year round). Small Milkwort (November to January) Buloke (anytime). During the above survey, areas of native vegetation along the proposed alignments were visually searched along transects spaced approximately five metres apart in habitat Page 27

36 zones B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, L, R, S, T, U, V, Z, AB, AC, AD, AG, AN, AO, AP, AQ, AT, AV, BO, BS, BT, CN and CO (Figures 4 to 20). As a result of changes to the proposed wind farm infrastructure layout following these targeted surveys, a number of extra habitat zones were recorded within the revised wind farm infrastructure zone which were considered to potentially support EPBC Act and FFG Act listed flora species, Targeted flora surveys have yet to be carried out in these habitat zones. These were habitat zones CX, DI, DK and DL. Therefore, targeted flora surveys will be carried out in these habitat zones at the appropriate time of year for the species concerned. All other habitat zones in the proposed infrastructure zone were deemed as unsuitable habitat for any of the above listed target flora species. The targeted surveys were not undertaken during the optimal flowering season for Trailing Hop-bush. However this species is conspicuous and distinguishable all year round. Buloke, which is distinguishable all year round, was searched for throughout the entire proposed infrastructure zone throughout the detailed flora survey and targeted flora surveys. Given the condition of the vegetation and optimal timing of the surveys (i.e. during the regular flowering period for the targeted species), the surveys were considered appropriate for detecting the threatened species, in the habitat zones subject to the current targeted surveys. All observed listed rare or threatened plants, were marked with a hand-held GPS to an accuracy of approximately ±five metres. Specimens requiring identification using laboratory techniques were collected. Fauna species and habitats The techniques below were used to detect fauna species utilising the study area. Incidental searches for mammal scats, tracks and signs (e.g. diggings, signs of feeding and nests/burrows). Turning over logs/rocks and other ground debris for reptiles, frogs and mammals. Bird observation during the day. General searches for reptiles and frogs; including identification of frog calls in seasonally wet areas. The quality of fauna habitat was assessed based on the criteria detailed below. These are based on habitat components that include old-growth trees, fallen timber, leaf litter and surface rocks. Three quality categories were used, as described below. High: The majority of fauna habitat components are present and habitat linkages to other remnant ecosystems in the landscape are intact Moderate: The majority of fauna habitat components are present but habitat linkages to other remnant ecosystems in the landscape are absent; or The majority of habitat components are absent but habitat linkages to other remnant ecosystems in the landscape are intact Low: The majority of fauna habitat components are absent and habitat linkages to other remnant ecosystems in the landscape are absent. Page 28

37 Threatened ecological communities During the habitat hectare assessment, habitat zones recorded within the study area were flagged as potential ecological communities listed under the EPBC Act and/or the FFG Act, based on the general identification criteria of listed ecological communities identified in the review of existing information. Please note that only habitat zones on public land (road reserves) were considered for FFG Act listed communities, as the Guidelines do not account for FFG Act listed matters on private land. A follow up site inspection was conducted between the 5 th and 7 th May 2014 to determine whether or not any of the habitat zones flagged as potentially constituting listed ecological communities did constitute such communities, when assessed against more specific identification criteria and condition thresholds Limitations of field assessments Where feasible, all efforts were made to schedule flora and fauna field surveys in optimal weather conditions and times of year. Nevertheless, field surveys usually fail to record all species present for various reasons, including the seasonal absence of some species and short survey duration. Rare or cryptic species can be missed in short surveys. The fauna assessment was undertaken during a variety of weather conditions from scattered showers to fine and sunny. These conditions were considered suitable for detecting most species likely to occur in the study area. Summer migrants were present including Rufous Songlark, White-winged Triller and Masked and White-browed Woodswallows. Detailed native vegetation surveying was carried out in spring, when some annual and/or seasonally-emergent non-threatened plant species may have been absent or in the senescent or pre-flowering stage of their life-cycle and lacking essential identification characteristics. The timing of the survey and condition of vegetation was otherwise considered suitable to ascertain the extent and quality of native vegetation. With regard to the targeted flora surveys for threatened species, the following limitations applied: The targeted flora surveys were not undertaken during the optimal flowering season for Trailing Hop-bush. However this species is conspicuous and distinguishable all year round. Therefore, this was not considered to be a significant limitation; The majority of the Sun-orchid flowers had not opened at the time of the survey, making identification to species level difficult. However there were enough indicators to rule out the presence of the threatened Spiral Sun-orchid (which was the only threatened Sun-orchid potentially occurring). Spiral Sun-orchid has a distinctive spiral leaf that is unique to that species, therefore the species can be identified outside of its flowering season; and Targeted surveys have not been carried out in habitat zones CX, DI, DK and DL, due to changes to the proposed wind farm infrastructure layout following the initial targeted surveys. It should be noted that these four habitat zones do not support higher quality native vegetation than those previously surveyed. Given that no EPBC Act or FFG Act listed species were recorded during the targeted surveys in the higher quality native vegetation, it is considered unlikely that any other listed species would occur in those habitat zones that are yet to be surveyed. Page 29

38 As the primary purpose of the investigation was to assess the extent and quality of native vegetation and fauna habitats in the study area and any potential impacts, the review of existing information, combined with the field surveys were sufficient to complete this aspect of the assessment. Wherever appropriate, a precautionary approach was adopted in the discussion of implications. That is, where insufficient evidence was available on the occurrence or potential occurrence of a species, it was assumed that it could be in an area of suitable habitat. The implications under legislation and policy were considered accordingly Determination of impact extent The impact area described in Section 10.1 and mapped biodiversity values were overlaid using GIS to determine the extent of proposed impacts on biodiversity values in the study area. DEPI guidelines to determine whether a scattered tree is lost or retained when it occurs near proposed development works (Appendix 5) were applied to determine impacts to scattered trees. Page 30

39 5.2. Flora and native vegetation results Remnant patches Pre European EVC mapping (DEPI 2013a) indicated that the study area and surrounds would have supported the following EVC s prior to European settlement based on modelling of factors including rainfall, aspect, soils and remaining vegetation: Heathy Dry Forest (EVC 20) Heathy Woodland (EVC 48) Box Ironbark Forest (EVC 61) Alluvial Terraces Herb-rich Woodland (EVC 67) Creekline Grassy Woodland (EVC 68) Grassy woodland (EVC 175) Plains Woodland (EVC 803). Evidence on site, including floristic composition and soil characteristics, suggested that Heathy Dry Forest (EVC 20), Alluvial Terraces Herb-rich Woodland (EVC 67), Creekline Grassy Woodland (EVC 68), Heathy Woodland (EVC 48), Low-rises Grassy woodland (EVC 175_61) and Granitic Grassy Woodland (EVC 175_62) were present within sections of the study area (Figures 4 20). Elements of Plains Woodland (EVC 803) were also present as Scattered Trees. Heathy Dry Forest (EVC 20) has Least Concern conservation status in the Goldfields bioregion. The benchmark for this EVC describes it as Grows on shallow, rocky skeletal soils on a variety of geologies and on a range of landforms from gently undulating hills to exposed aspects on ridge tops and steep slopes at a range of elevations. The overstorey is a low, open eucalypt forest, poor in form to 20 m tall with an open crown cover. The understorey is dominated by a low, sparse to dense layer of ericoid-leaved shrubs including heaths and peas. Graminoids and grasses are frequently present in the ground layer, but do not provide much cover (Appendix 6). Alluvial Terraces Herb-rich Woodland (EVC 67) has an endangered conservation status in the Goldfields bioregion. The benchmark for this EVC describes it as Open woodland to 15 m tall on broad alluvial plains and along ephemeral drainage lines. Soils are generally poorly drained duplex soils with sandy loam overlying heavier clay subsoil. Understorey consists of few, if any shrubs with the striking feature of this EVC being the high speciesrichness of the ground-layer and the low biomass of this cover, particularly in summer (Appendix 6). Creekline Grassy Woodland (EVC 68) has an endangered conservation status in the Goldfields bioregion. The benchmark for this EVC describes it as Eucalypt-dominated woodland to 15 m tall with occasional scattered shrub layer over a mostly grassy/sedgy to herbaceous ground-layer. Occurs on low-gradient ephemeral to intermittent drainage lines, typically on fertile colluvial/alluvial soils, on a wide range of suitably fertile geological substrates. These minor drainage lines can include a range of graminoid and herbaceous species tolerant of waterlogged soils, and are presumed to have sometimes resembled a linear wetland or system of interconnected small ponds (Appendix 6). Heathy Woodland (EVC 48) has a depleted conservation status in the Goldfields bioregion. The benchmark for this EVC describes it as spans a variety of geologies but is Page 31

40 generally associated with nutrient-poor soils including deep uniform sands (aeolian or outwash) and Tertiary sand/clay which has been altered to form quartzite gravel. Eucalypt-dominated low woodland to 10 metres tall lacking a secondary tree layer and generally supporting a diverse array of narrow or ericoid-leaved shrubs except where frequent fire has reduced this to a cover of fire resprouters. Geophytes and annuals can be quite common but the ground cover is normally fairly sparse (Appendix 6). Low-rises Grassy woodland (EVC 175_61) has a vulnerable conservation status in the Goldfields bioregion. The benchmark for this EVC describes it as A variable open eucalypt woodland to 15 m tall over a diverse ground layer of grasses and herbs. The shrub component is usually diverse but sparse in cover. In the Goldfields bioregion, Grassy Woodland occurs on sedimentary soils on the lowest slopes at the interface between the plains and the infertile woodlands of the sedimentary hills (Appendix 6). Granitic Grassy woodland (EVC 175_62) has a vulnerable conservation status in the Goldfields bioregion. The benchmark for this EVC describes it as A variable eucalypt woodland or open forest to 15 m tall over a distinct large and medium shrub layer and diverse ground layer of grasses and herbs. It occurs on sites with moderate fertility on plains or weathered undulating granitic hills in areas with moderately high rainfall (>600 mm per annum) (Appendix 6). 106 remnant patches (referred to herein as habitat zones) comprising the abovementioned EVCs were identified in the study area. Habitat zones are detailed in Table 2 and their location is shown is Figures 4 to 20. Page 32

41 Figure 20 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 Figure 10 Figure 9 Figure 11 Figure 13 Figure 12 Figure 14 Figure 19 Figure 15 Figure 18 Figure 16 Figure 17 Legend Bulgana Wind Farm Boundary Development layout Turbines Kilometers Figure 4: Study Area - Overview Project: Bulgana Wind Farm Client: Bulgana Wind Farm Pty Ltd Project No.: Date: 4/12/2014 Created By: M. Ghasemi / A. Stewart

42 B C LANDSBOROUGH ROAD STAWELL ROAD Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community A Legend Bulgana Wind Farm Boundary Development layout Turbines Native Vegetation Scattered Trees Alluvial Terraces Herb-rich Woodland (EVC 67) Very Large Creekline Grassy Woodland (EVC 68) Large Grassy Woodland (EVC 175) Medium Heathy Dry Forest (EVC 20) Small Heathy Woodland (EVC 48) Low-rises Grassy woodland (EVC 175_61) Granitic Grassy woodland (EVC 175_62) Native vegetation to be removed D Scattered trees to be removed Metres Figure 5: Study Area and Native Vegetation -Detailed Project: Bulgana Wind Farm Client: Bulgana Wind Farm Pty Ltd Project No.: Date: 20/11/2014 Created By: M. Ghasemi / A. Stewart

43 Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community D CM D A LANDSBOROUGH ROAD C B STAWELL ROAD D J I Legend Bulgana Wind Farm Boundary Development layout Turbines Native Vegetation Scattered Trees Alluvial Terraces Herb-rich Woodland (EVC 67) Very Large Creekline Grassy Woodland (EVC 68) Large Grassy Woodland (EVC 175) Medium Heathy Dry Forest (EVC 20) Small Heathy Woodland (EVC 48) Low-rises Grassy woodland (EVC 175_61) Granitic Grassy woodland (EVC 175_62) Native vegetation to be removed D Scattered trees to be removed Metres Figure 6: Study Area and Native Vegetation -Detailed Project: Bulgana Wind Farm Client: Bulgana Wind Farm Pty Ltd Project No.: Date: 20/11/2014 Created By: M. Ghasemi / A. Stewart

44 Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community DL GIBSONS ROAD THOMAS ROAD DM DN DK D STAWELL ROAD H D G E F Legend Bulgana Wind Farm Boundary Development layout Turbines Native Vegetation Scattered Trees Alluvial Terraces Herb-rich Woodland (EVC 67) Very Large Creekline Grassy Woodland (EVC 68) Large Grassy Woodland (EVC 175) Medium Heathy Dry Forest (EVC 20) Small Heathy Woodland (EVC 48) Low-rises Grassy woodland (EVC 175_61) Granitic Grassy woodland (EVC 175_62) Native vegetation to be removed D Scattered trees to be removed Metres Figure 7: Study Area and Native Vegetation -Detailed Project: Bulgana Wind Farm Client: Bulgana Wind Farm Pty Ltd Project No.: Date: 20/11/2014 Created By: M. Ghasemi / A. Stewart

45 D D Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community GIBSONS ROAD D Legend Bulgana Wind Farm Boundary Development layout Turbines Native Vegetation Scattered Trees Alluvial Terraces Herb-rich Woodland (EVC 67) Very Large Creekline Grassy Woodland (EVC 68) Large Grassy Woodland (EVC 175) Medium Heathy Dry Forest (EVC 20) Small Heathy Woodland (EVC 48) Low-rises Grassy woodland (EVC 175_61) Granitic Grassy woodland (EVC 175_62) Native vegetation to be removed D Scattered trees to be removed Metres Figure 8: Study Area and Native Vegetation -Detailed Project: Bulgana Wind Farm Client: Bulgana Wind Farm Pty Ltd Project No.: Date: 20/11/2014 Created By: M. Ghasemi / A. Stewart

46 D L CL Q P CI O D D N M CH R T S AG AB CK Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Legend Bulgana Wind Farm Boundary Development layout Turbines Native Vegetation Scattered Trees Alluvial Terraces Herb-rich Woodland (EVC 67) Very Large Creekline Grassy Woodland (EVC 68) Large Grassy Woodland (EVC 175) Medium Heathy Dry Forest (EVC 20) Small Heathy Woodland (EVC 48) Low-rises Grassy woodland (EVC 175_61) Granitic Grassy woodland (EVC 175_62) Native vegetation to be removed D Scattered trees to be removed Metres Figure 9: Study Area and Native Vegetation -Detailed Project: Bulgana Wind Farm Client: Bulgana Wind Farm Pty Ltd Project No.: Date: 1/12/2014 Created By: M. Ghasemi / A. Stewart

47 CI L D D O CL M AA Z Y X W CJ D D D D V D D U D Q Q P AF CH Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community R Legend Bulgana Wind Farm Boundary Development layout Turbines Native Vegetation Scattered Trees Alluvial Terraces Herb-rich Woodland (EVC 67) Very Large Creekline Grassy Woodland (EVC 68) Large Grassy Woodland (EVC 175) Medium Heathy Dry Forest (EVC 20) Small Heathy Woodland (EVC 48) Low-rises Grassy woodland (EVC 175_61) Granitic Grassy woodland (EVC 175_62) Native vegetation to be removed D Scattered trees to be removed Metres Figure 10: Study Area and Native Vegetation -Detailed Project: Bulgana Wind Farm Client: Bulgana Wind Farm Pty Ltd Project No.: Date: 20/11/2014 Created By: M. Ghasemi / A. Stewart

48 D AJ AH AF CH R T S AG AE AD AC AB CK D AI DH D DI DJ BULGANA ROAD AO AN AM AL AK Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, BS GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community BULGANA ROAD Legend Bulgana Wind Farm Boundary Development layout Native Vegetation Scattered Trees Alluvial Terraces Herb-rich Woodland (EVC 67) Very Large BT Metres Figure 11: Study Area and Native Vegetation -Detailed Turbines Creekline Grassy Woodland (EVC 68) Grassy Woodland (EVC 175) Heathy Dry Forest (EVC 20) Heathy Woodland (EVC 48) Low-rises Grassy woodland (EVC 175_61) Large Medium Small D Scattered trees to be removed Project: Bulgana Wind Farm Client: Bulgana Wind Farm Pty Ltd Project No.: Date: 21/11/2014 Created By: M. Ghasemi / A. Stewart Granitic Grassy woodland (EVC 175_62) Native vegetation to be removed

49 AR AR AS AT BULGANA ROAD AM BS BT BS DE DB DD D D DC AP CP GREAT WESTERN-BULGAN ROAD DG D DD DF Legend Bulgana Wind Farm Boundary Development layout Turbines Native Vegetation Scattered Trees Alluvial Terraces Herb-rich Woodland (EVC 67) Very Large Creekline Grassy Woodland (EVC 68) Grassy Woodland (EVC 175) Heathy Dry Forest (EVC 20) Heathy Woodland (EVC 48) Low-rises Grassy woodland (EVC 175_61) Granitic Grassy woodland (EVC 175_62) Native vegetation to be removed CZ Large Medium Small D Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Scattered trees to be removed Metres Figure 12: Study Area and Native Vegetation -Detailed Project: Bulgana Wind Farm Client: Bulgana Wind Farm Pty Ltd Project No.: Date: 20/11/2014 Created By: M. Ghasemi / A. Stewart

50 Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community AQ AQ3 D D AQ2 D Legend Bulgana Wind Farm Boundary Development layout Turbines Native Vegetation Scattered Trees Alluvial Terraces Herb-rich Woodland (EVC 67) Very Large Creekline Grassy Woodland (EVC 68) Large Grassy Woodland (EVC 175) Medium Heathy Dry Forest (EVC 20) Small Heathy Woodland (EVC 48) Low-rises Grassy woodland (EVC 175_61) Granitic Grassy woodland (EVC 175_62) Native vegetation to be removed D Scattered trees to be removed Metres Figure 13: Study Area and Native Vegetation -Detailed Project: Bulgana Wind Farm Client: Bulgana Wind Farm Pty Ltd Project No.: Date: 20/11/2014 Created By: M. Ghasemi / A. Stewart

51 BE BO GREAT WESTERN-BULGAN ROAD Legend Bulgana Wind Farm Boundary Development layout Turbines CY Native Vegetation Scattered Trees Alluvial Terraces Herb-rich Woodland (EVC 67) Very Large Creekline Grassy Woodland (EVC 68) Grassy Woodland (EVC 175) Heathy Dry Forest (EVC 20) Heathy Woodland (EVC 48) Low-rises Grassy woodland (EVC 175_61) Granitic Grassy woodland (EVC 175_62) Native vegetation to be removed Large Medium Small D D D D D Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Scattered trees to be removed Metres Figure 14: Study Area and Native Vegetation -Detailed Project: Bulgana Wind Farm Client: Bulgana Wind Farm Pty Ltd Project No.: Date: 20/11/2014 Created By: M. Ghasemi / A. Stewart

52 BN D AX D D D D D D D D D D CX Legend Bulgana Wind Farm Boundary Development layout Turbines CW D BD D D D D D D DDD BB Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community BC Metres Native Vegetation Scattered Trees Alluvial Terraces Herb-rich Woodland (EVC 67) Very Large Figure 15: Study Area and Native Vegetation -Detailed Creekline Grassy Woodland (EVC 68) Grassy Woodland (EVC 175) Heathy Dry Forest (EVC 20) Heathy Woodland (EVC 48) Low-rises Grassy woodland (EVC 175_61) Granitic Grassy woodland (EVC 175_62) Native vegetation to be removed Large Medium Small D Scattered trees to be removed Project: Bulgana Wind Farm Client: Bulgana Wind Farm Pty Ltd Project No.: Date: 20/11/2014 Created By: M. Ghasemi / A. Stewart

53 D D D D D DDD BC BD D D D D D ALLANVALE-DUNWORTHY ROAD CV CU CS D CT D D D D D CR D CQ Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Legend Bulgana Wind Farm Boundary Development layout Turbines Native Vegetation Scattered Trees Alluvial Terraces Herb-rich Woodland (EVC 67) Very Large Creekline Grassy Woodland (EVC 68) Large Grassy Woodland (EVC 175) Medium Heathy Dry Forest (EVC 20) Small Heathy Woodland (EVC 48) Low-rises Grassy woodland (EVC 175_61) Granitic Grassy woodland (EVC 175_62) Native vegetation to be removed D Scattered trees to be removed Metres Figure 16: Study Area and Native Vegetation -Detailed Project: Bulgana Wind Farm Client: Bulgana Wind Farm Pty Ltd Project No.: Date: 1/12/2014 Created By: M. Ghasemi / A. Stewart

54 D D D CW D D D DDD BC BB BL D D D AY D BA D AZ BK BJ BI BG BH Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Legend Bulgana Wind Farm Boundary Development layout Turbines Native Vegetation Scattered Trees Alluvial Terraces Herb-rich Woodland (EVC 67) Very Large Creekline Grassy Woodland (EVC 68) Large Grassy Woodland (EVC 175) Medium Heathy Dry Forest (EVC 20) Small Heathy Woodland (EVC 48) Low-rises Grassy woodland (EVC 175_61) Granitic Grassy woodland (EVC 175_62) Native vegetation to be removed D Scattered trees to be removed Metres Figure 17: Study Area and Native Vegetation -Detailed Project: Bulgana Wind Farm Client: Bulgana Wind Farm Pty Ltd Project No.: Date: 20/11/2014 Created By: M. Ghasemi / A. Stewart

55 D D BP BR D BF AV BQ CW D Legend BB Bulgana Wind Farm Boundary Development layout Turbines BN D AX D AW D DD DDDD D D Native Vegetation Scattered Trees Alluvial Terraces Herb-rich Woodland (EVC 67) Very Large Creekline Grassy Woodland (EVC 68) Grassy Woodland (EVC 175) Heathy Dry Forest (EVC 20) Heathy Woodland (EVC 48) Low-rises Grassy woodland (EVC 175_61) Granitic Grassy woodland (EVC 175_62) Native vegetation to be removed AY Large D Medium Small D Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community D AZ BM Scattered trees to be removed Metres Figure 18: Study Area and Native Vegetation -Detailed Project: Bulgana Wind Farm Client: Bulgana Wind Farm Pty Ltd Project No.: Date: 20/11/2014 Created By: M. Ghasemi / A. Stewart

56 CZ DA D D AU D D Legend Bulgana Wind Farm Boundary Development layout Turbines BR D Native Vegetation Scattered Trees Alluvial Terraces Herb-rich Woodland (EVC 67) Very Large Creekline Grassy Woodland (EVC 68) Grassy Woodland (EVC 175) Heathy Dry Forest (EVC 20) Heathy Woodland (EVC 48) Low-rises Grassy woodland (EVC 175_61) Granitic Grassy woodland (EVC 175_62) Native vegetation to be removed BF Large Medium Small D Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Scattered trees to be removed Metres Figure 19: Study Area and Native Vegetation -Detailed Project: Bulgana Wind Farm Client: Bulgana Wind Farm Pty Ltd Project No.: Date: 20/11/2014 Created By: M. Ghasemi / A. Stewart

57 JOEL FOREST-VANCESC ROAD JOEL FOREST ROAD BV BW Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Legend Bulgana Wind Farm Boundary Development layout Turbines Native Vegetation Scattered Trees Alluvial Terraces Herb-rich Woodland (EVC 67) Very Large Creekline Grassy Woodland (EVC 68) Large Grassy Woodland (EVC 175) Medium Heathy Dry Forest (EVC 20) Small Heathy Woodland (EVC 48) Low-rises Grassy woodland (EVC 175_61) Granitic Grassy woodland (EVC 175_62) Native vegetation to be removed D Scattered trees to be removed Metres Figure 20: Study Area and Native Vegetation -Detailed Project: Bulgana Wind Farm Client: Bulgana Wind Farm Pty Ltd Project No.: Date: 20/11/2014 Created By: M. Ghasemi / A. Stewart

58 Page 50 Table 2: Description of habitat zones in the study area Habitat Zone EVC Description BO,DK,DL CM,DN D,E,F,I,J,BT G,H,CS,CT,CU,CV C Heathy Woodland (EVC 48) Heathy Woodland (EVC 48) Alluvial Terraces Herb-rich Woodland (EVC 67) Alluvial Terraces Herb-rich Woodland (EVC 67) Creekline Grassy Woodland (EVC 68) Public land tenure (road reserve) High quality habitat. Dominated by a canopy of Bundy and Yellow Box. Shrub layer dominated by Lightwood, Drooping Sheoak, Heath Tea-tree and Peach Heath. Ground layer dominated by a rich diversity of indigenous graminoids and forbs. Introduced weed cover very high, the more dominant species were annual grasses and Cats Ear. Freehold land tenure Low quality habitat. Dominated by a canopy of Red Box. Shrub layer absent. Ground layer dominated by introduced weeds. Indigenous elements comprised a low diversity and cover of graminoids and forbs. Public land tenure (road reserve) Low to high quality habitat. Variously dominated by a canopy of River Red-gum, Buloke, Yellow Gum and Grey Box. Shrub layer varies between habitat zones, but largely dominated by Hedge Wattle, Lightwood, Golden Wattle and various epacrids. Ground layers largely dominated by introduced weeds. Indigenous elements comprised a moderate diversity and cover of graminoids and forbs. Freehold land tenure Low to moderate quality habitat. Some zones dominated by a canopy of River Red-gum and Buloke, other virtually treeless. Some zones supported a shrub layer dominated by Hedge Wattle, Lightwood, Golden Wattle and various epacrids, and others were virtually shrub-less. Some of the ground layers comprised a moderate diversity and cover of graminoids and forbs, and other very few. Introduced weed cover moderate to high, the more dominant species being Cats Ear, Cape Weed and annual grasses. Public land tenure (road reserve) Low quality habitat. Dominated by a canopy of River Red-gum and Yellow Box. Shrub layer dominated by Hedge Wattle, Lightwood and Black Wattle. Ground layer dominated by introduced weeds. Indigenous elements comprised a moderate diversity but low cover of graminoids and forbs.

59 Page 51 Habitat Zone EVC Description A,BP,BR,CM B,AN,AO,AP,AQ,A T,BS,BV,BW,CR, DG,DI L,Q,R,S,AH,AI,AJ, AK,AL,AM,AR,AS, AU,BA,BB,BD,BK,BL,CH,CI,CP,CQ, CX,CY,DB,DC,DE, DD,DF,DG,DJ CZ,DA AA,AB,AC,AD,AE, AF,AG,AV,AW,AX, AY,AZ,BC,BE,BF, BG,BH,BI,BJ,BM, BN,BQ,CJ,CK,CL, CW Creekline Grassy Woodland (EVC 68) Low-rises Grassy woodland (EVC 175_61) Low-rises Grassy woodland (EVC 175_61) Granitic Grassy Woodland (EVC 175_62) Heathy Dry Forest (EVC 20) Freehold land tenure Low to moderate quality habitat. Variously dominated by a canopy of River Red-gum, Yellow Gum and Yellow Box. Shrub layer varies between habitat zones, but largely dominated by Hedge Wattle, Lightwood, Blackwood and various epacrids. Ground layers largely dominated by introduced weeds. Indigenous elements comprised a moderate diversity and cover of graminoids and forbs. Public land tenure (road reserve) Low to moderate quality habitat. Variously dominated by a canopy of River Red-gum, Yellow Gum and Yellow Box. Shrub layer varies between habitat zones, but largely dominated by Hedge Wattle and Lightwood and various epacrids. Ground layers largely dominated by introduced weeds. Indigenous elements comprised a low to moderate diversity and cover of graminoids and forbs. Freehold land tenure Low to moderate quality habitat. Variously dominated by a canopy of River Red-gum, Yellow Gum and Yellow Box. Shrub layer varies between habitat zones, but largely dominated by Hedge Wattle, Blackwood, Lightwood and various epacrids. Ground layers largely dominated by introduced weeds. Indigenous elements comprised a low to moderate diversity and cover of graminoids and forbs. Freehold land tenure Low quality habitat. Dominated by a canopy of River Red-gum and Yellow Gum Shrub layer absent. Ground layers dominated by introduced weeds. No indigenous elements in the understorey. Freehold land tenure Low to moderate quality habitat. Variously dominated by a canopy of Bundy, Red Box, Red Stringybark, Yellow Box and Yellow Gum. Shrub layer varies between habitat zones, but largely comprised a variety of low-growing epacrids, occasionally with taller Hedge Wattle present. Ground layers varied considerably, from those dominated by introduced with very few indigenous elements, to those dominated by a rich diversity of indigenous graminoids and forbs.

60 The habitat hectare assessment results for these habitat zones are provided in Table 3, and more detailed habitat scoring results are presented in Appendix 3. Table 3: Summary of habitat hectare assessment results Habitat Zone EVC no. Area (ha) Habitat score (out of 100) Habitat Hectares (Hha) Land tenure A Private B 175_ Public C Public D Public E Public F Public G Private H Private I Public J Public L 175_ Private M Private N Private O Private P Private Q 175_ Private R 175_ Private S 175_ Private T Private U Private V Private W Private X Private Y Private Z Private AA Private AB Private AC Private AD Private AE Private AF Private AG Private AH 175_ Private AI 175_ Private AJ 175_ Private Page 52

61 Habitat Zone EVC no. Area (ha) Habitat score (out of 100) Habitat Hectares (Hha) Land tenure AK 175_ Private AL 175_ Private AM 175_ Private AN 175_ Public AO 175_ Public AP 175_ Public AQ 175_ Public AQ2 175_ Private AQ3 175_ Private AR 175_ Private AS 175_ Private AT 175_ Public AU 175_ Private AV Private AW Private AX Private AY Private AZ Private BA 175_ Private BB 175_ Private BC Private BD 175_ Private BE Public BF Private BG Private BH Private BI Private BJ Private BK 175_ Private BL 175_ Private BM Private BN Private BO Public BP Private BQ Private BR Private BS 175_ Public BT Public Page 53

62 Habitat Zone EVC no. Area (ha) Habitat score (out of 100) Habitat Hectares (Hha) Land tenure BV 175_ Public BW 175_ Public CH 175_ Private CI 175_ Private CJ Private CK Private CL Private CM Private CP 175_ Private CQ 175_ Private CR 175_ Public CS Private CT Private CU Private CV Private CW Private CX 175_ Private CY 175_ Private CZ 175_ Private DA 175_ Private DB 175_ Private DC 175_ Private DD 175_ Private DE 175_ Private DF 175_ Private DG 175_ Private DH 175_ Public DI 175_ Public DJ 175_ Private DK Public DL Public DM Private DN Private Scattered trees Totals Scattered trees recorded in the study area would have once comprised the canopy component of Heathy Dry Forest (EVC 20), Alluvial Terraces Herb-rich Woodland (EVC Page 54

63 67), Creekline Grassy Woodland (EVC 68), Plains Woodland (EVC 803) and Grassy Woodland (EVC 175). A total of 710 scattered trees were recorded in the proposed infrastructure zone of the study area (Figures 4 to 20), of which 194 were very large, 222 were large, 111 were medium and 163 were small compared to the relevant benchmark large tree diameter at breast height (DBH), listed below (Appendix 6). The size class of 20 scattered trees was not recorded. A large proportion of scattered trees in the study area contained hollows. Heathy Dry Forest (EVC 20): 60 centimetres Alluvial Terraces Herb-rich Woodland (EVC 67): 70 centimetres Plains Woodland (EVC 803): 70 centimetres Creekline Grassy Woodland (EVC 68): 80 centimetres Grassy woodland (EVC 175): 70 centimetres. Details of the scattered trees recorded are listed in Appendix 4 and summarised in Table 4. Table 4: Scattered trees size classes in the proposed infrastructure zone of the study area Size class Number of trees Very large 194 Large 222 Medium 111 Small 163 Unknown 20 Total Flora species During the field assessment 111 plant species were recorded. Of these, 75 (68%) were indigenous and 36 (32%) were introduced or non-indigenous native in origin (Appendix 1). VBA records (VBA 2013) and the EPBC Protected Matters Search Tool (Department of the Environment 2013) indicated that within the search region there were records of, or there occurred potential suitable habitat for, 18 species listed under the federal EPBC Act and 20 listed under the state Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (FFG Act). No flora species listed under the EPBC Act were recorded during the field survey. The likelihood of occurrence in the study area of species listed under the EPBC Act and FFG Act is addressed in Table 5. Species considered likely to occur are those that have a very high chance of being in the study area based on numerous records in the search region and suitable habitat in the study area. Species considered to have the potential to occur are those where suitable habitat exists, but recent records are scarce. This analysis indicates that the following listed flora species are likely to occur or have the potential to occur: Buloke (FFG Act listed); Page 55

64 Brilliant Sun-orchid (EPBC Act - vulnerable, FFG Act listed) Clover Glycine (EPBC Act - vulnerable, FFG Act listed) Pale Leek-orchid (syn. Pink-lip Leek-orchid) (EPBC Act - vulnerable, FFG Act listed) Pomonal Leek-orchid (EPBC Act - endangered, FFG Act listed) Purple Eyebright (EPBC Act - endangered, FFG Act listed) Small Milkwort (FFG Act listed) Spiral Sun-orchid (EPBC Act - vulnerable, FFG Act listed) Trailing Hop-bush (EPBC Act - vulnerable). One flora species listed under the FFG Act was recorded on public land during the field survey. This was Buloke, listed as threatened under the FFG Act. Page 56

65 Table 5: FFG Act and EPBC Act listed flora species and potential habitat in the study area Common Name Scientific Name Conservation status EPBC Act status FFG Act status Habitat Potential habitat and occurrence of species in study area Brilliant Sun-orchid Thelymitra mackibbinii V L Eucalyptus leucoxylon woodland within box ironbark forest in central and western Victoria (Jeanes & Backhouse 2006). Habitat present in the study area but not recorded in targeted surveys Buloke Allocasuarina luehmannii L Woodlands on non-calcareous soils. Commonly grows with Grey Box (Entwisle 1996). Recorded in study area Button Wrinklewort Rutidosis leptorhynchoides E L Basaltic grasslands (Jeanes 1999). No habitat in the study area therefore species unlikely to occur Candy Spider-orchid Caladenia versicolor V L Winter-wet sandy soils in open woodland. Grows on flats among small shrubs and sedges (Jones 2006). No habitat in the study area therefore species unlikely to occur Clover Glycine Glycine latrobeana V L Grasslands and grassy woodlands (Jeanes 1996). Habitat present in the study area but not recorded in targeted surveys Floodplain Rustyhood Pterostylis cheraphila V L Grows in open Eucalyptus largiflorens/eucalyptus leucoxylon woodland with a sparse grassy understorey, on seasonally inundated, heavy, grey-black clay soils. A couple of sites occur on the floodplain of the Wimmera River (Duncun et al. 2009). No habitat in the study area therefore species unlikely to occur Greencomb Spider-orchid Caladenia tensa E Eucalyptus and Callitris woodland in well-drained sandy loams. Grows among shrubs (Jones 2006). No habitat in the study area therefore species unlikely to occur Green-striped Greenhood Pterostylis chlorogramma V L Grows in moist areas of open forest (Jones 1994). Hairy Tails Ptilotus erubescens L Fertile soils with grassland and woodland communities (Walsh 1996). Kamarooka Mallee Eucalyptus froggattii L Mallee scrub and woodland (Brooker & Slee 1996). Large-fruit Fireweed Senecio macrocarpus V L Kangaroo Grass grasslands on basalt (Walsh 1999). No habitat in the study area therefore species unlikely to occur No habitat in the study area therefore species unlikely to occur No habitat in the study area therefore species unlikely to occur No habitat in the study area therefore species unlikely to occur McIvor Spider-orchid Caladenia audasii E L Ornate Pink Fingers Caladenia ornata V L Dry box ironbark forest in central Victoria, from Bendigo to Stawell (Jeanes & Backhouse 2006). Heathy forest and among shrubs on seasonally moist sandy loams (Jones 2006). No habitat in the study area therefore species unlikely to occur No habitat in the study area therefore species unlikely to occur Pale Leek-orchid (syn. Pink-lip Leek-orchid) Prasophyllum pallidum (syn. Prasophyllum aff. fitzgeraldii A) V L Heathy woodland and box ironbark forest (Jeanes & Backhouse 2006). Habitat present in the study area but not recorded in targeted surveys Page 57

66 Common Name Scientific Name Conservation status EPBC Act status FFG Act status Habitat Potential habitat and occurrence of species in study area Pomonal Leek-orchid Prasophyllum subbisectum E L Well-drained gravelly loam in heathy woodland (Jones 2006). Habitat present in the study area but not recorded in targeted surveys Purple Eyebright Euphrasia collina subsp. muelleri E L Heathlands and heathy woodlands on Mornington Peninsular and near Jamieson (Barker 1999). Habitat present in the study area but not recorded in targeted surveys River Swamp Wallaby-grass Amphibromus fluitans V Wetlands, permanent swamps (Walsh 1994). Sandhill Greenhood Orchid Pterostylis arenicola V Information on this species occurrence in Victoria could not be sourced. It is likely that it doesn't occur in that state. No habitat in the study area therefore species unlikely to occur Species does not appear to occur in Victoria Small Milkwort Comesperma polygaloides L Heavy soils supporting grasslands and grassy woodlands (Walsh 1999). Habitat present in the study area but not recorded in targeted surveys Spiny Rice-flower Pimelea spinescens subsp. spinescens C L Grasslands or open shrublands on basalt derived soils (Entwisle 1996). Prefers shallow depressions and drainage lines with moderate soil moisture (D.Coppolino pers. obs.). No habitat in the study area therefore species unlikely to occur Spiral Sun-orchid Thelymitra matthewsii V L Slightly elevated sites to 300m in well-drained soils (sandy loams to gravelly limestone soils) in light to dense forest; sometimes in coastal sandy flats (Weber & Entwisle 1994). Habitat present in the study area but not recorded in targeted surveys Swamp Diuris Diuris palustris L Scattered distribution throughout western Victoria. Usually in swampy depressions in grassland or open woodland. Numbers have reduced due to agricultural clearing (Entwisle 1994). No habitat in the study area therefore species unlikely to occur Tawny Spider-orchid Caladenia fulva E L Drier forest with a sparse understorey. Grows on slopes and ridges in well-drained soil (Jones 2006). Suitable habitat in the study area is highly modified species is unlikely to occur Trailing Hop-bush Dodonaea procumbens V Grows in low lying often winter wet areas in woodland, low open-forest and grasslands on sands and clays. Largely confined to SW of Victoria (Duretto 1999). Habitat present in the study area but not recorded in targeted surveys Notes: C = Critically Endangered; E = Endangered; V = Vulnerable; L = Listed as threatened under FFG Act Page 58

67 Targeted survey for listed threatened flora species During the targeted flora surveys, only one species listed under either/or the EPBC Act and FFG Act was recorded in the proposed infrastructure zone of the study area. This was Buloke, which is listed as threatened under the FFG Act. Numerous individuals were recorded in habitat zones E, F, H and CA, and 17 scattered trees (159, 222, 336 to 341, 422, 461, 462, 1298 and 1334 to 1338). The location of Buloke in the study area is presented in Figures 21 to 27. During the targeted flora surveys, a number of sun orchid species were observed in the proposed infrastructure zone of the study area. Although the survey was undertaken during the usual flowering period for the species, several of the flowers had not opened at the time of the survey. This made identification to species level difficult, however there was enough evidence to rule out the presence of the targeted sun orchid species. As a result of changes to the proposed wind farm infrastructure layout following the targeted flora surveys, four additional habitat zones were recorded within the revised wind farm infrastructure zone which were considered to potentially support EPBC Act and FFG Act listed flora species. Targeted flora surveys have yet to be carried out in these habitat zones, which include CX, DI, DK and DL. Therefore, targeted flora surveys will be carried out in these habitat zones at the appropriate time of year for the species concerned. It should be noted however, that these four habitat zones do not support higher quality native vegetation than those previously surveyed. Given that no EPBC Act or FFG Act listed species were recorded during the targeted surveys in the higher quality native vegetation, it is considered unlikely that any other listed species would occur in those habitat zones that are yet to be surveyed. Page 59

68 Figure 23 GF Figure 22 Figure 24 $+ Figure 25 ") #* %, GF #*kj!? ^_^_ Figure 26 XW XW XW #* #* ^_ Figure 27 Y Legend Turbines Threatened Fauna Records GF Bulgana Wind Farm Boundary Proposed Infrastructure Zone ") Black-chinned Honeyeater #* Brown Treecreeper %, Eastern Bearded Dragon $+ Rainbow Bee-eater ^_ Wedge-tailed Eagle kj!? Y Barking Owl Diamond Firetail Hooded Robin Powerful Owl Threatened Flora Records Buloke XW Golden Cowslips Listed threatened ecological communities Grey Box - Buloke Grassy Woodland Community Kilometers Figure 21: Threatened Species and Ecological Communities - Overview Project: Bulgana Wind Farm Client: Bulgana Wind Farm Pty Ltd Project No.: Date: 4/12/2014 Created By: M. Ghasemi / P. Lansley

69 Legend Bulgana Wind Farm Boundary Development layout Turbines Threatened Flora Records Buloke XW Golden Cowslips Threatened Fauna Records GF Barking Owl ") Black-chinned Honeyeater #* Brown Treecreeper %, Eastern Bearded Dragon $+ Rainbow Bee-eater ^_ kj!? Y Wedge-tailed Eagle Diamond Firetail Hooded Robin Powerful Owl Listed threatened ecological communities Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Grey Box - Buloke Grassy Woodland Community Metres Figure 22: Threatened Species and Ecological Communities - Detailed Poject: Bulgana Wind Farm Client: Bulgana Wind Farm Pty Ltd Project No.: Date: 4/12/2014 Created By: M. Ghasemi / B. MacDonald

70 GF Legend Bulgana Wind Farm Boundary Development layout Turbines Threatened Flora Records Buloke XW Golden Cowslips Threatened Fauna Records GF Barking Owl ") Black-chinned Honeyeater #* Brown Treecreeper %, Eastern Bearded Dragon $+ Rainbow Bee-eater ^_ kj!? Y Wedge-tailed Eagle Diamond Firetail Hooded Robin Powerful Owl Listed threatened ecological communities Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Grey Box - Buloke Grassy Woodland Community Metres Figure 23: Threatened Species and Ecological Communities - Detailed Poject: Bulgana Wind Farm Client: Bulgana Wind Farm Pty Ltd Project No.: Date: 4/12/2014 Created By: M. Ghasemi / B. MacDonald

71 $+ More than one individual Buloke throughout habitat zone More than one individual Buloke throughout habitat zone Legend Bulgana Wind Farm Boundary Development layout Turbines Threatened Flora Records Buloke XW Golden Cowslips Threatened Fauna Records GF Barking Owl ") Black-chinned Honeyeater #* Brown Treecreeper %, Eastern Bearded Dragon $+ Rainbow Bee-eater ^_ kj!? Y Wedge-tailed Eagle Diamond Firetail Hooded Robin Powerful Owl Listed threatened ecological communities Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Grey Box - Buloke Grassy Woodland Community Metres Figure 24: Threatened Species and Ecological Communities - Detailed Poject: Bulgana Wind Farm Client: Bulgana Wind Farm Pty Ltd Project No.: Date: 4/12/2014 Created By: M. Ghasemi / B. MacDonald

72 GF #*kj!? #* %, ") Legend Bulgana Wind Farm Boundary Development layout Turbines Threatened Flora Records Buloke XW Golden Cowslips Threatened Fauna Records GF Barking Owl ") Black-chinned Honeyeater #* Brown Treecreeper %, Eastern Bearded Dragon $+ Rainbow Bee-eater ^_ kj!? Y Wedge-tailed Eagle Diamond Firetail Hooded Robin Powerful Owl Listed threatened ecological communities Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Grey Box - Buloke Grassy Woodland Community Metres Figure 25: Threatened Species and Ecological Communities - Detailed Poject: Bulgana Wind Farm Client: Bulgana Wind Farm Pty Ltd Project No.: Date: 4/12/2014 Created By: M. Ghasemi / B. MacDonald

73 10 Plants ^_ ^_ 5 Plants XW #* XW #* XW 1 Plant ^_ Legend Bulgana Wind Farm Boundary Development layout Turbines Threatened Flora Records Buloke XW Golden Cowslips Threatened Fauna Records GF Barking Owl ") Black-chinned Honeyeater #* Brown Treecreeper %, Eastern Bearded Dragon $+ Rainbow Bee-eater ^_ kj!? Y Wedge-tailed Eagle Diamond Firetail Hooded Robin Powerful Owl Listed threatened ecological communities Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Grey Box - Buloke Grassy Woodland Community Metres ,000 Figure 26: Threatened Species and Ecological Communities - Detailed Poject: Bulgana Wind Farm Client: Bulgana Wind Farm Pty Ltd Project No.: Date: 4/12/2014 Created By: M. Ghasemi / B. MacDonald

74 $+ More than one individual Buloke throughout habitat zone More than one individual Buloke throughout habitat zone Legend Bulgana Wind Farm Boundary Development layout Turbines Threatened Flora Records Buloke XW Golden Cowslips Threatened Fauna Records GF Barking Owl ") Black-chinned Honeyeater #* Brown Treecreeper %, Eastern Bearded Dragon $+ Rainbow Bee-eater ^_ kj!? Y Wedge-tailed Eagle Diamond Firetail Hooded Robin Powerful Owl Listed threatened ecological communities Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Grey Box - Buloke Grassy Woodland Community Metres Figure 27: Threatened Species and Ecological Communities - Detailed Poject: Bulgana Wind Farm Client: Bulgana Wind Farm Pty Ltd Project No.: Date: 4/12/2014 Created By: M. Ghasemi / B. MacDonald

75 5.3. Fauna results Fauna habitats The study area supported four habitat types for fauna. Remnant Woodland Rocky Outcrop Cleared agricultural land Aquatic habitat. Remnant Woodland: This habitat type was dominated by eucalyptus trees including Bundy, Yellow Box, Red Box, Grey Box, River Red-gum, Yellow Gum and Red Stringybark. Some of these trees were large and contained hollows of various sizes. The understorey in paddocks was predominantly introduced pasture grasses. The understorey along roadsides was of higher quality and contained native species including native grasses, heathland, lilies, orchids and other native herbs. Four species of birds listed under the Victoria Temperate-Woodland Bird Community (a listed community under the FFG Act) were recorded in the study area together with seven species of woodland-associated bird. This suggests that the wind farm supports elements of this listed bird community. This habitat varied in quality, some remnant areas were isolated and had little diversity while others particularly along the roadsides had high diversity and connectivity to other areas of high quality habitat. Therefore this habitat type was considered to be low to high quality. Rocky Outcrop: This habitat type was located on some of the ridges. The rock was more commonly hornsfels which is a metamorphic rock. There were also some granite rises with very large granite boulders on top of the ridges. The hornfels surface rocks were generally small - up to 50 centimetres in diameter. The granite boulders were very large some were up to 10 metres wide. The granite areas had Lightwood and other wattle species growing in the area. This habitat type provided habitat for reptile species. Connectivity was present in most cases along the ridge lines. This habitat type was considered to be high quality for native fauna. Cleared Agricultural Land: This habitat type included both grazing land and crops. Grazing land was dominated by introduced pasture grasses and weeds such as Cape Weed and Onion Grass on paddocks grazed by sheep and cattle. This habitat type was modified from original vegetation and was also showing signs of degradation in the form of large gully erosion. These areas provided habitat for common occurring farmland species. Cropping areas have had soil disturbance in the form of cultivation and planted with cereal crops. This habitat type is considered to be low quality for native fauna. Aquatic habitats: This habitat type included ephemeral creeks, drainage lines and farm dams. Ephemeral creeks and drainage lines were mostly deeply eroded and vegetated with Spiny Rush. Farms dams were usually small areas of open water lined with rushes, spike-rushes and introduced grasses. These habitat types are considered to be low quality for native fauna and are not considered to provide habitat for threatened species. Page 67

76 Fauna species The review of existing information indicated that 180 fauna species have previously been recorded within the search region. The EPBC Matters Search Tool indicated that potential habitat occurs for another 14 species. Based on the current field survey combined with the assessment of habitat suitability, the study area has the potential to support 197 fauna species, including 141 bird (seven introduced), 34 mammal (six introduced), 16 reptile and six frog species (Appendix 2). Fish have not been considered as part of this assessment as there are no major waterways in the study area. All aquatic habitats present are highly modified and considered to be of low quality. During the field assessment 122 fauna species were recorded. This included 90 bird (five introduced), 22 mammal (four introduced), five reptile and five frog species (Appendix 2) Listed fauna species The review of existing information indicated that within the search region 53 rare or threatened fauna species (46 birds, eight mammals, six reptiles, two frogs, three fish and two invertebrates) listed on the EPBC Act, FFG Act and/or the DEPI advisory list (DEPI 2013c) may occur. The potential occurrence of these species in the study area was assessed and results are presented in Table 6. This details whether any of these are also listed as migratory under the EPBC Act. Species that were recorded in the study area are highlighted in grey and their locations are presented in Figures 21 to 27. Species that have the potential to occur or are likely to occur are highlighted in grey. Species considered likely to occur are those that have a very high chance of being in the study area based on numerous records in the search region and suitable habitat in the study area. Species considered to have the potential to occur are those where suitable habitat exists, but recent records are scarce. Adopting the precautionary approach, these species have the potential to occur. Under the Guidelines, impacts to species listed under the DEPI Advisory List are determined through the results of the specific-general offset test, which is based on DEPI s habitat importance mapping and proposed areas of vegetation removal. The findings from the specific-general offset test indicated that no specific offsets are required for removal of habitat for threatened fauna species. Page 68

77 Table 6: Listed fauna species and potential to occur in the study area Common Name Scientific name EPBC FFG DEPI Habitat Number of records in 10km search region Date of last record Potential habitat and occurrence of species in study area Birds Australasian Bittern Botaurus poiciloptilus EN L EN Terrestrial wetlands, including a range of wetland types but prefers permanent water bodies with tall dense vegetation, particularly those dominated by sedges, rush, reeds or cutting grass (Marchant and Higgins 1990). 0 None Aquatic habitat in the study area is highly modified - unlikely to occur Australasian Shoveler Australian Bustard Australian Painted Snipe Australian Pratincole Anas rhynchotis Ardeotis australis L CE Rostratula benghalensis australis Stiltia isabella VU VU, M (CAMBA) L CE Barking Owl Ninox connivens L EN Black Falcon Falco subniger VU Black-chinned Honeyeater Melithreptus gularis Brolga Grus rubicunda L VU Brown Treecreeper (south-eastern ssp.) Bush Stonecurlew Caspian Tern Climacteris picumnus victoriae Burhinus grallarius L EN Hydroprogne caspia NT NT NT M (JAMBA, CAMBA) L NT Cattle Egret Ardea ibis M (JAMBA, CAMBA) Common Greenshank Crested Bellbird Curlew Sandpiper Tringa nebularia Oreoica gutturalis gutturalis Calidris ferruginea M (JAMBA, CAMBA, ROKAMBA, Bonn Convention (A2H)) M (JAMBA, CAMBA, ROKAMBA, Bonn Convention (A2H)) L VU NT EN Large and deep permanent bodies of water and aquatic flora abundant. Also occurs on billabongs, watercourses and flood waters on alluvial plains, freshwater meadows, shallow swamps, reed swamps, wooded lakes, sewage farms and farm dams (Marchant and Higgins 1990). Inhabits mainly grasslands, low shrublands and lightly timbered open woodlands (Marchant and Higgins 1993). Lowlands on shallow freshwater swamps with emergent vegetation and flooded saltmarshes (Marchant and Higgins 1993). Open plains, sparsely wooded plains and tussock grasslands; usually in arid and semi-arid zones (Higgins and Davies 1996). Occurs in dry forest and woodland dominated by eucalypts and also inhabits riparian vegetation dominated by species such as River Red-gum and Red Box. Woodlands, open country and terrestrial wetlands; in arid and semi-arid zones; mainly over open plains and undulating land with large tracts of low vegetation (Marchant and Higgins 1993). Open box-ironbark forests and woodlands. Usually found in Red or Mugga Ironbarks, Grey Box, Yellow Gum and Yellow Box, especially mature tall trees along gullies, low-lying flats and lower slopes (Higgins et al. 2001; Tzaros 2005). Wetlands that include permanent open water and deep freshwater marsh (Marchant and Higgins 1993). Woodlands dominated by eucalyptus, especially Stringybarks or other rough-barked eucalypts usually with open grassy understorey (Higgins et al. 2001) Open woodlands with Grey Box, Yellow Box and/or River Red Gum, with a grassy understorey (Robinson and Johnson 1997). Sheltered coastal embayment, including harbours, lagoons, inlets, estuaries and river deltas, usually with sandy or muddy margins (Higgins and Davies 1996). Wooded lands and terrestrial freshwater wetlands and pasture, in association with cattle (Marchant and Higgins 1990). Inhabits wide range of coastal or inland wetlands with varying levels of salinity; mainly muddy margins or rocky shores of wetlands (Higgins and Davies 1996). Dry acacia shrublands or woodlands, eucalypt woodlands including mallee and spinifex; usually occur in dense vegetation near ground (Higgins and Peter 2002; Tzaros 2005). Inhabits wide range of coastal or inland wetlands with varying levels of salinity; mainly muddy margins or rocky shores of wetlands (Higgins and Davies 1996). 2 10/02/ /01/ None 2 31/01/1978 Aquatic habitat in the study area is highly modified - unlikely to occur No suitable habitat in the study area unlikely to occur No suitable habitat in the study area unlikely to occur No suitable habitat in the study area unlikely to occur 3 01/03/2011 Recorded in the study area 2 31/01/ /10/ /03/ /11/ /11/ None 0 None 0 None 1 25/12/ None Lack of records in the search region suggests species rarely occurs there unlikely to occur Suitable habitat present in the study area recorded in study area No suitable habitat in the study area unlikely to occur Suitable habitat present in the study area recorded in study area Potential to occur due to the presence of suitable habitat in the study area, however the species was not found during targeted surveys Aquatic habitat in the study area is highly modified - unlikely to occur Lack of records in the search region suggests species rarely occurs there unlikely to occur Aquatic habitat in the study area is highly modified - unlikely to occur No suitable habitat in the study area unlikely to occur Aquatic habitat in the study area is highly modified - unlikely to occur Page 69

78 Common Name Scientific name EPBC FFG DEPI Habitat Number of records in 10km search region Date of last record Potential habitat and occurrence of species in study area Diamond Firetail Eastern Curlew Eastern Great Egret Emu Fork-tailed Swift Glossy Ibis Stagonopleura guttata Numenius madagascariensis M (JAMBA, CAMBA, ROKAMBA, Bonn (A2H) Ardea modesta M (JAMBA, CAMBA) L VU Dromaius novaehollandiae Apus pacificus Plegadis falcinellus M (JAMBA,CAMBA, ROKAMBA) M (CAMBA, Bonn (A2S)) Hardhead Aythya australis VU Hooded Robin Latham's Snipe Little Buttonquail Melanodryas cucullata cucullata Gallinago hardwickii Turnix velox M (JAMBA, CAMBA, ROKAMBA, Bonn A2H) Malleefowl Leipoa ocellata VU, M (JAMBA) L EN L L NT VU NT NT NT NT NT Commonly found in box-ironbark forests and woodlands and also occurs along watercourses and in farmland areas (Emison et al. 1987; Tzaros 2005). Inhabits sheltered coasts, especially estuaries, embayment, harbours, inlets and coastal lagoons with large intertidal mudflats or sandflats, often with beds of sea grass (Higgins and Davies 1996). Occurs in a variety of wetlands including: permanent water bodies on flood plains; shallows of deep permanent lakes, either open or vegetated with shrubs or trees; semi-permanent swamps with tall emergent vegetation (e.g. Typha) and herb dominated seasonal swamps with abundant aquatic flora (Marchant and Higgins 1990). Widespread and found in a variety of habitas from timbered areas to open country (Marchant and Higgins 1990). Aerial, over inland plains, sometimes above foothills or in coastal areas, over cliffs and urban areas (Higgins 1999). Prefer freshwater inland wetlands, in particular, permanent or ephemeral water bodies and swamps with abundant vegetation (Marchant and Higgins 1990). Inhabits large, deep waters where vegetation is abundant; particularly deep swamps and lakes, pools and creeks. Also occur on freshwater meadows, seasonal swamps with abundant aquatic flora, reed swamps, wooded lakes and swamps, rice fields, and sewage ponds (Marchant and Higgins 1990). Occur mostly in open Grey Box, White Box, Yellow Box, Yellow Gum and Ironbark woodlands with pockets of saplings or taller shrubs, an open shrubby understorey, sparse grasses and patches of bare ground and leaf-litter, with scattered fallen timber (Higgins and Peter 2002; Tzaros 2005). Occurs in wide variety of permanent and ephemeral wetlands; it prefers open freshwater wetlands with dense cover nearby, such as the edges of rivers and creeks, bogs, swamps, waterholes (Naarding 1983; Higgins and Davies 1996). Inhabits woodlands, acacia scrub, spinifex and tussock grasslands. It takes readily to cereal crops (Marchant and Higgins 1993). Mainly in semi-arid zones ( mm rainfall), but in higher rainfall area of heath and mallee-heath; rarely arid zones. Associated with mallee, particularly floristically rich tall dense mallee of higher rainfall areas (Marchant and Higgins 1993) /11/ None 0 None 4 16/05/ None 0 None 3 30/10/ /12/ None 2 31/01/ None Suitable habitat present in the study area recorded in study area Aquatic habitat in the study area is highly modified - unlikely to occur Aquatic habitat in the study area is highly modified - unlikely to occur Lack of records in the search region suggests species rarely occurs there unlikely to occur Rare visitor in the region - unlikely to occur. Aquatic habitat in the study area is highly modified - unlikely to occur Aquatic habitat in the study area is highly modified - unlikely to occur Suitable habitat present in the study area recorded in study area Aquatic habitat in the study area is highly modified - unlikely to occur Lack of records in the search region suggests species rarely occurs there unlikely to occur Lack of records in the search region suggests species rarely occurs there unlikely to occur Masked Owl Tyto novaehollandiae L EN Inhabits a wide variety of lowland forests and woodlands that provide mature trees with hollows suitable for nesting and roosting. 0 None Suitable habitat exists towards the south of the study area Potential to occur Musk Duck Biziura lobata VU Nankeen Night Heron Pectoral Sandpiper Nycticorax caledonicus hillii Calidris melanotos M (JAMBA, ROKAMBA, Bonn Convention (A2H)) NT NT It inhabits terrestrial wetlands, estuarine habitats and sheltered inland waters. Almost entirely aquatic; preferring deep water of large swamps, lakes and estuaries, where conditions are stable and aquatic flora abundant (Marchant and Higgins 1990). Inhabits littoral and estuarine habitats and terrestrial wetlands. Mainly nocturnal; forage over soft or firm substrates in still or slow-moving shallow water, on exposed shores, banks and flats of wetlands, or swampy vegetation; often where sheltered by tall emergent or ground vegetation, and near trees used for roosting (Marchant and Higgins 1990). Inhabit shallow fresh to saline wetlands, usually coastal to near-coastal, but occasionally farther inland. Wetlands often have open fringing mudflats and low emergent or fringing vegetation (Higgins and Davies 1996). 3 16/05/ /04/ None Aquatic habitat in the study area is highly modified - unlikely to occur No suitable habitat in the study area unlikely to occur Aquatic habitat in the study area is highly modified - unlikely to occur Powerful Owl Ninox strenua L VU Open and tall wet sclerophyll forests with sheltered gullies and old growth forest with dense understorey. They are also found in dry forests with box and ironbark eucalypts and River Red Gum. Large old trees with hollows are required by this species for nesting (Higgins 1999; Soderquist et al. 2002). 6 25/02/2001 Suitable habitat present in the study area potential to occur Rainbow Beeeater Merops ornatus M (JAMBA) Usually in open or lightly timbered areas, often near water. Occur in partly cleared land such as farmland and in sand-dunes, both coastal and inland (Higgins 1999). 14 8/10/2013 Suitable habitat present in the study area recorded in study area Page 70

79 Common Name Red Knot Red-backed Kingfisher Red-chested Button-quail Red-necked Stint Regent Honeyeater Rufous Fantail Satin Flycatcher Sharp-tailed Sandpiper Speckled Warbler Scientific name EPBC FFG DEPI Habitat Calidris canutus Todiramphus pyrropygia pyrropygia Turnix pyrrhothorax Calidris ruficollis Anthochaera phrygia Rhipidura rufifrons Myiagra cyanoleuca Calidris acuminata Chthonicola sagittatus M (JAMBA, CAMBA, ROKAMBA, Bonn Convention (A2H) M (JAMBA, CAMBA, ROKAMBA, Bonn Convention (A2H)) L EN NT VU EN, M (JAMBA) L CE M (Bonn Convention (A2H)) M (Bonn Convention (A2H)) M (JAMBA, CAMBA, ROKAMBA, Bonn Convention (A2H)) Spotted Harrier Circus assimilis NT Swift Parrot Lathamus discolor EN L EN White-bellied Sea-Eagle White-throated Needletail Haliaeetus leucogaster Hirundapus caudacutus L VU M (CAMBA) L VU M (JAMBA, CAMBA, ROKAMBA) VU Inhabits intertidal mudflats, sandflats, and sandy beaches of sheltered coasts, in estuaries, bays, inlets, and lagoons (Higgins and Davies 1996). Inhabits open, lightly wooded habitats in arid and semi-arid zones; near variety of wetlands. Usually in dry open forests and woodlands dominated by eucalypts (Higgins 1999). Inhabits dense, sometimes damp grasslands with little or no tree cover; also in acacia, eucalypts and melaleuca woodlands with ground cover of long grass (Marchant and Higgins 1993). Inhabit shallow fresh to saline wetlands, usually coastal to near-coastal, but occasionally farther inland. Wetlands often have open fringing mudflats and low emergent or fringing vegetation (Higgins and Davies 1996). Inhabits dry box-ironbark eucalypt forests near rivers and creeks on inland slopes of the Great Dividing Range. It could also occur in small remnant patches or in mature trees in farmland or partly cleared agricultural land (Higgins et al. 2001). Primarily found in dense, moist habitats. Less often present in dry sclerophyll forests and woodlands (Higgins et al. 2006). Number of records in 10km search region Date of last record 0 None 1 1/04/ /01/ None 1 30/04/ None Tall forests and woodlands in wetter habitats but not in rainforest (Higgins et al. 2006) 0 None Inhabit shallow fresh to saline wetlands, usually coastal to near-coastal, but occasionally farther inland. Wetlands often have open fringing mudflats and low emergent or fringing vegetation (Higgins and Davies 1996). Inhabits dry eucalypt forests and woodlands, especially those with box-ironbark eucalypt associations. It is also found in River Red Gum woodlands (Higgins and Peter 2002; Tzaros 2005). It prefers open woodlands that do not obstruct low flight, and natural and exotic grasslands in arid and semi arid areas (Higgins and Davies 1996). Prefers a narrow range of eucalypts in Victoria, including White Box, Red Ironbark and Yellow Gum as well as River Red Gum when this species supports abundant lerp (Emison et al. 1987; Higgins 1999; Kennedy and Tzaros 2005). Maritime habitats, terrestrial large wetlands and coastal lands of tropical and temperate Australia and offshore islands, ranging far inland only over large rivers and wetlands (Marchant and Higgins 1993). Aerial, over all habitats, but probably more over wooded areas, including open forest and rainforest. Often over heathland and less often above treeless areas such as grassland and swamps or farmland (Higgins 1999). Mammals 0 None 8 20/11/ /01/ /09/ None 2 31/01/1978 Potential habitat and occurrence of species in study area Aquatic habitat in the study area is highly modified - unlikely to occur Although there is suitable habitat on site this species is widespread and has only been recorded in the search region once. Due to lack of recent and regular records this species is unlikely to regularly occur. No suitable habitat in the study area unlikely to occur Aquatic habitat in the study area is highly modified - unlikely to occur Lack of recent records in the search region suggests species rarely occurs there unlikely to occur No suitable habitat in the study area unlikely to occur No suitable habitat in the study area unlikely to occur Aquatic habitat in the study area is highly modified - unlikely to occur Suitable habitat present in the study area potential to occur Lack of records in the search region suggests species rarely occurs there unlikely to occur Suitable habitat present in the study area potential to occur No suitable habitat in the study area unlikely to occur Suitable habitat present in the study area potential to occur on a flyover basis Brush-tailed Phascogale Phascogale tapoatafa L VU Dry forest and woodland in association with box, ironbark and stringybark eucalypts (Menkhorst 1995) /03/2006 Suitable habitat present in the study area Potential to occur Southern Bentwing Bat Common Dunnart Fat-tailed Dunnart Heath Mouse Miniopterus schreibersii bassanii Sminthopsis murina murina Sminthopsis crassicaudata Pseudomys shortridgei CE L CE Requires caves or similar artificial sites (mine shafts, road culverts) for breeding and roosting. Forage over woodlands near large wetlands and agricultural areas. Disperses in autumn to other caves within 300 kilometres of maternity caves near Warrnambool and Narracoorte (Churchill 2008). 0 None VU In Victoria, dry forest and woodland, mallee scrub and dry heath (Menkhorst 1995). 1 25/07/1979 NT VU L NT Native grasslands associated with rocky areas, rough pastures and the edges of stubble paddocks (Menkhorst 1995). Lowland and dry heaths and woodland and forest with heathy understorey (Menkhorst 1995). 8 27/05/ None Recorded during bat surveys at site 10. Occurrence likely to be a result of movement between maternity cave(s) and wintering caves. Suitable habitat present in the study area potential to occur Suitable habitat present in the study area potential to occur Lack of records in the search region suggests species rarely occurs there Page 71

80 Common Name Smoky Mouse Southern Brown Bandicoot Squirrel Glider Eastern Bearded Dragon Scientific name EPBC FFG DEPI Habitat Pseudomys fumeus Isoodon obesulus obesulus Petaurus norfolcensis Pogona barbata EN L NT Lace Monitor Varanus varius EN Pink-tailed Worm-lizard Samphire Skink Striped Legless Lizard Woodland Blind Snake Brown Toadlet Growling Grass Frog Australian Grayling Aprasia parapulchella Morethia adelaidensis Coastal heath, heathy woodland, sub-alpine heath, dry forest and gullies in wet forest (Menkhorst 1995). Number of records in 10km search region Date of last record 0 None EN L NT Heathy forest, woodland, coastal scrub and heathland (Menkhorst 1995). 21 1/03/2002 L EN Dry forest and woodland and nearby riverine corridors (Menkhorst 1995). 5 21/03/2006 VU VU L EN L EN Delma impar VU L EN Ramphotyphlops proximus Pseudophryne bibronii L Reptiles Semi-arboreal species and is usually found on fallen timber, stumps, branches and fence posts (Cogger 2000). The species will forage on foliage and flowers. Well timbered areas from dry woodland to wet southern forests and rainforest (Wilson and Swan 2003). Native tussock grassland, sparse or no tree cover, little or no leaf litter and scattered partially buried rocks (Osbourne et al. 1991). There is an isolated population in central Vic near Bendigo (Wilson and Swan 2003). Chenopod dominated shrubland, often associated with woodlands, in dry to arid areas, distributed across northern Victoria (Wilson and Swan 2003). Tussock grasslands on the volcanic plains, often associated with scattered rocks and cracked soils (Cogger 2000). 8 9/10/ /01/ None 1 20/05/ None NT Large variety of habitats (Wilson and Swan 2003). 2 1/10/1976 EN Litoria raniformis VU L EN Prototroctes maraena VU L VU Dwarf Galaxias Galaxiella pusilla VU L EN Frogs Wet and dry forest, grassy areas besides small creeks, alpine grasslands and mossy bogs (Cogger 2000). Permanent, still or slow flowing water with fringing and emergent vegetation in streams, swamps, lagoons and artificial wetlands such as farm dams and abandoned quarries (Clemann and Gillespie 2004). Fish Large and small coastal streams and rivers with cool, clear waters with a gravel substrate and altering pools and riffles (Cadwallader and Backhouse 1983). Barwon River to Mitchell River. Vegetated margins of still water, ditches, swamps and backwaters of creeks, both ephemeral and permanent (Allen et al. 2002). 7 20/11/ /01/ None 0 None Potential habitat and occurrence of species in study area unlikely to occur Lack of records in the search region suggests species rarely occurs there unlikely to occur Suitable habitat absent unlikely to occur Suitable habitat present in the study area potential to occur Suitable habitat present in the study area recorded in study area The study area was lacking large wooded blocks which this species prefers unlikely to occur Most likely outside of geographical range - unlikely to occur Lack of records in the search region suggests species rarely occurs there unlikely to occur No suitable habitat in the study area unlikely to occur Lack of records in the search region suggests species rarely occurs there unlikely to occur No suitable habitat present, drainage lines and creeklines highly modified unlikely to occur Aquatic habitat in the study area is highly modified - unlikely to occur Aquatic habitat in the study area is highly modified - unlikely to occur Aquatic habitat in the study area is highly modified - unlikely to occur Murray Cod Maccullochella peelii VU L VU Slow flowing turbid water of rivers and streams of low elevation; also fast flowing clear upland streams (Allen et al. 2002). 0 None Aquatic habitat in the study area is highly modified - unlikely to occur Golden Sun Moth Western Brighteyed Brown Butterfly Synemon plana CE L CE Heteronympha cordace wilsoni Invertebrates Areas that are, or have been native grasslands or grassy woodlands. It is known to inhabit degraded grasslands with introduced grasses being dominant, with a preference for the native wallaby grass being present (DEWHA 2009). 0 None L RE Occurs with Carex species and various wetland grasses 1 01/01/1760 No suitable habitat in the study area unlikely to occur This species is considered to be regionally extinct in the search region; therefore considered unlikely to occur. Notes: RE = Regionally extinct; CE = Critically Endangered; EN = Endangered; VU = Vulnerable; NT = Lower risk, near threatened; L = Listed as threatened under FFG Act; M = Listed migratory species; (JAMBA) = Japan-Australia Migratory Bird Agreement; (CAMBA) = China-Australia Migratory Bird Agreement; (ROKAMBA) = Republic of Korea- Australia Migratory Bird Agreement; (Bonn) = Bonn Convention Page 72

81 Birds Based on the assessment of habitat suitability and previous records in the search region (Table 6), 12 listed bird species have the potential to occur in the study area. The vulnerability of these species to possible impacts from the proposed development is discussed below, in light of the targeted surveys that have taken place (Chapters 7 and 8). Note that the findings of the specific-general offset test indicated that no significant impacts are likely due to removal of habitat for construction of the wind farm. Black-chinned Honeyeater (DEPI: near threatened) This species was recorded during field assessment in one of the woodland remnants. The species tends to occur in large woodland blocks or remnants that are connected to larger remnants. Given the larger woodland remnants with large old trees will be avoided, the Black-chinned Honeyeater should experience minimal impact, in view of the extent of alternative habitat available on public reserved land in the region. The species rarely leaves its woodland habitat and is unlikely to fly at rotor swept area (Chapter 6). Significant impacts to the Black-chinned Honeyeater from construction and operation of the wind farm are unlikely. Brown Treecreeper (DEPI: near threatened) This species was recorded in the study area at several sites in woodland remnants. It is a species that prefers woodlands with coarse woody debris on the ground and may be affected by fragmentation of its habitat, having disappeared from many smaller, isolated or degraded blocks within its range. Habitat for the Brown Treecreeper is unlikely to be impacted by the development provided clearance for infrastructure corridors avoids large old trees and existing ground debris in the larger remnants. Impacts to Brown Treecreeper are unlikely. Bush Stone-curlew (FFG Act: listed, DEPI: endangered) The Bush Stone-curlew lives in lowland grassy woodland, often with an overstorey of River Red-gum, Grey Box or Yellow Box and sparse, short, native grassy cover. There are no previous records of the species in the wind farm itself, however two historical records (the most recent being from 1992) exist in the 10 km search region. The Bush Stone curlew was initially thought to potentially occur in the study area due to the availability of suitable habitat remaining in the study area (woodland habitat with coarse woody debris). Despite the presence of suitable habitat within the study area, the Bush Stone-curlew was not recorded during surveys carried out in March and June 2014, at 21 sites surveyed within 10 kilometres of the wind farm. The species is therefore considered to no longer be resident on the wind farm and occurrences are likely to be very infrequent, if at all. The construction of Bulgana wind farm is therefore unlikely to significantly impact any local population of Bush Stone-curlew. Diamond Firetail (FFG Act: listed, DEPI: near threatened) This species was recorded in the study area during bird utilisation surveys in woodland habitat (see Figure 25 for location). In order to minimise any impacts from Page 73

82 development, where possible clearance for infrastructure corridors will pass through existing cleared areas and avoid removal of large old trees (including dead trees that may be used as regular perching sites) and native grassy ground cover. Diamond Firetail is unlikely to fly at rotor swept area height, therefore impacts from construction and operation of the wind farm are unlikely. Hooded Robin (FFG Act: listed, DEPI: near threatened) This species was recorded in the study area in areas of woodland habitat (Figure 25). The Hooded Robin is one of a suite of woodland birds that has experienced a contraction of range and decrease in numbers in Victoria, particularly south of the Great Divide. In order to minimise any impacts by the development, where possible, clearance for infrastructure corridors will pass through existing cleared areas and avoid large old trees and existing ground debris in the mapped remnant woodland patches. Hooded Robin is unlikely to fly at rotor swept area height, therefore impacts from both construction and operation of the wind farm are unlikely. Powerful Owl (FFG Act: listed, DEPI: vulnerable) This species has the potential to occur in the study area due to the presence of suitable woodland habitat containing many large hollow-bearing trees. The species was subject to a targeted survey and was recorded at the Ararat Hills Regional Park within two kilometres of the wind farm, but not on the wind farm itself. The findings suggest that Powerful Owl is probably resident in Ararat Regional Park, but is unlikely to regularly occur in the wind farm itself due to a lack of large continuous forest or woodland blocks, or riparian zones of permanent streams. It may occur infrequently at Joel Joel NCR to the north of the wind farm. The assessment of risk to Powerful Owl is discussed in more detail in Chapter 8. Barking Owl (FFG Act: listed, DEPI: endangered) An individual Barking Owl was observed roosting at the proposed wind farm site in December 2013, and in March 2014 Barking Owl was heard responding to callplayback in scattered trees on farmland just south of Joel Joel Nature Conservation Reserve (NCR) (Figures 23 and 25). Despite further intensive spotlighting and call playback surveys from March to June, no further individuals were recorded and no evidence of Barking Owl (white wash, pellets, nesting or roosting trees) was recorded during diurnal searches. Given that nesting Barking Owls are known to be particularly responsive to call playback, it is unlikely that a resident breeding pair of Barking Owl utilise the wind farm. However, individual Barking Owl may occasionally use the wind farm site. Potential impacts to Barking Owl from the construction and development of the wind farm was subject to a separate investigation, which included a detailed risk assessment of individual turbines. The assessment and recommendations for risk mitigation measures that were adopted by Bulgana Wind Farm Pty Ltd, are detailed in BL&A (2014a) and summarised in Chapter 8. Page 74

83 Speckled Warbler (FFG Act: listed, DEPI: vulnerable) This species has the potential to occur in the study area due to the presence of suitable woodland habitat. Speckled Warblers prefer rather open woodland with coarse woody debris on the ground and may be affected by habitat fragmentation, having disappeared from some smaller, isolated or degraded blocks within its range. To minimise potential impacts to habitat as a result of construction, where possible, clearance for infrastructure corridors will avoid large old trees and existing ground debris in the mapped woodland remnants. Impacts to Speckled Warbler are unlikely to be significant. Swift Parrot (EPBC Act: endangered; FFG Act: listed, DEPI: endangered) This species has the potential to occur in the study area due to the presence of suitable woodland habitat, in particular the habitat zones dominated by large old Yellow Gum and/or Grey Box. A targeted survey for Swift Parrot was carried out in May 2014 to determine whether the species was present at the time of the survey and to assess habitat suitability in the study area for the species (Chapter 7). The species was not recorded during the survey, however it may occasionally utilise the large block of remnant vegetation to the north of the study area in Joel Joel Nature Conservation Reserve. The nearest turbine is 1.5 kilometres away from this area. Given the turbines are located on top of ridges and away from areas of suitable habitat that are likely to attract the Swift Parrot, operation of the wind farm is unlikely to have a significant impact on the species. The findings from the Swift Parrot survey are detailed in Chapter 7. White-throated Needletail (EPBC Act: migratory; DEPI: vulnerable) The White-throated Needletail is highly nomadic when in Australia and move in flocks ahead of weather fronts, often over heavily forested areas. This species is likely to occur in the study area occasionally due to the presence of suitable habitat. The removal of the small area of habitat during construction is unlikely to have a measurable impact on population numbers, estimated to be at individuals. This species may be affected to a small degree by wind farm operations as they may fly at rotor swept area, however impacts to the species for the construction and operation of the wind farm are unlikely to be significant. Migratory Birds The review of existing information identified 11 listed migratory bird species within the search region. Of these, three species may occur in the study area based on the availability of suitable habitat. Two of these, the Swift Parrot and White-throated Needletail are already discussed above under threatened species. Potential impacts to other migratory species that may occur in the study area are discussed below. Page 75

84 Rainbow Bee-eater (EPBC Act: migratory (JAMBA)) This species is likely to occur in the study area in woodland areas or cleared land with scattered trees, from October to March. It was recorded during the field assessment at the northern end of the study area. There is ample nesting habitat in the form of eroded creek banks. Bee-eaters are aerial foragers and may be susceptible to occasional turbine casualties, but any impact on their overall population is likely to be minimal. Mammals Based on the assessment in Table 6, five listed mammal species have the potential to occur in the study area. The vulnerability of these species to possible impacts from the proposed development is discussed below. Note that the findings of the specific-general offset test indicated that no significant impacts to DEPI listed mammal species are likely due to removal of habitat for construction of the wind farm. Brush-tailed Phascogale (FFG Act: listed, DEPI: vulnerable) There is potential for this species to occur in woodland habitats of the wind farm, particularly along the roadsides that provide connectivity to areas of suitable habitat such as Ararat Hill Regional Park. Removal of woodland vegetation may impact on this species; therefore potential habitat, particularly that supporting large hollow trees along road reserves, and some private land, has been avoided where possible in the development of the wind farm layout. If any potential habitat is to be removed (i.e. large hollow-bearing trees), a salvage protocol during construction works is recommended. Given mitigation measures are implemented, impacts to the Brushtailed Phascogale are unlikely to be significant. Common Dunnart (DEPI: vulnerable) There is potential for this species to occur in the woodland areas of the wind farm where there is fallen woody debris and leaf litter. The removal of woodland vegetation has been avoided and minimised where possible, in the design of the wind farm layout. Impacts to the Common Dunnart are therefore expected to be low and the species is expected to recover from any temporary disturbance to the local population. Fat-tailed Dunnart (DEPI: near threatened) There is potential for this species to occur in areas of the wind farm supporting open, bare ground, rocky habitats and grassland. The habitat available for Fat-tailed Dunnart is fairly consistent throughout the wind farm (ie. one area is not better than the other). Given the presence of recent records in the region, the species is likely to occur. However, the area of Fat-tailed Dunnart habitat that will be impacted is small compared to the amount of habitat available over the wind farm, therefore impacts to the local population are unlikely to be significant. Page 76

85 Southern Bent-wing Bat (FFG Act: listed, DEPI: critically endangered) The Southern Bent-wing Bat was recorded during the bat survey at site 10 on the wind farm. VBA records indicate that the nearest location at which the species is regularly recorded is near Warrnambool, a known maternity site some 130 kilometres to the south. Bats visiting Bulgana are likely to be itinerant visitors and do not comprise the bulk of the wintering population. The vulnerability of Southern Bentwing Bat to impacts from the proposed wind farm is discussed in detail in section Squirrel Glider (FFG Act: listed, DEPI: endangered) There is potential for this species to occur in woodland habitats of the wind farm, particularly along the roadsides with large old hollow-bearing trees with good connectivity to larger areas of suitable habitat such as Ararat Hill Regional Park. Removal of woodland vegetation may impact on this species; therefore potential habitat, particularly that supporting large hollow trees along road reserves and in some private land, has been avoided where possible in the development of the wind farm layout. If any potential habitat is to be removed (i.e. large hollow-bearing trees), a salvage protocol during construction works is recommended. Given mitigation measures are implemented, impacts to the Squirrel Glider are unlikely to be significant. Although considered unlikely to occur, the Southern Brown Bandicoot has also been discussed due to the number of historical records in the region. Southern Brown Bandicoot (FFG Act: listed, DEPI: near threatened) This species is recorded historically from the Concongella Creek near Great Western in creekline grassy woodland (Menkhorst 1995). The latest record is dated 2002 (DEPI 2014). Direct observation of habitat along creek lines in the wind farm, indicates that there is little or no suitable habitat that would support Southern Brown Bandicoots in the proposed wind farm. Most creeks on the wind farm are deeply eroded and dominated by Sharp Rush and have insufficient cover to protect Bandicoots from predators such as foxes and cats. It is unlikely therefore that the species would be present in or impacted by the wind farm. Reptiles Based on the assessment in Table 6, one listed reptile species was recorded in the study area. The vulnerability of this species to potential impacts from the proposed development is discussed below. Eastern Bearded Dragon (DEPI: vulnerable) The Eastern Bearded Dragon was recorded in suitable woodland habitat in the study area. To minimise impacts to this species, woodland habitats have been avoided where possible to prevent habitat loss. This will ensure minimal impacts on the species from the construction of the wind farm. Page 77

86 Frogs Based on the assessment in Table 6, no listed frog species have the potential to occur in the study area. Therefore the proposed development is unlikely to impact on any threatened frog species. Fish Based on the assessment in Table 6, no listed fish species have the potential to occur in the study area. Therefore the proposed development is unlikely to impact on any threatened fish species. Invertebrates Based on the assessment in Table 6, no listed invertebrate species have the potential to occur in the study area. Therefore the proposed development is unlikely to impact on any threatened invertebrate species. However, given the high profile of the Golden Sun Moth, and high level of constraint on development if recorded, it was considered appropriate to provide detailed justification here on why it was deemed to be unlikely to occur in the study area. Golden Sun Moth (EPBC Act: critically endangered, FFG Act: threatened, DEPI: critically endangered) Suitable habitat for the Golden Sun Moth (GSM) includes native temperate grasslands and open grassy woodlands, where the ground layer is dominated by wallaby grass (DEC 2007). While previous studies suggested that the species prefers grasslands which have a greater than 40% coverage of wallaby grass over a given area (O'Dwyer and Attiwill 1999), more recent studies show a broader tolerance for other species compositions, including degraded grasslands dominated by exotic Chilean Needle-grass (Nassella neesiana) (Braby and Dunford 2006; Gibson 2006; Gilmore et al. 2008). During this investigation, habitat in and around the proposed infrastructure zone was assessed for its suitability as GSM habitat. The conclusion of that assessment was that there was no suitable habitat in the areas assessed, based on known GSM habitat requirements and historical species records in the search region. As the species was considered unlikely to occur due to the lack of suitable habitat, no targeted surveys were undertaken. Due to the high profile of GSM, the following paragraphs further detail previous records of GSM in the region and the preferred habitats of GSM compared to the habitat found onsite. GSM was recorded near Armstrong, some six kilometres south of the south-east boundary of the study area, by Ecology and Heritage Partners (EHP) in late November 2013 (Andrea Canzano, EHP, pers comm.). It is understood that the GSM were recorded in vegetation deemed to be Degraded Treeless Vegetation (DTV), which would formally have been Grassy Woodland (EVC 175) in the Goldfields bioregion according to DEPI s vegetation mapping (DEPI 2013b). The habitat was reported to have largely lacked canopy tree and shrub layers, and was instead dominated by native and introduced grasses, with a reasonable cover of wallaby grass species. A variant of this EVC, Low-rises Grassy woodland (EVC 175_61), was widely recorded in the study area during the current investigation. However, no occurrences of this EVC displayed the habitat attributes required by GSM. They were either too heavily Page 78

87 treed with predominantly shrubby understoreys, or occurred as canopy trees over cleared and improved pasture understoreys. In all cases, this EVC supported less than five percent cover of wallaby grass species, the favoured food plants of GSM. According to the published literature on GSM habitat requirements, other EVC s recorded in the study area that are most likely to support Golden Sun Moth include Alluvial Terraces Herb-rich Woodland (EVC 67) and Creekline Grassy Woodland (EVC 68). However, as with Low-rises Grassy woodland, no occurrences of these EVC s displayed the habitat attributes required by GSM. The GSM EVC preferences in the wider vicinity of the study area were determined by overlaying historical GSM records (sourced from VBA 2013) on DEPI s EVC mapping (DEPI 2013b) within a 100 kilometre radius of the study area. This revealed 10 GSM records; one of which occurred in Box Ironbark Forest (EVC 61), three in Plains Grassy Woodland (EVC 55) and six in Heathy Dry Forest (EVC 20) (all six of which were recorded in one location). It should be pointed out that all of these records were either non-sensible , or very old - up to Heathy Dry Forest was widely recorded in the study area, although it was not considered suitable habitat for GSM, as it lacked the habitat attributes required by GSM. Of the two GSM records in Heathy Dry Forest within 100 kilometres, both were very near a boundary with large areas of either Plains Grassland (EVC 132) or grassy woodland EVC s, in which GSM have been widely recorded state-wide. The GSM records in Heathy Dry Forest may have either represented records that were actually from Plains Grassland, or gradual migrations of GSM into cleared areas of Heathy Dry Forest over time, or the very edges of local population distributions that occurred at very low population levels. In conclusion, it is considered unlikely that any GSM populations occur within the study area due to the lack of any suitable habitat that supports the habitat attributes required by GSM Threatened ecological communities Existing information Based on the review of existing information and the physical attributes of the study area, the following threatened ecological communities listed under the EPBC Act and/or the FFG Act were considered to potentially occur in the study area. Please note that only habitat zones on public land (road reserves) were considered for FFG Act listed communities, as the Guidelines do not account for FFG Act listed matters on private land: Listed under the EPBC Act: o White Box-Yellow Box-Blakely's Red Gum Grassy Woodland and Derived Native Grassland This ecological community comprises a eucalypt canopy dominated by (or once dominated by) White Box, Yellow Box or Blakely s Red-gum over an understorey dominated by grass and forb species. Numerous habitat zones in the study area may constitute this community due to the presence of Yellow Box; and o Grey Box (Eucalyptus microcarpa) Grassy Woodland and Derived Grasslands Ecological community Page 79

88 This ecological community comprises a eucalypt canopy dominated by (or once dominated by) Grey Box over an understorey dominated by grass and forb species. Habitat zones in the study area which may constitute this community include D, E, F, H, I, J, BV, BW and CA. Listed under the FFG Act: o Victorian Temperate-woodland Bird Community In the description of this community, 23 declining woodland birds are listed, which have a preference for drier woodland habitats north of the dividing range in Victoria. A number of these listed bird species were recorded in the study area during the current investigation in vegetation types characteristic of this community, particularly woodlands dominated by Yellow Gum, River Red Gum, Grey Box and Buloke. Habitat zones B, E, F, I, J, AN, AO, AP, AQ, AT, BS, BT, BV, BW, CN and CO which comprise woodland EVC s in the study area, have been identified as potential examples of this community. o Grey Box - Buloke Grassy Woodland Community This ecological community comprises a canopy dominated by Grey Box and Buloke over a variety of understorey types. Habitat zones in the study area which may constitute this community include E, F, I, J, BV and BW Assessment results When assessed against specific identification criteria and condition thresholds during the site inspection, the following determinations were made for habitat zones flagged as potentially constituting listed ecological communities: Listed under the EPBC Act: o White Box-Yellow Box-Blakely's Red Gum Grassy Woodland and Derived Native Grassland No habitat zones were identified as constituting this ecological community, as they either did not support a high enough cover of the relevant canopy tree species, were below the minimum size threshold or did not support a high enough cover of indigenous species in the ground layer of the understorey. o Grey Box (Eucalyptus microcarpa) Grassy Woodland and Derived Grasslands Ecological community No habitat zones were identified as constituting this ecological community, as they either did not support a high enough cover of the relevant canopy tree species, were below the minimum size threshold or did not support a high enough cover of indigenous species in the ground layer of the understorey. Please note that when assessing the size of the above potential communities, the actual extent of the potential community was considered, not just the area of habitat zone mapped (which was often much smaller than the former). Listed under the FFG Act: o Victorian Temperate-woodland Bird Community Page 80

89 It is unlikely that any habitat zones in the study area would constitute this ecological community, given that only four of the birds listed in this community were recorded in the study area over the 13 months that field surveys were carried out (from July 2013 for scoping surveys to August 2014 for vegetation surveys). o Grey Box - Buloke Grassy Woodland Community Two habitat zones were determined to constitute this ecological community. These were habitat zones E and F, along Joel South Road. The location of these habitat zones is presented in Figure 24. Page 81

90 6. BIRD UTLISATION SURVEY 6.1. Introduction A bird utilisation survey (BUS) was carried out to provide baseline data on the preconstruction utilisation by birds of the wind farm site. The BUS was undertaken consistent with the requirements for a Level One bird risk assessment in accordance with Wind Farms and Birds - Interim Standards for Risk Assessment issued by the Australian Wind Energy Association (AusWEA 2005). The AusWEA Standards recommend a Level One investigation to provide an initial assessment of the risk of significant bird impacts from the operation of the proposed wind farm. For this reason, a Level One investigation was carried out. The guidelines recommend that a Level One investigation includes a bird utilisation survey which involves repeat surveys of fixed points at different times of the day, to gain a representative picture of the birds onsite. Each survey point should be representative of site conditions at the study area. If the level of risk is estimated to be low, or can be reduced to low through mitigation measures, design reviews or siting alterations, no further investigations are recommended. This approach has been endorsed in the Association s latest (2013) Best Practice Guidelines. One pre-construction bird utilisation survey was undertaken by an experienced zoologist during 4 10 February, Methods Fixed-point bird count method The fixed-point bird count method involved an observer stationed at a survey point for 15 minutes. The adequacy of using 15 minutes as an interval to record the presence of birds during bird utilisation surveys was investigated in an earlier study at another wind farm site (Brett Lane and Associates Pty. Ltd., unpublished data). This showed that 82 to 100 percent (average 88 percent) of species actually seen in one hour of surveying were seen in the initial 15 minutes of observation. Based on this result, the period of 15 minutes used in the formal bird utilisation surveys was considered adequate to generate representative data on the bird species in the area during the survey, given the number of such surveys involved. Bird species and numbers of individuals observed within a 200 metre radius of the central observation point were recorded. The species, the number of birds and the height of the bird when first observed were documented. For species of concern (threatened species, waterbirds and raptors), the minimum and maximum heights were also recorded. For the purposes of this report, flight height is presented as below, at or above rotor swept area (RSA) height: A = Below RSA (< 35 metres above ground) B = At RSA ( metres above ground) C = Above RSA (> 196 metres above ground) The specific height and configuration of the turbines to be installed on the Bulgana Wind Farm site will be determined following a commercial tendering process that will occur Page 82

91 after a planning permit is granted. The rotor swept area presented above has therefore been selected to represent the maximum area over which blades would rotate. Table 7 indicates when each point was counted on each survey day. This schedule ensured that all points were visited equally at different times of day to allow for time-ofday differences in bird movements and activity. Every survey point (impact and reference) was visited eight times over the survey period (Figure 28). Table 7: Times when points were counted for each fixed-point bird count survey day Day Time 8:00 8:40 9:20 10:00 10:40 11:20 12: R R1 R R1 R R1 R Day Time 13:00 13:40 14:20 15:00 15:40 16:20 17: R1 R R1 R R1 R R R1 R2 8 Note: See Figure 1 for survey point locations. The prefix R refers to reference points; points 2 and 5 represent R3 and R4, respectively Locations of survey points Over the survey period, 12 fixed survey points 4 were established; eight impact points and four reference points. Impact points were located near proposed turbine locations and reference points were located at least 500 metres away from impact points in areas of similar habitat. The survey points were distributed as evenly as possible (subject to access constraints) across the wind farm to maximise coverage in areas where wind turbines are likely to be sited (Figure 28). Impact points were positioned as far as possible on elevated ground, allowing a clear view in all directions. Table 8 below provides a description of the habitats associated with each impact and reference point. 4 At the time of the survey, 10 of the survey sites were considered to be impact points and two reference points. Due to development layout changes, four surveys sites became reference points. Page 83

92 Table 8 Habitat associated with each impact and reference point Survey point I1 I2 I3 I4 I5 I6 I7 I8 R1 R2 R3 R4 Habitat Point located on top of hill. Pasture (grazed by sheep), and one remnant Buloke Allocasuarina leuhmannii. Mostly cleared pasture on lower slope of hill. A few remnant trees: Bundy and River Red Gum. Ground layer mostly grassy. Couple of dead stags. Point on lower slope of hill. Mostly cleared, dominant vegetation grasses. Several Bundy (Eucalyptus GoniocalyxI) and a Yellow Gum (E. Leucoxylon) were also present. Some remnant woodland c. 80 metres from point mostly of Hedge Wattle Acacia paradoxa, Spear Grass and Bundy. Point on hill slope of derived grassy woodland (i.e. partly cleared). Dominant vegetation Bundy. Small rocky outcrops widespread; some cropping (wheat or barley) nearby. Lots of coarse woody debris. Ground cover mostly grasses. High quality fauna habitat. Spur or ridge, mostly cleared of original vegetation. Scattered remnant trees, mainly Bundy and Yellow Gums. Ground layer (grazed by sheep) dominated by grass. Scattered small rocks. Point on gentle hill slope grazed by sheep. Mostly cleared, derived grassland and some rushes Juncus spp. Two remnant paddock trees (Bundy); a row of roadside trees metres from point comprised mostly Yellow Gum and Grey Box E. microcarpa; a few Red Box E. polyanthemos and Red Stringybark E. macrorhyncha. Mostly cleared pasture and rocky outcrop. A few remnant trees: Bundy, Yellow Gum, Buloke and Lightwood Acacia implexa. Ground layer dominated by grasses. Treeless hill slope. Rocky outcrop uphill from point (beyond 200 metres). Roadside with open paddocks on both sides and remnant native woodland in road reserve. Dominated by mature Yellow Gums; ground layer included Hedge Wattle, Flax-lily Dianella sp. and introduced pasture grasses. Roadside with paddocks on both sides retaining a few trees and remnant native woodland in road reserve. Dominated by mature Yellow Gums; ground layer introduced pasture grasses. Point on saddle of ridge line. Mostly treeless, however one sector covering 20% of area had undergone revegetation with native plantings of Eucalyptus spp. and Drooping She-oak Allocasuarina verticillata, up to 6 metres high. Grassy vegetation dominated. Planted woodland on grassy spur/slope. A variety of eucalypts have been planted, including Ironbarks Eucalyptus spp. and River Red Gums E. camaldulensis Incidental observations In addition to the observations during formalised, fixed-point counts, incidental observations of birds of concern (threatened species, raptors, water birds) were made whilst travelling throughout the proposed wind farm site. Emphasis was placed on observing birds that were moving through the site at RSA height. Page 84

93 Limitations The bird utilisation survey was undertaken during February 2014 in late summer. This timing was chosen to collect a range of data and include migratory birds that may only occur in numbers in summer. Although the breeding season for most bird species had finished, most migratory bird species were still present in the region. Each survey point was surveyed at different times of the day, to ensure that bird activity was monitored at different times and temperatures, to allow for any changes in bird activity. The temperature fluctuated over the seven days survey period, and from morning to afternoon on every day. In addition to the bird utilisation survey, incidental observations of bird species have been recorded over all surveys, which extended from July 2013 (scoping survey; BL&A 2013) to June 2014 (targeted owl surveys reported in Chapter 8). Observations of bird species have therefore covered a range of seasons and temperatures. For these reasons, and the reasons explained in section 3.1, the utilisation rates and species abundances recorded during the bird utilisation survey and incidentally over all surveys, are considered to be representative of the bird activity at the site. The findings are also considered to provide a reasonable basis on which to assess the general bird risks associated with the proposed Wind Farm. Page 85

94 #* R3 #* R4 I6 ") #* R2 I4 ") #* R1 I3 ") I1 ") I8 ") I7 ") I10 ") I9 ") Legend Bulgana Wind Farm Boundary Turbines ") Impact points #* Reference points Kilometers Figure 28: Bulgana wind farm bird survey points Project: Bulgana Wind Farm Client: Bulgana Wind Farm Pty Ltd Project No.: Date: 4/12/2014 Created By: M. King / A. Stewart

95 6.3. Results Survey representativeness The cumulative number of species observed from the consecutive fixed-point bird counts during the survey period has been plotted in Figure 29. This indicated that during the survey, the number of species recorded levelled out after 48 counts, and almost 90% of all species in the survey were recorded after 60% of the point surveys. The results suggest that the survey provided a representative picture of the diversity of bird species flying over the wind farm site during the survey period. Figure 29: The cumulative number of species of birds recorded during consecutive counts at the impact points on the Bulgana Wind Farm Accumulative No. of species No. of surveys Species composition Thirty-six bird species were recorded during the formal surveys (Table 9). The two species of Raven present in the wind farm area (Australian Raven and Little Raven) were lumped together due to difficulties in identification when they are not calling. Similarly, the Tree Martin and Fairy Martin were both present on the wind farm, but were lumped together for the purposes of the bird utilisation survey as they were difficult to distinguish in the bright light conditions prevailing during the summer survey. Twenty-eight species were recorded at the impact survey points and 23 at the reference survey points (Table 9). Fifteen species were recorded at both the impact and reference points. Species recorded were predominantly farmland and bushland species with some raptors. Species diversity was in line with expectations, given the rural nature of the landscape, being mainly cleared with scattered remnant woodland patches. The number of species recorded was similar to that recorded in other bird utilisation Page 87

96 surveys in agricultural habitats elsewhere in south-eastern Australia (BL&A, unpublished data). Species composition (diversity) differs between months due to seasonal changes in presence and abundance, activity, changes in foraging behaviour and seasonal distribution of birds among various habitats. It is expected that during the summer surveys, there are more bird species flying at RSA height than other times of year. This was because of the obvious early morning movements of flocks of parrots and cockatoos observed at several sites, and the presence of species that forage aerially on flying insects (woodswallows and martins) that are commoner in the warmer months. The five most common species at the impact and reference survey points are presented below. Impact survey points Long-billed Corella Australian Magpie Red-rumped Parrot White-browed Woodswallow Sulphur-crested Cockatoo Reference survey points Australian Magpie Long-billed Corella Crimson Rosella Red-rumped Parrot Musk Lorikeet These five species comprised 68% of all birds recorded at the impact survey points and 74% at the reference survey points. The total number of birds observed during the surveys varied between 182 at survey point 4, to 22 at survey point 1. Bird diversity was slightly higher at the impact points than the reference points, but abundance was similar between reference and impact points. This may be explained by the greater number of points and habitat diversity at the impact points (which comprised both wooded and treeless sites) when compared to the reference points. Page 88

97 Table 9: Number and height distribution of bird species at impact sites during the summer season survey at Bulgana Wind Farm site Species I1 I2 I3 I4 I5 I6 I7 I8 Total A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C Long-billed Corella Australian Magpie Red-rumped Parrot White-browed Woodswallow Sulphur-crested Cockatoo Australasian Pipit Yellow-rumped Thornbill Galah Musk Lorikeet Raven spp Southern Whiteface Common Starling Martin spp Wedge-tailed Eagle White-plumed Honeyeater Willie Wagtail Eurasian Skylark Nankeen Kestrel Brown Treecreeper Crimson Rosella Diamond Firetail Hooded Robin Jacky Winter Red Wattlebird Striated Pardalote Superb Fairy-wren Laughing Kookaburra Rufous Whistler Totals A=below rotor swept area (RSA) height (<35 m); B= at RSA height ( m); C= above RSA height (>196 m). Tot. %im p. Page 89

98 Table 10: Number and height distribution of bird species at reference sites during the summer season survey at Bulgana Wind Farm site Species R1 R2 R3 R4 Total A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C Total %imp. Australian Magpie Long-billed Corella Crimson Rosella Red-rumped Parrot Musk Lorikeet Noisy Miner White-plumed Honeyeater Raven spp Striated Pardalote Australasian Pipit Martin spp Black-faced Cuckoo-shrike Southern Whiteface Superb Fairy-wren Weebill Magpie-lark Sulphur-crested Cockatoo Varied Sittella Eastern Rosella Eastern Spinebill Red Wattlebird Spotted Pardalote Yellow-rumped Thornbill Totals A=below rotor swept area (RSA) height (<35 m); B= at RSA height ( m); C= above RSA height (>196 m). Page 90

99 Flight heights Bird heights were classified as below (< 35 metres), at ( metres), and above (> 195 metres) RSA height. A summary of the number of birds recorded at the different flight heights is presented in Table 11. Table 11: Summary of birds recorded at the three flight heights Flight Height Impact survey points Number of birds Percentage of all birds Reference survey points Number of birds Percentage of all birds A (below RSA) % % B (at RSA) % 8 2.9% C (above RSA) 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Total birds recorded A=below rotor swept area (RSA) height (<35 m); B= at RSA height ( m); C= above RSA height (>196 m). The five species most commonly seen flying at RSA are detailed below (only two species were seen flying at RSA height at the reference sites.) Impact survey points Long-billed Corella Wedge-tailed Eagle Reference survey points Long-billed Corella Australian Magpie Raven spp. White-browed Woodswallow Martin spp. These accounted for 9.1% of the total birds observed at impact survey points. Birds flying at RSA height accounted for 3.0% of birds observed at the reference survey points. The distribution of birds flying at RSA heights at each of the survey points did not show significant differences, indicating that risk to birds is likely to be uniformly distributed over the proposed wind farm site Threatened Species The majority of birds found to utilise the proposed wind farm site were common birds. Of the species recorded during the bird utilisation surveys, the following species were listed under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 or as near threatened on the Advisory List of Threatened Vertebrate Fauna (DEPI 2013): Page 91

100 Brown Treecreeper (near threatened on Advisory List); Diamond Firetail (FFG Act, near threatened on Advisory List); Hooded Robin (FFG Act, near threatened on Advisory List). No other threatened bird species were recorded during the survey. The Brown Treecreeper was recorded on one occasion during the survey in summer. The Diamond Firetail and Hooded Robin were both recorded twice during the summer survey. Brown Treecreeper, Diamond Firetail and Hooded Robin are each listed as Near Threatened under the Department of Primary Industries and Environment (DEPI) Advisory List of Threatened Vertebrate Fauna in Victoria (DEPI 2013). They are all dependent on woodland communities, often with a grassy ground layer and plentiful coarse woody debris (fallen trees, logs and branches) (Emison et al. 1987). Each species was recorded at impact survey site 4 during February These species are unlikely to be impacted by turbines as they spend most of their time foraging on or near the ground or perching in trees and rarely fly above tree top height. Potential impacts to threatened bird species include indirect impacts from the removal of treed vegetation for the development of wind farm infrastructure. Mitigation measures such as micrositing of turbines and access tracks has been undertaken during the design of the development layout to avoid and reduce the removal of treed vegetation that provides suitable habitat for threatened fauna species. Bulgana Wind Farm Pty Ltd has removed three turbines and relocated access tracks to avoid removing woodland area that provide habitat for threatened bird species. Efforts to avoid removal of native vegetation and fauna habitat are summarised in section 10.2, and recommendations for the removal and relocation of turbines is detailed in a separate report describing the Barking Owl risk assessment for the project (BL&A 2014). Mitigation measures to reduce the risk of potential impacts during construction have been recommended in section 10.5 and will be detailed in an Environmental Management Plan for the site Raptors Two raptor species, Wedge-tailed Eagle and Nankeen Kestrel, were recorded during the surveys, comprising 11 observations in total (Table 5). Neither species is listed as threatened. Wedge-tailed Eagle was the most abundant raptor species at the impact sites in Bulgana Wind Farm. It was seen regularly throughout the study area. There were approximately three resident pairs that utilised the Bulgana Wind Farm site. The Wedge-tailed Eagle will often fly at RSA height and five of seven eagle sightings (71%) were observed at RSA height during the formal surveys. The Wedge-tailed Eagle is the most vulnerable species to collision with operating turbines because of their soaring habits while foraging. The utilization rate of the Wedge-tailed Eagle was estimated at birds per hectare per hour. This rate is in line with eagle utilisation rates recorded at a range of wind farms studied by BL&A in southern and south-east Australia. Utilisation rates at other wind farms have generally been observed to be less than Page 92

101 0.1 birds per hectare per hour, except for some wind farms where rates were on the high side of 0.3 to 0.4 birds per hectare per hour (BL&A, unpublished data). The rate at Bulgana Wind Farm is therefore low and only minor impact is expected on this species population. Bulgana Wind Farm Pty Ltd has considered risks to Wedge-tailed Eagle when designing the development layout. Due to the presence of an active Wedge-tailed Eagle nest 190 metres from a proposed turbine, this turbine was relocated roughly 200 metres north, so that it is now located at least 300 metres from the nest. Previous studies on wind farms have shown that resident Wedge-tailed Eagles are able to successfully nest and raise young on wind farms, if turbines are located at least 300 metres away (BL&A unpublished data). The Nankeen Kestrel was recorded four times, with one flight (25%) recorded at RSA height. The Nankeen Kestrel is less susceptible to collision compared to the Wedge-tailed Eagle, as they tend to hover above the ground at lower heights, rather than soar at RSA heights like the Eagle. The number of raptors was low in relation to the total number of birds recorded during the survey (11 out of 616 [1.8%] birds observed at impact sites and none out of 162 birds at reference sites; Table 12). Based on the zero utilisation rates by other raptors at the impact points, risks to them are likely to be low. Other raptor species recorded as incidental sightings during other surveys in 2013 and 2014 included Australian Hobby, Brown Falcon, Little Eagle, Peregrine Falcon and Whistling Kite. These species were seen singly or in pairs and none were seen to fly at RSA height, although they are known to do so occasionally. Table 12: Raptor species recorded at impact survey points during the summer (February 2014) surveys at Bulgana Wind Farm Raptors Wedgetailed Eagle Nankeen Kestrel Total A B C Total raptors % raptors of all birds % raptors at RSA % raptors of all RSA birds % RSA raptors of all birds Total raptors All Birds Observed A=below rotor swept area (RSA) height (<35 m); B= at RSA height ( m); C= above RSA height (>196 m) Waterbirds No waterbird species were recorded during the surveys. The Bulgana Wind Farm supports no permanent wetlands that provide good quality habitat for bird Page 93

102 species, but rather a number of small farm dams scattered across the site, and several ephemeral creeks. Previous survey work in 2013 recorded the presence of several waterbird species in the area: Australian Wood Duck, Australian Shelduck, Masked Lapwing, Pacific Black Duck, Straw-necked Ibis and White-faced Heron (BL&A 2013). All were present in small numbers and none was seen during the formal bird utilisation surveys. None of the waterbirds observed at Bulgana Wind Farm were threatened species, either under national or state conservation legislation. Any impacts on water birds that may arise from the wind farm are likely to be negligible in relation to their overall populations Conclusions The conclusions from the bird utilisation survey of the proposed Bulgana Wind Farm are presented below: The study area is mostly cleared ridges and valleys with scattered remnant woodland patches. Treeless areas supported a low diversity and abundance of common, predominantly farmland birds, while woodland areas supported woodland species that mostly do not fly at RSA height. Three listed threatened species (Hooded Robin, Diamond Firetail and Brown Treecreeper) were recorded during bird utilisation surveys in woodland habitat. These species are generally confined to areas in or adjacent to woodland and they are not expected to fly at RSA height. Potential impacts to these species include indirect impacts from the removal of treed vegetation for the development of wind farm infrastructure. Micrositing of turbines and access tracks has been undertaken during the design of the development layout to avoid and reduce the removal of treed vegetation that provides suitable habitat for threatened fauna species. Bulgana Wind Farm Pty Ltd has removed three turbines and relocated access tracks to avoid removing woodland areas that provide habitat for threatened bird species. Impacts to threatened woodland birds from the development and construction of Bulgana Wind Farm are highly unlikely to be significant. Roughly three pairs of Wedge-tailed Eagle are expected to utilise habitat within Bulgana Wind Farm. The Wedge-tailed Eagle is not threatened but is considered vulnerable to collision with operating turbines because of their soaring habits while foraging. The utilisation rate of the Wedge-tailed Eagle was low (0.035 birds per hectare per hour) in comparison to eagle utilisation rates at a range of wind farms studied by BL&A in southern and south-eastern Australia (range eagle per hectare per hour). Bulgana Wind Farm Pty Ltd has considered risks to Wedge-tailed Eagle when designing the development layout. Due to the presence of an active Wedge-tailed Eagle nest 190 metres from a proposed turbine, this turbine was relocated roughly 200 metres north, so that it is now located at least 300 metres from the nest. Previous studies on wind farms have shown that resident Wedge-tailed Eagles are able to successfully nest and raise young on wind farms, if turbines are located at least 300 metres away (BL&A unpublished data). Significant Page 94

103 impacts to Wedge-tailed Eagle from the operation and construction of Bulgana Wind Farm are considered unlikely. The Nankeen Kestrel was recorded four times during the bird utilisation survey, with one flight (25%) recorded at RSA height. The Nankeen Kestrel is less susceptible to collision compared to the Wedge-tailed Eagle, as they tend to hover above the ground at lower heights, rather than soar at RSA heights like the Eagle. Other raptor species were incidentally recorded in low numbers during field surveys in 2013 and None were recorded at RSA height, although they have been known to do so. Due to the low frequency of observations recorded throughout the site, significant impacts to raptor species from the construction and operation of Bulgana Wind Farm are considered unlikely. No waterbirds were recorded during the bird utilisation survey. The Bulgana Wind Farm supports no permanent wetlands that provide good quality habitat for bird species, but rather a number of small farm dams scattered across the site, and several ephemeral creeks. Considering the habitat across the site and the lack of any records at impact and reference sites, waterbirds are highly unlikely to be impacted by the construction and operation of Bulgana Wind Farm. Page 95

104 7. SWIFT PARROT TARGETED SURVEY 7.1. Introduction Due to the presence of suitable habitat for Swift Parrot in and adjacent to the study area, and the study area being located within the range of the species distribution, further investigations for this species were warranted. The Swift Parrot is a semi-nomadic bird that breeds in Tasmania and migrates to mainland south eastern Australia to over winter. A targeted survey for Swift Parrot was carried out in May 2014, when the species had been confirmed as occurring on the mainland. Habitat for the species was mapped throughout and close to (ie. in adjacent blocks of remnant vegetation) the wind farm. Searches for evidence of Swift Parrot on the wind farm site were also undertaken. The aim of the survey was to ascertain any impacts that the construction and operation of the proposed Bulgana Wind Farm may have on this species Background Information Description The Swift Parrot (Lathamus discolor) is a medium sized (65 80 grams) migratory nectarivorous bird about 25 centimetres in length with a wingspan of cm. It is mostly green in colour with a dull red tail tapering to a pointed tip. The crown and ear coverts are dark blue and the face is red with yellow margins. The shoulder and underwing coverts are red, the ring around their eyes is yellow and their bill is a grey/brown colour (Higgins 1999; DSE 2003) Distribution and habitat Typical Swift Parrot habitat on mainland Australian wintering grounds is dry open eucalyptus forests and woodlands, usually box-ironbark communities, especially those with Red Ironbark, Mugga Ironbark, Grey Box, White Box and Yellow Gum (Higgins 1999; Tzaros 2005). A wide variety of other eucalypt species are also known to be used less often (Higgins 1999). In coastal New South Wales they prefer Swamp Mahogany and Spotted Gum (Garnett et al. 2011). Swift Parrots occur in areas where eucalypts are flowering profusely or where there are abundant lerp (from sap-sucking bugs) infestations or pollen from Golden Wattle (DECC 2005; Kennedy and Tzaros 2005). They prefer to forage in large trees, defined as those greater than 60 centimetre diameter at breast height (Kennedy and Tzaros 2005). The Swift Parrot is endemic to south-eastern Australia. It is restricted as a breeding species to Tasmania during spring and summer, and migrates to spend autumn and winter in mainland south-eastern Australia. It breeds mainly in areas of dry grassy Blue Gum forest in south-eastern Tasmania, with a smaller population breeding in shrubby stringybark forest in coastal northern Tasmania (Swift Parrot Recovery Team 2001). The Swift Parrot normally spends autumn and winter on the inland slopes of the Great Divide in Victoria and New South Wales; although in years when the boxironbark forests of the inland slope flower poorly, they tend to prefer sites along the eastern Victorian coast and foothills north to the central coast of New South Page 96

105 Wales and sometimes as far as south-east Queensland (Emison et al. 1987; Higgins 1999; Kennedy and Tzaros 2005; Garnett et al. 2011). Once on the mainland, this species undertake semi-nomadic movements to take advantage of the richest areas of eucalypt nectar production and lerp infestation (Higgins 1999). The higher rainfall forests on the coastal plains of New South Wales are also important foraging areas in drier years (Swift Parrot Recovery Team 2001; Saunders 2008). The distribution of Swift Parrot records around Victoria in relation to the wind farm is shown in Figure 30. Recent records close to the wind farm are discussed in section Threats The range of the Swift Parrot has contracted and population numbers have declined mainly as result of the following factors: On the mainland, loss of habitat through clearing for agriculture, urban and industrial development and frequent fire events; and Loss of breeding habitat because of inappropriate forestry practices; collisions with wire netting fences, windows and cars, during the breeding season and on migration (especially where such obstacles are in close proximity to suitable habitat) (DECC 2005; Garnett et al. 2011) Population numbers and legislative protection Population numbers of Swift Parrot have been estimated historically at 1320 breeding pairs in and 940 breeding pairs in In the nonbreeding range of mainland Australia, the most recent count available is of 2158 birds in 2010 including immature birds (Garnett et al. 2011). The population, although poorly known, is considered to be still in decline (Garnett et al. 2011). The Swift Parrot is a threatened bird species, listed as Endangered under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act In Victoria it is listed under the FFG Act and classed as endangered (DEPI 2013) on the DEPI Advisory List. It is also considered endangered in New South Wales and Tasmania. Page 97

106 XW XW Project No.: Date: 28/08/2014 Created By: M. Ghasemi / A. Stewart XW XW XWXW XW XWXW XW XW XW XW XW XW XW XW XW XW XWXWXWXWXW XW XW XWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXW XWXWXWXW XW XWXWXWXW XWXW XW XWXWXW XWXWXW XW XW XWXW XWXW XWXW XW XWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXW XWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXW XWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXW XWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXW XWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXW XWXW XW XW XWXWXWXWXWXW XWXWXWXW XWXWXWXWXWXW XWXWXWXWXW XW XWXWXWXWXWXWXWXW XWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXW XWXWXWXW XWXW XW XWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXW XW XW XWXW XW XW XW X XWXWXWXWXWXWXWXW XWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXW XW XW XW XW XW XW XWXWXWXWXWXWXW XW XW XW XW XW XWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXW XW XW XW XW XWXWXW XW XW XWXWXWXWXWXW XWXWXWXW XW XWXWXWXWXW XW XW XW XW XW XW XW XW XW XWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXW XWXW XW XW XW XWXWXW XWXWXWXW XW XW XW XW XW XWXWXWXW XW XWXW XW XW XW XW XW XW XW XWXW XWXW XWXW XW XWXWXWXWXW XWXW XW XWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXW XWXWXWXWXWXWXW XW XW XWXWXWXWXW XW XW XWXW XWXWXWXW XWXWXWXW XWXW XW XW XW XWXW XW XWXWXW XW XW XW XW XWXWXWXW XW XW XW XW XW XWXW XW XW XW XW XWXW XW XW XWXWXWXWXW XW XW XWXW XW XWXWXWXW XWXW XW XW XWXW XWXW XWXW XW XWXWXWXW XWXW XW XW XW XW XW XWXWXWXW XWXW XW XW XW XW XW XW XW XW XW XWXW XW XW XW XW XW XWXWXW XW XW XW XWXW XWXWXW XW XWXW XW XW XWXW XW XW XWXW XW XW XWXWXWXW XW XW XW XW XW XW XW XW XW XWXW XWXW XW XW XW XW XW XW XW XW Sources: Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, USGS, Intermap, ipc, NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom, 2013 XW Legend Wind farm boundary XW Swift Parrot Records Kilometers Figure 30: Swift Parrot records in Victoria Project: Bulgana Wind Farm Client: Bulgana Wind Farm Pty Ltd

107 7.3. Methodology Existing information Existing information regarding the Swift Parrot utilised as part of this investigation is described below. Note that study area in this section of the report refers to the boundaries of the proposed wind farm and the search region is defined for this assessment as an area including an approximate 30 kilometre buffer beyond the study area. Previous records of Swift Parrot from the search region were obtained from The Victorian Biodiversity Atlas (VBA), Victorian Biodiversity Atlas 2013) a database administered by DEPI. The following literature on the Swift Parrot was reviewed prior to the current site inspection: Saunders, D.L. 2008, Ecology and Conservation of the Swift Parrot an endangered austral migrant, PhD thesis, Australian National University, Canberra. Garnett, ST, Szabo, JK and Dutson, G 2011, The Action Plan for Australian Birds Birds Australia and CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood. Saunders, DL and Tzaros, CL National Recovery Plan for the Swift Parrot (Lathamus discolor), Birds Australia, Melbourne; and Higgins, PJ (ed) 1999, Handbook of Australian, New Zealand and Antarctic Birds, Volume 4: Parrots to Dollarbird, Oxford University Press, Melbourne Field methodology To determine the occurrence of the Swift Parrot in the study area, a winter (nonbreeding season) survey was undertaken in an effort to locate the species. The field survey was undertaken over three days between the 5 th and 7 th May Assessment of habitat suitability for Swift Parrot was undertaken throughout and adjacent the study area. The targeted survey involved a roaming survey by vehicle and on foot, covering the following: Half day observations covering most of the roadsides and woodland remnants in vicinity of Bulgana Wind Farm, where the larger flowering Yellow Gum, Red Ironbark, River Red-gum and Grey Box (preferred foraging trees) were likely to occur. These areas were then mapped using a hand-held GPS unit and interpretation of recent aerial photography of the site; Complete observations in areas not accessible previously (e.g. Metcalfe Road section that is locked to vehicular traffic); Four 60 minute observation visits in early morning and afternoon to appropriate patches of preferred foraging trees during survey season. This consisted of active searching of these patches; Slow-moving vehicle transects were also conducted. These are also effective in covering extensive areas, detecting loud, distinctive clinking call that can be heard over the noise of an engine; and Page 99

108 Audibly and visually locating of concentrations of lorikeets and honeyeaters at abundant food sources, as Swift Parrot often associate with these. The timing of the Swift Parrot survey, its duration and the weather conditions under which surveying was undertaken, were considered suitable for detecting the species. The overall survey effort was considered sufficient to detect Swift Parrots in and adjacent to the study area, and to assess the suitability of habitat for Swift Parrot in more detail Limitations of field assessment At the time of the targeted survey, the majority of the eucalypt species preferred by Swift Parrots for foraging were either not in flower or weakly to moderately flowering. As Swift Parrot typically follow heavy eucalypt flowering events once on the mainland, it is unlikely that the parrots would be in the area at this time. Notwithstanding this, as the primary purpose of the investigation was to assess the extent of Swift Parrot habitat in the study area, the review of existing information, combined with the field survey were sufficient to complete this aspect of the assessment. Wherever appropriate, a precautionary approach has been adopted in the discussion of implications. That is, where insufficient evidence is available on the occurrence or likelihood of occurrence of a species, it is assumed that it could be in an area of habitat, if suitable, and the implications under legislation and policy are considered accordingly. Page 100

109 7.4. Results Existing information There were 64 Swift Parrot records in the VBA for the search region (within a 30 kilometre buffer of the study area), 63 of which date from 1994 to The majority of these records were from Morri Morri Nature Conservation Reserve, approximately 20 kilometres north of the study area. Further again from the study area (50 kilometre buffer) there were very many Swift Parrot VBA records between St Arnaud and Navarre, the later (and closest) being approximately 30 kilometres north-east of the study area. However, within a 10 kilometre buffer of the study area there were only three records, one of little value from 1882 and the other two from 1994 and The latter two records were from Joel Joel Nature Conservation Reserve, at the northern extent of the study area. Joel Joel Nature Conservation Reserve was one of the current survey areas (see below). The location of Swift Parrot records from the VBA 30 kilometre search region are presented below in Figure Targeted field survey The Swift Parrot was not recorded during the survey. Lorikeets, such as Musk Lorikeet, Purple-crowned Lorikeet and Rainbow Lorikeet, were observed feeding in many blossoming eucalypts. Swift Parrots often accompany these species in mixed foraging parties Habitat assessment The focus of the habitat assessment was locating and mapping forest and woodland vegetation communities dominated or co-dominated by eucalypt species known to be preferred by Swift Parrot for foraging. These eucalypt species, their flowering status at the time of the survey and their relative abundance in and adjacent the study area were as follows: Yellow Gum: flowering in most locations, though only moderately; very common and widespread species in and adjacent the study area; Grey Box: very few individuals flowering; species is common in and adjacent the study area, though localised; Red Ironbark: very few individuals flowering; species is very scarce in and adjacent the study area; and River Red-gum: flowers in summer - utilised by Swift Parrots for lerp (foliage 'sap-sucking' insects) foraging in winter; species is common in and adjacent the study area, though localised and largely restricted to watercourses. Fourteen sites of potential Swift Parrot foraging habitat were assessed for suitability in and adjacent the study area. Selection of these sites was largely informed by the results of the detailed flora and fauna assessments (Chapter 5). The relevant attributes of these sites and likelihood of Swift Parrot utilisation are detailed below in Table 13. Sites which Swift Parrot may make significant use of are highlighted. Their locations, and survey extents, in and adjacent the study area are presented in Figure 32. Page 101

110 ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_^_^_ ^_ ^_ Legend Wind farm boundary Wind farm boundary 30km buffer Development layout Turbines ^_ Swift Parrot VBA records Kilometers Figure 31: Swift Parrot records within 30km of wind farm Project: Bulgana Wind Farm Client: Bulgana Wind Farm Pty Ltd Project No.: Date: 4/12/2014 Created By: M. Ghasemi / P. Lansley

111 Page 103 Table 13: Sites of potential Swift Parrot habitat suitability in and adjacent the study area, and likelihood of utilisation Site Configuration *Dominant eucalypt species & flowering status *Presence/ abundance of large old trees (>60cm DBH) Likelihood of Swift Parrot utilisation 1 Intact native vegetation along linear road reserve (Bulgana Road), approximately 50 metres wide. River Red-gum (limited), Grey Box (sparse) and Yellow Gum (most dominant). Very light Yellow Gum flowering. Many large old trees present. Swift Parrot may occasionally forage in this habitat, given the abundance of large old forage trees favoured by Swift Parrot. However, as very large areas of habitat supporting forage trees favoured by Swift Parrot occur well beyond the study area (which would presumably be favoured by Swift Parrot), utilisation of this habitat would likely be negligible. 2 Intact native vegetation along linear road reserve (Vances Crossing Road), approximately 20 metres wide. Grey Box (co-dominant) - not flowering. Very few large old trees present. Swift Parrot unlikely to forage in this habitat, given its very limited area and paucity of large old trees. 3 Largely scattered eucalypts along linear road reserve (Thomas Road), approximately 20 metres wide. River Red-gum (limited) and Yellow Gum (dominant). Light Yellow Gum flowering. Many large old trees present. Swift Parrot unlikely to forage in this habitat, given its very limited area and the low density of eucalypts. 4 Intact native vegetation in large conservation reserve (Joel Joel NCR hectares). Grey Box (most dominant), Red Ironbark (limited) and Yellow Gum (co-dominant). Very light Yellow Gum flowering. Moderate density of large old trees present. Swift Parrot may occasionally make significant use of this habitat for foraging, given its large area and dominance of eucalypts favoured by Swift Parrot for foraging. Two Swift Parrot records in this reserve from 1994 and 1997.

112 Page 104 Site Configuration *Dominant eucalypt species & flowering status *Presence/ abundance of large old trees (>60cm DBH) Likelihood of Swift Parrot utilisation 5 Intact native vegetation along linear road reserve (Landsborough Road & Joel South Road), approximately 50 metres wide. Yellow Gum (most dominant), River Redgum (limited) and Grey Box (sparse). Moderate Yellow Gum flowering. Many large old trees present. Swift Parrot may occasionally forage in this habitat, given the abundance of large old forage trees favoured by Swift Parrot. However, as very large areas of habitat supporting forage trees favoured by Swift Parrot occur well beyond the study area (which would presumably be favoured by Swift Parrot), utilisation of this habitat would likely be negligible. 6 Moderate-sized, mostly Intact patch of native vegetation (80 hectares). Yellow Gum (limited); light flowering. Very few large old trees present. Swift Parrot unlikely to forage in this habitat, given the low abundance of favoured forage trees and paucity of large old trees. 7 Moderate-sized, mostly Intact patch of native vegetation (45 hectares). Yellow Gum (very sparse) and Grey Box (very sparse). Very light Yellow Gum flowering. Very few large old trees present. Swift Parrot unlikely to forage in this habitat, given the low abundance of favoured forage trees and paucity of large old trees. 8 Intact native vegetation along linear road reserve (Metcalf Road), approximately 80 metres wide. Yellow Gum (codominant) and River Red-gum (co-dominant). Light Yellow Gum flowering. Many large old trees present. Swift Parrot may occasionally forage in this habitat, given the abundance of large old forage trees favoured by Swift Parrot. However, as very large areas of habitat supporting forage trees favoured by Swift Parrot occur well beyond the study area (which would presumably be favoured by Swift Parrot), utilisation of this habitat would likely be negligible. 9 Intact native vegetation along linear road reserve (Metcalf Road), approximately 50 Yellow Gum (very sparse) and River Red-gum (limited). Light Yellow Gum flowering. Few large old trees present. Swift Parrot unlikely to forage in this habitat, given the low abundance of favoured forage trees and paucity of large old trees.

113 Page 105 Site Configuration metres wide. *Dominant eucalypt species & flowering status *Presence/ abundance of large old trees (>60cm DBH) Likelihood of Swift Parrot utilisation 10 Intact native vegetation along linear road reserve (Salt Creek Road), approximately 50 metres wide. Yellow Gum (dominant) and River Red-gum (localised). Moderate Yellow Gum flowering, heavy in localised areas. Many large old trees present. Swift Parrot may occasionally forage in this habitat, given the abundance of large old forage trees favoured by Swift Parrot. However, as very large areas of habitat supporting forage trees favoured by Swift Parrot occur well beyond the study area (which would presumably be favoured by Swift Parrot), utilisation of this habitat would likely be negligible. 11 Moderate-sized, Intact linear patch of native vegetation (70 metres wide). Yellow Gum (localised). Very light Yellow Gum flowering. Very few large old trees present. Swift Parrot unlikely to forage in this habitat, given the low abundance of favoured forage trees and paucity of large old trees. 12 Intact native vegetation along linear road reserve (Allenvale Road), approximately 40 metres wide. Yellow Gum (dominant) and River Red-gum (localised). Light Yellow Gum flowering. Many large old trees present. Swift Parrot may occasionally forage in this habitat, given the abundance of large old forage trees favoured by Swift Parrot. However, as very large areas of habitat supporting forage trees favoured by Swift Parrot occur well beyond the study area (which would presumably be favoured by Swift Parrot), utilisation of this habitat would likely be negligible. 13 Large-sized, Intact patch of native vegetation (180 hectares). Not directly assessed - no permitted access. See note following table. Unknown. Given that it is not likely that this habitat would support a high density of forage trees favoured by Swift Parrot, with an abundance of large old trees (see note following table), it is not likely that Swift Parrot would make significant use of it. 14 Intact native vegetation in very large reserve (Ararat Hills Regional Yellow Gum (Sparse) and Grey Box (Sparse). Very light Yellow Gum Moderate density of large old trees present. Swift Parrot unlikely to forage in this habitat, given the low abundance of favoured forage trees and paucity of large old

114 DBH = Diameter at breast height (diameter of tree stem at 130 centimetres above ground level); * = Only eucalypts favoured by Swift Parrot for foraging. Note on Site 13: This habitat was located on private land, of which we did not have permission to enter. Given this, it was assessed using DEPI's Biodiversity Interactive Mapping - for an indication of which EVC's were likely to constitute the habitat - and by inference of the likely composition and state of the habitat based on previous observations throughout the study area. DEPI's EVC mapping suggests that the majority of the habitat supports Grassy Woodland (EVC 175), an EVC which is dominated by Yellow Gum in the region. However, from previous observations of remnant native vegetation on private land within the study area, this is not likely to be the case, as EVC 175 has been disproportional cleared in the study area due to the value of the soils it occurs on for agriculture. It has also been observed that large old trees on private land in the study area occur as scattered paddock trees or wind breaks, not in large areas of retained native vegetation - as in almost all cases, these have been selectively logged in past. As such, it was considered unlikely that the habitat in Site 13 would support a high density of trees favoured by Swift Parrot for foraging, or that a high density of these trees would be large old trees. Page 106 Site Configuration Park). Only northern tip assessed. *Dominant eucalypt species & flowering status *Presence/ abundance of large old trees (>60cm DBH) flowering. trees. Likelihood of Swift Parrot utilisation

115 Sp2 SP4 SP3 SP5 Sp6 SP7 SP10 SP13 SP1 SP8 SP9 SP11 SP12 SP14 Legend Wind farm boundary Swift Parrot Habitat Survey Sites Development layout Turbines Kilometers Figure 32: Swift Parrot Habitat Survey Sites Project: Bulgana Wind Farm Client: Bulgana Wind Farm Pty Ltd Project No.: Date: 4/12/2014 Created By: M. Ghasemi / P. Lansley

116 Of the 14 sites assessed, only one was considered to potentially support Swift Parrot on a semi-regular basis. That was Site 4 - Joel Joel Nature Conservation Reserve (250 hectares), where two Swift Parrot records were taken in 1994 and This reserve is situated approximately 1.5 kilometres from the nearest proposed turbine, and a further eight turbines are located between 1.8 kilometres and 2.6 kilometres from the reserve (Figure 32). The other sites surveyed either supported few large old trees and/or were too small and isolated from large areas of suitable habitat to provide habitat which Swift Parrot would regularly or semi-regularly utilise. A significant stand of Swift Parrot preferred foraging trees was also observed adjacent Landsborough Road, on the north-eastern outskirt of Stawell (approximately 15 kilometres west of the study area), which is contiguous with the Deep Lead Nature Conservation Reserves - which support approximately 1400 hectares of box-ironbark forest, dominated, or co-dominated by Red Ironbark. There is one Swift Parrot record in this area from the VBA, and three or four more further north-west, in the Deep Lead Nature Conservation Reserves. No further consideration was given this reserve, given its considerable distance from the study area Implications of findings Although Swift Parrot were not recorded during the current investigations, the review of existing information and habitat assessment suggest that they may occur on a semiregular basis at Joel Joel Nature Conservation Reserve (Site 4), which is located roughly 1.5 kilometres from the nearest proposed turbine. The review of existing information also identified large areas of native vegetation in the Rushworth and Chiltern regions where Swift Parrot regularly migrate to, often in high numbers. In this sense, the search region would not be considered an important habitat area for Swift Parrot but rather an area they may occasionally visit. Due to the high mobility of this species and the nomadic nature of its response to flowering eucalypts, this species does not always occur in the same foraging areas year after year. Swift Parrot have been known to return to the same areas in years when major flowering events occur (Kennedy and Tzaros 2005). Swift Parrot may occur at Joel Joel Nature Conservation Reserve in years when Yellow Gum, Grey Box and Red Ironbark are flowering profusely. Swift Parrot has shown a preference for foraging along drainage lines and plains rather than ridges (Kennedy and Tzaros 2005). Joel Joel Nature Conservation Reserve occurs on gently undulating low elevation land and the nearest proposed turbines are situated on an abrupt ridgeline. Risk of Swift Parrot mortality due to collision with operating turbines is the greatest potential impact on the species in the context of the proposed wind farm. The altitudinal difference between Joel Joel Nature Conservation Reserve and the nearby proposed turbines will equate to a lower risk of collision, should Swift Parrot occasionally be foraging at Reserve. The primary purpose of this investigation was to determine the level of risk associated with the construction and operations of the proposed wind farm may have on Swift Parrot. The species was not recorded during the survey, however it may occasionally utilise the large block of remnant vegetation to the north of the study area in Joel Joel Nature Conservation Reserve. The nearest turbine is 1.5 kilometres away from this area. Given the turbines are located on top of ridges and away from areas of suitable habitat Page 108

117 that are likely to attract the Swift Parrot, operation of the wind farm is unlikely to have a significant impact on the species. As the species is listed as Endangered on the EPBC Act 1999 and is likely to occur in the project area occasionally, a referral under the Act is recommended, with the wind farm proposal being considered as not a controlled action. Page 109

118 8. TARGETED NOCTURNAL BIRD SURVEY 8.1. Introduction Brett Lane and Associates Pty Ltd were engaged by Bulgana Wind Farm Pty Ltd to conduct a targeted nocturnal bird survey of the proposed Bulgana Wind Farm. Three listed threatened species Barking Owl (Ninox connivens), Powerful Owl (Ninox strenua) and Bush Stone-curlew (Burhinus grallarius) were identified in initial database searches and incidental sightings in the study area as potentially occurring there or in nearby conservation reserves. After the first phase of fieldwork in March and April 2014, peer review by Lawrie Conole (Coliban Ecology) suggested the Masked Owl (Tyto novaehollandiae) may be present towards the south of the study area so additional surveys were conducted searching for this species during May and June This targeted nocturnal bird survey was undertaken to ascertain the presence or otherwise of the above threatened species in the study area, and to identify the potential impacts of a proposed wind farm on these species. This chapter presents the methodology and results for all four species. As the Barking Owl was recorded within the study area, potential impacts to the species from the construction and development of the wind farm was subject to a separate investigation. The assessment included mapping of potential nest trees and a detailed risk assessment of individual turbines. The assessment and recommendations for risk mitigation measures that were adopted by Bulgana Wind Farm Pty Ltd, are detailed in BL&A (2014a). The conclusions from the assessment are summarised in this chapter and impacts to Barking Owl are assessed based on the development layout detailed in this report Background Information A literature review of existing information on the species is provided below. Note that the Barking Owl review has benefited greatly from discussions with Ed McNabb (Ninox Pursuits, formerly Arthur Rylah Institute) and advice from Dr Natasha Schedvin 5 (DEPI) on the species ecology, behaviour and current population numbers. Sincere thanks are extended for their assistance Barking Owl Description The Barking Owl (Ninox connivens) has large, brilliant yellow, forward-directed eyes in an indistinct facial mask. It is a medium-sized brown owl with white spots on the wings and a streaked breast (Clemann and Loyn 2003). The species attains a length of 35-45cm, a wing span of cm, and a weight of g (Hollands 1991). The species has a dog-like barking call, and will occasionally emit a blood-curdling screech, likened to that of a screaming or wailing woman (Hollands 1991, T. Sloane pers. comm.). 5 Note that due to a conflict of interest with DEPI, Dr Schedvin was unable to provide comment or review any details of the actual wind farm development, however she was able to provide general advice on Barking Owl ecology and behaviour. Dr Schedvin also provided BL&A with technical advice regarding the presence of Barking Owl at the proposed Waubra North Wind Farm in 2009 and 2010, some of which is referred to here. Page 110

119 Ecology and conservation status The Barking Owl is considered to be endangered in Victoria and is listed as threatened under the state FFG Act (DSE 2013). The southern nominate subspecies occurring in Victoria is not nationally listed however Garnett et al. (2011) considered it Near Threatened. It has been recorded from scattered localities throughout Victoria, although it is largely absent from unforested areas such as the volcanic plains and the semi-arid northwest. The species predominantly occurs in the mm rainfall zone north of the Great Dividing Range (Emison et al. 1987). The southern Barking Owl has undergone a significant decline in numbers and in 2009 it was estimated that between 50 and 100 pairs existed in Victoria (N. Schedvin pers. comm. 2009). No updates on population numbers are currently available. The Barking Owl occurs in dry forest and woodland dominated by eucalypts and is known to inhabit riparian vegetation dominated by species such as River Red-gum and Red Box. The species has been recorded more frequently in edge habitats such as the interface between woodlands and wooded farmland, than in forest interiors. This perceived preference is likely to be due to the foraging behaviour of the species, the abundance of European Rabbit (a common prey item during breeding season), and possibly the predominance of old large hollow-bearing trees on freehold land compared with public forests. It requires large trees for roosting and hollows for nesting. Hydrological features, such as rivers and swamps are often a conspicuous component of Barking Owl habitat (Kavanagh et al. 1995). Clemann and Loyn (2003) established that live hollow-bearing trees are favoured for nesting over dead ones in Victoria. Nesting hollows are usually large with entrance diameters of cm. The Barking Owl breeds between July and October (Robinson 1994) and usually produces two or three eggs that take approximately 36 days to hatch (Hollands 1991). Chicks are generally in the nest during October and November and are forced out any time from December to March, with most chicks dispersing during January and February (N. Schedvin, pers. comm. 2014). When foraging, the Barking Owl perches on tree branches (including exotic planted trees) and flies out to catch prey up to 200 metres, returning to the branch to eat. Schedvin (2007) documented that nightly movements involve stepping stone movements between trees and woodland remnants to productive foraging areas, followed by a more direct, return flight at dawn to the traditional roost tree. These movements can be distances of over ten kilometres over open ground (via trees) to remnant forest blocks. The Barking Owl feeds upon a variety of vertebrate and invertebrate prey items, including arboreal and ground mammals (ie. rats, possums), diurnal birds, bats and insects (Hollands 1991, Higgins 1999, Ed McNabb pers. comm. 2014). Insects form a main part of their diet during the non-breeding season (Taylor et al. 2002b). The Barking Owl hawks for insects either by flying low over ground, looping up to catch insects, or above the tree canopy in wooded areas, looping up to catch larger flying insects (e.g. Christmas Beetle swarms) (N. Schedvin pers. comm. 2009) Powerful Owl Description The Powerful Owl is the largest owl in Australia, males measuring up to 60cm in height, 140cm in wingspan and 1.45kg weight (females slightly smaller, to 1.25kg). It has a Page 111

120 relatively small hawk-like head, large body and longish tail for an owl. It is dark greyishbrown above with off-white barring. The plumage is whitish below with dark greyish-brown chevrons. The throat is streaked and the tail boldly barred. The eyes of adults are bright yellow. Juveniles are mostly whitish below with some fine dark streaks and a dark facial mask. The territorial call is a deep woo - hooo repeated at intervals several seconds apart (Higgins 1999). The Powerful Owl is unlikely to be confused with any other Australian owl. Ecology and conservation status The Powerful Owl is considered to be vulnerable in Victoria and is listed under the state Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (DSE 2013). It occurs on mainland Australia in the eastern and south-eastern coastal forests (Webster et al. 1999), and its distribution extends from Victoria to southern Queensland (Higgins 1999). The Powerful Owl prefers open and tall wet sclerophyll forests with sheltered gullies and old growth forest that provide large old hollow-bearing trees required for nesting (Higgins 1999). The species is also found in dry forests with box-ironbark eucalypts and River Red-gum, and may also occur in urban areas and pine plantations (Webster et al. 1999, Garnett and Crowley 2000). The Powerful Owl breeds from May to September. The habitat and population size of the Powerful Owl has declined mainly due to the clearing of forests for agricultural purposes (Garnett and Crowley 2000). In Victoria, the Powerful Owl is widespread, having been recorded from most of the state (Higgins 1999, Webster et al. 1999). Powerful Owls select home ranges with more large trees containing hollows than the forest at large, and have a range radius up to nine kilometres (Soderquist and Gibbons 2007). Within the home range, the Powerful Owl generally has one nest tree and several roost trees (Webster et al. 1999, Kavanagh 2002). Tree-dwelling mammals form a high percentage of its prey, with the Common Ringtail Possum, Common Brushtail Possum and Greater Glider being the main prey items (Higgins 1999) Bush Stone-curlew Description The Bush Stone-curlew is a medium to large, long-legged shorebird with a long neck and slender body (up to 59cm length, 105cm wingspan and 670 grams weight). It is cryptically plumaged, somewhat resembling a dead tree stump at rest. It is light greyish above with dark streaks. It has a prominent white patch in the dark outer wing, visible in flight. The underparts are whitish, streaked dark brown. The stone-curlew has white superciliary markings and lores and there is a broad dark brown marking on the face extending from below the eyes and continuing narrowly to the side of the neck. The eyes are pale yellow and legs light grey. The species gives up to 4-5 loud wailing calls (described as weer-loo ), around 2 seconds each, increasing in speed and rising in pitch towards the end of each note (Marchant and Higgins 1993). Ecology and conservation status The Bush Stone-curlew is considered to be endangered in Victoria and is listed as threatened under the state Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (DSE 2013). Page 112

121 The Bush Stone-curlew occurs in drier open woodland north of the Great Divide in Victoria; it is still moderately common in northern Australia but has declined markedly in the south and arid inland, particularly since 1950 in Victoria (Robinson and Johnson 1997). It spends most of its time on the ground, where it nests in a scrape (Emison et al. 1987; Marchant and Higgins 1993; Robinson and Johnson 1997). The Bush Stone-curlew lives in lowland grassy woodland, often with an overstorey of River Red-gum, Grey Box or Yellow Box and sparse, short, native grassy cover. Usually there is abundant fallen timber (Robinson and Johnson 1997). Less commonly, it is found in box ironbark forest. Their home-range is around hectares and in the breeding season they defend a territory of hectares (Robinson and Johnson 1997). The breeding season is in spring and the species may form small flocks in autumn and move around locally (Emison et al. 1987; Marchant and Higgins 1993; Robinson and Johnson 1997). The diet of Bush Stone-curlews is mainly insects, and they may also eat a variety of seeds, invertebrates and small reptiles and frogs; occasionally rodents (Marchant and Higgins 1993; Robinson and Johnson 1997). Terrestrial introduced predators such as the Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes) and Feral Cats (Felis catus) are currently the main threats to the Bush Stone-curlew in Victoria (Robinson and Johnson 1997). The species is also at risk from loss and degradation of woodland habitat, which includes firewood removal, tidying of private properties by removal of fallen timber, and conversion of native pastures by sowing introduced grasses (Robinson and Johnson 1997) Masked Owl Description The Masked Owl is similar to but larger than the Barn Owl. It measures up to 50cm in height, 1.28m wingspan and 1.2kg weight (female); males are considerably smaller (up to 0.8 kg). The species has a prominent white to buff facial disc bordered with black and a dark patch surrounding the black eyes. It is whitish to buff below with coarse black spotting. Dorsally it has a complex and variable pattern of buff, whitish, chestnut and black, mostly spotted on the inner wing and barred on the outer wing. There are three morphs ranging from pale morph very similar in plumage to Barn Owl, through to dark morph that is mostly chestnut and black on the upperwing and deep buff on the underparts and facial disc. The legs and talons are powerful and the tarsus is feathered, unlike Barn Owl. The usual call is a screech, similar to but harsher than Barn Owl. Chattering is used during courtship. Field identification is difficult harsher calls, more robust, feathered legs and average darker overall than Barn Owl including facial disc (Higgins 1999). Ecology and conservation status The Masked Owl is considered to be endangered in Victoria and is listed as threatened under the state Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (DSE 2013). The Masked Owl ranges throughout most of Australia, Tasmania and southern New Guinea, in wooded habitats (Higgins 1999; Schedvin et al. 2003). In Victoria, the species occupies a variety of forest and woodland types. In the lowlands, it can occur in continuous forest, or at the edge of forest or woodland and cleared farmland, or in Red Gum and Grey Box woodland. In the ranges, Masked Owls tend to occupy valley floor Page 113

122 forest with creeks, gullies or floodplains (Schedvin et al. 2003). The species reportedly prefers ecotones between dense forest and open woodland or farmland. Key requirements for the species is the presence of tree hollows for roosting and nesting, and prey availability. The Masked Owl has an aerial display flight during courtship over the nesting territory, to considerable heights (Higgins 1999). The Masked Owl requires large, old, hollow bearing eucalypts for nesting, i.e. those of minimum diameter at breast height (DBH metres) of 60 centimetres. It also requires access to open areas for hunting its prey which comprise mostly terrestrial species but some arboreal mammals. Recorded prey items in Victoria include European Rabbit Oryctolagus cuniculus, Sugar Glider Petaurus breviceps, Common Ringtail Possum Pseudocheirus peregrinus, Bush Rat Rattus fuscipes, Swamp Rat Rattus lutreolus and House Mouse Mus musculus and a few birds and bats. Elsewhere, in NSW a variety of native mammals were taken (Debus and Rose 1994; Schedvin et al. 2003). This suggests the Masked Owl is able to switch prey depending on the habitat type it uses, taking more introduced species in partly cleared areas. Threats to the Masked Owl include habitat clearance including commercial forestry, loss of large old hollow bearing trees, use of rodenticides, and predation by the Red Fox (particularly of juvenile owls) (Higgins 1999) Methodology Existing Information Existing information regarding the Powerful Owl, Barking Owl, Masked Owl and Bush Stone-curlew were utilised as part of this investigation. Note that study area in this section of the report refers to the boundaries of the proposed wind farm and the search region is defined for this assessment as an area including an approximate 30 kilometre buffer beyond the study area. Previous records of these from the search region were obtained from The Victorian Biodiversity Atlas (VBA), Victorian Biodiversity Atlas 2013) a database administered by DEPI Field Methodology Habitat assessment Prior to commencement of the nocturnal bird survey, habitats were checked during the day for their suitability to support the targeted species. At each survey site, the vegetation type, structure and habitat quality were examined. These habitat components were considered important in influencing the distribution of threatened species. Diurnal searches were also undertaken to locate evidence of whitewash or regurgitated pellets that would indicate owl presence in the study area. Public reserves surrounding the wind farm were included in the survey since these were known or likely sites for threatened owls or stone-curlews, because they contained large blocks of forest or woodland. Habitat was assessed as having potential to support the targeted threatened species if: The site supported woodland with hollow bearing trees (owls); Page 114

123 The site had appreciable quantities of fallen timber (Stone-curlew); The site was in riparian zone with large hollow-bearing River Red-gums (Barking Owl, Masked Owl); The site had good connectivity to a site supporting one or more of the above habitat values. Targeted surveys to determine the presence or absence of owl species were conducted in habitats deemed suitable (i.e. holding ample hollow-bearing trees). Twenty-one sites in total were surveyed (Figure 33), including; Sites B1, B5 and B16 publically reserved remnant forest or woodland in relatively large blocks (Joel Joel Nature Conservation Reserve and Ararat Regional Park) Sites B4, B11, B17, B19 and B21 Public road reserves Sites B2, B3, B6, B7, B8, B9, B10, B12, B13, B18 woodland on private property Sites B14, B15 and B20 riparian woodland in public reserves. A detailed description of the survey sites can be found in section Timing, frequency and location of survey points Barking Owl Call playback and spotlight surveys for Barking Owl were carried out weekly for two nights from 12 th March to 1 st May 2014 (14 nights over seven weeks) and from 28 th May to 27 th June 2014 (10 nights over five weeks). Three to six sites were surveyed each night depending on the number of zoologists surveying and the weather conditions at the time of the survey. A total of 21 sites were surveyed from one to 12 times each, resulting in a total of 109 call playback and spotlight surveys. Table 14 shows the number of surveys at each site and Figure 33 shows the location of survey points during the first round of surveys in March and April, and the second round of surveys during May and June 6. Surveys for nocturnal bird species included both evening and pre-dawn surveys, since the targeted species are known to call between dawn and sunrise (Higgins 1999; E. McNabb, pers. comm.). 6 The purpose of additional surveys during May and June was to survey leading up to the breeding season (which starts in July) when Barking Owl are particularly responsive to call playback, to ascertain whether the site supporting a resident breeding pair. Further detail can be found in BL&A (2014). Page 115

124 Table 14: Number of call playback and spotlight surveys for Barking Owl at each site Site Powerful Owl No. of surveys Site No. of surveys Site No. of surveys B1 3 B8 2 B15 5 B2 7 B9 3 B16 5 B3 12 B10 2 B17 1 B4 12 B11 1 B18 5 B5 12 B12 1 B19 5 B6 10 B13 5 B20 5 B7 4 B14 5 B21 4 Call playback and spotlight surveys for Powerful Owl were carried out on nine nights over seven weeks in March (14 th, 21 st & 28 th ) and April (4 th, 10 th, 14 th, 16 th, 28 th and 30 th ) Up to three sites were surveyed each night depending on the weather conditions at the time of the survey. A total of 21 surveys were conducted at four sites, including nearby forested reserves from where Powerful Owl was known to occur historically (Ararat Regional Park and Joel Joel Nature Conservation Reserve). Table 15 shows the number of surveys at each site and Figure 33 shows the location of survey points. Surveys for Powerful Owl and Barking Owl were carried out on different nights, due to the possibility that call playback of one species may influence the propensity of the other to answer back. Table 15: Number of call playback and spotlight surveys for Powerful Owl at each site Site No. of surveys Site No. of surveys B1 7 B5 1 B4 7 B6 6 Note: Surveys were discontinued at site B5 (and commenced at site B6) to minimise disturbance to Powerful Owl which was found near site B5. Bush Stone-curlew Bush Stone-curlew was surveyed for at all Powerful and Barking Owl survey sites during March April 2014 (Table 16, Figure 33). Three sites were carried out per night, for three nights per week over seven weeks throughout March and April 2014, resulting in a total of 63 surveys. Page 116

125 Table 16: Number of call playback and spotlight surveys for Bush Stone-curlew at each site Site No. of surveys Site No. of surveys B1 = P3 Joel Joel NCR 12 B7 2 B2 5 B8 2 B3 7 B9 2 B4 = P2 Metcalfe Road 15 B10 2 B5 = P1 Ararat RP 8 B11 1 B6 = P4 wind farm land ~1.5km NW of Ararat RP Masked Owl 9 B12 1 Following the first phase of fieldwork in March and April 2014, a peer review was undertaken of the Barking Owl surveys to date by Lawrie Conole (Coliban Ecology), who suggested that the Masked Owl (Tyto novaehollandiae) may be present towards the south of the study area. Based on this recommendation, additional call playback surveys were carried out for this species during the May and June 2014 surveys, simultaneous to the continuing Barking Owl surveys. Table 17: Number of call playback and spotlight surveys for Masked Owl at each site Site No. of surveys Site No. of surveys Site No. of surveys B3 5 B14 5 B19 5 B4 5 B15 5 B20 5 B5 5 B16 5 B21 4 B6 5 B17 1 B13 5 B18 5 Note: Surveys were discontinued at site B17 (and commenced at site B21) because site B17 was considered to be too close to a dwelling. Call playback Call playback techniques used for the Bulgana Wind Farm surveys are described for each species below. Powerful Owl: At each location, five minutes was spent listening to detect individuals calling spontaneously. The standard tape playback of owl vocalisations was broadcast using a megaphone set at a higher volume than the owls natural level at selected sites. This technique is similar to that used by Soderquist and Gibbon (2007). The sequence of calls was as follows: Powerful Owl one minute, listening period three minutes, repeated twice with escalated volume. A period of up to five minutes was spent listening after the call playback. Barking Owl: Same technique as for Powerful Owl except that each playback was of a two-minute recording rather than one. Bush Stone-curlew: Following owl call playback and listening period, the stone-curlew recording was broadcast twice with a gap of 1-2 minutes between playback to allow for a response. Page 117

126 Masked Owl: Surveys immediately followed Barking Owl call playback and listening and comprised playback of a Masked Owl recording for two minutes (including both screech and chattering calls) and awaiting a response. Spotlighting After call playback, a 30-minute spotlighting session was conducted within 200 metres to check trees and listen for responses from any owls or stone-curlews. In particular, spotlighting concentrated on large hollow-bearing trees that may also support treedwelling mammals, such as possums and gliders. All animals seen or heard during spotlighting were recorded. Page 118

127 B14 B13 B15 #* GF B1 B16 B21 B17 B18 #* B11 #* B2 B20 #* B10 GF B3 B19 #* B8 #* B9 B4 #* B7 B6 Legend GF GF Y Study Area Development layout Proposed turbine position Barking Owl (December 2013 sightings) Barking Owl (March 2014 callback response) Powerful Owl (March 2014 callback response) - B17 found to be unsuitable after first survey and was replaced by B21 #* B12 Survey Points May - June 2014 #* March - April 2014 (also included B3 to B6) - Barking Owl: B1- B21 Powerful Owl: B1, B4- B6 Masked Owl: B3- B6, B13- B21 Bush Stone-curlew: B1-B12 Y B5 Metres 0 1,500 3,000 6,000 Figure 33: Location of nocturnal bird survey points Project: Bulgana Wind Farm Client: Bulgana Wind Farm Pty Ltd Project No.: Date: 4/12/2014 Created By: M. Ghasemi / P. Lansley

128 Limitations of field assessment The autumn timing of the initial targeted survey was considered suitable for detecting Barking Owl, Powerful Owl and Bush Stone-curlew in the study area. Most months throughout the year (during favourable weather conditions) are considered appropriate to survey for nocturnal mammals such as possums and gliders upon which the owls usually feed. The additional surveys for Masked Owl in May and June 2014 were also carried out at a time of year suitable for detecting this species, if present. A few nights were affected by light rain but this did not affect surveying with one exception, when the survey was abandoned and re-run the following night. Fresh winds during four surveys (out of 49 surveys conducted during March and April) and eight surveys out of 60 in May and June (all but one in the final week of the survey, June) reduced the audibility of call playback and owls, however conditions were considered suitable for visual detection of owls if present. Although the weather conditions during this small percentage of surveys were outside the guidelines for monitoring owls (too windy), surveys were continued in the final week of June because it was possible that owls could be observed by sight despite a reduced probability of hearing them. In addition, there was an Animal Ethics Committee restriction on surveying Barking Owl from July onwards, due to the possibility that breeding owls may be disturbed by call playback. There were sufficient replicates at three sites in or within two kilometres of the wind farm to meet the survey effort requirements of the guidelines for Barking Owl and Powerful Owl (plus both species were recorded as present during the surveys). There were ample replicate surveys for Bush Stone-curlew to indicate presence or absence in the wind farm area. Most sites surveyed for Masked Owl were replicated five times. In NSW, guidelines recommend nine surveys of this species at a site to be 90% confident of presence or absence, however a greater than 50% confidence is achieved once five surveys are completed (DEC 1994). Given that no Masked Owl have previously been recorded in the search region, it is possible they are absent from the region. Wherever appropriate, a precautionary approach has been adopted in the discussion of implications. That is, where insufficient evidence is available on the occurrence or likelihood of occurrence of a species, it is assumed that it could be in an area of habitat, if suitable, and the implications under legislation and policy are considered accordingly Results Existing Information Figure 34 shows previous records in the VBA for Barking Owl, Powerful Owl and Bush Stone-curlew within a 30 kilometre buffer of the study area. There were 49 Powerful Owl records in the VBA within a 30 kilometre buffer of the study area. Most of these records were clustered in the Mt Cole, Mt Langi Ghiran, Black Range and Landsborough - St Arnaud Ranges National Park areas. Within a 10 kilometre buffer of the study area there were six records; one from Joel Joel NCR and Ararat Regional Park in The other records were from close to Stawell and the Black Range. Page 120

129 Y Y ^_?? Y? Y^_????????? Y^_ Y Y Y Y Y Y^_ Y Y ^_ ^_??? ^_?? Y? ^_ ^_ Y Y?????????????? ^_?? Legend Wind farm boundary Wind farm boundary 30km buffer Development layout Turbines ^_ Y Barking Owl VBA records Bush Stone-curlew VBA records? Powerful Owl VBA records Kilometers Figure 34: Nocturnal bird records within 30km of wind farm Project: Bulgana Wind Farm Client: Bulgana Wind Farm Pty Ltd Project No.: Date: 4/12/2014 Created By: M. Ghasemi / P. Lansley

130 There were 25 Bush Stone-curlew records in the VBA for the search region (within a 30 kilometre buffer of the study area). Most of the records are from the west and north of the wind farm, mainly in the Callawadda, Glenorchy, and Stawell to Grampians areas including the Black Range. Within 10km buffer of the wind farm however, there were only five records of Bush Stone-curlew and none since There were no records in the VBA of Masked Owl within the 30 km search region. However, the species is reported from the Grampians and suitable habitat for it was observed in the southern part of the wind farm during peer review following the initial Barking Owl survey (L. Conole, pers. comm. 2014) Habitat assessment The proposed Bulgana Wind Farm is located in the Goldfields bioregion of Victoria (DEPI 2014b). The predominant vegetation types available for owls to roost and potentially breed in the study area belonged to the following Ecological Vegetation Classes (EVCs): Low Rises Grassy Woodland (EVC 175_61) Alluvial Terraces Herb-rich Woodland (EVC 67) Heathy Dry Forest (EVC 20) Commonly occurring overstorey trees in the wind farm were River Red-gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis), Yellow Gum (E. leucoxylon), Yellow Box (E. melliodora) and Bundy (E. goniocalyx). There were scattered occurrences of Red Box and patches of Grey Box (Eucalyptus microcarpa) and Buloke (Allocasuarina leuhmannii) occurred at the northern end along Joel South Road. The Bush Stone-curlew prefers areas of open lowland grassy woodland, usually with appreciable quantities of fallen timber for resting during the day. They will use the more open areas of the landscape to forage at night. The species is however susceptible to predation by the Red Fox Vulpes vulpes (Emison et al. 1987; Robinson & Johnson 1997) this is probably more of a constraint to its population in the district than a lack of suitable habitat. Of the surveys sites, B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, and B13 were assessed as suitable for Bush Stone-curlew, while most of the remaining sites had some suitable habitat nearby (such that stone-curlews are likely to have been heard in response to call playback, if present). The overall quality of owl habitat in the study area was considered moderate based on a considerable number of large ( 60cm diameter at breast height [DBH]), old, hollow bearing trees, although many of these were in paddocks away from remnant forest or woodland, and therefore less likely to be used as nest sites (Schedvin 2007; E. McNabb pers. comm. 2014). A description of the sites within the wind farm footprint is detailed below. Site B3: Private property. Small remnant on a ridge, largely comprising Bundy. Around the base of the ridge there were a few Red Stringybark (Eucalyptus macrorhyncha), Red Box and one or two Yellow Gums. Understorey included sparsely scattered Hedge Wattle (Acacia paradoxa), Gorse Bitter-Pea (Davesia ulicifolia), Flame Heath (Astroloma conostephioides), Wallaby-grass (Rytidosperma spp.) and Spear Grasses (Austrostipa spp.). A few large old trees remained but the majority were young trees; coarse woody debris was reasonably prevalent. Some degree of connectivity with other remnant woodland was conferred by a line of trees extending to the west. Considered to support moderate quality habitat for Barking Owl one individual Barking Owl was seen roosting Page 122

131 in this patch during the day in December The owl was roughly two metres above the observers head in a tree when first recorded, after which it flew away. Site B4: Metcalfe Road, eastern end. Public road reserve. Dominated by River Red-gum, Yellow Gum and Yellow Box, with a few Lightwood (Acacia implexa). A variety of grasses both native and introduced comprised most of the ground layer. There were a few scattered clumps of shrubs, e.g. Hedge Wattle and some planted Drooping She-oak (Allocasuarina verticillata). Moderate to high potential for owls on account of numerous large old trees with hollows. Site B6: Line of trees on slope of hill on private property. Yellow Box, Red Box and Bundy dominant; lesser numbers of River Red-gum, Yellow Gum, Red Box and Lightwood. Mistletoe (Amyema sp.) common. Good cover of leaf litter and some coarse woody debris. Mixed native and introduced grassy ground cover with a few small shrubs such as Hedge Wattle. Moderate quality owl habitat based on good connectivity via near continuous tree lines to Ararat Regional Park, and presence of several large old trees with hollows. Site B7: Line of trees on ridge on private property. Dominant species were Bundy and Yellow Box; also a few Yellow Gum. Ground cover mixed native and introduced grasses. Low quality habitat for owls (lacking in hollow trees). Could be used as stepping stone habitat. Site B8: Metcalfe Road, western end. Public road. Site along edge of a large intact woodland remnant, dominated mainly by Bundy with few other eucalypt trees. Understory made of mixture of wattle and shrubs from a variety of species. Moderate quality habitat for owls as some of the large trees contained hollows. Site B9: Western end of locked area of Metcalfe Road; public road reserve. Dominant overstorey trees were Yellow Box and Bundy. Shrubs were absent. The ground layer comprised mixed native and introduced grasses. Low to moderate habitat quality for owls due to lack of hollows, but good connectivity along Metcalfe Road. Site B10: Private property. Line of very old and large eucalypt remnant, dominated by Red Box, Red Stringybark, and Yellow Box. Shrub layer varies but largely comprised a variety of low-growing wattle. Ground layers varied considerably, from those dominated by introduced grasses with few indigenous elements. The line of trees overlooks large grazing paddocks but connected to other lines or patches of trees. Site considered to support low to moderate quality for owls. Site B11: Thomas Lane. Public road reserve. Scattered River Red-gums (some large or very large with hollows); a few Yellow Box and Grey Box at southern end of site. Ground layer dominated by introduced grass e.g. Toowoomba Canary Grass (Phalaris aquatica) and Cocksfoot (Dactylis glomerata) with smaller patches of native Wallaby Grass and Kangaroo Grass (Themeda triandra); some Flax-lily (Dianella sp.). Low to moderate habitat quality for owls: some large old hollow-bearing trees. Site B12: Off Allenvale Road, private property. Some large River Red-gums (with hollows) along an ephemeral creekline in mostly cleared farmland. Introduced pasture grasses dominated the ground layer. Considered to support moderate habitat quality for owls. Three sites lay outside of the wind farm boundary but in close proximity to it. These sites are described below. Site B2: This site was surveyed because it is a large block that could potentially be used as a stepping stone habitat between larger woodland remnants at the northern and Page 123

132 southern end of the wind farm. Located on private property south of Landsborough Road. Comprised mostly regrowth trees of Red Stringybark, with a few Yellow Gum and Red Ironbark (Eucalyptus tricarpa). One or two large old trees with hollows. Ground layer included Flame Heath, wallaby-grasses, spear grasses and the introduced Large Quaking-grass (Briza maxima). Low to moderate quality for owls due to paucity of large, hollow bearing trees. Prey species (possums, sugar gliders, rabbits) were also found to be less frequently observed and in lower numbers than some larger, publically owned woodland blocks such as Joel Joel NCR. In the wider region, nearby reserves were surveyed to determine if they supported suitable habitat and to search for evidence of roosting owls. These included Joel Joel NCR and Ararat Regional Park (formerly Dunneworthy State Forest) (Figure 33). These reserves (described below) are connected to the study area by linear remnants of vegetation, in public road reserves (e.g. Thomas Lane and Vances Crossing Road which connect Joel Joel NCR to the wind farm, and Delaney Gap Road and un-named road reserves crossing private property to the north of Ararat Regional Park). Site B1 (Joel Joel Nature Conservation Reserve): This reserve comprised box-ironbark forest. The dominant overstorey species included Grey Box, and scattered Yellow Gum and Red Box. Understorey included Grey Everlasting (Ozothamnus obcordatum), Golddust Wattle (A. acinacea), Golden Wattle (A. pycnantha) and Large Quaking-grass. Although the reserve showed signs of previous logging practices, a number of large hollow-bearing trees remained and may have been suitable for owls and certainly suitable for their prey (i.e. possums). The reserve is considered to be moderate quality owl habitat based on structural habitat components for owls and the presence of some large, hollow-bearing trees (and some large paddock trees south of reserve Yellow Box; may be suitable for roosting owls). No evidence was found of owls using trees to roost. Site B5 (Ararat Regional Park): The dominant tree species recorded at the northern end of Ararat Regional Park (closest to the wind farm boundary) were Red Box and Red Stringybark (E. macrorhyncha). The ground layer included some coarse woody debris, leaf litter, scattered shrubs e.g. Golden Wattle and Hedge Wattle (Acacia paradoxa), herbs such as Chocolate Lily (Arthropodium strictum) and native grasses such as Wallaby Grass (Rytidosperma spp.) The area has been subject to disturbance by logging however a few large hollow-bearing trees remained. The overall owl habitat quality is considered to be moderate. A Powerful Owl was recorded from this survey point. The following additional sites were also located outside of the wind farm boundary and were added in the May and June 2014 surveys: Site B13: Along a creek line close to Vineyard Road north-east of Stawell. Remnant River Red Gum and Yellow Box plus extensive revegetation. Ground cover comprised mostly introduced pasture grasses and a few shrubs. Site abutted a Trust For Nature property to the east and had good connectivity with Box Ironbark (Grey Box-Yellow Gum) woodland along roadsides to the east and west. Site B14: Streamside reserve along Wimmera River, 4 km north-west of Joel Joel. River Red Gum overstorey and mostly pasture grass (Ccoksfoot, Phalaris) ground cover. Site B15: Wimmera River at Joel Joel bridge. River Red Gum overstorey and mostly pasture grass (Cocksfoot, Phalaris) ground cover. Page 124

133 Site B16 (Joel Joel Nature Conservation Reserve): Similar to Site B1 but located further into the reserve. The site supported similar habitat to that detailed above, but with a greater proportion of Yellow Gum and Red Box, with less Grey Box. Site B17: Roadside bisected by ephemeral creek. Scattered River Red Gum. Pasture grasses made up most ground cover. Site surveyed once only then moved (to B21) because it was too close to a dwelling. Site B18: Revegetation, less than 30 years old, on hilltop. Only one remnant Grey Box recorded within 200 metres of point. Ground cover introduced grasses (mainly Onion Grass Romulea rosea) and a few native shrubs and grasses. Site B19: Mixed eucalypt roadside, with some native understorey e.g. Flax-lily Dianella sp. Site B20: Walsh s Streamside Reserve. River Red-gum and Yellow Gum overstorey; some Acacia understorey and introduced pasture grass ground cover. Site B21: Roadside bisected by ephemeral creek. River Red Gum, and Grey Box and Yellow Gum along roadside. Pasture grasses made up most ground cover. No white wash or regurgitated pellets were found during the habitat assessments. The lack of any evidence of owls beneath the large (>60cm DBH) hollow-bearing trees strongly suggested that threatened owls were not utilising trees at any of the regularly surveyed sites on the wind farm. There is a small possibility such white-wash and pellets may have been missed, but the sites were surveyed in detail. BL&A (2014) details the findings from a survey of suitable nest trees for Barking Owl within the wind farm study area. Suitable nest trees (>60cm DBH and with hollows of cm diameter) were found scattered across several sites in the wind farm and in remnant forest and woodland adjacent, however no evidence of a breeding pair of Barking Owl was found. Potential roost trees (e.g. Yellow Box) occur in paddocks south of Joel Joel NCR where an individual Barking Owl was heard on 12 th March Again, no pellets or white wash found, however several of the trees contained suitable nesting hollows for Barking Owl Call playback and spotlighting A Powerful Owl was heard once in Ararat Regional Park (estimated to be one kilometre south of site B5, Figure 33) on 14 March The species was not subsequently recorded, although to minimise disturbance to the individual that was recorded, playback of Powerful Owl calls was discontinued at site B5 and surveys moved to an alternative location (B6) about two kilometres to the north-west. A Barking Owl was heard responding to call playback once on 12 March 2014, estimated to be around 500 metres south-east of Joel Joel Nature Conservation Reserve in paddock trees. It was not subsequently recorded on or near the wind farm in 11 weeks of survey culminating on 27 June Barking Owl had previously been sighted incidentally at site B3 in early December The Bush Stone-curlew and Masked Owl were not recorded during their respective targeted surveys. Raw data for the targeted nocturnal surveys can be found in Appendix 9 Page 125

134 8.5. Implications of findings Barking Owl An individual Barking Owl was observed during daylight hours roosting at the proposed wind farm site in December 2013, during an initial flora and fauna survey. During the seven weeks of targeted surveys in March and April 2014, the species was heard responding to call-playback on 12th March 2014 in scattered trees on farmland just south of Joel Joel Nature Conservation Reserve (NCR). A second round of weekly owl surveys was carried out for five weeks in late May and June, prior to breeding season when Barking Owl are known to be particularly responsive to call playback. The species was not recorded again, and no evidence of Barking Owl (white wash, pellets, nesting or roosting trees) was recorded during diurnal searches. A detailed risk assessment was carried out for the Barking Owl based on an earlier version of the development layout (May 2012), detailed in BL&A (2014). The assessment included a survey of suitable nesting trees for Barking Owl within 300 metres of turbines. Suitable nesting trees were classified into three different categories, based on the height differential between the tree and nearby turbines, taking into account the elevation of both the tree and the turbine and the possibility of Barking Owl hawking for insects over the tree. A risk assessment for individual turbines was also undertaken, based on the presence, location and height of suitable vegetation and hollow trees surrounding the turbine, topography and overall presence of Barking Owl in the area. The conclusions and recommendations from BL&A (2014) are detailed below. Given the propensity of Barking Owl to respond to call playback and their high site fidelity, it is considered highly unlikely that the 12 weeks of targeted surveys over two periods would have missed a resident pair of Barking Owl with a territory nesting within or near the wind farm. The two records in and near the proposed Bulgana Wind Farm and a recent record of Barking Owl just west of Great Western in March 2011 (DEPI 2014A), indicate that the species occurs in the region at low density, with at least one bird occurring within the wind farm boundary recently. The records are likely to be from either a dispersing juvenile or an adult floater (non-territorial or unpaired bird). Powerful Owl and Barking Owl home ranges tend to be mutually exclusive, therefore it is unlikely that Barking Owl would use the southern end of the wind farm due to its proximity to a resident Powerful Owl in Ararat Regional Park. Powerful Owl pairs have been found within 3 6 kilometres of each other, but are often found much farther apart at kilometres (Higgins 1999). It is possible that Barking Owl and Powerful Owl may exclude each other to the same extent. When foraging, the Barking Owl perches on tree branches (including exotic planted trees) and flies out to catch prey up to 200 metres, returning to the branch to eat. Schedvin (2007) documented that nightly movements of Barking Owl involve stepping stone movements between trees and woodland remnants to productive foraging areas, followed by a more direct, return flight before dawn to the traditional roost tree. These movements can be distances of over ten kilometres over open ground (via trees) to remnant forest blocks. When foraging for ground-based prey (ie. rabbits or rats), Barking Owl flights from sentry perches are generally low (Ed McNabb, pers. comm. 2014). However, insects Page 126

135 form a large part of their diet during the non-breeding season. During the warmer months, Barking Owl has been observed flying above the trees hawking large insects, such as beetles. Hawking may occur roughly ten metres above treed vegetation. This behaviour would be confined to seasons and more densely treed habitat where this prey type was more abundant and readily available. Sixty-one trees containing suitable hollows for nesting Barking Owl were mapped within 300 metres of proposed turbines. Trees were classified into categories A, B and C based on the vertical height difference between the lower tip of the turbine (considered to be at 35 metres above the ground) and the treetop, accounting for both the elevation (above sea level) of the tree and turbine and a 15 metre vertical foraging buffer to allow for foraging above trees. Fifteen hollow-bearing trees were classified as category A, indicating that if Barking Owl were foraging at or above canopy height in these trees, they could potentially be at risk of colliding with a nearby turbine. Foraging at trees classified as category B (34 trees) and C (22 trees) was not likely to put the Barking Owl at risk, as foraging flights would occur below rotor swept area. The risk of each individual turbine from the May 2012 development layout was determined based on the presence, location and height differential category of suitable hollow bearing trees and associated treed vegetation within 300 metres of the turbine. Turbines were classified as moderate risk, low-moderate risk, low risk or very low risk to Barking Owl. Three turbines were recommended for removal or relocation based on the perceived risk to Barking Owl, should they be in the area. These turbines were located within 100 metres of woodland or densely scattered trees and within 150 metres of category A or B trees. Two of the turbines were located near where Barking Owl was recorded in December These three turbines have been removed from the current November 2014 development plan presented in this report. As a result of the removal of the three turbines from the development plan and the risk assessment carried out for Barking Owl, the risk to the species from the construction and operation of Bulgana Wind Farm is now considered to be low. The removal of the three turbines from woodland areas is also considered beneficial for owls and the Bush Stone-curlew, along with other threatened woodland species with the potential to utilise this habitat (further detailed section 10.2). In addition, this has avoided and minimised the removal of native vegetation Powerful Owl The Powerful Owl prefers open and tall wet sclerophyll forests with sheltered gullies and old growth forest that provide large old hollow-bearing trees required for nesting (Higgins 1999). The species tends to hunt inside the forest for prey such as tree dwelling mammals. The Powerful Owl was recorded in Ararat Regional Park approximately two kilometres south-east of the wind farm. In view of a historical record in the same area, it is likely that the species is resident and may breed in this relatively large forest block. Despite effort spread across the southern, central and northern ends of the wind farm (or within two kilometres of it), no other evidence of Powerful Owl was recorded during the current survey. A historical record of Powerful Owl also exists from Joel Joel NCR in 1997, however the southern end of the reserve was surveyed for Powerful Owl on seven occasions during this investigation and the species was not recorded. It is therefore Page 127

136 considered that Powerful Owl was absent from the reserve during the survey, however it may occur infrequently at Joel Joel NCR. There are no historical records from the area of the wind farm itself between Joel Joel NCR and Ararat Regional Park. A number of nocturnal surveys and daytime searches were carried out in the intervening areas including Metcalfe Road where large old hollowbearing trees are present, and no evidence of the Powerful Owl was recorded. The survey findings indicate that Powerful Owl is unlikely to regularly cross the mostly cleared lands and ridges of the wind farm. Sufficient effort was expended to be 90% confident the Powerful Owl was absent from the wind farm (including the southernmost part abutting Ararat Regional Park) and Joel Joel NCR during the current survey. The findings suggest that Powerful Owl is probably resident in Ararat Regional Park immediately to the south of the wind farm (approximately 1.5 kilometres from the closest turbine). A dispersing unpaired Powerful Owl (or floater ) may cross open country from the south or east to reach Joel Joel NCR, however this is expected to occur very infrequently. It is unlikely to regularly occur in the wind farm itself due to a lack of large continuous forest or woodland blocks, or riparian zones of permanent streams. Impacts of Bulgana Wind Farm on Powerful Owl are therefore expected to be negligible due to the low expected incidence of birds passing through the wind farm footprint Bush Stone-curlew The Bush Stone-curlew lives in lowland grassy woodland, often with an overstorey of River Red-gum, Grey Box or Yellow Box and sparse, short, native grassy cover. There are no previous records of the species in the wind farm itself, however two historical records (the most recent being from 1992) exist in the 10 km search region. Despite the presence of suitable habitat within the study area, the Bush Stone-curlew was not recorded during surveys carried out in March and June Based on the lack of recent records in the region, any population of Bush Stone-curlew in the vicinity of Bulgana wind farm is likely to be small, if present at all. The construction of Bulgana wind farm is therefore unlikely to significantly impact any local population of Bush Stonecurlew Masked Owl The Masked Owl was surveyed for up to five replicates across the wind farm and nearby riparian corridors. The lack of records in a 30 kilometre buffer of the wind farm together with the negative survey results suggests that Masked Owl does not regularly occur in the vicinity of the wind farm or is present in very low numbers. If present Masked Owls would most likely occur in lower areas such as drainage lines with large, old remnant eucalypts with hollows (e.g. River Red-gum). These areas are usually some distance (>200 metres) from the more elevated slopes and ridges where turbines will be sited; this would serve to minimise the prospect of impact on any Masked Owl that may be present in the vicinity. Based on the above findings, the construction and operation of Bulgana Wind Farm is unlikely to significantly impact any local population of the Masked Owl. Page 128

137 9. BAT SURVEYS 9.1. Introduction Bulgana Wind Farm Pty Ltd engaged Brett Lane & Associates Pty Ltd (BL&A) to carry out the pre-construction bat surveys as outlined in the request for proposal in relation to a proposed wind farm development at Bulgana, in central western Victoria. This investigation was commissioned to provide baseline data on the pre-construction utilisation by bats of the proposed wind farm site. The Bat utilisation survey was undertaken consistent with the methodology provided in Guidelines for Bat Surveys in Relation to Wind Farm Developments (Lumsden, 2007), and Survey Guidelines for Australian Threatened Bats (DEWHA 2010). Bat surveys were undertaken in optimal weather conditions (relatively mild, dry and with little or no wind). Bat surveys were undertaken in late spring (November December 2013) and summer (January February 2014). The surveys involved the use of ultrasonic bat call detecting devices and records were made from 10 sites representing the various habitat types within the wind farm Methods Bat recordings Automated bat detectors that record the species-specific echolocation calls of free-flying bats were used at ten sampling points that were representative of the habitats near wind turbine locations on the proposed wind farm site (Figure 1). Two models of the bat call ultrasonic detectors were used in the survey: Anabat detectors (Titley Electronics, Ballina, NSW) and SongMeter SM2BAT + detectors (Wildlife Acoustics Inc., USA). The detectors were programmed to commence operation approximately 30 minutes before dusk, and to cease approximately 30 minutes after dawn. Calls from the units were downloaded and examined by qualified bat specialists for call identification. Greg Richards from Greg Richards & Associates examined the calls collected in the late spring survey and Rob Gration from EcoAerial examined the calls collected in the summer survey. The way in which the calls were analysed differed slightly. In spring, the total number of calls of each species in each night was analysed in addition to reporting the number of nights out of the total nights of recording in which a species was recorded. In summer, a coarser but comparable analysis was undertaken that reported only the number of nights out of the total nights of recording in which a species was recorded. The latter approach was used to compare if there were any significant differences in the activity of species of bats on the proposed wind farm site between spring and summer. The methodology for analysing bat calls was agreed upon with DEPI prior to the analysis. Call identification was based on a key developed by comparing the characteristics of bat calls with reference calls from known species recorded across Australia. Identification is largely based on changes to frequency patterns over time, especially as the characteristic frequency changes. Only those recordings that contained at least two definite and discrete calls were classified as bat calls. For most species, a call sequence of several seconds in duration is required before identification can be made confidently, Page 129

138 However, when calls were difficult to separate between the species, a species complex is identified that could include possible calls from two or more species Timing and location of the bat surveys The bat surveys were conducted over the period from 27 th November to 26 th December 2013 (four consecutive weeks with each site receiving two weeks of surveying) for the late spring survey, and from 28 th January to 11 th February 2014 (two concurrent weeks for each site) for the summer survey. Bat recordings totalled 1512 hours or 126 detector-nights from nine different sites in spring and 1248 hours or 104 detector-nights from eight recording sites in summer. Site 1 in both surveys was dedicated to recording from up the wind monitoring mast on the site, 50 metres above the ground. Site 8 failed to produce results in the summer survey and was excluded from the results of this survey (see below). The location and characteristics of the recording sites are described below and shown in Figure 1. Note that Site 1 involved recording from 50 metres above the ground from the site wind monitoring mast and site 2 was in approximately the same position but at ground level. Site 1: On the wind monitoring mast which was on top of a cleared hill covered with grass, mounted 50 m above ground. Located at proposed turbine 33. Site 2: On the ground close to the wind monitoring mast; no trees close by. Located at proposed turbine 33. Site 3: On top of a hill among remnant eucalypts; mainly small regrowth trees without hollows. Located 50 metres from turbine 27 at a similar height. Site 4: On side of a hill covered with remnant woodland of old and mature eucalypts with hollows. Located 365 and 400 metres from turbine 22 and 23. Turbines 22 and 23 are located 20 and 50 metres upslope of the bat recorder respectively. Site 5: On top of a hill covered with eucalypt trees that did not contain hollows. Located three kilometres from the closest turbine. Site 5 is no longer inside the wind farm boundary, however the results have been included to indicate the bat fauna that occurs in the region. Site 6: On fence running alongside a cleared hill; no trees close to the recording site. Located 190 metres away and 20 metres downslope of turbine 8. Site 7: On small hill, no trees except for very few scattered old eucalypts; box set up on a tree with good hollows. Located 95 and 260 metres away from turbines 49 and 50 respectively, at a similar height. Site 8: Open paddock of mostly native grassland and on edge of large eucalypt woodland with old and mature eucalypts. Located 360 metres away from turbine 38 at a similar height. Site 9: On top of cleared grassy hill with few scattered mature eucalypt trees with hollows. Located one kilometre away from the closest turbine. Site 10: On the side of small hill overlooking open grassland and close to small eucalypt remnant. Located 120 and 250 metres away from turbines 59 and 60 at a similar height. Page 130

139 Recording sites were chosen to represent the range of habitats in the study area, focussing on areas where wind turbines are proposed to be built. The sites could be grouped into three broad habitat types: Hill tops in cleared areas (grazing paddocks) with no or few scattered trees, e.g. sites 2 and 6; Hill tops with surrounding scattered mature eucalypt trees, e.g. sites 7, 8, 9 and 10; Close to or almost within remnant eucalypt woodlands, e.g. sites 3, 4 and 5. For the purpose of analysis, nine sites were considered to have been surveyed during the spring survey (sites 2 to 10), and the results from recording at height on the wind monitoring mast were considered separately (site 1). During the spring survey, eight sites (2-7 and 9-10) were considered for analysis due to the limitations outlined below Limitations During the summer survey, recordings from site 8 contained a lot of extraneous noise in the form of insects, wind or leaves rustling. Bat detectors record the loudest noise thus any bat calls can be hidden by extraneous noise. Whilst there were bats present, the calls were of poor quality and did not contain enough pulses to distinguish bat species. Site 8 was therefore excluded from further analysis in the summer survey. The identification of echolocation calls from bats in south-eastern Australia is facilitated by the fact that many calls are species-specific. However, a limitation of the method is that not all species can be consistently or reliably identified. There is a large overlap in the call characteristics of some species and many calls are attributable only to species complexes and not to single species. A further limitation in the use of this technique is that it is not possible to census bats accurately. That is, the bat recorder unit may record 10 calls of a particular species but it is not known if this represents 10 individuals or one individual flying past 10 times. Therefore, it is not possible to determine utilisation rates as it is for birds. Page 131

140 5 ") 6 ") 3 ") 4 ") 1, 2 ") ( 8 ") 7 ") 10 ") 9 ") Legend Bulgana Wind Farm Boundary Turbines ") Recording sites ( Wind monitoring mast Kilometers Figure 35: Bulgana wind farm bat survey points Project: Bulgana Wind Farm Client: Bulgana Wind Farm Pty Ltd Project No.: Date: 4/12/2014 Created By: M. King / A. Stewart

141 9.3. Results Late spring survey 2013 Species composition Eleven species of bats and one species complex were recorded during the late spring 2013 survey from ten recording sites, including recording at 50 metres above the ground. The recorded species are listed in Table 1, including their conservation significance and sites at which they were recorded. Eleven species were identified at the wind farm site; nine were common and secured species and one was uncommon but secured and widespread in Victoria (Table 1). One species, the Bentwing Bat is considered a threatened species (critically endangered) on the EPBC Act 1999 and the Advisory List of Threatened Vertebrates in Victoria (2013). It is also listed on the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act As a precautionary approach the Bentwing Bat was identified to the generic level, but based on the geographic location of the record; it is most likely to be the Southern Bentwing Bat Miniopterus schreibersii bassanii. Calls that could not be attributed with any certainty to the Southern Bentwing Bat and could not be distinguishable from the Forest Bats (three species) were lumped together as belonging to a species complex (Bentwing Bat/Forest Bat Miniopterus/Vespadelus). These calls could be any of the four species. The common species of bats were recorded from various sections of the wind farm and were not particularly restricted to certain habitats within the wind farm site although there was a tendency for the bats to be more concentrated in sites with more vegetation cover, particularly sites close to mature eucalypts in remnant woodlands (more details below). The threatened species, on the other hand, was recorded from one site (site 10) and the uncommon species were recorded from only few sites. Long-eared bats are difficult to distinguish to species level, and hence are grouped under their generic name. The species that are likely to occur at the site are Nyctophilus geoffroyi and N. gouldi, both of which are common and secure. Some of the Freetail Bats (such as Mormopterus spp. 4) are currently under taxonomic revision and a specific name is not yet available. Table 18: Bat species recorded at the Bulgana Wind Farm during late spring 2013 Common name Scientific name Sites recorded Conservation status Gould's Wattled Bat Chocolate Wattled Bat Eastern Freetail Bat Chalinolobus gouldii Chalinolobus morio Mormopterus ridei 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Common, secured Common, secured Common, secured Southern Freetail Bat Mormopterus spp. 4 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Common, secured Bentwing Bat* Miniopterus 10 Nationally Threatened Page 133

142 Common name Scientific name Sites recorded Conservation status Bentwing Bat/Forest Bat Miniopterus/Vespadelus 2, 3, 9, 10 Spp complex Long-eared Bat Nyctophilus sp. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 Common, secured White-striped Freetail Bat Austronomus australis 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 Common, secured Broad-nosed Bat Scotorepens spp. 2, 3, 5, Uncommon, secured Large Forest Bat Vespadelus darlingtoni 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Common, secured Southern Forest Bat Vespadelus regulus 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Common, secured Little Forest Bat Vespadelus vulturnus 4, 5, 8, 9, 10 Common, secured * The species is most likely the Southern Bentwing Bat Miniopterus schreibersii bassani. Bat activity Bat activity in spring at the proposed Bulgana Wind Farm compares well with other wind farms in similar settings (BL&A, unpubl. data), with the main activity originating from common and widespread species. Bat activity during the 126 recorder-nights varied between species. Details of the number of bat calls from each night of recording in spring 2013 are given in Appendix 1. A summary of relative activity of the 11 bat species expressed as the frequency (number of nights out of the total nights of recording) with which bats were recorded and the total number of calls and average calls per night for each species from the nine sites are shown in Table 18 and 19; respectively. The most frequently recorded bat species (ie. number of nights recorded/ total recording nights) were Eastern Freetail Bat (73.0%), Large Forest Bat (69.8%) and Southern Freetail Bat (67.5%) (Table 18). The next most frequently recorded bats were the Longeared Bat (51.6%), Chocolate Wattled Bat (50.0%) and Gould s Wattled Bat (44.4%). Remaining bat species were recorded on 1.6 to 43.7% of nights (Table 2). Confirmed records of the threatened Southern Bentwing Bat was rare and was recorded on two nights out of the total of 126 nights of recordings (1.6%) and from one site only (site 10). Some calls could not be attributed to the Southern Bentwing Bat with certainty and may be attributable to forest bats (Vespadalus spp.). Such calls are said to belong to the Bentwing Bat/Forest Bat complex. The frequency of appearance of the Bentwing Bat/Forest Bat complex was comparatively low and appeared in 9.5% of all recorded nights and from only four out of the nine recording sites. Another more detailed method of looking at relative bat activity is to record the number of bat calls at each of the recording sites (Table 3). The Large Forest Bat, Southern Freetail Bat and the Eastern Freetail Bat were the most active species on the proposed wind farm site. Their calls constituted 29.7, 24.9 and 21.0 percent respectively of all bat calls; overall, these three bats constituted 75% of all recorded bat calls during the 126 hours of spring recording. The remaining species were less active and their total calls varied between 0.01 percent of all recorded calls for the Bentwing Bat to 6.3 percent for the Chocolate Wattle Bat. Page 134

143 The distribution of bat activity among the nine recording sites also varied depending on the site characteristics and nature of surrounding habitats (see section below for more details). Bats were most active at site 10 (92 calls per night), followed by site 4 (47.1 calls per night) and site 3 (45.9 calls per night). The threatened Bentwing Bat was rare with only four calls recorded from one site (site 10) or an average of 0.3 calls per night over the two weeks of recording. In addition to the positively identified Bentwing Bat calls, 24 calls of the Bentwing Bat/Forest Bat complex were also recorded from four sites over the four weeks of recording. Even allowing for these, the number of Bentwing Bat calls recorded remains very low compared with the other bats utilising the wind farm site, indicating that the species is both restricted in occurrence on the site and at low levels of activity. The above two methods of evaluating relative activity yielded similar species rankings in terms of activity with very few differences (Tables 18 and 19). The top three dominant species were the same in both methods except for some difference in the order of abundance. Bats flying at height Three species of bats were recorded flying in spring 50 metres above ground from the Anabat that recorded from the wind monitoring mast. These included White-striped Freetail Bat, Eastern Freetail Bat and Southern Freetail Bat. The number of calls recorded, however, was very low; four calls from the first species, and one call each from the second and third species. These results indicated that bat activity at rotor swept area height at this site was very low. Bat activity and habitats Bat activity in spring varied between the nine recording sites (Appendix 1). The large variation in bat activity was most probably related to the habitat at the recording site, including the type of vegetation cover and the availability of sheltering and roosting sites close to each of the recording sites. The ten recording sites represented the three main habitat types on the wind farm site, namely: Habitat 1: Hill tops in cleared areas (grazing paddocks) with no or little scattered trees, e.g. sites 2 and 6; Habitat 2: Close to or almost within eucalypt remnant woodlands, e.g. sites 3, 4 and 5. Habitat 3: Hill tops with surrounding scattered mature eucalypt trees, e.g. sites 7, 8, 9 and 10; Bat activity from the four weeks of spring recording was then assigned to each of these categories and the results summarised in Figure 2. It is evident from this that bat activity at the sites close to or on the edge of eucalypt remnants was more than double the activity over cleared paddocks that lacked trees. The threatened Bentwing Bat was found at one site that supported areas of trees but not in areas of open, treeless paddocks where most of the wind turbines are proposed to be built. Page 135

144 Page 136 Table 19: Summary of the frequency with which bats were recorded at each of the nine recording sites Note: This analysis does not include site 1, which was the bat recorder at 50 metre height on the wind mast. Species 2 (14) 3 (14) 4 (14) Site (Number of nights of survey) * 5 (14) 6 (14) Gould's Wattled Bat Chocolate Wattled Bat Eastern Freetail Bat Southern Freetail Bat Bentwing Bat Long-eared Bat White-striped Freetail Bat Broad-nosed Bat Large Forest Bat Southern Forest Bat Little Forest Bat Species complexes Bentwing Bat/Forest Bat * Number of nights of recording totalled 126 nights (bat nights). 7 (14) 8 (14) 9 (14) 10 (14) Total Freq. % Freq. % Imp.

145 Chocolate Wattle Bat Eastern Freetail Bat Southern Freetail Bat Bentwing Bat Long-eared Bat White-striped Freetail Bat Broad-nosed Bat Large Forest Bat Southern Forest Bat Little Forest Bat Bentwing Bat/Forest Bat All species of bats Page 137 Table 20: Summary of the number and average call per nights of bats recorded during 14 nights from nine sites Note: This analysis does not include site 1, which was the bat recorder at 50 metre height on the wind mast. Number of calls and average number of calls per night recorded over 14 nights Species of bats site 2 site 3 site 4 site 5 site 6 site 7 site 8 site 9 site 10 All sites Gould's Wattle Bat Species complexes

146 Figure 36: Comparison of average number of bat calls from three habitat types. Average number of calls per night Habitat 1 Habitat 2 Habitat 3 Habitat types Summer survey 2014 Species composition Nine species of bats and three species complexes were recorded during the summer 2014 survey from the same ten recording sites used during the spring 2013 survey (including recording at 50 metres above ground). No bats were recorded from site 8 despite the SongMeter being in working condition. The recorded species are listed in Table 4, including their conservation significance and the sites at which they were recorded. Of the nine species identified at the wind farm site during summer, seven were widespread, common and secure. One species was uncommon but widespread in Victoria and one was a nationally threatened bat species (Table 3). The Bentwing Bat calls were identified as belonging to the Southern Bentwing Bat Miniopterus schreibersii bassanii. In addition to the above nine species, three species complexes were identified as the calls were not clear enough to be attributed to a single species; species included in these complexes were fully identified during the spring survey. One species that was recorded in spring (Broad-nosed Bat) was not recorded in summer and another species which was recorded in summer was not recorded in spring (Eastern Falsistrelle). Both of these species are uncommon but widespread. As was the case in spring, the common species of bats were recorded from many parts of the wind farm and were not restricted to particular habitats. There was a tendency for bat activity to be greater in sites with more vegetation cover, particularly sites close to mature eucalypts in remnant woodlands. The Southern Bentwing Bat, on the other hand, Page 138

147 was recorded from one site (site 10 in both spring and summer) and the uncommon species from only a few sites (Table 3). Table 21: Bat species recorded at the Bulgana Wind Farm during summer 2014 survey Common name Scientific name Sites of Conservation records status Gould's Wattle Bat Chalinolobus gouldii 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 Common, secured Chocolate Wattle Bat Chalinolobus morio 3, 5, 7, 9, 10 Common, secured Southern Freetail Bat Mormopterus spp. 4 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10 Common, secured Long-eared Bat Nyctophilus sp. 2, 10 Common, secured White-striped Freetail Bat Tadarida australis 1, 2, 3, 9, 10 Common, secured Large Forest Bat Vespadelus darlingtoni 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 Common, secured Little Forest Bat Vespadelus vulturnus 2, 3, 4, 7, 9, 10 Common, secured Eastern Falsistrellus Falsistrellus tasmaniensis 4 Uncommon, secured Southern Bentwing Bat Miniopterus schreibersii Nationally 10 bassanii Threatened Species Complexes Southern/Eastern Freetail Bat Mormopterus spp. 4/spp.2 6 Forest Bats Gould s Wattle Bat / Freetail Bat V. Darlingtoni/regulus/ vulturnus 3, 4, 5, 7, 9 10 C. Gouldii/Mormopterus spp. 2, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 Bat activity Bat activity during the summer 2014 survey compared well with that during the spring 2013 survey, with the main activity originating from common and widespread species. One method was used for reporting the relative activity of bats during the summer survey. The frequency (number of nights out of the total nights of recording) with which bats were recorded was used to characterise bat activity in summer. Details of the frequency of bat calls from each night of recording are given in Appendix 2. A summary of relative activity of all bat species recorded and the three speciescomplexes expressed as frequency of occurrence of bats across all nights of recording are shown in Table 5. Southern Freetail Bat, Gould s Wattle Bat and Large Forest Bat were the most frequently recorded bat species, being recorded on 51.0, 39.4, and 34.6 percent respectively of bat recording nights (total recording nights = 104) on which the species was recorded, respectively. The next most frequently recorded bats were the Little Forest Bat (28.8%) and Chocolate Wattle Bat (23.1%). Remaining bat species were recorded on 1.0 to 18.3% of nights (Table 5). Among the species complexes; both of the Gould s Wattle/Freetail bats and Freetail bats spp. Complex (Mormopterus spp. 2 and spp. 4) were frequent appearing on almost all nights and across most sites. Page 139

148 As was the case in spring survey, the threatened Southern Bentwing Bat was rare with 18 calls recorded from one site (site 10) or an average of 1.3 calls per night over the 14 nights of recording (Appendix 2). During the spring survey, some of the calls were considered to be potentially bentwing bat and the remaining calls were attributed to a species complex with Freetail bats (Table 2). Notwithstanding the differences in identification, the overall picture of the use of the wind farm site between spring and summer surveys was similar. Threatened bats were rare and confined to one site. The daily activity of each of the bat species during the 14 nights of recording varied widely (Appendix 2), without any obvious trends. The activity is probably the product of the prevailing weather conditions on the night of recording. Bats are known to avoid flying on highly moonlit nights, as well as rainy or windy times (G. Richards, unpubl. data). Bat activity differed between the eight recording sites (site 1 and 8 were excluded from the analysis for reasons explained in the methods section) (Appendix 2). The large variation in bat activity is most probably related to the habitat characteristics of the recording sites, including the type of vegetation cover and availability of sheltering and roosting sites such as tree hollows. As was the case in spring survey, bats were recorded more frequently in sites close to treed vegetation compared with those in more open, less treed habitats. Bats flying at height Four species of bats were recorded in summer flying at 50 metres above ground by the Anabat that recorded from the wind monitoring mast; these included: White-striped Freetail, Southern Freetail, Large Forest and Gould s Wattle Bats. The last two species were only recorded flying at height in summer. The frequency with which these bats flew at height was comparatively low, ranging from two to four nights out of the total 14 nights of recording. Page 140

149 * Number of nights of recording was either 13 or 14 nights, except for site 7 where recording was restricted to nine nights; probably due to battery failure. This resulted in total of 104 recording nights (bat nights). Site 8 is not included in this analysis as no calls were recorded. Page 141 Table 22: Summary of the number of nights each bat species was recorded at sites 2-7 and Species 2 (14) 3 (14) Site (Number of nights of survey) * Freq. Total (13) (13) (14) (9) (13) (14) White-striped Freetail Bat Southern Freetail Bat Gould's Wattled Bat Chocolate Wattled Bat Eastern Falsistrellus Southern Bent-wing Bat Large Forest Bat Little Forest Bat Long-eared Bat Species complexes Freetail Bat spp Gould s Wattled Bat / Mormopterus sp Forest Bat sp % Freq. % Imp.

150 9.4. Discussion Wind farm impacts on bats Limited data are available in Australia on wind farm impacts on bats. Bat fatality studies in North America and Europe involve mainly migratory bats (Johnson et al. 2003; Kunz et al. 2007a; Barclay et al. 2007; Hotker et al. 2006), and Australia has few long-distance migratory insectivorous bat species. In Germany, about 93% of all bat fatalities were found in the time between dispersal of breeding colonies and the end of the autumn migration (Durr and Bach 2004). In Australia, bats display some migratory behaviour but migrations are local and considered not to cover significant distances. Therefore, fatality rates in Australia are expected to be much lower than those recorded in Northern America and Europe. Several hypotheses have been suggested in an attempt to determine how and why bats are killed by wind turbines (Durr and Bach 2004; Kunz 2004, OMNR 2006). These include: Sensory failure: Bats are unable to visually or acoustically detect moving turbine blades and migrating bats do not echolocate and thus are less able to avoid collision. Roost attraction: Bats may mistake turbines for a large, old roosting tree. Acoustic attraction: Bats are attracted to sounds generated by turbines. Insect concentration: Bats are attracted to lit areas such as wind farms because of higher insect activity. Food resources: Wind farms tend to be built in areas where insects are concentrated (e.g., hilltops and ridges), thus in prime foraging habitat for bats. Open spaces around turbines may also be favourable foraging habitats. Reduced manouverability: Increased body mass of pre-hibernation bats makes them less manoeuvrable in flight and more likely to collide with turbines. Decompression: Turbine turbulence creates decompression zones that kill bats that enter into them. Most bat fatality is caused by direct collision with wind turbines. Bats approach rotating blades and arere either trapped in blade-tip vortices, or struck directly by blades. Bats are usually killed by rotating turbines and usually at low wind speed (Arnett et al. 2005; Barclay et al. 2006; Horn et al. 2008). Changes to the cut-off speed of wind turbines has been shown to reduce bat fatality by % with little loss of power generated (Arnett et al. 2009). In addition to fatalities caused directly by turbines, bats have been reported as dying due to a condition known as barotrauma. This condition is caused by air pressure changes around turbine blades, which can result in tissue and lung damage (Baerwald et al. 2008).Barotrauma has been proposed to be a major cause of wind farm deaths, however a recent study of bat deaths at a central Illinois wind farm, only 6% of bat deaths could be attributed to barotraumas (Rollins et al. 2011). In Australia, bat fatality studies are very limited and mostly embedded in private consultant reports, usually unavailable in the public domain. The only mortality rate in the public domain in Australia is that from Woolnorth Wind Farm of 1.86 bats per turbine per year, published by Hydro-Tasmania. However, based on a few unpublished works in Page 142

151 Australia (five wind farms, BL&A, unpublished data), bat mortality ranged between 0.00 to 2.64 bats per turbine per year, a rate comparable to that recorded for most North American and European Wind farms. On mainland Australia, the species most regularly recorded as colliding with turbines is the higher-flying White-striped Freetail Bat, followed by Gould s Wattled Bat and Chocolate Wattled Bat (BL&A unpublished data) Potential impacts to Southern Bentwing Bat The Southern Bent-wing Bat occurs mostly across western and south-western Victoria, with records at Heywood, Portland, Hamilton, Warrnambool and Pomborneit (Cardinal & Christidis 2000). Its local distribution is largely determined by the availability of caves, mine shafts or tunnels suitable as roosting sites. This bat roosts in caves during the day, dispersing over a range of habitats up to 40 kilometres from roosting sites each night. Its primary feeding areas tend to be associated with woodlands near major drainage systems where insects congregate. In Victoria, it usually forages over forested areas but also occurs widely in lower densities on the sparsely-treed Volcanic Plain (Menkhorst 1995). In spring and summer, this species congregates in maternity caves where the females give birth and raise their young. Migration to the maternity caves commences in late August and is usually complete by October. Two maternity caves are known for the Southern Bentwing Bat; one in Warrnambool and the other at Naracoote, both over 130 kilometres from the wind far. The population size using the Starlight Cave maternity site in Warrnambool was estimated at 10,000 to 15,000 in 2004 (Grant and Reardon 2004). The species is likely to be dependent upon these two maternity caves. In autumn and winter, after the young are weaned, these bats disperse over a large region of southeastern South Australia and south-western Victoria. The movement patterns of Southern Bent-wing Bat include flights to a limited number of maternity caves, dispersal to a larger number of overwintering caves and foraging movements (Kerr & Bonifacio 2009). Distances travelled from roosting caves are often less than several kilometres and are dependent upon reproductive condition. If roost sites are located in sub-optimal foraging habitat, the distances travelled by foraging bats may increase by up to 30 kilometres (SPRAT 2014). In woodland or areas of scattered trees, flights may be just above the canopy to many times the height of the canopy, compared with flights in open areas that have been recorded at six metres above the ground (Churchill 2008). Bat recording from other proposed wind farms in south western Victoria indicates that the proposed Bulgana Wind Farm has a very low level of Southern Bent-wing Bat activity (BL&A unpublished. data). During spring 2013, confirmed records of the threatened Southern Bentwing Bat were rare. The species was recorded over two nights out of the total of 126 nights of recordings (1.6%). Only four calls were recorded from one site (site 10) or an average of 0.3 calls per night over the two weeks of recording. In comparison to the percentage calls of other species, the most active species (Large Forest Bat, Southern Freetail Bat and the Eastern Freetail Bat) made up 21 30% of all calls, while the Bentwing Bat comprised 0.01% of all recorded calls. Confirmed calls of the Bentwing Bat during summer were slightly higher than during spring but still rare, with 18 calls recorded from site 10 or an average of 1.3 calls per night over the 14 nights of recording. The overall picture of use of the wind farm site Page 143

152 between spring and summer surveys was similar, with the Bentwing Bat being restricted in occurrence to one site and displaying low levels of activity. It is possible the species is roosting in overwintering caves in the Grampians, or utilising old mine shafts in the Stawell and Ararat regions. Potential impacts to Bentwing Bat from the construction and operation of the wind farm are discussed below in relation to the significant impact criteria taken from Department of the Environment (2013). An action is likely to have a significant impact on a critically endangered or endangered species if there is a real chance or possibility that it will: Lead to a long-term decrease in the size of a population of a species The guidelines state that an important population is a population that is necessary for a species long-term survival and recovery. This may include populations identified as such in recovery plans, and/or that are: o Key source populations either for breeding or dispersal o Populations that are necessary for maintaining genetic diversity, and/or o Populations that are near the limit of the species range. It is unlikely that the population of Bentwing Bat at Bulgana Wind Farm represents an important population of Bentwing Bat. There are five historical records within 100 km of the wind farm; the date and location of the record from the wind farm of each record is detailed below: 1977: 67 km south west 1987: 95 km south east 2002 & 2011: 100 km east 1962: 100 km south east The low number of records at Bulgana Wind Farm suggests that numbers of the Bentwing Bat utilising the area is very low and the records could potentially represent one or two individuals. Given the low number of records, the individuals present are unlikely to constitute an important population. In addition, given the distance of Bentwing Bat on the wind farm from any other population, any individuals are not considered likely to contribute to the genetic diversity of Bentwing Bat. Reduce the area of occupancy of the species The development and operation of the wind farm is not expected to reduce the area of occupancy of the species. Fragment an existing population into two or more populations Given the small number records of Bentwing Bats recorded on the wind farm, it is possible that they represent one or two individuals. The development and operation of the wind farm is highly unlikely to fragment the population on Bulgana Wind Farm. Adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of a species The Bentwing Bat is likely to be dependent for survival on the two known maternity caves located at Warrnambool and Naracoote, which are 130 and 190 kilometres from the proposed wind farm respectively. The development of the wind farm at Bulgana will not impact on habitat critical to the survival of the Bentwing Bat. Disrupt the breeding cycle of a population Page 144

153 The construction and operation of the wind farm would not disrupt the breeding cycle of the local population. Modify, destroy, remove or isolate or decrease the availability or quality of habitat to the extent that the species is likely to decline The habitat for Southern Bentwing Bat is not considered to be optimal, considering the lack of caves for roosting and the degraded nature of available water sources around which the bat would be more likely to forage. The most suitable habitat on the wind farm for Bentwing Bat includes woodland areas and scattered trees. Vegetation surrounding site 10, where the species was recorded, supports scattered trees. Bulgana Wind Farm Pty Ltd have taken steps to avoid and minimise removal of woodland areas where possible (described in section 10.2), and the number of scattered trees to be removed surrounding site 10 is low. Result in invasive species that are harmful to a vulnerable species becoming established in the vulnerable species habitat An invasive species harmful to Bentwing Bat will not become established as a result of the development of the wind farm. Introduce disease that may cause the species to decline, or The development of the wind farm is highly unlikely to result in the introduction of disease that is harmful to Bentwing Bat. Interfere substantially with the recovery of the species. The development of the wind farm will not interfere with the recovery of the Bentwing Bat population. Based on the information detailed above, it is highly unlikely that the construction and operation of Bulgana Wind Farm will significantly impact Bentwing Bat Conclusions The conclusions from the bat utilisation surveys are presented below. Bat species recorded utilizing the wind farm site during both the spring and summer surveys were common, widespread and secure species; the majority of such species are common in treed farmland habitats in south-eastern Australia. In total, five species were recorded flying at rotor swept area from the Anabat that recorded from the wind monitoring mast, including White-striped Freetail, Eastern Freetail, Southern Freetail, Large Forest and Gould s Wattle Bats. These species are at greater risk of interacting with operating wind turbines, however none of them are listed as threatened and impacts to the populations of each species are unlikely to be significant. One nationally threatened species, Southern Bentwing Bat, was recorded using the wind farm site; the species was restricted in both seasons to one recording site (site 10) and was recorded at comparatively low activity levels (i.e. numbers of calls). There are five historical records of the species within 100 kilometres of the wind farm, the closest being 67 kilometres south west of the wind farm from The two maternity caves upon which Southern Bentwing Bat are likely to be dependent, are located at Warrnambool and Naracoorte, 130 and 190 kilometres from the wind farm respectively. Habitat for the species on the wind farm is considered to be low Page 145

154 quality, given the lack of suitable caves for roosting and the degraded nature of water sources around which the species would preferentially feed. The findings suggest that the species is neither widespread nor abundant on the proposed wind farm site. Impacts to the species from the construction and operation of the wind farm are unlikely to be significant based on consideration of the significant impact criteria. However, due to the presence of the species, the project should be referred under the EPBC Act as not a controlled action. Page 146

155 10. IMPACTS AND REGULATORY IMPLICATIONS Proposed development The proposed development will involve the construction of up to 63 wind turbines and associated infrastructure, including transmission cabling, construction/maintenance access roads/tracks, construction equipment lay down areas, substations, facilities building, anemometer towers and switch yards. This infrastructure will be largely situated on freehold land within the study area, although a small proportion will be situated within public road reserves Design response to mitigate impacts on flora and fauna Minimising impacts on flora, fauna and ecological communities has been a priority throughout the design phase of Bulgana Wind Farm. In order to comply with the key strategies, set out in the Guidelines, for ensuring no net loss in the contribution made by native vegetation to Victoria s biodiversity, through avoidance, minimisation and offsetting, the following design modifications have been made in the early design stages: Recommendations provided in the initial overview assessment were adopted in the early design phase of the project, and most areas of high ecological restraint were avoided; and Where possible, large and very large old trees in habitat zones and scattered trees were avoided. Once thorough assessments on fauna habit, species utilisation and impact risk had been carried out, further design changes were made in response. Of particular concern was the presence of Barking Owl (a listed threatened species) in the study area. Also of concern was the utilisation of habitat in the study area by Wedge Tailed Eagles, which, while not listed threatened species, are considered species of concern due to their susceptibility to wind turbine collision. To mitigate impacts on Barking Owl, three turbines were withdrawn from the layout (formally turbines 14, 18 and 19), as they were considered to pose a significant risk to Barking Owl through turbine collision. In Figure 37 and Figure 38, the original design layout and the current layout are provided to demonstrate how the habitat was avoided or removal was minimised in habitat zones AA and L. For a full account of the risk analysis for Barking Owl, see the BL&A targeted Barking Owl assessment (BL&A 2014). The withdrawal of turbines which were 18 and 19 also mitigates impacts on other threatened bird species, namely Brown Treecreeper, Hooded Robin and Diamond Firetail, which were found to utilise the habitat in which these turbines were to be placed - habitat zones AA and L. The construction of these turbines would have resulted in the removal of a considerable area of their habitat in that location. The turbine formally designated as 33 was relocated approximately 200 metres from its original location to mitigate impacts on Wedge Tailed Eagles, as two of their nests are located in large scattered trees, which are 190 and 300 metres respectively from the original turbine location. This design change means that now both of the nests will be at least 300 metres from the relocated turbine. This design modification is presented in Figure 37 and Figure 40. Most of the significant native vegetation was avoided during the initial design stages of the wind farm, which was largely restricted to road reserves. However, a number of areas Page 147

156 of significant native vegetation which were going to be significantly impacted under the earlier design iterations have now been avoided, or removal has been significantly reduced. Removal from Habitat Zone AP (in the gazetted Metcalf Road reserve) and habitat zones AT, BS and BT (in the Bulgana Road reserve) have been significantly reduced under the current proposed layout. This is presented in Figure 37 and Figure 39. Vegetation removal from habitat zones L, U, Q, AA and CI has also been significantly reduced (see Figure 37 and Figure 38). Further recommendations to mitigate impacts on flora and fauna are presented in Section Page 148

157 # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # Figure 38 # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # Figure # 40 # # Figure 39 # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # ### # # # # Legend Bulgana Wind Farm Boundary Revised development layout Kilometers Figure 37: Habitat avoidance and minimisation - overview Revised turbines Project: Bulgana Wind Farm # Original development layout (Oct 2013) Original turbines (Oct 2013) Client: Bulgana Wind Farm Pty Ltd Project No.: Date: 4/12/2014 Created By: M. Ghasemi / A. Stewart

158 CI # L # O CH CL M # N # # AA Z # X W V Y CJ # U Q Q P # AF Legend Bulgana Wind Farm Boundary Revised development layout Revised turbines Original development layout (Oct 2013) # Original turbines (Oct 2013) Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community S T Metres Native Vegetation Scattered Trees #* Wedge-tailed Eagle nest trees Alluvial Terraces Herb-rich Woodland (EVC 67) Very Large Figure 38: Habitat avoidance and minimisation - Detailed Creekline Grassy Woodland (EVC 68) Grassy Woodland (EVC 175) Heathy Dry Forest (EVC 20) Heathy Woodland (EVC 48) Low-rises Grassy woodland (EVC 175_61) Granitic Grassy woodland (EVC 175_62) Large Medium Small R Project: Bulgana Wind Farm Client: Bulgana Wind Farm Pty Ltd Project No.: Date: 4/12/2014 Created By: M. Ghasemi / A. Stewart

159 BT AL AR AR AK AS AT DI DJ AO AN AM BS BS DE DD DB DC AP CP # # # # # DG DF # # # Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Legend Bulgana Wind Farm Boundary Revised development layout Native Vegetation Scattered Trees Alluvial Terraces Herb-rich Woodland (EVC 67) Very Large #* Wedge-tailed Eagle nest trees Metres Figure 39: Habitat avoidance and minimisation - Detailed # Revised turbines Original development layout (Oct 2013) Original turbines (Oct 2013) Creekline Grassy Woodland (EVC 68) Grassy Woodland (EVC 175) Heathy Dry Forest (EVC 20) Heathy Woodland (EVC 48) Large Medium Small Project: Bulgana Wind Farm Client: Bulgana Wind Farm Pty Ltd Project No.: Date: 4/12/2014 Created By: M. Ghasemi / A. Stewart Low-rises Grassy woodland (EVC 175_61) Granitic Grassy woodland (EVC 175_62)

160 Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community # AQ AQ3 AQ2 # # # # # #* #* # Legend Bulgana Wind Farm Boundary Revised development layout Native Vegetation Scattered Trees Alluvial Terraces Herb-rich Woodland (EVC 67) Very Large #* Wedge-tailed Eagle nest trees Metres Figure 40: Habitat avoidance and minimisation - Detailed # Revised turbines Original development layout (Oct 2013) Original turbines (Oct 2013) Creekline Grassy Woodland (EVC 68) Grassy Woodland (EVC 175) Heathy Dry Forest (EVC 20) Heathy Woodland (EVC 48) Large Medium Small Project: Bulgana Wind Farm Client: Bulgana Wind Farm Pty Ltd Project No.: Date: 4/12/2014 Created By: M. Ghasemi / A. Stewart Low-rises Grassy woodland (EVC 175_61) Granitic Grassy woodland (EVC 175_62)

161 10.3. Residual impacts of proposed development under state provisions Residual impacts have been identified for the proposed development following implementation of the above mitigation measures in the design process. These impacts on ecological values are outlined below and shown in Figures Risk based assessment pathway Location Risk The entire area of proposed native vegetation removal was mapped as Location Risk A. Extent Risk The current development footprint will result in the loss of hectares of native vegetation. This is defined as the extent of the native vegetation to be removed and comprised: The loss of hectares of native vegetation from remnant patches; and The loss of 100 scattered trees. Scattered tree losses have been converted to an hectare extent of loss by DEPI Transitional Support (See Appendix 7 and Appendix 8) by multiplying the number of trees by a standard area of hectares; equating to an area loss of hectares. It is understood that no native vegetation has been approved for removal on the property within the last five years. Risk based pathway Based on the details above and the criteria outlined in Section 4.1.2, the proposal will be assessed under the moderate risk assessment pathway, and a general offset applies to any approved native vegetation removal Strategic biodiversity score The strategic biodiversity score of each area of native vegetation loss has been provided by DEPI Transitional Support (See Appendix 7 and Appendix 8) Important habitat The current development footprint will not result in the removal of important habitat for any Victorian rare and threatened species above the specific offset threshold (Appendix 7 and Appendix 8) Losses in Biodiversity Equivalence Units (BEUs) The development proposal will result in the loss of general biodiversity equivalence units (BEUs), which is calculated by multiplying proposed losses from remnant patches and scattered trees in habitat hectares by the strategic biodiversity score, the latter generated by NVIM (See Appendix 7 and Appendix 8). Page 153

162 10.4. Implications for the proposed development Planning and Environment Act 1987 Local Provisions Planning Policy Frameworks LPPF Environment, in the North Grampians Planning Scheme, which aims to protect water quality and native flora and fauna, and to mitigate salinity, soil erosion, flooding and wildfire in the shire. In the study area, implementation of the objectives and strategies outlined in this LPPF will be facilitated by the application of Environmental Significance Overlay Schedule 1 (ESO1), discussed below. Overlays Environmental Significance Overlay Schedule 1 (ESO1) - Significant ridge environs, which aims to protect significant ridges from development which may accentuate erosion and to protect the remnant native vegetation and to encourage the re-establishment of native communities in degraded areas. For any proposed infrastructure in those parts of the study area which are subject to this ESO (as presented in Figure 2), the proponent will be required to demonstrate that such works will not contravene the intention of this ESO. Therefore, it is recommended that the highest priority for minimising the accentuation of ridge erosion be given to avoiding the removal of native vegetation in such areas. Further advice should also be sought from the North Grampians Shire on best practice techniques for mitigating the accentuation of ridge erosion during construction works State Provisions A planning permit under Clause of the North Grampians Planning Scheme would be required for the removal of any native vegetation. The current proposal would trigger a referral to DEPI as it meets the criteria specified in Section Offset requirements Offsets required to compensate for the proposed removal of native vegetation from the study area have been determined by DEPI Transitional Support and are provided in Appendix 7 and Appendix 8. General offsets are calculated by multiplying the loss in general BEUs by a risk factor of 1.5. The required offset is general biodiversity equivalence units, which must be located within the Wimmera Catchment Management Authority area or the North Grampians local government area and must have a minimum strategic biodiversity score of No offsets can occur within 150 metres of any dwellings and associated buildings on the subject land or adjoining properties covered by a BMO or within 50 metres of these structures on all other land occurring within Bushfire Prone Areas. Under the Guidelines all offsets must be secured prior to the removal of native vegetation. Offsets may be available on-site given the area of retained native vegetation in the study area, and the likelihood that that vegetation would meet the minimum strategic Page 154

163 biodiversity score requirement. Otherwise, offsets should be identified through a third party offset provider EPBC Act Based on the relevant guidelines, the proposed development is unlikely to result in a significant impact on EPBC Act listed flora and fauna values or ecological communities. Matters of National Environmental Significance are considered below. Flora species Flora species listed under the EPBC Act that have the potential to occur include: Brilliant Sun-orchid (vulnerable) Clover Glycine (vulnerable) Pale Leek-orchid (syn. Pink-lip Leek-orchid) (vulnerable) Pomonal Leek-orchid (endangered) Purple Eyebright (endangered) Spiral Sun-orchid (vulnerable) Trailing Hop-bush (vulnerable). Targeted surveys for the above species have determined that they are unlikely to occur in the impact zones of the study area, therefore no significant impacts are considered likely. Fauna species Fauna species listed under the EPBC Act that were recorded or have the potential to occur include: Swift Parrot (endangered) Southern Bentwing Bat (critically endangered) Rainbow Bee-eater (migratory) White-throated Needletail (migratory) A Swift Parrot targeted survey and habitat suitability assessment was carried out (see Section 7). The species was not recorded during the survey, however it may occasionally utilise the large block of remnant vegetation to the north of the study area in Joel Joel Nature Conservation Reserve. The nearest turbine is 1.5 kilometres away from this area. Given the turbines are located on top of ridges and away from areas of suitable habitat that are likely to attract the Swift Parrot, operation of the wind farm is unlikely to have a significant impact on the species. Southern Bentwing Bat, was recorded using the wind farm site; the species was restricted in both seasons to one recording site (site 10) and was recorded at comparatively low activity levels (i.e. numbers of calls). There are five historical records of the species from within 100 kilometres of the wind farm, the closest being 67 kilometres south west of the wind farm from The two maternity caves upon which Southern Bentwing Bats are likely to be dependent, are located at Warrnambool and Naracoote, 130 and 190 kilometres from the wind farm respectively. Habitat for the species on the wind farm is considered to be low quality, given the lack of suitable caves Page 155

164 for roosting and the degraded nature of water sources around which the species would preferentially feed. The findings suggest that the species is neither widespread nor abundant on the proposed wind farm site. Significant impacts to the species from the construction and operation of the wind farm are unlikely to be significant, based on consideration of the significant impact criteria (Section 9.4.1). The Rainbow Bee-eater is likely to occur in the study area in woodlands areas or cleared land with scattered trees, from October to March. It was recorded during the field assessment at the northern end of the study area. There is ample nesting habitat in the form of eroded creek banks. Bee-eaters are aerial foragers and may be susceptible to occasional turbine casualties, but any impact on their overall population is likely to be minimal. The White-throated Needletail is highly nomadic when in Australia and move in flocks ahead of weather fronts, often over heavily forested areas. This species is likely to occur in the study area occasionally due to the presence of suitable habitat. The removal of the small area of habitat during construction is unlikely to have a measurable impact on population numbers, estimated to be at individuals. This species may be affected to a small degree by wind farm operations as they may fly at rotor swept area, however impacts to the population for the construction and operation of the wind farm are unlikely to be significant. A Referral under the EPBC Act is recommended due to the potential occurrence of the above species on the wind farm. However it is recommended that construction of the wind farm being referred as not a controlled action, as impacts to these species are unlikely to be significant. Listed ecological communities: No threatened ecological communities listed under the EPBC Act were identified in the study area, therefore no significant impacts are likely FFG Act Flora The proposed development is unlikely to result in impacts on the following FFG Act listed values, as targeted surveys for these species have determined that they are unlikely to occur in the impact zones of study area: Brilliant Sun-orchid Clover Glycine Pale Leek-orchid (syn. Pink-lip Leek-orchid) Pomonal Leek-orchid Purple Eyebright Small Milkwort Spiral Sun-orchid Buloke, listed as threatened under this Act, was recorded in the study area and is susceptible to impacts from the proposed development on both private and public land. The Responsible Authority would consider any impacts on Buloke on private land during the planning application process. Page 156

165 The removal of Buloke from public land (i.e. roadsides) in the study area (from habitat zones E and F see Figure 7) would require a licence from DEPI. Application forms for Protected Flora Licences or Permits can be obtained from DEPI offices or from their customer service centre. The following flora values, while not listed as threatened, are listed as protected under the FFG Act, and were recorded on public land within the study area. Public land included all gazetted road reserves throughout the proposed infrastructure zone: Plant family Asteraceae (daisies) o Spreading Wattle o Common Everlasting Plant genera Calytrix (Fringe Myrtles) o Common Sunray o Common Fringe Myrtle o Cudweed o Fireweed o Flannel Cudweed o Fuzzy New Holland Daisy o Jersey Cudweed o Lemon Beauty Heads o Mayweed Sunray o Scaly Buttons o Yam Daisy Plant family Orchidaceae (orchids) o Golden Cowslips 7 o Rabbit Ears o Sun Orchid Plant family Ericaceae (heaths) o Beard Heath o Peach Heath Plant order Pteridophyta (ferns and allies) o Narrow Rock-fern Plant genera Acacia (wattles) o Black Wattle o Gold-dust Wattle o Golden Wattle o Prickly Moses 7 Note that this species is listed as vulnerable in DEPI (2005) but not threatened on the FFG Act Page 157

166 A licence would be required from DEPI to remove the above protected values from public land in the study area. Fauna Swift Parrot and Southern Bentwing Bat are listed under the FFG Act but have been considered in the previous section. The following species listed under the FFG Act were recorded or considered to potentially occur. Barking Owl Bush Stone Curlew Diamond Firetail Hooded Robin Masked Owl Powerful Owl Speckled Warbler Brush-tailed Phascogale Squirrel Glider Extensive targeted surveys were carried out to detect the presence and abundance of Barking Owl on the wind farm site. The species was recorded twice. Given the number of surveys undertaken and the lack of records, it is highly unlikely that the wind farm site supports a pair of breeding Barking Owl. However, the records indicate that the species occurs in the region at low densities. A detailed risk assessment was carried out for the Barking Owl based on an earlier version of the development layout. The assessment included a survey of suitable nesting trees for Barking Owl within 300 metres of turbines, and a risk assessment of individual turbines. As a result of the assessment, three turbines were recommended for relocation or removal. These turbines have since been removed from the development layout and risk to Barking Owl from the construction and operation of the wind farm under the current layout is considered low. Targeted surveys were carried out for Powerful Owl within the study area and in the large remnant bush blocks adjacent to the study area. The findings suggest that Powerful Owl is probably resident in Ararat Regional Park immediately to the south of the wind farm (approximately 1.5 kilometres from the closest turbine), but is unlikely to regularly occur in the wind farm itself due to a lack of large continuous forest or woodland blocks, or riparian zones of permanent streams. It may occur infrequently at Joel Joel NCR to the north of the wind farm. Impacts of Bulgana Wind Farm on Powerful Owl are expected to be negligible due to the low expected incidence of birds passing through the wind farm footprint. The Bush Stone-curlew and Masked Owl were not recorded during extensive targeted surveys of the study area. The findings suggest that the species are neither widespread nor abundant on the proposed wind farm site. Significant impacts to Bush Stone-curlew and Masked Owl from the construction and operation of the wind farm are therefore unlikely to be significant. Diamond Firetail, Hooded Robin and Speckled Warbler are species that are found in woodland areas. These species generally do not leave their woodland habitats and do not fly above the tree canopy. Where possible, Bulgana Wind Farm Pty Ltd has avoided Page 158

167 woodland habitats and scattered trees. Significant impacts due to the removal of habitat or collision with turbines are considered unlikely. Brush-tailed Phascogale and Squirrel Glider may occur in woodland habitats of the wind farm, particularly along the roadsides with large old hollow-bearing trees with good connectivity to larger areas of suitable habitat such as Ararat Hill Regional Park. Where possible, woodland areas and scattered trees have been avoided in the development of the wind farm layout. Where potential habitat is to be removed (i.e. large hollow-bearing trees), a salvage protocol during construction works is recommended to further avoid potential impacts. Given the implementation of mitigation measures, significant impacts to these species are unlikely. Ecological communities Two habitat zones (E and F) were determined to constitute Grey Box - Buloke Grassy Woodland Community, a listed threatened ecological community under this Act, which occurred on public land along Joel South Road. The location of these habitat zones is presented in Figure 24. Both habitat zones will be impacted by the proposed alignment, and a licence from DEPI would required for removal of Grey Box - Buloke Grassy Woodland Community within those habitat zones EE Act A Referral to the state Minister for Planning under the EE Act is currently in preparation DEPI advisory lists Under the Guidelines, impacts to species listed under the DEPI Advisory List are determined through the results of the specific-general offset test, which is based on DEPI s habitat importance mapping and proposed areas of vegetation removal. The findings from the specific-general offset test indicated that no specific offsets are required for removal of habitat for threatened flora or fauna species. Flora Of the two listed threatened flora species recorded in the study area, Buloke and Golden Cowslips, only the latter is listed on DEPI s Advisory List of Rare and Threatened Plants in Victoria (DEPI 2005). Golden Cowslips was recorded in Habitat Zone AP, which will be impacted by the proposed development, although it will likely involve removal of very few plants, if not none at all. The proposed development is unlikely to result in an impact on the following flora species from the DEPI s Advisory List, as they were not recorded during the spring targeted flora surveys, and have subsequently been deemed unlikely to occur in the proposed infrastructure zone of the study area. It should be noted that DEPI listed species which are also listed under the EPBC Act and/or FFG Act have not been included here: Crimson Sun-orchid (vulnerable) Half-bearded Spear-grass (rare) Pale-flower Crane s-bill (rare). The findings from the specific-general offset test indicated that no significant impacts are likely from the removal of habitat for any of the above species Page 159

168 Fauna The fauna species considered under the EPBC Act and FFG Act above are all listed on the DEPI Advisory Lists (with the exception of the Rainbow Bee-eater). In addition, the following species were recorded or considered likely to occur in the study area: Black-chinned Honeyeater (near threatened) Brown Treecreeper (near threatened) Common Dunnart (vulnerable) Fat-tailed Dunnart (near threatened) Eastern Bearded Dragon (near threatened) The findings from the specific-general offset test indicated that no significant impacts are likely from the removal of habitat for the above species. Black-chinned Honeyeater and Brown Treecreeper are woodland species that do not leave their woodland habitat regularly and do not fly at rotor swept area. They are therefore unlikely to collide with turbines during wind farm operation Recommendations for further mitigation Mitigation measures to reduce impacts to flora and fauna species and their habitat have been considered in the design of the development layout. Mitigation measures have included: The relocation of proposed wind farm infrastructure to avoid native vegetation or minimise its removal; The removal of three turbines from areas that support woodland and scattered trees; and The relocation of one turbine to avoid impacts to nesting Wedge-tailed Eagle. Best-practice development and construction recommendations are outlined below. These should be considered to ensure impacts are minimised to flora and/or fauna, and native vegetation. Consideration should be given to including the measures described below in a construction and operational environmental management plan for the project. In accordance with the Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994, the noxious weed species listed below, which were recorded in the study area, must be controlled using precision methods that minimise off-target kills (e.g. spot spraying). This method of control will be implemented throughout the project. o Blackberry o Gorse o Horehound o Paterson's Curse o Spiny Rush o Sweet Briar Where feasible, development should be sited at least thirty metres away from rivers, creeks and significant drainage lines. Page 160

169 The proposed development should be designed in a way that does not alter the site s hydrology in areas that support native vegetation or act as tributaries to rivers, creeks and significant drainage lines. Construction contractors should be inducted into an environmental management program for construction works. All environmental controls should be checked for compliance on a regular basis. Construction phase: Where avoidance of woodland areas or large hollow-bearing trees is not possible, a fauna spotter should be present during construction works to implement a salvage protocol. Through implementation of a salvage protocol, impacts to arboreal mammals, reptiles and nesting bird species will be reduced. Environmentally sensitive areas including retained native vegetation should be securely fenced at two metres from the perimeter and appropriately signed. All machinery and earthworks are to be excluded from these areas. Tree Retention Zones (TRZs) are to be established and maintained around all retained scattered trees for the duration of construction activities. Construction and construction-related activities are to be excluded from the TRZ. Encroachment into the TRZ (including earthworks such as trenching for pipelines or cabling, etc. that disturb the root zone) must not affect more than 10% of the total area of the TRZ. Directional drilling must not be undertaken within TRZs, unless: o The directional drilling bore is at least 600 millimetres deep; AND o A qualified arborist has confirmed in writing that the radius of the bore will not significantly damage the tree causing it to be lost in the future; AND o A qualified arborist has confirmed in writing that the use of directional drilling is appropriate for the specific project/works. Any tree pruning should be undertaken by an experienced arborist to prevent disease or unnecessary damage to the tree or disturbance to understorey vegetation during tree trimming. Any stockpiling should occur outside of environmentally sensitive areas. All machinery should enter and exit works sites along defined routes that do not impact on native vegetation or cause soil disturbance and weed spread. All machinery brought on site should be weed and pathogen free. This is important for environmental and agricultural protection. Soil borne pathogens such as Cinnamon Fungus and livestock diseases can be easily transported by machinery. All machinery wash down, lay down and personnel rest areas should be defined (fenced) and located in disturbed areas. Best practice erosion control should be installed where an erosion hazard is identified, erosion control activities should include: o The use of sediment fences down slope of exposed soil and stockpiles. o Bunding of stockpiles. o Minimisation of the area of disturbed soil at any one time. Post-construction phase: Page 161

170 Weed control, by an experienced bush regenerator, is to be carried out along disturbed areas after construction to control any weed outbreaks in bushland or wetland areas. A thirty metre buffer area along rivers, creeks and significant drainage lines should be revegetated with appropriate indigenous plants of local genetic provenance. This measure is aimed at minimising any potential long-term adverse impacts that the proposed development may have on the health and functionality of this/these watercourse/s. The use of local indigenous plant species, of local genetic provenance, should be considered in the landscaping of any development on the site. Locally indigenous species generally have low water-use requirements, high survival rates and provide habitat to local fauna species. The site provides a large reservoir for seed collection within wetland and forested areas. Page 162

171 11. REFERENCES Allen, GR, Midgley, SH & Allen, M 2002, Field Guide to the Freshwater Fishes of Australia, Western Australian Museum, Perth. Australian Wind Energy Association (AusWEA) 2005, Wind Farms and Birds: Interim Standards for Risk Assessment, Report prepared by: Brett Lane and Associates and AIRA Professional Services, Report No (2.2), July Australian Wind Energy Association (AusWEA) 2006, Best Practice Guidelines for implementation for wind energy projects in Australia. December Braby, MF & Dunford, M Field Observation on the Ecology of the Golden Sun Moth, Synemon plana Walker (Lepidoptera: Castniidae). Australian Entomologist. 33 (2): Brett Lane and Associates Pty Ltd 2013a, Bulgana Wind Farm: Preliminary Flora and Fauna Scoping Assessment, Report No (1.1), Brett Lane and Associates Pty Ltd, Camberwell, Victoria. Brett Lane and Associates Pty Ltd 2013b, Bulgana Wind Farm: Flora and Fauna Assessment, Report No (2.0), Brett Lane and Associates Pty Ltd, Hawthorn East, Victoria. Brett Lane and Associates Pty Ltd 2014, Proposed Bulgana Wind Farm: Targeted Barking Owl Assessment, Report No (6.4), Brett Lane and Associates Pty Ltd, Hawthorn East, Victoria. Cadwallader, PL & Backhouse, GN 1983, A Guide to the Freshwater Fish of Victoria. F.D. Atkinson Government Printer, Melbourne. Clemann N and Gillespie GR 'Recovery Plan for Litoria raniformis Department of Environment and Heritage, Canberra. Cogger, H 2000, Reptiles and Amphibians of Australia, Reed Books, Australia. Debus SJS & Rose AB 1994, The Masked Owl Tyto novaehollandiae in New South Wales, Australian Birds 28 (Suppl.): S40-S64. Department of Environment and Conservation NSW (DEC) 1994, Threatened Biodiversity Survey and Assessment: Guidelines for developments and activities (Working Draft), DEC, Hurstville, NSW. Department of Environment and Conservation NSW (DEC) Draft NSW and National Recovery Plan for the Golden Sun Moth Synemon plana. Queanbeyan, NSW: Department of Environment and Conservation. Department of Environment and Primary Industries (DEPI) 2014, Native Vegetation Information Management system, Department of Environment and Primary Industries, East Melbourne, Victoria, viewed 14 th June 2014, < Department of Environment and Primary Industries 2005, Advisory List of Rare or Threatened Plants in Victoria. Department of Environment and Primary Industries (then DSE), East Melbourne, Victoria. Department of Environment and Primary Industries 2013a, Ecological Vegetation Class (EVC) Benchmarks by Bioregion, Department of Environment and Primary Page 163

172 Industries (then DSE), East Melbourne, Victoria, viewed 21 st November 2013, < Department of Environment and Primary Industries 2013b, Biodiversity Interactive Map 2.0. Department of Environment and Primary Industries (then DSE), East Melbourne, Victoria, viewed 21 st November 2013, < Department of Environment and Primary Industries 2013c, Advisory List of Threatened Vertebrate Fauna in Victoria. Department of Environment and Primary Industries (then DSE), East Melbourne, Victoria. Department of Environment and Primary Industries 2013c, Flora and Fauna Guarantee Threatened List 2013, Department of Environment and Primary Industries, East Melbourne, Victoria, viewed 21 st November 2013, < Department of Environment and Primary Industries 2013d, Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act Protected Flora List June 2013, Department of Environment and Primary Industries (then DSE), East Melbourne, Victoria, viewed 21 st November 2013, < Department of Environment and Primary Industries 2013e, Permitted clearing of native vegetation: Biodiversity assessment guidelines (dated September 2013), Department of Environment and Primary Industries, East Melbourne, Victoria. Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA) 2009, Background Paper to EPBC Act Policy Statement 3.12 Nationally Threatened Species and Ecological Communities. Significant Impact Guidelines for the Critically Endangered Golden Sun Moth (Synemon plana). Department of Natural Resources and Environment 1997, Victoria s Biodiversity Our Living Wealth. Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Victoria. Department of Natural Resources and Environment 2002, Victoria s Native Vegetation Management a Framework for Action, Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Victoria. Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) 2003, Action Statement No. 169 Swift Parrot. Department of Sustainability and Environment, East Melbourne, Victoria. Department of Sustainability and Environment 2004, Native Vegetation: sustaining a living landscape, Vegetation Quality Assessment Manual guidelines for applying the Habitat Hectare scoring method (Version 1.3). Department of Sustainability and Environment, East Melbourne, Victoria. Department of Sustainability and Environment 2006, Ministerial Guidelines for Assessment of Environmental Effects under the Environment Effects Act 1978, Department of Sustainability and Environment, East Melbourne, Victoria. Department of Sustainability and Environment 2007, Native Vegetation: Guide for assessment of Referred Planning Permit Applications. Department of Sustainability and Environment, East Melbourne, Victoria. Department of Sustainability and Environment 2010, Native Vegetation Technical information sheet: Degraded treeless vegetation, Best and remaining habitat determinations, Tree protection/retention requirements, Department of Sustainability and Environment, East Melbourne, Victoria. Page 164

173 Department of Sustainability and Environment 2013, Advisory List of Threatened Vertebrate Fauna in Victoria. Department of Sustainability and Environment, East Melbourne, Victoria. Department of the Environment 2013, EPBC Act Protected Matters Search Tool. Department of the Environment, Canberra, viewed 11 th October 2013, < > Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA) 2010, Survey guidelines for Australia s threatened bats: Guidelines for detecting bats listed as threatened under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, DEWHA Emison, WB, Beardsell, CM, Norman, FI Loyn, RH, & Bennett, SC 1987, Atlas of Victorian Birds. Department of Conservation, Forests and Lands & Royal Australasian Ornithologists Union, Melbourne. Garnett, ST & Crowley, GM 2000, The Action Plan for Australian Birds. Environment Australia, Canberra. Gibson, L Surveys of the Golden Sun Moth (Synemon plana Walker) population and ant assemblages at the Craigieburn Grassland Reserve. Hons. Thesis. Bundoora, Victoria: La Trobe University. Gilmore, D, Koehler, S. O'Dwyer, C & Moore, W Golden Sun Moth Synemon plana (Lepidoptera: Castriidae): results of a broad survey of populations around Melbourne. The Victorian Naturalist. 125 (2): Higgins, PJ & Davies, SJJF (eds) 1996, Handbook of Australian, New Zealand & Antarctic Birds, Volume 3 Snipe to Pigeons, Oxford University Press, Melbourne. Higgins, PJ (ed) 1999, Handbook of Australian, New Zealand and Antarctic Birds, Volume 4: Parrots to Dollarbird, Oxford University Press, Melbourne. Higgins, PJ & Peter, JM (eds) 2002, Handbook of Australian, New Zealand and Antarctic Birds, Volume 6: Pardalotes to Shrike-thrushes, Oxford University Press, Melbourne. Higgins, PJ & Peter, JM (eds) 2002, Handbook of Australian, New Zealand and Antarctic Birds, Volume 6: Pardalotes to Shrike-thrushes, Oxford University Press, Melbourne. Higgins, PJ (ed) 1999, Handbook of Australian, New Zealand and Antarctic Birds, Volume 4: Parrots to Dollarbird, Oxford University Press, Melbourne. Higgins, PJ, Peter, JM & Cowling, SJ (eds) 2006, Handbook of Australian, New Zealand and Antarctic Birds, Volume 7: Boatbill to Starlings, Oxford University Press, Melbourne. Higgins, PJ, Peter, JM & Steele, WK (eds) 2001, Handbook of Australian, New Zealand and Antarctic Birds, Volume 5: Tyrant-flycatchers to Chats, Oxford University Press, Melbourne. Kavanagh, RP 2002, Comparative diets of the Powerful Owl (Ninox strenua), Sooty Owl (Tyto tenebricosa) and Masked Owl (Tyto novaehollandiae) in south-eastern Australia, In I Newton, R Kavanagh, J Olsen & I Taylor (eds), Ecology and Conservation of Owls, CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, pp Kennedy, SJ & Tzaros, CL 2005, Foraging ecology of the Swift Parrot Lathamus discolor in the Page 165

174 Box-ironbark forests and woodlands of Victoria, Pacific Conservation Biology 11, Kennedy, SJ & Tzaros, CL 2005, Foraging ecology of the Swift Parrot Lathamus discolor in the Box-ironbark forests and woodlands of Victoria, Pacific Conservation Biology 11, Lumsden L 2007, Guidelines for bat surveys in relation to wind farm developments. Department of Sustainability and Environment, Melbourne. Marchant, S & Higgins, PJ (eds) 1990, Handbook of Australian, New Zealand and Antarctic Birds, Volume 1: Ratites to Ducks, Oxford University Press, Melbourne. Marchant, S & Higgins, PJ (eds) 1993, Handbook of Australian, New Zealand and Antarctic Birds, Volume 2, Raptors to Lapwings, Oxford University Press, Melbourne. Menkhorst, P 1995, Mammals of Victoria, Oxford University Press, Melbourne. Naarding, J.A Latham s Snipe in Southern Australia. Wildlife Division Technical Report 83/1. Tasmania National Parks and Wildlife Service. O'Dwyer, C & Attiwill PM A comparative study of habitats of the Golden Sun Moth Synemon plana Walker (Lepidoptera: Castniidae): implications for restoration. Biological Conservation. 89: Parkes, D, Newell, G, & Cheal, D 2003, Assessing the Quality of Native Vegetation: The habitat hectares approach. Ecological Management and Restoration, vol. 4, supplement, pp Robinson, D and Johnson, G Bush Stonecurlew Burhinus grallarius. Flora and Fauna Guarantee Action Statement No 78. Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Melbourne. Rollins, K, Meyerholz, D, Johnson, G, Capparella, A and Loew, S A Forensic Investigation into the Etiology of Bat Mortality at a Wind Farm: Barotrauma or Traumatic Injury? Vet Pathology Online, 30 th January Saunders, DL and Tzaros, CL National Recovery Plan for the Swift Parrot (Lathamus discolor), Birds Australia, Melbourne. Schedvin NK, Clemann N, Loyn R & McNabb E 2003, Masked Owl. Action Statement No. 124, Department of Natural Resources and Environment (Vic.), East Melbourne, Victoria. Soderquist, TR, Lowe, KW, Loyn, RH & Price R 2002, Habitat quality in Powerful Owl (Ninox strenua) territories in the Box-Ironbark forest of Victoria, Australia. In, I Newton, R Kavanagh, J Olsen and I Taylor (eds), Ecology and Conservation of Owls, CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, pp Soderquist, TR & Gibbons D 2007, Home range of the Powerful Owl (Ninox strenua) in dry sclerophyll forest, Emu 107: Swift Parrot Recovery Team, Swift Parrot Recovery Plan. Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment, Hobart. Tzaros, C 2005, Wildlife of the Box-Ironbark Country. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne. Victorian Biodiversity Atlas 2014, Department of Environment and Primary Industries, East Melbourne, Victoria, viewed 9 th May 2014, < Page 166

175 Webster, A, Humphries, R & Lowe, K 1999, Powerful Owl. Action Statement No. 92, Department of Natural Resources and Environment (Vic.), East Melbourne, Victoria. Wilson, S & Swan G 2003, A Complete Guide to Reptiles of Australia. Reed New Holland, Sydney. Page 167

176 Appendix 1: Flora species recorded in the study area and threatened species known (or with the potential) to occur in the search region Page 168 Origin Common name Scientific name Conservation Status EPBC FFG DEPI * Annual Veldt-grass Ehrharta longiflora X * Artichoke Thistle Cynara cardunculus X p Beard Heath Leucopogon spp. X Bent-grass Deyeuxia imbricata VU * Big Heron's-bill Erodium botrys X Bindweed Convuvulus spp. X Bitter-pea Davesia spp. X * Black Nightshade Solanum nigrum X p Black Wattle Acacia mearnsii X Black-anther Flax-lily Dianella revoluta s.l. X * Blackberry Rubus fruticosus spp. agg. X Blackwood Acacia melanoxylon X Blue Sqill Chamaescilla corymbosa X Bluebell Wahlenbergia spp. X * Bridal Creeper Asparagus asparagoides X p Brilliant Sun-orchid Thelymitra mackibbinii VU L EN * Brown-top Bent Agrostis capillaris X Bulbine Lily Bulbine bulbosa X Buloke Allocasuarina luehmannii L X Bundy Eucalyptus goniocalyx s.s. X Bush Pea Pultanea spp. X p Button Wrinklewort Rutidosis leptorhynchoides EN L EN p Candy Spider-orchid Caladenia versicolor VU L EN * Cape weed Arctotheca calendula X * Centuary Centaurium spp. X Chocolate Lily Arthropodium strictum X Recorded

177 Page 169 Origin Common name Scientific name Conservation Status EPBC FFG DEPI * Clover Trifolium spp. X Clover Glycine Glycine latrobeana VU L VU * Cocksfoot Dactylis glomerata X p Common Everlasting Chrysocephalum apiculatum X p Common Fringe Myrtle Calytrix tetragona X Common Reed Phragmites australis X Common Rice-flower Pimelea humilis X p Common Sunray Triptilodiscus pygmaeus X Common Tussock-grass Poa labillardierei X Common Wheat-grass Elymus scaber X Crane's-bill Geranium spp. X Creamy Candles Stackhousia monogyna X p Crimson Sun-orchid Thelymitra X macmillanii VU p Crowded Greenhood Pterostylis diminuta K p Cudweed Euchiton spp. X * Dock Rumex spp. X Drooping Sheoak Allocasuarina verticillata X Early Nancy Wurmbea dioica X p Elfin Leek-orchid Prasophyllum aff. fitzgeraldii B EN * Fat Hen Chenopodium album X * Fescue Vulpia spp. X p Fireweed Senecio spp. X p Flannel Cudweed Actinobole uliginosum X * Flatweed Hypochaeris radicata X * Flatweed Hypochaeris radicata X p Floodplain Rustyhood Pterostylis cheraphila VU L VU p Fuzzy New Holland Daisy Vittadinia cuneata X p Gold-dust Wattle Acacia acinacea s.l. X Recorded

178 Page 170 Origin Common name Scientific name Conservation Status EPBC FFG DEPI p Golden cowslips Diuris behrii VU X p Golden Wattle Acacia pycnantha X p Goldfields Grevillea Grevillea dryophylla R * Gorse Ulex europaeus X Grampians Goodenia Goodenia lineata R Grassland Wood-sorrel Oxalis perennans X p Greencomb Spider-orchid Caladenia tensa EN VU p Green-striped Greenhood Pterostylis chlorogramma VU L VU Grey Box Eucalyptus microcarpa X * Hairgrass Aira spp. X Hairy Tails Ptilotus erubescens L Half-bearded Spear-grass Austrostipa hemipogon R Hedge Wattle Acacia paradoxa X * Horehound Marrubium vulgare X p Jersey Cudweed Helichrysum luteoalbum X Kamarooka Mallee Eucalyptus froggattii L R Kangaroo Grass Themeda triandra X Large-headed Fireweed Senecio macrocarpus VU L EN p Lemon Beauty Heads Calocephalus citreus X * Lesser Quaking Grass Briza minor X Lightwood Acacia implexa X Long Eryngium Eryngium plantagineum X Magenta Stork's-bill Pelargonium rodneyanum X p Mayweed Sunray Hyalosperma praecox X p McIvor Spider-orchid Caladenia audasii EN L EN * Medic Medicago spp. X Narrow Plantain Plantago gaudichaudii X p Narrow Rock-fern Cheilanthes sieberi subsp. sieberi X Recorded

179 Page 171 Origin Common name Scientific name Conservation Status EPBC FFG DEPI * Onion Grass Romulea rosea X Orchid Orchid spp. X Ornate Pink Fingers Caladenia ornata VU L VU Pale Leek-orchid (syn. Elfin Leek-orchid) Prasophyllum pallidum (syn. Prasophyllum aff. fitzgeraldii B) VU EN Pale Sundew Drosera peltata X Pale-flower Crane's-bill Geranium sp. 3 R * Paterson's Curse Echium plantagineum X p Peach Heath Melichrus adpressu X Pennywort Hydrocotyle spp. X p Pink-lip Leek-orchid Prasophyllum sp. aff. fitzgeraldii A L EN * Plantain Plantago spp. X p Pomonal Leek-orchid Prasophyllum subbisectum EN L EN p Prickly Moses Acacia verticillata X Purple Eyebright Euphrasia collina subsp. muelleri EN L EN Purplish Wallaby-grass Rytidosperma Spp. X * Quaking Grass Briza maxima X p Rabbit Ears Thelymitra antennifera X * Radiata Pine Pinus radiata X Raspwort Gonocarpus spp. X * Red Bartsia Parentucellia latifolia Red Box Eucalyptus polyanthemos X Red Ironbark Eucalyptus tricarpa X Red Stringybark Eucalyptus macrorhyncha X Rising Star Guinea-flower Hibbertia humifusa R Rising Star Guinea-flower Hibbertia humifusa subsp. humifusa R River Red-gum Eucalyptus camaldulensis X Rush Juncus spp. X Recorded

180 Page 172 Origin Common name Scientific name Conservation Status EPBC FFG DEPI * Rye Grass Lolium spp. X p Scaly Buttons Leptorhynchos squamatus X Sedge Carex spp. X * Sheep Sorrel Acetosella vulgaris X Sheep's Burr Acaena spp. X Small Milkwort Comesperma polygaloides L VU * Smooth Cat's-ear Hypochaeris glabra X * Soursob Oxalis pes-caprae X Sow Thistle Sonchus spp. X Spear Grass Austrostipa spp. X * Spear Thistle Cirsium vulgare X Spear-grass Austrostipa trichophylla R Speedwell Veronica spp. X Spiny Rice-flower Pimelea spinescens subsp. spinescens CE L EN * Spiny Rush Juncus acutus subsp. acutus X p Spiral Sun-orchid Thelymitra matthewsii VU L VU p Spreading Wattle Acacia genistifolia X Stonecrop Crassula spp. X p Sun Orchid Thelymitra spp. X p Swamp Diuris Diuris palustris L VU Swamp Wallaby-grass Amphibromus fluitans VU * Sweet Briar Rosa rubiginosa X * Sweet Vernal-grass Anthoxanthum odoratum X p Tawny Spider-orchid Caladenia fulva EN L EN * Toowoomba Canary-grass Phalaris aquatica X Trailing Hop-bush Dodonaea procumbens VU VU Tussock Grass Poa spp. X Twining Fringe-lily Thysanotus pauciflorus X Recorded

181 Page 173 Origin Common name Scientific name Conservation Status EPBC FFG DEPI Umbrella Grass Digitaria divaricatissima var. divaricatissima VU p Veined Spider-orchid Caladenia reticulata s.s. VU Velleia Velleia spp. X p Waterbuttons Cotula spp. X Wattle Mat-rush Lomandra filiformis X Weeping Grass Microlaena stipoides X Willow Herb Epilobium spp. X Woodruff Asperula spp. X p Yam Daisy Microseris aff. Lanceolata X Yellow Box Eucalyptus melliodora X Yellow Gum Eucalyptus leucoxylon subsp. leucoxylon X Yellow Star Hypoxis vaginata X * Yorkshire Fog Holcus lanatus X * = Introduced species; # = native species occurring outside of natural range. Recorded Notes: L = listed as threatened; p = protected; EPBC = status under EPBC Act; DEPI = status under DEPI s Advisory List; C = critically endangered; E, e = endangered; V, v = vulnerable; R, r = rare; k = insufficiently known

182 Appendix 2: Vertebrate terrestrial fauna species that occur or are likely to occur in the study area Origin Common name Scientific name Birds Conservation status EPBC FFG DEPI Recorded Australasian Grebe Tachybaptus novaehollandiae Australasian Pipit Anthus novaeseelandiae X Australian Hobby Falco longipennis X Australian Magpie Gymnorhina tibicen X Australian Owletnightjar Aegotheles cristatus X Australian Raven Corvus coronoides X Australian Shelduck Tadorna tadornoides X Australian White Ibis Threskiornis molucca Australian Wood Duck Chenonetta jubata X Barking Owl Ninox connivens L EN X Black Honeyeater Sugamel niger Black Kite Milvus migrans Black Swan Cygnus atratus Black-chinned Honeyeater Melithreptus gularis gularis NT X Black-faced Cuckooshrike Black-shouldered Kite Black-tailed Nativehen Blue-faced Honeyeater Coracina novaehollandiae Elanus axillaris Gallinula ventralis Entomyzon cyanotis Blue-winged Parrot Neophema chrysostoma X Brown Falcon Falco berigora X Brown Goshawk Accipiter fasciatus X Brown Quail Coturnix ypsilophora australis Brown Songlark Megalurus cruralis X Brown Thornbill Acanthiza pusilla Brown Treecreeper (south-eastern ssp.) Brown-headed Honeyeater Climacteris picumnus victoriae Melithreptus brevirostris NT X X X Page 174

183 Origin Common name Scientific name Buff-rumped Thornbill Chestnut Teal Acanthiza reguloides Anas castanea Conservation status EPBC FFG DEPI Recorded Chestnut-rumped Thornbill Acanthiza uropygialis Clamorous Reed Warbler Acrocephalus stentoreus Collared Accipiter Sparrowhawk cirrocephalus X * Common Blackbird Turdus merula X Common Bronzewing Phaps chalcoptera X * Common Starling Sturnus vulgaris X Crested Pigeon Ocyphaps lophotes X Crested Shrike-tit Falcunculus frontatus X Crimson Rosella Platycercus elegans X Diamond Firetail Stagonopleura guttata L NT X Dusky Moorhen Gallinula tenebrosa Dusky Woodswallow Artamus cyanopterus X Eastern Rosella Platycercus eximius X Eastern Spinebill Acanthorhynchus tenuirostris X Eastern Yellow Robin Eopsaltria australis Eurasian Coot Fulica atra X * Eurasian Skylark Alauda arvensis X * European Goldfinch Carduelis carduelis X * European Greenfinch Carduelis chloris Fairy Martin Petrochelidon ariel X Fan-tailed Cuckoo Cacomantis flabelliformis Flame Robin Petroica phoenicea Fork-tailed Swift Apus pacificus M (JAMBA,CAMBA, ROKAMBA) Fuscous Honeyeater Lichenostomus fuscus X Galah Eolophus roseicapilla X Golden Whistler Pachycephala pectoralis Great Crested Grebe Podiceps cristatus Grey Currawong Strepera versicolor X Grey Fantail Rhipidura albiscarpa X X Page 175

184 Origin Common name Scientific name Grey Shrike-thrush Grey Teal Colluricincla harmonica Anas gracilis Conservation status EPBC FFG DEPI Hardhead Aythya australis VU Hoary-headed Grebe Hooded Robin Poliocephalus poliocephalus Melanodryas cucullata cucullata Recorded X L NT X Horsfield's Bronze- Cuckoo Chrysococcyx basalis X * House Sparrow Passer domesticus X Jacky Winter Microeca fascinans X Laughing Kookaburra Dacelo novaeguineae X Little Black Cormorant Phalacrocorax sulcirostris Little Eagle Hieraaetus morphnoides X Little Lorikeet Glossopsitta pusilla X Little Pied Cormorant Microcarbo melanoleucos Little Raven Corvus mellori X Little Wattlebird Anthochaera chrysoptera Long-billed Corella Cacatua tenuirostris X Magpie-lark Grallina cyanoleuca X Masked Lapwing Vanellus miles X Masked Owl Masked Woodswallow Tyto novaehollandiae Artamus personata Mistletoebird Dicaeum hirundinaceum X Musk Lorikeet Glossopsitta concinna X Nankeen Kestral Falco cenchroides X New Holland Honeyeater Noisy Miner Phylidonyris novaehollandiae Manorina melanocephala Pacific Black Duck Anas superciliosa X Pallid Cuckoo Cuculus pallidus Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus X Pied Currawong Strepera graculina L EN X X X Page 176

185 Origin Common name Scientific name Conservation status EPBC FFG DEPI Powerful Owl Ninox strenua L VU Purple Swamphen Purple-crowned Lorikeet Porphyrio porphyrio Glossopsitta porphyrocephala Recorded Rainbow Bee-eater Merops ornatus M (JAMBA) X Rainbow Lorikeet Trichoglossus haematodus X Red Wattlebird Anthochaera carunculata X Red-browed Finch Neochmia temporalis X Red-capped Robin Petroica goodenovii Red-rumped Parrot Psephotus haematonotus X Restless Flycatcher Myiagra inquieta X * Rock Dove Columba livia Rufous Songlark Cincloramphus mathewsi X Rufous Whistler Pachycephala rufiventris X Sacred Kingfisher Todiramphus sanctus Scarlet Robin Petroica boodang X Shining Bronze- Cuckoo Chrysococcyx lucidus X Silver Gull Chroicocephalus novaehollandiae Silvereye Zosterops lateralis Southern Boobook Ninox novaeseelandiae X Southern Whiteface Aphelocephala leucopsis X Speckled Warbler Chthonicola sagittatus L VU Spotted Pardalote Pardalotus punctatus X Straw-necked Ibis Threskiornis spinicollis X Striated Pardalote Pardalotus striatus X Striated Thornbill Acanthiza lineata X Sulphur-crested Cockatoo Cacatua galerita X Superb Fairy-wren Malurus cyaneus X Swamp Harrier Circus approximans Swift Parrot Lathamus discolor EN L EN Tawny Frogmouth Podargus strigoides X Page 177

186 Origin Common name Scientific name Tawny-crowned Honeyeater Tree Martin Varied Sittella Phylidonyris melanops Petrochelidon nigricans Daphoenositta chrysoptera Conservation status EPBC FFG DEPI Recorded Wedge-tailed Eagle Aquila audax X Weebill Smicrornis brevirostris X Welcome Swallow Petrochelidon neoxena X Whistling Kite Haliastur sphenurus X White-bellied Cuckoo-shrike Coracina papuensis White-browed Babbler White-browed Scrubwren White-browed Woodswallow White-eared Honeyeater White-faced Heron White-fronted Chat White-necked Heron White-plumed Honeyeater White-throated Needletail White-throated Treecreeper White-winged Chough Pomatostomus superciliosus Sericornis frontalis Artamus superciliosus Lichenostomus leucotis Egretta novaehollandiae Epthianura albifrons Ardea pacifica Lichenostomus penicillatus Hirundapus caudacutus Cormobates leucophaeus Corcorax melanorhamphos M (JAMBA, CAMBA, ROKAMBA) White-winged Triller Lalage sueurii X Willie Wagtail Rhipidura leucophrys X Yellow Thornbill Acanthiza nana Yellow-faced Lichenostomus Honeyeater chrysops X Yellow-rumped Acanthiza Thornbill chrysorrhoa X Yellow-tailed Black- Cockatoo Calyptorhynchus funereus VU X X X X X X X Page 178

187 Origin Common name Scientific name * Black Rat Rattus rattus Mammals Conservation status EPBC FFG DEPI Recorded Black Wallaby Wallabia bicolor X Broad-nosed Bat Scotorepens spp. X Brush-tailed Phascogale Phascogale tapoatafa L VU * Cat Felis catus X Chocolate Wattled Bat Chalinolobus morio X Common Dunnart Common Brushtail Possum Common Ringtail Possum Eastern False Pipistrelle Sminthopsis murina murina Trichosurus vulpecula Pseudocheirus peregrinus Falsistrellus tasmaniensis Eastern Freetail Bat Mormopterus ridei X Eastern Grey Kangaroo Macropus giganteus X * European Hare Lepus europeaus X * European Rabbit Oryctolagus cuniculus X Fat-tailed Dunnart Sminthopsis crassicaudata NT Feathertail Glider Acrobates pygmaeus Gould's Wattled Bat Chalinolobus gouldii X * House Mouse Mus musculus Koala Phascolarctos cinereus Large Forest Bat Vespadelus darlingtoni X Little Forest Bat Vespadelus vulturnus X Lesser Long-eared Bat Nyctophilus geoffroyi Long-eared Bat Nyctophilus sp. X * Red Fox Vulpes vulpes X Short-beaked Tachyglossus Echidna aculeatus X Southern Bent-wing Bat Southern Brown Bandicoot Miniopterus schreibersii bassanii Isoodon obesulus obesulus VU CE L CE X EN L NT Southern Forest Bat Vespadelus regulus X X X X Page 179

188 Origin Common name Scientific name Conservation status EPBC FFG DEPI Southern Freetail Bat Mormopterus spp. 4 Squirrel Glider Petaurus norfolcensis L EN Recorded Sugar Glider Petaurus breviceps X Water Rat Hydromys chrysogaster White-striped Freetail Bat Yellow-footed Antechinus Bougainville's Skink Boulenger's Skink Common Bluetongued Lizard Eastern Bearded Dragon Eastern Brown Snake Eastern Three-lined Skink Garden Skink Tadarida australis Antechinus flavipes Reptiles Lerista bougainvillii Morethia boulengeri Tiliqua scincoides Pogona barbata VU X Pseudonaja textilis Acritoscincus duperreyi Lampropholis guichenoti Menetia greyii Grey's Skink Large Striped Skink Ctenotus robustus X Little Whip Snake Parasuta flagellum Marbled Gecko Christinus marmoratus Red-bellied Black Pseudechis Snake porphyriacus Stumpy-tailed Lizard Tiliqua rugosa X Thick-tailed Gecko Underwoodisaurus milii X Three-toed Skink Hemiergis decresiensis Tree Dragon Amphibolurus muricatus Frogs Common Froglet Crinia signifera X Common Spadefoot Toad Neobatrachus sudelli Plains Froglet Crinia parinsignifera X Southern Brown Tree Frog Litoria ewingii X X X X Page 180

189 Origin Common name Scientific name Southern Bullfrog Spotted Marsh Frog Limnodynastes dumerilii Limnodynastes tasmaniensis Conservation status EPBC FFG DEPI Recorded X X EPBC Status under EPBC Act; FFG Status under FFG Act; DEPI Status from DEPI Advisory List; CE Critically endangered; EN Endangered; VU Vulnerable; NT Lower risk near threatened; L Listed under FFG Act; X = recorded; * - introduced species. Page 181

190 Page 182 Appendix 3: Detailed habitat hectare assessment results Habitat Zone A B C D E F G H I J EVC Name (Initials) CGW LRGW CGW ATHW ATHW ATHW ATHW ATHW ATHW ATHW EVC Number _ Total area of Habitat Zone (ha) Large Old Trees / Canopy Cover / Lack of Weeds / Understorey / Recruitment / Organic Matter / Logs / Total site condition score (/75) DEPI landscape context score* (/25) Total Habitat Score / Habitat score out of Habitat Hectares in Habitat Zone# Area of Habitat Zone to be removed (ha) Habitat Hectares to be removed# Bioregion Gold Gold Gold Gold Gold Gold Gold Gold Gold Gold EVC Conservation Status E V E E E E E E E E Land tenure Private Public Public Public Public Public Private Private Public Public No. Large Trees^ in Habitat Zone Site Condition * = Modified approach to habitat scoring - refer to Table 14 of DEPI s Vegetation Quality Assessment Manual (DSE, 2004); # Habitat hectares (habitat score/100 X area [ha]); ^ large and very large trees; Gold = Goldfields.

191 Page 183 Habitat Zone L M N O P Q R S T U EVC Name (Initials) LRGW HDF HDF HDF HDF LRGW LRGW LRGW HDF HDF EVC Number 175_ _61 175_61 175_ Total area of Habitat Zone (ha) Large Old Trees / Canopy Cover / Lack of Weeds / Understorey / Recruitment / Organic Matter / Logs / Total site condition score (/75) DEPI landscape context score* (/25) Total Habitat Score / Habitat score out of Habitat Hectares in Habitat Zone# Area of Habitat Zone to be removed (ha) Habitat Hectares to be removed# Bioregion Gold Gold Gold Gold Gold Gold Gold Gold Gold Gold EVC Conservation Status V LC LC LC LC V V V LC LC Land tenure Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private No. Large Trees^ in Habitat Zone Site Condition

192 Page 184 Habitat Zone V W X Y Z AA AB AC AD AE EVC Name (Initials) HDF HDF HDF HDF HDF HDF HDF HDF HDF HDF EVC Number Total area of Habitat Zone (ha) Large Old Trees / Canopy Cover / Lack of Weeds / Understorey / Recruitment / Organic Matter / Logs / Total site condition score (/75) DEPI landscape context score* (/25) Total Habitat Score / Habitat score out of Habitat Hectares in Habitat Zone# Area of Habitat Zone to be removed (ha) Habitat Hectares to be removed# Bioregion Gold Gold Gold Gold Gold Gold Gold Gold Gold Gold EVC Conservation Status LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC Land tenure Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private No. Large Trees^ in Habitat Zone Site Condition

193 Page 185 Habitat Zone AF AG AH AI AJ AK AL AM AN AO EVC Name (Initials) HDF HDF LRGW LRGW LRGW LRGW LRGW LRGW LRGW LRGW EVC Number _61 175_61 175_61 175_61 175_61 175_61 175_61 175_61 Total area of Habitat Zone (ha) Large Old Trees / Canopy Cover / Lack of Weeds / Understorey / Recruitment / Organic Matter / Logs / Total site condition score (/75) DEPI landscape context score* (/25) Total Habitat Score / Habitat score out of Habitat Hectares in Habitat Zone# Area of Habitat Zone to be removed (ha) Habitat Hectares to be removed# Bioregion Gold Gold Gold Gold Gold Gold Gold Gold Gold Gold EVC Conservation Status LC LC V V V V V V V V Land tenure Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Public Public No. Large Trees^ in Habitat Zone Site Condition

194 Page 186 Habitat Zone AP AQ AQ2 AQ3 AR AS AT AU AV AW EVC Name (Initials) LRGW LRGW LRGW LRGW LRGW LRGW LRGW LRGW HDF HDF EVC Number 175_61 175_61 175_61 175_61 175_61 175_61 175_61 175_ Total area of Habitat Zone (ha) Large Old Trees / Canopy Cover / Lack of Weeds / Understorey / Recruitment / Organic Matter / Logs / Total site condition score (/75) DEPI landscape context score* (/25) Total Habitat Score / Habitat score out of Habitat Hectares in Habitat Zone# Area of Habitat Zone to be removed (ha) Habitat Hectares to be removed# Bioregion Gold Gold Gold Gold Gold Gold Gold Gold Gold Gold EVC Conservation Status V V V V V V V V LC LC Land tenure Public Public Private Private Private Private Public Private Private Private No. Large Trees^ in Habitat Zone Site Condition

195 Page 187 Habitat Zone AX AY AZ BA BB BC BD BE BF BG EVC Name (Initials) HDF HDF HDF LRGW LRGW HDF LRGW HDF HDF HDF EVC Number _61 175_ _ Total area of Habitat Zone (ha) Large Old Trees / Canopy Cover / Lack of Weeds / Understorey / Recruitment / Organic Matter / Logs / Total site condition score (/75) DEPI landscape context score* (/25) Total Habitat Score / Habitat score out of Habitat Hectares in Habitat Zone# Area of Habitat Zone to be removed (ha) Habitat Hectares to be removed# Bioregion Gold Gold Gold Gold Gold Gold Gold Gold Gold Gold EVC Conservation Status LC LC LC V V LC V LC LC LC Land tenure Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Public Private Private No. Large Trees^ in Habitat Zone Site Condition

196 Page 188 Habitat Zone BH BI BJ BK BL BM BN BO BP BQ EVC Name (Initials) HDF HDF HDF LRGW LRGW HDF HDF HW CGW HDF EVC Number _61 175_ Total area of Habitat Zone (ha) Large Old Trees / Canopy Cover / Lack of Weeds / Understorey / Recruitment / Organic Matter / Logs / Total site condition score (/75) DEPI landscape context score* (/25) Total Habitat Score / Habitat score out of Habitat Hectares in Habitat Zone# Area of Habitat Zone to be removed (ha) Habitat Hectares to be removed# Bioregion Gold Gold Gold Gold Gold Gold Gold Gold Gold Gold EVC Conservation Status LC LC LC V V LC LC D E LC Land tenure Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Public Private Private No. Large Trees^ in Habitat Zone Site Condition

197 Page 189 Habitat Zone BR BS BT BV BW CH CI CJ CK CL EVC Name (Initials) CGW LRGW ATHW LRGW LRGW LRGW LRGW HDF HDF HDF EVC Number _ _61 175_61 175_61 175_ Total area of Habitat Zone (ha) Large Old Trees / Canopy Cover / Lack of Weeds / Understorey / Recruitment / Organic Matter / Logs / Total site condition score (/75) DEPI landscape context score* (/25) Total Habitat Score / Habitat score out of Habitat Hectares in Habitat Zone# Area of Habitat Zone to be removed (ha) Habitat Hectares to be removed# Bioregion Gold Gold Gold Gold Gold Gold Gold Gold Gold Gold EVC Conservation Status E V E V V V V LC LC LC Land tenure Private Public Public Public Public Private Private Private Private Private No. Large Trees^ in Habitat Zone Site Condition

198 Page 190 Habitat Zone CM CP CQ CR CS CT CU CV CW CX EVC Name (Initials) CGW LRGW LRGW LRGW ATHW ATHW ATHW ATHW HDF LRGW EVC Number _61 175_61 175_ _61 Total area of Habitat Zone (ha) Large Old Trees / Canopy Cover / Lack of Weeds / Understorey / Recruitment / Organic Matter / Logs / Total site condition score (/75) DEPI landscape context score* (/25) Total Habitat Score / Habitat score out of Habitat Hectares in Habitat Zone# Area of Habitat Zone to be removed (ha) Habitat Hectares to be removed# Bioregion Gold Gold Gold Gold Gold Gold Gold Gold Gold Gold EVC Conservation Status E V V V E E E E LC V Land tenure Private Private Private Public Private Private Private Private Private Private No. Large Trees^ in Habitat Zone Site Condition

199 Page 191 Habitat Zone CY CZ DA DB DC DD DE DF DG DH EVC Name (Initials) LRGW GGW GGW LRGW LRGW LRGW LRGW LRGW LRGW LRGW EVC Number 175_61 175_62 175_62 175_61 175_61 175_61 175_61 175_61 175_61 175_61 Total area of Habitat Zone (ha) Large Old Trees / Canopy Cover / Lack of Weeds / Understorey / Recruitment / Organic Matter / Logs / Total site condition score (/75) DEPI landscape context score* (/25) Total Habitat Score / Habitat score out of Habitat Hectares in Habitat Zone# Area of Habitat Zone to be removed (ha) Habitat Hectares to be removed# Bioregion Gold Gold Gold Gold Gold Gold Gold Gold Gold Gold EVC Conservation Status V V V V V V V V V V Land tenure Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Public No. Large Trees^ in Habitat Zone Site Condition

200 Page 192 Habitat Zone DI DJ DK DL DM DN EVC Name (Initials) LRGW LRGW HW HW HW HW EVC Number 175_61 175_ Total area of Habitat Zone (ha) Large Old Trees / Canopy Cover / Lack of Weeds / Understorey / Recruitment / Organic Matter / Logs / Total site condition score (/75) DEPI landscape context score* (/25) Total Habitat Score / Habitat score out of Habitat Hectares in Habitat Zone# Area of Habitat Zone to be removed (ha) Habitat Hectares to be removed# Bioregion Gold Gold Gold Gold Gold Gold EVC Conservation Status V V D D D D Land tenure Public Private Public Public Private Private No. Large Trees^ in Habitat Zone Site Condition

201 Appendix 4: Scattered trees in the proposed infrastructure zone of the study area (Note: N/A = tree not identified, or tree dead and unidentifiable) Tree No. Common name DBH (cm) Size class Removal / retention status 4 Yellow Box 97 Large Retained 5 Yellow Box 70 Large Retained 6 Yellow Box 84 Large Retained 7 Grey Box 162 Very Large Retained 8 Grey Box 38 Small Retained 9 Grey Box 30 Small Retained 10 Grey Box 32 Small Retained 11 Grey Box 25 Small Retained 12 Yellow Box 25 Small Retained 13 Yellow Gum 67 Medium Retained 14 River Red-gum 209 Very Large Retained 15 Yellow Box 65 Medium Retained 16 Yellow Gum 78 Large Retained 17 Grey Box 76 Large Retained 18 River Red-gum 111 Very Large Retained 19 River Red-gum 69 Medium Retained 20 River Red-gum 46 Small Retained 21 Yellow Gum 119 Very Large Retained 22 Yellow Box 31 Small Retained 23 Bundy 101 Very Large Retained 24 River Red-gum 86 Large Retained 25 Yellow Gum 52 Small Removed 26 Yellow Gum 46 Small Removed 27 Yellow Gum 37 Small Removed 28 Yellow Gum 170 Very Large Retained 29 River Red-gum 68 Medium Retained 30 River Red-gum 74 Medium Retained 31 River Red-gum 70 Medium Retained 32 River Red-gum 67 Medium Retained 33 River Red-gum 30 Small Retained 34 Grey Box 30 Small Retained 35 River Red-gum 32 Small Retained 36 River Red-gum 27 Small Retained 37 Yellow Box 68 Medium Retained 38 Yellow Box 21 Small Retained Notes 39 N/A 96 Large Retained Dead 40 Red Stringybark 102 Large Removed 41 Yellow Box 70 Large Retained 42 Yellow Gum 70 Large Retained 43 Yellow Box 127 Very Large Retained 44 Bundy 64 Large Retained Page 193

202 Tree No. Common name DBH (cm) Size class Removal / retention status 45 Bundy 53 Medium Retained 46 Bundy 83 Large Retained 47 Yellow Box 116 Very Large Retained Notes 48 N/A 91 Very Large Retained Dead 49 N/A 62 Large Retained Dead 50 Brown Stringybark 57 Medium Retained 51 Brown Stringybark 62 Large Retained 52 Brown Stringybark 74 Large Retained 53 Brown Stringybark 92 Very Large Retained 54 N/A 125 Very Large Retained Dead 55 N/A 133 Very Large Retained Dead 56 Brown Stringybark 70 Large Retained 57 River Red-gum 54 Medium Retained 58 River Red-gum 55 Medium Retained 59 River Red-gum 65 Medium Retained 60 Yellow Gum 102 Large Retained 61 Bundy 73 Large Retained 62 N/A 43 Small Retained Dead 63 N/A 115 Very Large Retained Dead 64 Red Stringybark 61 Large Retained 72 Bundy 104 Very Large Retained 73 Red Box 60 Large Retained 74 Red Box 57 Medium Retained 75 Red Box 94 Very Large Retained 76 Red Box 71 Large Retained 77 Bundy 15 Small Retained 80 Yellow Box 105 Very Large Retained 81 Bundy 85 Large Retained 82 Bundy 57 Medium Retained 83 Bundy 100 Very Large Retained 84 Bundy 46 Medium Retained 85 Bundy 74 Large Retained 86 Red Box 110 Very Large Retained 87 Red Stringybark 113 Very Large Retained 88 Yellow Gum 85 Large Retained 89 Yellow Gum 142 Very Large Retained 90 Yellow Gum 25 Small Retained 91 Yellow Gum 79 Large Removed 92 Red Stringybark 125 Very Large Retained 93 Red Stringybark 80 Large Retained 94 Red Box 20 Small Retained 95 Red Box 112 Very Large Retained 96 Red Box 92 Very Large Retained 97 Red Box 96 Very Large Retained 98 Red Box 83 Large Retained Page 194

203 Tree No. Common name DBH (cm) Size class Removal / retention status 99 Red Box 49 Medium Retained 100 Red Box 42 Small Retained 101 Yellow Gum 42 Small Retained 102 Red Stringybark 88 Large Retained 103 Red Box 89 Large Retained 104 Red Stringybark 69 Large Removed 105 Yellow Gum 102 Large Retained 106 Bundy 90 Very Large Removed Notes 107 N/A 84 Large Retained Dead 108 Bundy 64 Large Retained 109 Bundy 50 Medium Retained 110 Bundy 53 Medium Retained 111 Bundy 75 Large Retained 112 Bundy 30 Small Retained 113 Yellow Box 88 Large Retained 114 Bundy 27 Small Retained 115 Bundy 35 Small Retained 116 Bundy 99 Very Large Retained 117 Bundy 80 Large Retained 118 Bundy 38 Small Retained 119 Yellow Box 80 Large Retained 120 Bundy 54 Medium Retained 121 Red Box 46 Medium Retained 122 Bundy 108 Very Large Retained 123 Bundy 57 Medium Retained 124 Bundy 84 Large Retained 125 Bundy 35 Small Retained 126 N/A 108 Very Large Retained Dead 127 N/A 86 Large Retained Dead 128 Red Box 66 Large Retained 129 Bundy 129 Very Large Retained 130 Yellow Box 78 Large Retained 131 Red Box 63 Large Retained 132 N/A 55 Medium Retained Dead 133 River Red-gum 195 Very Large Retained 134 Yellow Gum 88 Large Retained 135 Yellow Gum 103 Large Retained 136 N/A 35 Small Retained Dead 137 N/A 49 Small Retained Dead 138 Yellow Gum 72 Large Retained 139 N/A 45 Small Retained Dead 140 Yellow Gum 50 Small Retained 141 Yellow Gum 30 Small Retained 142 Yellow Gum 30 Small Retained 143 Yellow Gum 25 Small Retained 144 Yellow Gum 25 Small Retained Page 195

204 Tree No. Common name DBH (cm) Size class Removal / retention status Notes 145 Yellow Gum 25 Small Retained 146 Yellow Gum 25 Small Retained 147 River Red-gum 66 Medium Retained 148 River Red-gum 42 Small Retained 149 River Red-gum 51 Small Retained 150 River Red-gum 30 Small Retained 151 River Red-gum 60 Medium Retained 152 River Red-gum 43 Small Retained 153 River Red-gum 54 Medium Retained 154 River Red-gum 52 Small Retained 155 Yellow Gum 136 Very Large Retained 156 Yellow Gum 28 Small Retained 157 Yellow Gum 62 Medium Retained 158 Yellow Gum 84 Large Retained 159 Buloke 52 Small Retained 160 Yellow Box 154 Very Large Retained 161 River Red-gum 176 Very Large Retained 162 River Red-gum 196 Very Large Retained 163 River Red-gum 127 Very Large Retained 164 River Red-gum 154 Very Large Retained 165 River Red-gum 212 Very Large Retained 166 River Red-gum 150 Very Large Retained 167 River Red-gum 101 Large Retained 168 River Red-gum 80 Large Retained 169 River Red-gum 147 Very Large Retained 170 River Red-gum 74 Large Retained 171 Red Box 83 Large Retained 172 N/A 52 Small Retained Dead 173 Red Box 53 Medium Retained 174 River Red-gum 206 Very Large Retained 175 River Red-gum 89 Large Retained 176 River Red-gum 328 Very Large Removed 177 River Red-gum 171 Very Large Removed 178 River Red-gum 195 Very Large Retained 179 Yellow Box 137 Very Large Retained 180 Yellow Box 138 Very Large Retained 181 Yellow Box 79 Large Retained 182 N/A 68 Medium Removed Dead 183 N/A 60 Medium Retained Dead 184 N/A 98 Large Retained Dead 185 Red Stringybark 33 Small Retained 186 N/A 83 Large Retained Dead 187 Red Box 66 Large Retained 188 Bundy 37 Small Retained 189 Dead 138 Very Large Removed 190 N/A 66 Large Retained Dead 191 Bundy 48 Medium Retained Page 196

205 Tree No. Common name DBH (cm) Size class Removal / retention status Notes 192 Bundy 58 Medium Removed 193 Red Box 80 Large Removed 194 Bundy 54 Medium Removed 195 Red Box 72 Large Removed 196 Bundy 30 Small Removed 197 Bundy 53 Medium Removed 198 N/A 51 Medium Retained Dead 199 Bundy 100 Very Large Retained 200 Bundy 97 Very Large Retained 201 Bundy 55 Medium Retained 202 N/A 118 Very Large Retained Dead 203 Bundy 73 Large Removed 204 Bundy 58 Medium Removed 205 Bundy 71 Large Removed 206 Bundy 30 Small Retained 207 Bundy 113 Very Large Retained 208 Bundy 78 Large Retained 209 Bundy 76 Large Retained 210 Bundy 54 Medium Retained 211 Bundy 60 Large Retained 212 Bundy 35 Small Removed 213 N/A 74 Large Retained Dead 214 N/A 72 Large Retained Dead 215 N/A 69 Large Removed Dead 216 Red Box 85 Large Retained 217 Bundy 89 Large Retained 218 Bundy 50 Medium Retained 219 Bundy 69 Large Removed 220 Bundy 34 Small Retained 221 Bundy 66 Large Removed 222 Buloke 85 Large Retained 223 Red Box 33 Small Retained 224 Red Box 60 Large Retained 225 Bundy 119 Very Large Removed 226 Bundy 80 Large Removed 227 Bundy 44 Small Retained 228 Bundy 88 Large Removed 229 Bundy 119 Very Large Removed 230 Bundy 96 Very Large Retained 231 Bundy 74 Large Retained 232 Bundy 70 Large Removed 233 Bundy 101 Very Large Removed 234 River Red-gum 199 Very Large Retained 235 Yellow Box 154 Very Large Retained 236 Bundy 80 Large Retained 237 Yellow Box 94 Large Retained 238 River Red-gum 219 Very Large Retained Page 197

206 Tree No. Common name DBH (cm) Size class Removal / retention status Notes 239 River Red-gum 172 Very Large Retained 240 River Red-gum 215 Very Large Retained 241 Yellow Box 103 Large Retained 242 Bundy 65 Medium Retained 243 Bundy 107 Very Large Retained 244 Red Stringybark 108 Very Large Retained 245 Yellow Gum 116 Very Large Retained 246 Red Stringybark 63 Medium Retained 247 Red Stringybark 64 Medium Retained 248 Red Stringybark 62 Medium Retained 249 Yellow Gum 80 Large Retained 250 Red Stringybark 92 Large Retained 251 Red Stringybark 92 Large Retained 252 Yellow Gum 77 Large Retained 253 N/A 127 Very Large Retained Dead 254 Yellow Box 65 Medium Retained 255 Yellow Box 33 Small Retained 256 Dead Sheoak 50 Small Retained 257 Drooping Sheoak 66 Medium Retained 258 Drooping Sheoak 47 Small Retained 259 Drooping Sheoak 33 Small Retained 260 Drooping Sheoak 22 Small Retained 261 Drooping Sheoak 58 Medium Retained 262 Drooping Sheoak 28 Small Retained 263 Drooping Sheoak 25 Small Retained 264 Drooping Sheoak 26 Small Retained 265 Drooping Sheoak 31 Small Retained 266 Yellow Box 95 Large Removed 267 Drooping Sheoak 33 Small Retained 268 Dead Drooping Sheoak 30 Small Retained 269 Yellow Box 91 Large Retained 270 Yellow Gum 85 Large Retained 271 Yellow Gum 88 Large Retained 272 Bundy 87 Large Retained 273 Bundy 60 Medium Retained 274 Bundy 69 Medium Retained 275 Yellow Gum 92 Large Retained 276 N/A 87 Large Retained Dead 277 Yellow Gum 62 Medium Retained 278 Bundy 124 Very Large Retained 279 Yellow Gum 83 Large Retained 280 Yellow Gum 63 Medium Retained 281 Yellow Gum 137 Very Large Retained 282 Yellow Box 81 Large Retained 283 Yellow Box 50 Small Retained 284 Yellow Box 97 Large Retained 285 Yellow Gum 95 Large Retained Page 198

207 Tree No. Common name DBH (cm) Size class Removal / retention status Notes 286 Yellow Gum 76 Large Retained 287 Yellow Gum 113 Very Large Retained 288 N/A 95 Large Retained Dead 289 Drooping Sheoak 39 Small Removed 290 Drooping Sheoak 36 Small Removed 291 Drooping Sheoak 36 Small Removed 292 Yellow Gum 138 Very Large Removed 293 River Red-gum 44 Small Retained 294 River Red-gum 52 Small Removed 295 River Red-gum 69 Medium Removed 296 River Red-gum 101 Large Retained 297 River Red-gum 65 Medium Retained 298 N/A 91 Large Retained Dead 299 River Red-gum 74 Large Retained 300 Yellow Box 39 Small Retained 301 Yellow Gum 78 Large Retained 302 N/A 30 Small Retained Dead 303 Yellow Gum 124 Very Large Retained 304 River Red-gum 60 Medium Retained 305 River Red-gum 62 Medium Retained 306 Bundy 77 Large Retained 307 Bundy 90 Large Retained 308 River Red-gum 67 Medium Retained 309 Red Stringybark 102 Very Large Retained 310 Red Stringybark 84 Large Retained 311 Red Stringybark 85 Large Retained Dead 312 Bundy 51 Medium Retained 313 Bundy 90 Very Large Retained 314 Bundy ST Very Large Retained 315 Bundy ST Very Large Retained 316 Yellow Box 1 Large Retained 317 Yellow Box N/A Medium Retained 318 Yellow Gum N/A Very large Retained 319 Yellow Gum N/A Large Retained 320 Red Box N/A Large Retained 321 Bundy N/A Very large Retained 322 Yellow Gum N/A Large Retained 323 Yellow Gum N/A Medium Retained 324 Red Box N/A Medium Retained 325 Red Box N/A Medium Retained 326 Red Box N/A Very large Retained 327 Red Stringybark N/A Large Retained 328 Red Box N/A Large Retained 329 Yellow Gum N/A Very large Retained 330 Bundy N/A Large Retained 331 Bundy 40 Small Retained 332 Bundy 45 Small Retained Page 199

208 Tree No. Common name DBH (cm) Size class Removal / retention status 333 Yellow Gum 50 Small Retained 334 Red Box N/A Large Retained 335 Yellow Gum N/A Large Retained 336 Buloke N/A Large Retained 337 Buloke N/A Large Retained 338 Buloke N/A Very large Retained 339 Buloke N/A Large Retained 340 Buloke N/A Very large Retained 341 Buloke N/A Very large Retained 342 Red Gum 165 Very Large Retained 343 Red Gum 197 Very Large Retained 344 Red Gum 215 Very Large Retained 345 Red Gum 182 Very Large Retained 346 Red Gum N/A Very large Retained 347 Red Gum N/A Very large Retained 348 Red Gum 163 Very Large Retained 349 Red Stringybark N/A Large Retained 350 Red Gum 199 Very Large Retained 351 Bundy N/A Very large Retained 352 Bundy 25 Small Retained 353 Bundy 18 Small Retained 354 Bundy 39 Small Retained 355 Bundy 37 Small Retained 356 Bundy 23 Small Retained 357 Bundy N/A Very large Retained 358 Bundy N/A Large Retained 359 Bundy 29 Small Retained 360 Bundy N/A Very large Retained 361 Bundy N/A Very large Retained 362 Bundy 33 Small Retained 363 Red Box 146 Very Large Retained 364 Bundy 133 Very Large Retained 365 Bundy 135 Very Large Retained 366 Bundy N/A Very large Retained 367 Bundy N/A Large Retained 368 Bundy N/A Large Retained 369 Bundy N/A Very large Retained 370 Bundy N/A Large Retained 371 Bundy N/A Large Retained 372 Red Box N/A Medium Retained 373 Bundy 36 Small Retained 374 Yellow Box N/A Large Retained 375 Bundy N/A Large Retained 376 Bundy 29 Small Retained 377 Bundy N/A Medium Retained 378 Dead N/A Medium Retained 379 Bundy N/A Very large Retained Notes Page 200

209 Tree No. Common name DBH (cm) Size class Removal / retention status Notes 380 Bundy N/A Very large Retained 381 Bundy N/A Very large Retained 382 Bundy N/A Very large Retained 383 Bundy N/A Large Retained 384 Bundy N/A Very large Retained 385 Bundy N/A Very large Retained 386 Bundy N/A Very large Removed 387 Bundy N/A Large Removed 388 Bundy N/A Large Removed 389 Yellow Gum N/A Large Retained 390 Yellow Gum N/A Large Retained 391 Yellow Gum N/A Large Retained 392 Yellow Gum N/A Large Retained 393 Yellow Gum N/A Large Retained 394 Yellow Gum N/A Large Retained 395 Bundy N/A Medium Retained 396 Yellow Gum N/A Large Retained 397 Yellow Gum 1 Medium Retained 398 Yellow Gum N/A Very large Retained 399 Yellow Box N/A Large Retained 400 Yellow Gum N/A Large Retained 401 Yellow Gum N/A Large Retained 402 Yellow Gum N/A Large Retained Dead 403 Yellow Gum N/A Very large Removed 404 Yellow Gum N/A Very large Retained 405 River Red-gum N/A Large Retained 406 River Red-gum N/A Large Retained 407 River Red-gum N/A Medium Retained 408 River Red-gum N/A Large Removed 409 River Red-gum N/A Very large Retained 410 River Red-gum N/A Very large Retained 411 River Red-gum 53 Medium Retained 412 River Red-gum N/A Very large Removed 413 River Red-gum N/A Very large Retained 414 River Red-gum N/A Very large Retained 415 River Red-gum N/A Very large Retained 416 Yellow Box N/A Very large Retained 417 Yellow Box N/A Large Retained 418 Yellow Box 62 Medium Retained 419 River Red-gum 60 Medium Retained 420 Yellow Box 70 Medium Retained 421 Yellow Box 79 Medium Retained 422 Buloke N/A Very large Retained 423 Red Stringybark N/A Medium Retained 424 Bundy N/A Large Retained 425 Bundy N/A Medium Retained 426 Bundy N/A Very large Retained Page 201

210 Tree No. Common name DBH (cm) Size class Removal / retention status Notes 427 Bundy N/A Very large Retained 428 River Red-gum N/A Very large Removed 429 Yellow Box N/A Very large Retained 430 Yellow Box N/A Very large Retained 431 Yellow Box N/A Large Retained 432 River Red-gum N/A Very large Retained 433 Yellow Box N/A Very large Retained 434 River Red-gum 208 Very Large Retained 435 River Red-gum 30 Small Retained 436 River Red-gum N/A Large Retained 437 River Red-gum N/A Very large Retained Dead 438 River Red-gum N/A Very large Retained 439 River Red-gum N/A Large Retained Dead 440 River Red-gum N/A Very large Retained 441 River Red-gum N/A Very large Retained 442 River Red-gum N/A Very large Retained 443 River Red-gum N/A Very large Retained 444 River Red-gum N/A Very large Retained 445 River Red-gum N/A Very large Retained 446 River Red-gum N/A Very large Retained 447 River Red-gum N/A Medium Retained 448 River Red-gum N/A Very large Retained 449 River Red-gum N/A Very large Retained 450 Yellow Gum N/A Large Removed 451 Yellow Gum N/A Large Removed Dead 452 Yellow Gum N/A Medium Retained Dead 453 River Red-gum N/A Medium Retained 454 River Red-gum N/A Very large Retained 455 River Red-gum N/A Very large Retained 456 River Red-gum 38 Small Retained 457 River Red-gum 29 Small Retained 458 River Red-gum N/A Large Retained 459 River Red-gum N/A Medium Retained 460 Grey Box N/A Large Retained 461 Buloke N/A Very large Retained 462 Buloke N/A Very large Retained 463 Yellow Box N/A Very large Retained 464 Yellow Box N/A Very large Retained 465 Yellow Box N/A Very large Retained 466 Yellow Box N/A Large Retained 467 Yellow Box 40 Small Retained 468 Yellow Box N/A Very large Retained 469 Grey Box N/A Large Retained 470 Grey Box N/A Very large Retained 471 Yellow Box 32 Small Retained 472 Yellow Box N/A Large Retained 473 Bundy 52 Small Retained Page 202

211 Tree No. Common name DBH (cm) Size class Removal / retention status Notes 474 Yellow Gum 40 Small Retained 475 Yellow Gum N/A Very large Retained 476 Yellow Gum N/A Very large Retained 477 Yellow Gum N/A Very large Retained 478 Yellow Gum 50 Small Retained 479 Yellow Box N/A Very large Retained 480 Yellow Box 62 Medium Retained Dead 481 Yellow Box N/A Large Retained 482 Yellow Box N/A Very large Retained 483 Yellow Box 57 Medium Retained 484 Yellow Box N/A Very large Retained 485 Yellow Box N/A Very large Retained 486 Yellow Box N/A Large Retained 487 Yellow Box N/A Large Retained 488 Yellow Box N/A Large Retained Dead 489 Yellow Box N/A Large Retained 490 Yellow Box N/A Very large Retained 491 Yellow Box N/A Large Retained 492 Yellow Box N/A Very large Retained 493 Yellow Box N/A Very large Retained 494 Grey Box 26 Small Retained 495 Yellow Box N/A Very large Retained 496 Grey Box N/A Large Retained 497 Yellow Box N/A Large Retained 498 Yellow Box N/A Large Retained 499 Grey Box 39 Small Retained 500 Grey Box N/A Large Retained 501 Yellow Gum 48 Small Retained 502 Grey Box 56 Medium Retained 503 Grey Box N/A Large Retained 504 Grey Box N/A Very large Retained 505 Yellow Gum N/A Very large Retained 506 Grey Box N/A Large Retained 507 Grey Box N/A Very large Retained 508 Grey Box N/A Very large Retained 509 Grey Box N/A Very large Retained 510 Grey Box N/A Large Retained Dead 511 Yellow Box N/A Very large Retained 512 Yellow Gum N/A Large Retained 513 Grey Box N/A Very large Retained 514 Grey Box N/A Large Retained 515 Grey Box N/A Large Retained Dead 516 Grey Box N/A Large Retained Dead 534 Grey Box N/A Large Removed Dead 535 Red Stringybark N/A Large Retained 536 Yellow Gum N/A Large Retained Page 203

212 Tree No. Common name DBH (cm) Size class Removal / retention status 537 Red Stringybark N/A Very large Retained 538 Bundy N/A Large Removed 539 Bundy N/A Very large Retained 540 Yellow Box N/A Very large Retained 541 Bundy N/A Very large Retained 542 Yellow Box N/A Large Retained Notes 543 Yellow Gum N/A Large Retained 544 Bundy 44 Small Retained 545 Bundy N/A Very large Retained 546 Bundy 43 Small Retained 547 Bundy N/A Large Retained Dead 548 Bundy N/A Large Retained Dead 549 Bundy N/A Large Retained Dead 550 Bundy N/A Large Retained 551 Bundy N/A Very large Retained Dead 552 Bundy N/A Large Retained 553 Bundy 30 Small Retained 554 Bundy N/A Large Retained 555 Bundy N/A Medium Retained 556 Bundy N/A Large Retained 557 Bundy N/A Large Retained 558 Bundy 33 Small Retained 559 Bundy N/A Large Retained 560 Bundy 19 Small Retained 561 Bundy 18 Small Retained 562 Bundy 23 Small Retained 563 Bundy N/A Medium Retained 564 Bundy N/A Large Retained 565 Bundy 15 Small Retained 566 Bundy 26 Small Retained 567 Bundy 41 Small Retained 568 Bundy 28 Small Retained 569 Bundy N/A Large Retained Dead 570 Bundy N/A Medium Retained 571 Red Box N/A Very large Retained 572 Yellow Box N/A Very large Retained 573 Red Box N/A Very large Retained 574 Red Box N/A Large Retained 575 Bundy 29 Small Retained 576 Bundy 40 Small Retained 577 Bundy N/A Large Retained 578 Bundy 27 Small Retained 579 Bundy N/A Large Retained 580 Bundy N/A Medium Retained 581 Bundy N/A Very large Retained 582 Bundy 37 Small Retained Page 204

213 Tree No. Common name DBH (cm) Size class Removal / retention status 583 Bundy 27 Small Retained 584 Bundy 41 Small Retained 585 Bundy 33 Small Retained 586 Bundy N/A Medium Retained 587 Bundy 28 Small Retained 588 Bundy 38 Small Retained 589 Bundy 40 Small Retained 590 Bundy N/A Medium Removed 591 Bundy N/A Large Retained 592 River Red-gum N/A Medium Retained 593 Yellow Gum N/A Large Removed 594 Yellow Gum N/A Large Retained 595 River Red-gum 48 Small Retained 596 River Red-gum 54 Small Retained 597 River Red-gum 30 Small Retained 598 River Red-gum N/A Very large Retained 599 River Red-gum N/A Medium Retained 600 River Red-gum 28 Small Retained 601 River Red-gum N/A Medium Retained 602 River Red-gum 46 Small Retained 603 River Red-gum 47 Small Retained 604 River Red-gum N/A Very large Retained 605 River Red-gum 39 Small Retained 606 River Red-gum 52 Small Retained 607 River Red-gum 46 Small Retained 608 River Red-gum N/A Medium Retained 609 River Red-gum 43 Small Retained 610 River Red-gum N/A Medium Retained 611 River Red-gum N/A Medium Retained 612 River Red-gum 55 Small Retained 613 Yellow Box N/A Very large Retained 614 Yellow Box N/A Very large Retained 615 Yellow Gum N/A Medium Retained 616 River Red-gum N/A Very large Retained 617 River Red-gum N/A Large Retained 618 River Red-gum 39 Small Retained 619 River Red-gum N/A Very large Retained 1224 N/A N/A N/A Retained 1225 Yellow Gum N/A Medium Retained 1226 Yellow Gum N/A Medium Retained 1227 Yellow Gum N/A Medium Retained 1228 Yellow Gum N/A Medium Retained 1229 Yellow Gum N/A Large Retained 1230 Yellow Gum N/A Medium Retained 1231 Yellow Gum N/A Large Removed 1232 Yellow Gum N/A Large Removed 1238 N/A N/A Large Removed Notes Page 205

214 Tree No. Common name DBH (cm) Size class Removal / retention status Notes 1239 N/A N/A Large Removed 1240 N/A N/A Large Retained 1241 Yellow Gum N/A Large Retained 1242 N/A N/A Large Removed 1243 N/A N/A N/A Retained 1244 N/A N/A N/A Removed 1245 N/A N/A N/A Retained 1246 N/A N/A N/A Retained 1247 N/A N/A N/A Removed 1248 N/A N/A N/A Removed 1249 N/A N/A N/A Removed 1250 N/A N/A N/A Retained 1251 N/A N/A N/A Retained 1252 N/A N/A N/A Retained 1253 N/A N/A N/A Removed 1254 N/A N/A N/A Retained 1255 N/A N/A N/A Removed 1256 N/A N/A N/A Removed 1257 Yellow Gum N/A Very large Removed 1258 Yellow Gum N/A Medium Removed 1259 Yellow Gum N/A Very large Removed 1260 N/A 35 Small Retained 1261 N/A 55 Medium Retained 1262 N/A 120 Very Large Removed 1263 N/A 40 Small Retained 1264 N/A 67 Medium Retained 1265 N/A 45 Small Retained 1266 N/A 25 Small Retained 1267 N/A 80 Large Retained 1268 N/A 110 Very Large Removed 1269 N/A 75 Large Retained 1270 N/A 40 Small Retained 1271 N/A 85 Large Retained 1272 N/A 75 Large Removed 1273 N/A 125 Very Large Removed 1274 N/A 170 Very Large Removed 1275 N/A 82 Large Removed 1276 N/A 40 Small Retained 1277 N/A 68 Medium Retained 1278 N/A 115 Very Large Retained 1279 N/A 37 Small Removed 1280 N/A 65 Medium Removed 1281 N/A 15 Small Removed 1282 N/A 72 Large Removed Dead 1283 N/A 65 Medium Retained 1284 N/A 80 Large Retained 1285 N/A 10 Small Removed Page 206

215 Tree No. Common name DBH (cm) Size class Removal / retention status 1286 N/A 110 Very Large Retained 1287 N/A 50 Small Removed 1288 N/A 40 Small Removed 1289 N/A 70 Large Retained 1290 N/A 45 Small Retained 1291 N/A 60 Medium Retained 1292 N/A 115 Very Large Retained 1293 N/A 95 Large Retained 1294 N/A 135 Very Large Retained 1295 N/A 45 Small Removed 1296 N/A 55 Medium Retained 1297 N/A 45 Small Removed 1298 Buloke 28 Small Retained 1299 N/A 105 Very Large Removed 1300 N/A 38 Small Removed 1301 N/A 35 Small Retained 1302 N/A 30 Small Retained 1303 N/A 28 Small Retained 1304 N/A 80 Large Retained 1305 N/A 38 Small Retained 1306 N/A 155 Very Large Retained 1307 N/A 27 Small Retained 1308 N/A 68 Medium Retained 1309 N/A 70 Large Removed 1310 N/A 27 Small Removed 1311 N/A 72 Large Removed 1312 N/A 62 Medium Removed 1313 N/A 63 Medium Removed 1314 N/A 46 Small Removed 1315 N/A 45 Small Removed 1316 N/A 50 Small Retained 1317 N/A 39 Small Retained 1318 N/A 48 Small Retained 1319 N/A 65 Medium Retained 1320 N/A 40 Small Retained 1321 N/A 110 Very Large Retained 1322 N/A 78 Large Removed 1323 N/A 105 Very Large Removed 1324 N/A 46 Small Retained 1325 N/A 62 Medium Retained 1326 N/A 40 Small Retained 1327 N/A 37 Small Retained 1328 N/A 29 Small Retained 1329 N/A 33 Small Removed 1330 N/A 30 Small Retained 1331 N/A 32 Small Retained 1332 N/A 37 Small Retained Notes Page 207

216 Tree No. Common name DBH (cm) Size class Removal / retention status 1333 N/A 75 Large Retained 1334 Buloke 65 Very Large Retained 1335 Buloke 70 Very Large Removed 1336 Buloke 42 Large Removed 1337 Buloke 50 Large Retained 1338 Buloke 75 Very Large Retained 1339 N/A 70 Large Retained 1340 N/A 98 Large Removed 1341 N/A 90 Large Retained 1342 N/A 110 Very Large Retained 1343 N/A 70 Large Retained 1350 N/A N/A N/A Removed 1351 N/A N/A N/A Removed 1352 N/A N/A N/A Removed 1353 N/A N/A N/A Removed 1354 N/A N/A N/A Removed Notes: DBH = Diameter at breast height (130 cm from the ground) Notes Page 208

217 Appendix 5: Guidelines for impacts to indigenous trees DEPI guidelines (DSE 2007; DSE 2010) provide definitions regarding scattered tree protection, retention and losses. These are outlined below. A scattered tree is considered to be protected (and may be used as an offset) when: An area with twice the canopy diameter of the tree is fenced and protected from any adverse impact. It is legally protected in perpetuity (e.g. Section 173 on-title agreement). A scattered tree is lost or deemed lost when: It will be physically removed or destroyed; It is located on freehold land subject to a subdivision application where house blocks of less than 4000 square metres are proposed; Earthworks encroach on more than 10% of its Tree Retention Zone (TRZ) during construction activities. Tree Retention Zones is defined as: o The area from the respective tree within a radius of 12 times the DBH of the respective tree, including the area above and below ground, notwithstanding it can be a minimum of two metres and a maximum of 15 metres radius around the respective tree. o Extend at least one metre outside the crown projection, if the tree is a Tree Fern (DSE 2010). o Be securely fenced off with high-visibility temporary fencing and appropriately signed as Tree Retention Zone keep out Directional drilling within its TRZ occurs at less than 600 millimetres below the surface, or is not confirmed to be appropriate (including considerations concerning bore hole width) by a qualified arborist; Lopping removes more than 1/3 of its crown; Its trunk is damaged; or It is likely to pose a risk to safety or property as a result of the proposed development/works (e.g. a dwelling is proposed to be constructed near a tree that a qualified arborist has deemed likely to pose a risk to the dwelling). A scattered tree is considered retained when: It is not lost or deemed to be lost. Page 209

218 Appendix 6: EVC Benchmarks Heathy Dry Forest (EVC 20); Heathy Woodland (EVC 48); Box Ironbark Forest (EVC 61); Alluvial Terraces Herb-rich Woodland (EVC 67); Creekline Grassy Woodland (EVC 68); Low-rises Grassy woodland (EVC 175_61); and Granite Grassy Woodland (EVC 175_62). Page 210

219 EVC/Bioregion Benchmark for Vegetation Quality Assessment Goldfields bioregion EVC 20: Heathy Dry Forest Description: Grows on shallow, rocky skeletal soils on a variety of geologies and on a range of landforms from gently undulating hills to exposed aspects on ridge tops and steep slopes at a range of elevations. The overstorey is a low, open eucalypt forest, poor in form to 20 m tall with an open crown cover. The understorey is dominated by a low, sparse to dense layer of ericoid-leaved shrubs including heaths and peas. Graminoids and grasses are frequently present in the ground layer, but do not provide much cover. Large trees: Species DBH(cm) #/ha Eucalyptus spp. 60 cm 20 / ha Tree Canopy Cover: %cover Character Species Common Name 30% Eucalyptus macrorhyncha Red Stringybark Eucalyptus polyanthemos Red Box Eucalyptus tricarpa Red Ironbark Eucalyptus goniocalyx s.s. Bundy Understorey: Life form #Spp %Cover LF code Immature Canopy Tree 5% IT Understorey Tree or Large Shrub 1 5% T Medium Shrub 8 25% MS Small Shrub 6 15% SS Prostrate Shrub 2 5% PS Large Herb 3 5% LH Medium Herb 10 20% MH Small or Prostrate Herb 2 5% SH Large Tufted Graminoid 2 5% LTG Medium to Small Tufted Graminoid 10 25% MTG Medium to Tiny Non-tufted Graminoid 2 1% MNG Bryophytes/Lichens na 10% BL Soil Crust na 10% S/C Ecological Vegetation Class bioregion benchmark

220 EVC 20: Heathy Dry Forest - Goldfields bioregion LF Code Species typical of at least part of EVC range Common Name MS Brachyloma daphnoides Daphne Heath MS Acacia pycnantha Golden Wattle MS Grevillea alpina Cat's Claw Grevillea MS Cassinia arcuata Drooping Cassinia SS Tetratheca ciliata Pink-bells SS Hovea heterophylla Common Hovea SS Leucopogon virgatus Common Beard-heath SS Cheiranthera cyanea var. cyanea Blue Finger-flower PS Acrotriche serrulata Honey-pots PS Astroloma humifusum Cranberry Heath LH Senecio tenuiflorus Slender Fireweed LH Wahlenbergia stricta Tall Bluebell LH Xerochrysum viscosum Shiny Everlasting MH Gonocarpus tetragynus Common Raspwort MH Drosera peltata ssp. auriculata Tall Sundew SH Opercularia varia Variable Stinkweed SH Hydrocotyle laxiflora Stinking Pennywort LTG Austrostipa mollis Supple Spear-grass MTG Joycea pallida Silvertop Wallaby-grass MTG Lomandra filiformis Wattle Mat-rush MTG Poa sieberiana Grey Tussock-grass MTG Dianella revoluta s.l. Black-anther Flax-lily MNG Microlaena stipoides var. stipoides Weeping Grass SC Thysanotus patersonii Twining Fringe-lily Recruitment: Episodic/Fire. Desirable period between disturbances is 20 years. Organic Litter: 20 % cover Logs: 20 m/0.1 ha. Weediness: LF Code Typical Weed Species Common Name Invasive Impact MH Hypochoeris radicata Cat's Ear high low MH Hypochoeris glabra Smooth Cat's-ear high low MTG Briza maxima Large Quaking-grass high low MTG Briza minor Lesser Quaking-grass high low MNG Aira elegantissima Delicate Hair-grass high low MTG Vulpia spp. Fescue high low Published by the Victorian Government Department of Sustainability and Environment April 2004 The State of Victoria Department of Sustainability and Environment 2004 This publication is copyright. Reproduction and the making available of this material for personal, in-house or non-commercial purposes is authorised, on condition that: the copyright owner is acknowledged; no official connection is claimed; the material is made available without charge or at cost; and the material is not subject to inaccurate, misleading or derogatory treatment. Requests for permission to reproduce or communicate this material in any way not permitted by this licence (or by the fair dealing provisions of the Copyright Act 1968) should be directed to the Nominated Officer, Copyright, 8 Nicholson Street, East Melbourne, Victoria, For more information contact: Customer Service Centre, This publication may be of assistance to you but the State of Victoria and its employees do not guarantee that the publication is without flaw of any kind or is wholly appropriate for your particular purposes and therefore disclaims all liability for any error, loss or other consequence which may arise from you relying on any information in this publication.

221 EVC/Bioregion Benchmark for Vegetation Quality Assessment Goldfields bioregion EVC 48: Heathy Woodland Description: Spans a variety of geologies but is generally associated with nutrient-poor soils including deep uniform sands (aeolian or outwash) and Tertiary sand/clay which has been altered to form quartzite gravel. Eucalypt-dominated low woodland to 10 m tall lacking a secondary tree layer and generally supporting a diverse array of narrow or ericoid-leaved shrubs except where frequent fire has reduced this to a cover of fire resprouters. Geophytes and annuals can be quite common but the ground cover is normally fairly sparse. Large trees: Species DBH(cm) #/ha Eucalyptus spp. 60 cm 15 / ha Allocasuarina luehmannii 40 cm Tree Canopy Cover: %cover Character Species Common Name 15% Eucalyptus leucoxylon Yellow Gum Eucalyptus microcarpa Grey Box Eucalyptus polyanthemos Red Box Eucalyptus tricarpa Red Ironbark Eucalyptus goniocalyx s.l. Bundy Allocasuarina luehmannii Buloke Understorey: Life form #Spp %Cover LF code Immature Canopy Tree 5% IT Medium Shrub 9 30% MS Small Shrub 7 20% SS Prostrate Shrub 2 1% PS Large Herb 2 5% LH Medium Herb 9 15% MH Large Tufted Graminoid 1 1% LTG Medium to Small Tufted Graminoid 7 15% MTG Bryophytes/Lichens na 10% BL Soil Crust na 10% S/C Ecological Vegetation Class bioregion benchmark

222 EVC 48: Heathy Woodland - Goldfields bioregion LF Code Species typical of at least part of EVC range Common Name MS Acacia pycnantha Golden Wattle MS Acacia genistifolia Spreading Wattle MS Grevillea alpina Cat's Claw Grevillea MS Calytrix tetragona Common Fringe-myrtle SS Astroloma conostephioides Flame Heath SS Hibbertia exutiacies Spiky Guinea-flower SS Pultenaea largiflorens Twiggy Bush-pea SS Hibbertia riparia Erect Guinea-flower PS Astroloma humifusum Cranberry Heath PS Acrotriche serrulata Honey-pots LH Senecio tenuiflorus Slender Fireweed LH Xerochrysum viscosum Shiny Everlasting MH Leptorhynchos tenuifolius Wiry Buttons MH Gonocarpus tetragynus Common Raspwort MH Cyanicula caerulea Blue Fairy MH Drosera peltata ssp. peltata Pale Sundew SH Drosera whittakeri ssp. aberrans Scented Sundew LTG Austrostipa mollis Supple Spear-grass MTG Joycea pallida Silvertop Wallaby-grass MTG Lomandra multiflora ssp. multiflora Many-flowered Mat-rush MTG Dianella revoluta s.l. Black-anther Flax-lily MTG Austrodanthonia setacea Bristly Wallaby-grass SC Cassytha glabella Slender Dodder-laurel SC Thysanotus patersonii Twining Fringe-lily SC Drosera macrantha Climbing Sundew Recruitment: Episodic/Fire. Desirable period between disturbances is 20 years. Organic Litter: 40 % cover Logs: 15 m/0.1 ha. Weediness: LF Code Typical Weed Species Common Name Invasive Impact MH Hypochoeris glabra Smooth Cat's-ear high low MTG Briza maxima Large Quaking-grass high low MNG Aira cupaniana Quicksilver Grass high low Published by the Victorian Government Department of Sustainability and Environment April 2004 The State of Victoria Department of Sustainability and Environment 2004 This publication is copyright. Reproduction and the making available of this material for personal, in-house or non-commercial purposes is authorised, on condition that: the copyright owner is acknowledged; no official connection is claimed; the material is made available without charge or at cost; and the material is not subject to inaccurate, misleading or derogatory treatment. Requests for permission to reproduce or communicate this material in any way not permitted by this licence (or by the fair dealing provisions of the Copyright Act 1968) should be directed to the Nominated Officer, Copyright, 8 Nicholson Street, East Melbourne, Victoria, For more information contact: Customer Service Centre, This publication may be of assistance to you but the State of Victoria and its employees do not guarantee that the publication is without flaw of any kind or is wholly appropriate for your particular purposes and therefore disclaims all liability for any error, loss or other consequence which may arise from you relying on any information in this publication.

223 EVC/Bioregion Benchmark for Vegetation Quality Assessment Goldfields bioregion EVC 61: Box Ironbark Forest Description: Occurs in low rainfall areas on gently undulating rises, low hills and peneplains on infertile, often stony soils derived from a range of geologies. The open overstorey to 20 m tall consists of a variety of eucalypts, often including one of the Ironbark species. The mid storey often forms a dense to open small tree or shrub layer over an open ground layer ranging from a sparse to well-developed suite of herbs and grasses. Large trees: Species DBH(cm) #/ha Eucalyptus spp. 70 cm 15 / ha Tree Canopy Cover: %cover Character Species Common Name 30% Eucalyptus microcarpa Grey Box Eucalyptus tricarpa Red Ironbark Eucalyptus polyanthemos Red Box Eucalyptus leucoxylon Yellow Gum Understorey: Life form #Spp %Cover LF code Immature Canopy Tree 5% IT Medium Shrub 7 25% MS Small Shrub 4 5% SS Prostrate Shrub 2 1% PS Medium Herb 9 20% MH Large Tufted Graminoid 1 1% LTG Medium to Small Tufted Graminoid 8 15% MTG Bryophytes/Lichens na 10% BL Soil Crust na 20% S/C Total understorey projective foliage cover 85% LF Code Species typical of at least part of EVC range Common Name MS Acacia pycnantha Golden Wattle MS Cassinia arcuata Drooping Cassinia MS Acacia genistifolia Spreading Wattle MS Acacia acinacea s.l. Gold-dust Wattle SS Hibbertia exutiacies Spiky Guinea-flower SS Pultenaea largiflorens Twiggy Bush-pea PS Astroloma humifusum Cranberry Heath MH Senecio tenuiflorus Slender Fireweed MH Xerochrysum viscosum Shiny Everlasting MH Gonocarpus tetragynus Common Raspwort MH Veronica plebeia Trailing Speedwell LTG Austrostipa mollis Supple Spear-grass MTG Joycea pallida Silvertop Wallaby-grass MTG Dianella revoluta s.l. Black-anther Flax-lily MTG Lomandra filiformis Wattle Mat-rush MTG Austrodanthonia setacea Bristly Wallaby-grass MTG Poa sieberiana Grey Tussock-grass SC Thysanotus patersonii Twining Fringe-lily Ecological Vegetation Class bioregion benchmark

224 EVC 61: Box Ironbark Forest - Goldfields bioregion Recruitment: Continuous Organic Litter: 20 % cover Logs: 20 m/0.1 ha. Weediness: LF Code Typical Weed Species Common Name Invasive Impact MH Hypochoeris glabra Smooth Cat's-ear high low MH Hypochoeris radicata Cat's Ear high low MTG Briza maxima Large Quaking-grass high low MTG Vulpia bromoides Squirrel-tail Fescue high low MNG Aira elegantissima Delicate Hair-grass high low MH Petrorhagia velutina Hairy Pink high low Published by the Victorian Government Department of Sustainability and Environment April 2004 The State of Victoria Department of Sustainability and Environment 2004 This publication is copyright. Reproduction and the making available of this material for personal, in-house or non-commercial purposes is authorised, on condition that: the copyright owner is acknowledged; no official connection is claimed; the material is made available without charge or at cost; and the material is not subject to inaccurate, misleading or derogatory treatment. Requests for permission to reproduce or communicate this material in any way not permitted by this licence (or by the fair dealing provisions of the Copyright Act 1968) should be directed to the Nominated Officer, Copyright, 8 Nicholson Street, East Melbourne, Victoria, For more information contact: Customer Service Centre, This publication may be of assistance to you but the State of Victoria and its employees do not guarantee that the publication is without flaw of any kind or is wholly appropriate for your particular purposes and therefore disclaims all liability for any error, loss or other consequence which may arise from you relying on any information in this publication.

225 EVC/Bioregion Benchmark for Vegetation Quality Assessment Goldfields bioregion EVC 67: Alluvial Terraces Herb-rich Woodland Description: Open woodland to 15 m tall on broad alluvial plains and along ephemeral drainage lines. Soils are generally poorly drained duplex soils with sandy loam overlying a heavier clay subsoil. Understorey consists of few, if any shrubs with the striking feature of this EVC being the high species-richness of the ground-layer and the low biomass of this cover, particularly in summer. Large trees: Species DBH(cm) #/ha Eucalyptus spp. 70 cm 8 / ha Allocasuarina spp. 50 cm Tree Canopy Cover: %cover Character Species Common Name 15% Eucalyptus microcarpa Grey Box Eucalyptus melliodora Yellow Box Eucalyptus leucoxylon Yellow Gum Allocasuarina luehmannii Buloke Understorey: Life form #Spp %Cover LF code Immature Canopy Tree 5% IT Understorey Tree or Large Shrub 1 5% T Medium Shrub 3 5% MS Small Shrub 3 5% SS Prostrate Shrub 1 1% PS Large Herb 3 5% LH Medium Herb 15 30% MH Small or Prostrate Herb 5 10% SH Large Tufted Graminoid 1 1% LTG Medium to Small Tufted Graminoid 12 30% MTG Medium to Tiny Non-tufted Graminoid 2 5% MNG Ground Fern 1 1% GF Bryophytes/Lichens na 10% BL Soil Crust na 10% S/C Recruitment: Continuous Organic Litter: 10 % cover Logs: 15 m/0.1 ha. Ecological Vegetation Class bioregion benchmark

226 EVC 67: Alluvial Terraces Herb-rich Woodland - Goldfields bioregion LF Code Species typical of at least part of EVC range Common Name MS Acacia pycnantha Golden Wattle MS Acacia acinacea s.l. Gold-dust Wattle MS Acacia paradoxa Hedge Wattle MS Acacia genistifolia Spreading Wattle SS Lissanthe strigosa ssp. subulata Peach Heath SS Pimelea humilis Common Rice-flower SS Dillwynia cinerascens s.l. Grey Parrot-pea PS Astroloma humifusum Cranberry Heath PS Acrotriche serrulata Honey-pots LH Senecio quadridentatus Cotton Fireweed LH Senecio tenuiflorus Slender Fireweed MH Cynoglossum suaveolens Sweet Hound s-tongue MH Oxalis perennans Grassland Wood-sorrel MH Daucus glochidiatus Australian Carrot MH Cymbonotus preissianus Austral Bear s-ears SH Hydrocotyle laxiflora Stinking Pennywort SH Solenogyne dominii Smooth Solenogyne SH Drosera whittakeri ssp. aberrans Scented Sundew SH Cymbonotus preissianus Austral Bear's-ear LTG Austrostipa mollis Supple Spear-grass MTG Lomandra filiformis Wattle Mat-rush MTG Elymus scaber var. scaber Common Wheat-grass MTG Dianella revoluta s.l. Black-anther Flax-lily MTG Austrostipa scabra Rough Spear-grass MNG Microlaena stipoides var. stipoides Weeping Grass TTG Centrolepis strigosa ssp. strigosa Hairy Centrolepis TTG Centrolepis aristata Pointed Centrolepis GF Cheilanthes austrotenuifolia Green Rock-fern SC Thysanotus patersonii Twining Fringe-lily Weediness: LF Code Typical Weed Species Common Name Invasive Impact LH Sonchus oleraceus Common Sow-thistle high low LH Sonchus asper s.l. Rough Sow-thistle high low MH Hypochoeris radicata Cat's Ear high low MH Hypochoeris glabra Smooth Cat's-ear high low MH Arctotheca calendula Cape Weed high low MH Anagallis arvensis Pimpernel high low MH Trifolium campestre var. campestre Hop Clover high low MH Cicendia quadrangularis Square Cicendia high low MH Cerastium glomeratum s.l. Common Mouse-ear Chickweed high low MH Galium murale Small Goosegrass high low MH Petrorhagia velutina Velvety Pink high low MH Centaurium erythraea Common Centaury high low MH Galium divaricatum Slender Bedstraw high low LNG Holcus lanatus Yorkshire Fog high high MTG Briza minor Lesser Quaking-grass high low MTG Briza maxima Large Quaking-grass high low MNG Aira elegantissima Delicate Hair-grass high low MNG Juncus capitatus Capitate Rush high low MNG Vulpia myuros Rat's-tail Fescue high low MNG Vulpia ciliata Fringed Fescue high low TTG Cyperus tenellus Tiny Flat-sedge high low Published by the Victorian Government Department of Sustainability and Environment May 2004 The State of Victoria Department of Sustainability and Environment 2004 This publication is copyright. Reproduction and the making available of this material for personal, in-house or non-commercial purposes is authorised, on condition that: the copyright owner is acknowledged; no official connection is claimed; the material is made available without charge or at cost; and the material is not subject to inaccurate, misleading or derogatory treatment. Requests for permission to reproduce or communicate this material in any way not permitted by this licence (or by the fair dealing provisions of the Copyright Act 1968) should be directed to the Nominated Officer, Copyright, 8 Nicholson Street, East Melbourne, Victoria, For more information contact: Customer Service Centre, This publication may be of assistance to you but the State of Victoria and its employees do not guarantee that the publication is without flaw of any kind or is wholly appropriate for your particular purposes and therefore disclaims all liability for any error, loss or other consequence which may arise from you relying on any information in this publication.

227 EVC/Bioregion Benchmark for Vegetation Quality Assessment Goldfields bioregion EVC 68: Creekline Grassy Woodland Description: Eucalypt-dominated woodland to 15 m tall with occasional scattered shrub layer over a mostly grassy/sedgy to herbaceous ground-layer. Occurs on low-gradient ephemeral to intermittent drainage lines, typically on fertile colluvial/alluvial soils, on a wide range of suitably fertile geological substrates. These minor drainage lines can include a range of graminoid and herbaceous species tolerant of waterlogged soils, and are presumed to have sometimes resembled a linear wetland or system of interconnected small ponds. Large trees: Species DBH(cm) #/ha Eucalyptus spp. 80 cm 15 / ha Tree Canopy Cover: %cover Character Species Common Name 15% Eucalyptus camaldulensis River Red-gum Eucalyptus microcarpa Grey Box Eucalyptus melliodora Yellow Box Understorey: Life form #Spp %Cover LF code Immature Canopy Tree 5% IT Medium Shrub 4 10% MS Small Shrub 3 5% SS Large Herb 2 5% LH Medium Herb 9 15% MH Small Herb 3 5% SH Large Tufted Graminoid 2 5% LTG Medium to Small Tufted Graminoid 16 40% MTG Medium to Tiny Non-tufted Graminoid 3 5% MNG Bryophytes/Lichens na 10% BL LF Code Species typical of at least part of EVC range Common Name MS Acacia pycnantha Golden Wattle MS Daviesia ulicifolia Gorse Bitter-pea MS Cassinia arcuata Drooping Cassinia SS Pimelea humilis Common Rice-flower SS Pultenaea largiflorens Twiggy Bush-pea PS Astroloma humifusum Cranberry Heath LH Senecio tenuiflorus Slender Fireweed MH Xerochrysum viscosum Shiny Everlasting MH Gonocarpus tetragynus Common Raspwort MH Hypericum gramineum Small St John's Wort SH Hydrocotyle laxiflora Stinking Pennywort LTG Austrostipa rudis Veined Spear-grass LTG Carex tereticaulis Rush Sedge MTG Poa labillardierei Common Tussock-grass MTG Elymus scaber var. scaber Common Wheat-grass MTG Austrodanthonia setacea Bristly Wallaby-grass MTG Juncus remotiflorus Diffuse Rush MTG Carex appressa Tall Sedge MNG Microlaena stipoides var. stipoides Weeping Grass SC Thysanotus patersonii Twining Fringe-lily Ecological Vegetation Class bioregion benchmark

228 EVC 68: Creekline Grassy Woodland - Goldfields bioregion Recruitment: Continuous Organic Litter: 40 % cover Logs: 30 m/0.1 ha. Weediness: LF Code Typical Weed Species Common Name Invasive Impact LH Cirsium vulgare Spear Thistle high high LH Sonchus oleraceus Common Sow-thistle high low MH Hypochoeris radicata Cat's Ear high low MH Anagallis arvensis Pimpernel high low MH Hypochoeris glabra Smooth Cat's-ear high low MH Galium murale Small Goosegrass high low MH Oxalis pes-caprae Soursob high high LTG Juncus acutus Spiny Rush high high LTG Phalaris aquatica Toowoomba Canary-grass high high MTG Briza maxima Large Quaking-grass high low MTG Briza minor Lesser Quaking-grass high low MTG Romulea rosea Onion Grass high low MTG Vulpia bromoides Squirrel-tail Fescue high low MTG Bromus hordeaceus ssp. hordeaceus Soft Brome high low MNG Aira elegantissima Delicate Hair-grass high low MNG Vulpia muralis Wall Fescue high low MNG Bromus madritensis Madrid Brome high low Published by the Victorian Government Department of Sustainability and Environment April 2004 The State of Victoria Department of Sustainability and Environment 2004 This publication is copyright. Reproduction and the making available of this material for personal, in-house or non-commercial purposes is authorised, on condition that: the copyright owner is acknowledged; no official connection is claimed; the material is made available without charge or at cost; and the material is not subject to inaccurate, misleading or derogatory treatment. Requests for permission to reproduce or communicate this material in any way not permitted by this licence (or by the fair dealing provisions of the Copyright Act 1968) should be directed to the Nominated Officer, Copyright, 8 Nicholson Street, East Melbourne, Victoria, For more information contact: Customer Service Centre, This publication may be of assistance to you but the State of Victoria and its employees do not guarantee that the publication is without flaw of any kind or is wholly appropriate for your particular purposes and therefore disclaims all liability for any error, loss or other consequence which may arise from you relying on any information in this publication.

229 EVC/Bioregion Benchmark for Vegetation Quality Assessment Goldfields bioregion EVC 175_61: Low Rises Grassy Woodland Description: A variable open eucalypt woodland to 15 m tall over a diverse ground layer of grasses and herbs. The shrub component is usually diverse but sparse in cover. In the Goldfields bioregion, Grassy Woodland occurs on sedimentary soils on the lowest slopes at the interface between the plains and the infertile woodlands of the sedimentary hills. Large trees: Species DBH(cm) #/ha Eucalyptus spp. 70 cm 15 / ha Tree Canopy Cover: %cover Character Species Common Name 15% Eucalyptus microcarpa Grey Box Eucalyptus leucoxylon Yellow Gum Understorey: Life form #Spp %Cover LF code Immature Canopy Tree 5% IT Medium Shrub 6 15% MS Small Shrub 3 5% SS Prostrate Shrub 1 1% PS Large Herb 4 10% LH Medium Herb 10 15% MH Small or Prostrate Herb 2 5% SH Large Tufted Graminoid 2 5% LTG Medium to Small Tufted Graminoid 11 25% MTG Medium to Tiny Non-tufted Graminoid 3 5% MNG Bryophytes/Lichens na 10% BL Soil Crust na 10% S/C LF Code Species typical of at least part of EVC range Common Name MS Cassinia arcuata Drooping Cassinia MS Acacia pycnantha Golden Wattle MS Acacia acinacea s.l. Gold-dust Wattle MS Dodonaea viscosa ssp. cuneata Wedge-leaf Hop-bush PS Astroloma humifusum Cranberry Heath SS Pultenaea largiflorens Twiggy Bush-pea SS Pimelea humilis Common Rice-flower SS Eutaxia microphylla var. microphylla Common Eutaxia PS Astroloma humifusum Cranberry Heath LH Xerochrysum viscosum Shiny Everlasting LH Chrysocephalum semipapposum Clustered Everlasting LH Wahlenbergia luteola Bronze Bluebell LH Senecio tenuiflorus Slender Fireweed MH Veronica plebeia Trailing Speedwell MH Daucus glochidiatus Australian Carrot MH Einadia nutans ssp. nutans Nodding Saltbush MH Vittadinia cuneata Fuzzy New Holland Daisy SH Crassula sieberiana Sieber Crassula SH Hydrocotyle laxiflora Stinking Pennywort LTG Austrostipa mollis Supple Spear-grass MTG Elymus scaber var. scaber Common Wheat-grass MTG Austrostipa scabra ssp. falcata Rough Spear-grass MTG Poa sieberiana Grey Tussock-grass MTG Austrodanthonia setacea Bristly Wallaby-grass MNG Austrostipa elegantissima Feather Spear-grass SC Thysanotus patersonii Twining Fringe-lily SC Convolvulus erubescens spp. agg. Pink Bindweed Ecological Vegetation Class bioregion benchmark

230 EVC 175_61: Low Rises Grassy Woodland - Goldfields bioregion Recruitment: Continuous Organic Litter: 20 % cover Logs: 15 m/0.1 ha. Weediness: LF Code Typical Weed Species Common Name Invasive Impact LH Sonchus oleraceus Common Sow-thistle high low LH Cirsium vulgare Spear Thistle high high MH Hypochoeris radicata Cat's Ear high low MH Petrorhagia velutina Velvety Pink high low MTG Vulpia bromoides Squirrel-tail Fescue high low MTG Briza minor Lesser Quaking-grass high low MTG Briza maxima Large Quaking-grass high low MTG Bromus hordeaceus ssp. hordeaceus Soft Brome high low MTG Bromus diandrus Great Brome high low MNG Aira elegantissima Delicate Hair-grass high low MNG Aira cupaniana Quicksilver Grass high low MNG Vulpia myuros Rat's-tail Fescue high low Published by the Victorian Government Department of Sustainability and Environment April 2004 The State of Victoria Department of Sustainability and Environment 2004 This publication is copyright. Reproduction and the making available of this material for personal, in-house or non-commercial purposes is authorised, on condition that: the copyright owner is acknowledged; no official connection is claimed; the material is made available without charge or at cost; and the material is not subject to inaccurate, misleading or derogatory treatment. Requests for permission to reproduce or communicate this material in any way not permitted by this licence (or by the fair dealing provisions of the Copyright Act 1968) should be directed to the Nominated Officer, Copyright, 8 Nicholson Street, East Melbourne, Victoria, For more information contact: Customer Service Centre, This publication may be of assistance to you but the State of Victoria and its employees do not guarantee that the publication is without flaw of any kind or is wholly appropriate for your particular purposes and therefore disclaims all liability for any error, loss or other consequence which may arise from you relying on any information in this publication.

231 EVC/Bioregion Benchmark for Vegetation Quality Assessment Goldfields bioregion EVC 175_62: Granitic Grassy Woodland Description: A variable eucalypt woodland or open forest to 15 m tall over a distinct large and medium shrub layer and diverse ground layer of grasses and herbs. It occurs on sites with moderate fertility on plains or weathered undulating granitic hills in areas with moderately high rainfall (>600 mm per annum). Large trees: Species DBH(cm) #/ha Eucalyptus spp. 70 cm 15 / ha Tree Canopy Cover: %cover Character Species Common Name 15% Eucalyptus rubida Candlebark Eucalyptus viminalis Manna Gum Eucalyptus camaldulensis River Red Gum Eucalyptus ovata Swamp Gum Understorey: Life form #Spp %Cover LF code Immature Canopy Tree 5% IT Understorey Tree or Large Shrub 2 10% T Medium Shrub 2 15% MS Small Shrub 1 1% SS Prostrate Shrub 1 1% PS Medium Herb 8 20% MH Small or Prostrate Herb 3 10% SH Large Tufted Graminoid 1 1% LTG Medium to Small Tufted Graminoid 8 40% MTG Medium to Tiny Non-tufted Graminoid 1 5% MNG Ground Fern 1 5% GF Bryophytes/Lichens na 10% BL LF Code Species typical of at least part of EVC range Common Name T Acacia melanoxylon Blackwood T Acacia implexa Lightwood MS Acacia pycnantha Golden Wattle MS Acacia paradoxa Hedge Wattle MS Cassinia arcuata Drooping Cassinia SS Pimelea humilis Common Rice-flower PS Bossiaea prostrata Creeping Bossiaea MH Gonocarpus tetragynus Common Raspwort MH Drosera peltata ssp. auriculata Tall Sundew MH Acaena novae-zelandiae Bidgee-widgee MH Chrysocephalum apiculatum s.l. Common Everlasting SH Dichondra repens Kidney-weed SH Opercularia varia Variable Stinkweed SH Drosera whittakeri ssp. aberrans Scented Sundew SH Hydrocotyle laxiflora Stinking Pennywort LTG Deyeuxia quadriseta Reed Bent-grass MTG Themeda triandra Kangaroo Grass MTG Lomandra filiformis Wattle Mat-rush MTG Poa sieberiana Grey Tussock-grass MTG Dianella revoluta s.l. Black-anther Flax-lily MNG Microlaena stipoides var. stipoides Weeping Grass GF Pteridium esculentum Austral Bracken Ecological Vegetation Class bioregion benchmark

232 EVC 175_62: Granitic Grassy Woodland - Goldfields bioregion Recruitment: Continuous Organic Litter: 20 % cover Logs: 15 m/0.1 ha. Weediness: LF Code Typical Weed Species Common Name Invasive Impact MH Hypochoeris radicata Cat's Ear high low MTG Briza maxima Large Quaking-grass high low MTG Romulea rosea Onion Grass high low MTG Briza minor Lesser Quaking-grass high low MNG Vulpia myuros Rat's-tail Fescue high low MNG Aira cupaniana Quicksilver Grass high low Published by the Victorian Government Department of Sustainability and Environment April 2004 The State of Victoria Department of Sustainability and Environment 2004 This publication is copyright. Reproduction and the making available of this material for personal, in-house or non-commercial purposes is authorised, on condition that: the copyright owner is acknowledged; no official connection is claimed; the material is made available without charge or at cost; and the material is not subject to inaccurate, misleading or derogatory treatment. Requests for permission to reproduce or communicate this material in any way not permitted by this licence (or by the fair dealing provisions of the Copyright Act 1968) should be directed to the Nominated Officer, Copyright, 8 Nicholson Street, East Melbourne, Victoria, For more information contact: Customer Service Centre, This publication may be of assistance to you but the State of Victoria and its employees do not guarantee that the publication is without flaw of any kind or is wholly appropriate for your particular purposes and therefore disclaims all liability for any error, loss or other consequence which may arise from you relying on any information in this publication.

233 Appendix 7: Biodiversity assessment report (DEPI) Page 211

234 Biodiversity impact and offset requirements report This report provides additional biodiversity information for moderate and high risk-based pathway applications for permits to remove native vegetation under clause or of the planning schemes in Victoria Date of issue: 26/11/2014 DEPI ref: BLA_0074 Time of issue: 12:22 PM Project ID BLA_13051_Bulgana_WF_V5 Summary of marked native vegetation Risk-based pathway Total extent Remnant patches Scattered trees Location risk Moderate ha ha 100 trees A Strategic biodiversity score of all marked native vegetation Offset requirements if a permit is granted If a permit is granted to remove the marked native vegetation, a requirement to obtain a native vegetation offset will be included in the permit conditions. The offset must meet the following requirements: Offset type General offset amount (general biodiversity equivalence units) General offset general units General offset attributes Vicinity Minimum strategic biodiversity score Wimmera Catchment Management Authority (CMA) or the Local Municipal District where clearing takes place See Appendices 1 and 2 for details in how offset requirements were determined. NB: values presented in tables throughout this document may not add to totals due to rounding 1 Minimum strategic biodiversity score is 80 per cent of the weighted average score across habitat zones where a general offset is required Page1

235 Biodiversity impact and offset requirements report Next steps This proposal to remove native vegetation must meet the application requirements of the moderate risk-based pathway and it will be assessed under the moderate risk-based pathway. If you wish to remove the marked native vegetation you are required to apply for a permit from your local council. The biodiversity assessment report from NVIM and this biodiversity impact and offset report should be submitted with your application for a permit to remove native vegetation you plan to remove, lop or destroy. The Biodiversity assessment report generated by the tool within NVIM provides the following information: The location of the site where native vegetation is to be removed. The area of the patch of native vegetation and/or the number of any scattered trees to be removed. Maps or plans containing information set out in the Permitted clearing of native vegetation Biodiversity assessment guidelines The risk-based pathway of the application for a permit to remove native vegetation This report provides the following information to meet application requirements for a permit to remove native vegetation: Confirmation of the risk-based pathway of the application for a permit to remove native vegetation The strategic biodiversity score of the native vegetation to be removed Information to inform the assessment of whether the proposed removal of native vegetation will have a significant impact on Victoria s biodiversity, with specific regard to the proportional impact on habitat for any rare or threatened species. The offset requirements should a permit be granted to remove native vegetation. Additional application requirements must be provided with an application for a permit to remove native vegetation in the moderate or high risk-based pathways. These include: A habitat hectare assessment report of the native vegetation that is to be removed A statement outlining what steps have been taken to ensure that impacts on biodiversity from the removal of native vegetation have been minimised An offset strategy that details how a compliant offset will be secured to offset the biodiversity impacts of the removal of native vegetation. Refer to the Permitted clearing of native vegetation Biodiversity assessment guidelines and for a full list and details of application requirements. The State of Victoria Department of Environment and Primary Industries Melbourne 2014 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia licence. You are free to re-use the work under that licence, on the condition that you credit the State of Victoria as author. The licence does not apply to any images, photographs or branding, including the Victorian Coat of Arms, the Victorian Government logo and the Department of Environment and Primary Industries logo. To view a copy of this licence, visit Authorised by the Victorian Government, 8 Nicholson Street, East Melbourne. For more information contact the DEPI Customer Service Centre Disclaimer This publication may be of assistance to you but the State of Victoria and its employees do not guarantee that the publication is without flaw of any kind or is wholly appropriate for your particular purposes and therefore disclaims all liability for any error, loss or other consequence which may arise from you relying on any information in this publication. Obtaining this publication does not guarantee that an application will meet the requirements of clauses or of the Victoria Planning Provisions or that a permit to remove native vegetation will be granted. Notwithstanding anything else contained in this publication, you must ensure that you comply with all relevant laws, legislation, awards or orders and that you obtain and comply with all permits, approvals and the like that affect, are applicable or are necessary to undertake any action to remove, lop or destroy or otherwise deal with any native vegetation or that apply to matters within the scope of clauses or of the Victoria Planning Provisions. Page 2

236 Biodiversity impact and offset requirements report Appendix 1 Biodiversity impact of removal of native vegetation Habitat hectares Habitat hectares are calculated for each habitat zone within your proposal using the extent and condition scores in the GIS data you provided. Habitat zone Site assessed condition score Extent (ha) Habitat hectares XX X.XXX X.XXX X.XXX See excel spreadsheet Habitat hectares tab XX X.XXX X.XXX X.XXX TOTAL X.XXX Impacts on rare or threatened species habitat above specific offset threshold The specific-general offset test was applied to your proposal. The test determines if the proposed removal of native vegetation has a proportional impact on any rare or threatened species habitats above the specific offset threshold. The threshold is set at per cent of the total habitat for a species. When the proportional impact is above the specific offset threshold a specific offset for that species habitat is required. The specific-general offset test found your proposal does not have a proportional impact on any rare or threatened species habitats above the specific offset threshold. No specific offsets are required. A general offset is required as set out below. Clearing site biodiversity equivalence score(s) The general biodiversity equivalence score for the habitat zone(s) is calculated by multiplying the habitat hectares by the strategic biodiversity score. Habitat zone Habitat hectares Strategic biodiversity score General biodiversity equivalence score (GBES) X X.XXX X.XXX X.XXX See excel spreadsheet GBES by zone tab X X.XXX X.XXX X.XXX Mapped rare or threatened species habitats on site This table sets out the list of rare or threatened species habitats mapped at the site beyond those species for which the impact is above the specific offset threshold. These species habitats do not require a specific offset according to the specific-general offset test. Species number Species common name Species scientific name XXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX See excel spreadsheet Mapped VROTS habitat XXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Page 3

237 Biodiversity impact and offset requirements report Appendix 2 Offset requirements detail If a permit is granted to remove the marked native vegetation the permit condition will include the requirement to obtain a native vegetation offset. To calculate the required offset amount required the biodiversity equivalence scores are aggregated to the proposal level and multiplied by the relevant risk multiplier. Offsets also have required attributes: General offsets must be located in the same Catchment Management Authority (CMA) boundary or Local Municipal District (local council) as the clearing and must have a minimum strategic biodiversity score of 80 per cent of the clearing. 2 The offset requirements for your proposal are as follows: Offset type Clearing site biodiversity equivalence score Risk multiplier Offset amount (biodiversity equivalence units) Offset requirements Offset attributes General GBES general units Offset must be within Wimmera CMA or the same Municipal District as the vegetation removal Offset must have a minimum strategic biodiversity score of Strategic biodiversity score is a weighted average across habitat zones where a general offset is required Page 4

238 Biodiversity impact and offset requirements report Appendix 3 Images of marked native vegetation Image 1. Native vegetation location risk map Image 2. Strategic biodiversity score map Page 5

239 Biodiversity impact and offset requirements report Image 3. Aerial photograph showing marked native vegetation Page 6