Ravensworth Operations Project Ecological Assessment

Ravensworth Operations Project 

Ecological Assessment 

Ravensworth Operations Pty Limited 

February 2010



Prepared by 

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 

on behalf of 


Project Director: Barbara Crossley 

Project Manager: Tim Crosdale 

Report No. 2383/R08/Final Date: February 2010 

2/20 The Boulevarde 

PO Box 838 

Toronto NSW 2283 

Ph: 02 4950 5322 

Fax: 02 4950 5737 

Email: mail@umwelt.com.au 

Website: www.umwelt.com.au

Ravensworth Operations Project Executive Summary 


Executive Summary 

Ravensworth Operations Pty Limited (Ravensworth Operations) comprises Ravensworth 

West Mine and Narama Mine and is situated between the townships of Singleton and 

Muswellbrook, in the Upper Hunter Valley region of New South Wales (NSW). 

The Ravensworth Operations Project (the Project) proposes to access coal resources 

through continued open cut mining within existing mine leases and access of additional 

mining areas, to provide for continued mining operations for a further 29 years. The project 

includes the integration of a number of existing operations, including Narama, Ravensworth 

West and Cumnock mines and the surface facilities of Ravensworth Underground Mine. 

The project is identified as a Part 3A Project as defined by the State Environmental Planning 

Policy Major Projects 2005, and requires the approval of the NSW Minister for Planning 

under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. 

Project Area 

The project area covers approximately 5590 hectares for all land proposed for continued 

open cut mining and the upgrade and expansion of associated infrastructure and ancillary 

activities. The project will result in the clearing of approximately 1657 hectares of land, of 

which approximately 540 hectares occurs in previously disturbed areas. 

The project included substantial impact avoidance and minimisation strategies during the 

initial mine planning phase which has reduced the direct impact of the Project on vegetation 

communities and threatened species by approximately 490 hectares. 

Methods 

A detailed survey methodology was designed and completed in order to gain a thorough 

understanding of the ecological features of the Project area. The methods commenced with a 

detailed literature review, including searches of all relevant ecological databases. Information 

gathered from the literature reviews and database searches was then used to design an 

extensive field survey program to map and survey vegetation communities, and to target 

threatened species, endangered populations, endangered ecological communities, or their 

habitats, including aquatic features. 

The vegetation mapping and flora survey program was completed over 6 survey periods, 

covering spring, summer, autumn and winter, over three years. Surveys were completed in 

February, July, October and November. In total, 42 vegetation survey plots and extensive 

targeted threatened species transects and rapid assessments were completed across the 

Project area. 

The majority of the fauna survey program was undertaken over four survey periods across 

three years. Additional, targeted threatened species surveys were undertaken during spring, 

summer and winter. Surveys included the use of all standard survey techniques, including 

terrestrial and arboreal trapping and hair tube sampling, harp trapping, pitfall trapping, 

spotlighting, call playback, Anabat echolocation call detection and analysis, reptile searches, 

amphibian searches, bird searches, and analysis of scats, scratches, tracks and 

characteristic calls. Koala habitat was assessed at 42 sites. Surveys of the aquatic 

environments were undertaken through the use of dip nets, baited fish traps, habitat 

assessments and aquatic flora sampling, where suitable habitat allowed. 

Following the completion of the field survey, 33 detailed ecological habitat and condition 

assessments were conducted across the Project area to assist in the description of fauna 

habitat types. 


2383/R08/Final February 2010 1



Flora Results 

A total of 368 species were recorded within the Project area, of which 275 (75 per cent) are 

native and 93 (25 per cent) are introduced species. Flora species were recorded from a wide 

representation of plant families, 71 in total. The most speciose families in the Project area 

were found to be grasses, Poaceae (74 species), daisies, Asteraceae (48 species), peas, 

Fabaceae (34 species) and chenopods, Chenopodiaceae (14 species). 

Surveys of the Project area identified 10 vegetation communities, including 3 non-native 

communities. These vegetation communities were aligned with vegetation map units as 

described in the Hunter Remnant Vegetation Project (Peake 2006), where possible. 

The dominant communities identified in the Project area are Central Hunter Box – Ironbark 

Woodland and Derived Grassland with Central Hunter Bulloak Forest Regeneration occurring 

across a substantial proportion of the Project area. 

One flora species listed under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 

1999 (EPBC Act), Bothriochloa biloba, was recorded within the Project area but outside the 

proposed disturbance area. Two endangered populations were recorded within the Project 

area: weeping myall (Acacia pendula) in the Hunter Catchment EP and river red gum 

(Eucalyptus camaldulensis) in the Hunter Catchment EP. Both endangered populations 

occur outside the proposed disturbance area and will not be impacted by the Project. 

One threatened ecological community (TEC), River-flat Eucalypt Forest EEC, was recorded 

within the Project area, while an additional three communities that area preliminary EEC 

determinations were also recorded, including Hunter Floodplain Red Gum Woodland EEC 

(PD), Central Hunter Grey Box – Ironbark Woodland EEC (PD), and Central Hunter 

Ironbark – Spotted Gum – Grey Box Forest EEC (PD). 

Fauna Results 

A total of 180 vertebrate fauna species were recorded during surveys of the Project area. 

This included 116 bird species, 18 reptile species, 14 amphibian species and 22 mammal 

species. The diversity of fauna species recorded in the Project area is considered to be high 

in comparison to surrounding areas as the surrounding landscape has been heavily cleared 

and disturbed over a long period of time. 

A total of 13 fauna species listed as threatened under the TSC Act were recorded in the 

Project area, including one species under consideration (Preliminary Determination) for 

Vulnerable status and two species, the green and golden bell frog (Litoria aurea) and greyheaded 

flying-fox (Pteropus poliocephalus), co-listed under the EPBC Act. In addition to this, 

16 migratory species as listed under the EPBC Act were recorded within the Project area. 

A total of 25 aquatic fauna taxa were recorded during the aquatic survey of the Project area, 

comprising two vertebrate and 23 invertebrate taxa. No threatened aquatic taxa were 

recorded during the assessment and none are expected to occur. 

The habitat assessment showed that the woodland and riparian habitat formations provided 

a high quality range of fauna habitats, suitable for the majority of threatened fauna species 

recorded within the Project area. The grassland habitats contain fewer habitat niches, 

however they provide valuable foraging habitat for a variety of fauna species. The cleared 

and planted habitats provide reduced fauna habitat value. 





Impacts 

The project will result in the removal of a total of 559 hectares of native vegetation, including 

(approximately): 

� 473 hectares of Central Hunter Box – Ironbark Woodland EEC (PD); 

� 35 hectares of Central Hunter Bulloak Forest Regeneration; 

� 4 hectares of Central Hunter Ironbark – Spotted Gum – Grey Box Forest EEC (PD); 

� 38 hectares of Central Hunter Swamp Oak Forest; 

� 4 hectares of Hunter Valley River Oak Forest; 

� 5 hectares of River-flat Eucalypt Forest EEC; and 

�



The Biodiversity Offset Strategy is considered to provide an adequate and appropriate offset 

to counterbalance the loss of regionally and state significant vegetation communities, fauna 

habitats and threatened species. 

Summary and Conclusion 

As a result of the modifications made during mine planning that avoided and minimised 

impacts on ecological features, and the impact mitigation and biodiversity offset strategies, 

the significant impact on vegetation communities and fauna species, including threatened 

species has been substantially reduced. It is considered likely that there will be no significant 

impact on threatened species, populations, endangered ecological communities, or their 

habitats, with the exception of a potentially significant impact on the green and golden bell 

frog and Central Hunter Grey Box - Ironbark Woodland (PD) EEC. The re-establishment of 

vegetation communities consistent with the extant Central Hunter Box Ironbark Woodland will 

ensure that there is no net loss of flora and fauna values, over the medium to long term as a 

result of the Project. 



Ravensworth Operations Project Table of Contents 


TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1.0� Introduction .............................................................................. 1.1� 

1.1� Background ....................................................................................... 1.1� 

1.2� Proposed Project ............................................................................... 1.2� 

1.2.1� Preliminary Mine Planning ...............................................................................1.2� 

1.2.2� Proposed Ravensworth Operations Project ....................................................1.3� 

1.2.3� Biodiversity Offset Strategy .............................................................................1.5� 

1.3� Project Area ....................................................................................... 1.5� 

1.4� Purpose of this Document ................................................................ 1.6� 

1.5� Relevant Legislation and Guidelines ............................................... 1.6� 

2.0� Regional Setting ....................................................................... 2.1� 

2.1� Physiography, Geology and Soils .................................................... 2.1� 

2.2� Catchment Characteristics ............................................................... 2.2� 

2.3� History of Land Use in the Project Area and Region ...................... 2.2� 

2.4� Vegetation Types and Plant Species ............................................... 2.3� 

2.5� Fauna Habitats and Species ............................................................. 2.4� 

2.6� Conservation Areas ........................................................................... 2.5� 

2.7� Connectivity ....................................................................................... 2.5� 

3.0� Methods ..................................................................................... 3.1� 

3.1� Literature Review ............................................................................... 3.1� 

3.1.1� Terrestrial Ecology ...........................................................................................3.1� 

3.1.2� Aquatic Ecology ...............................................................................................3.6� 

3.2� Ecological Database Searches ......................................................... 3.7� 

3.3� Flora Survey within the Project Area ............................................... 3.8� 

3.3.1� Systematic Plot-based Survey.........................................................................3.8� 

3.3.2� Rapid Vegetation Assessments ......................................................................3.9� 

3.3.3� Total Flora Survey Effort ................................................................................3.11� 

3.4� Vegetation Mapping ........................................................................ 3.11� 

3.5� Fauna Survey ................................................................................... 3.12� 

3.5.1� Trapping Surveys ..........................................................................................3.13� 

3.5.2� Area Searches ...............................................................................................3.14� 

3.5.3� Targeted Surveys for the Green and Golden Bell Frog .................................3.16� 

3.5.4� State Environmental Planning Policy No. 44 – Koala Habitat 

Survey Methods .............................................................................................3.17� 

3.5.5� Fauna Survey Summary ................................................................................3.18� 


2383/R08/Final February 2010 i



3.6� Habitat and Condition Assessment Methodology ........................ 3.19� 

3.6.1� Selection of Size and Location of Survey Sites .............................................3.20� 

3.6.2� Hollow-bearing Tree Density .........................................................................3.22� 

3.7� Aquatic Survey ................................................................................ 3.22� 

3.7.1� Literature Review ...........................................................................................3.22� 

3.7.2� Aquatic Habitat Assessment..........................................................................3.23� 

3.7.3� Aquatic Sampling ...........................................................................................3.24� 

3.7.4� Aquatic Flora .................................................................................................3.25� 

4.0� Survey Results within the Project Area .................................. 4.1� 

4.1� Flora Survey Results ......................................................................... 4.1� 

4.1.1� Database Searches .........................................................................................4.1� 

4.1.2� Flora Species ...................................................................................................4.1� 

4.1.3� Vegetation Communities .................................................................................4.1� 

4.1.4� Threatened Flora Species, Endangered Flora Populations and 

Threatened Ecological Communities ...............................................................4.7� 

4.2� Fauna Survey Results ..................................................................... 4.10� 

4.2.1� Database Searches .......................................................................................4.10� 

4.2.2� Fauna Habitat of the Project Area .................................................................4.10� 

4.2.3� Fauna Species Recorded ..............................................................................4.16� 

4.2.4� Threatened Fauna Records...........................................................................4.18� 

4.3� Aquatic Survey Results .................................................................. 4.28� 

4.3.1� Aquatic Habitat and Stream Assessment ......................................................4.29� 

4.3.2� Aquatic Flora .................................................................................................4.30� 

4.3.3� Aquatic Fauna ...............................................................................................4.31� 

5.0� Impact Assessment .................................................................. 5.1� 

5.1� Project Changes to Avoid and Minimise Impacts ........................... 5.1� 

5.2� Impact of the Project on Ecological Values .................................... 5.2� 

5.2.1� Summary of Ecological Values ........................................................................5.2� 

5.2.2� Potential Ecological Impacts of the Project .....................................................5.3� 

5.2.3� Conceptual Plans for Vegetation Clearance and Rehabilitation .....................5.4� 

5.2.4� Summary of Ecological Impacts ......................................................................5.6� 

5.3� Impact of the Project on Flora Species ........................................... 5.7� 

5.4� Impact of the Project on Vegetation Communities ......................... 5.8� 

5.5� Impact of the Project on Fauna Habitat and Fauna Species ........ 5.10� 

5.5.1� Woodland and Forest Habitat ........................................................................5.11� 

5.5.2� Riparian and Aquatic Habitat .........................................................................5.11� 

5.5.3� Grassland habitat ..........................................................................................5.12� 


2383/R08/Final February 2010 ii



5.6� Impact of the Project on Threatened Species, 

Populations and Ecological Communities .................................... 5.12� 

5.6.1� Threatened Species Assessed Under the Environmental Planning 

and Assessment Act 1979 .............................................................................5.13� 

5.6.2� Threatened Species Assessed Under the Fisheries Management 

(FM) Act 1994 ................................................................................................5.15� 

5.6.3� SEPP 44 Assessment ...................................................................................5.15� 

5.6.4� Threatened Species Assessed under the Environment Protection and 

Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act 1999 .................................................5.15� 

5.7� Cumulative Vegetation and Fauna Habitat Loss........................... 5.17� 

5.8� Impact Mitigation Strategy .............................................................. 5.18� 

5.8.1� Actions to Maintain and Improve Ecological Value .......................................5.18� 

5.8.2� General Ecological Management Strategies .................................................5.20� 

5.8.3� Establishment of Vegetation Communities in the Post-mining Landscape ...5.22� 

5.8.4� Regeneration of Floodplain Vegetation .........................................................5.24� 

5.8.5� Fauna Habitat Re-instatement ......................................................................5.25� 

5.8.6� Aquatic Habitat Re-instatement .....................................................................5.25� 

5.8.7� Protection and Management of Arboreal Species and Habitat .....................5.26� 

5.8.8� Strategies to Protect Threatened Woodland Birds and Bats .........................5.27� 

5.8.9� Strategies to Protect the Green and Golden Bell Frog ..................................5.28� 

5.9� Biodiversity Offset Strategy ........................................................... 5.30� 

5.9.1� General Approaches to Biodiversity Offsetting..............................................5.30� 

5.9.2� Biodiversity Offset Strategy Development .....................................................5.31� 

5.9.3� Biodiversity Offset Strategy ...........................................................................5.34� 

5.9.4� Ecological Values of the Biodiversity Offset Areas .......................................5.36� 

5.9.5� Summary and Comparison of Offset Area Values to Project Impacts ..........5.61� 

5.10� Summary of Net Ecological Impacts .............................................. 5.66� 

5.10.1� Performance of the Biodiversity Offset Strategy against the 

Principles for Biodiversity Offsetting (DECC 2008) .......................................5.66� 

5.10.2� Impact Assessment Conclusion ....................................................................5.69� 

6.0� Management and Monitoring Requirements .......................... 6.1� 

6.1� Proposed Disturbance Area ............................................................. 6.1� 

6.1.1� Monitoring and Maintenance ...........................................................................6.1� 

6.2� Biodiversity Offset Area Management and Monitoring 

Requirements .................................................................................... 6.4� 

6.2.1� General Biodiversity Management Strategies for Ravensworth North 

Offset Area and Hillcrest Offset Area ..............................................................6.4� 

6.2.2� Regeneration and Remediation of Biodiversity Offset Areas ..........................6.5� 

6.2.3� General Ecosystem Monitoring .......................................................................6.9� 


2383/R08/Final February 2010 iii



6.2.4� Ravensworth North Offset Area Monitoring ...................................................6.10� 

6.2.5� Hillcrest Offset Area .......................................................................................6.10� 

7.0� References ................................................................................ 7.1� 

FIGURES 

1.1 Locality Plan ............................................................................................... 1.1 

1.2 Ravensworth Operations Project ............................................................. 1.1 

1.3 Mine Plan Revisions .................................................................................. 1.2 

1.4 Mine Plan Revisions .................................................................................. 1.2 

2.1 Regional Setting ......................................................................................... 2.1 

2.2 1967 Aerial Photograph ............................................................................. 2.2 

2.3 1993 Aerial Photograph ............................................................................. 2.3 

2.4 Hunter Remnant Vegetation Project Study Area ..................................... 2.4 

2.5 Connectivity in the Central Hunter Valley ................................................ 2.5 

3.1 Location of Previous Ecological Survey in the Project Area ................. 3.1 

3.2 Flora Survey Effort within the Project Area ............................................. 3.9 

3.3 Fauna Survey Effort within the Project Area ......................................... 3.12 

3.4 Green and Golden Bell Frog Survey Sites within the Project Area ..... 3.17 

3.5 Fauna Habitat and Condition Assessment Sites within the 

Project Area .............................................................................................. 3.20 

3.6 Aquatic Survey Effort within the Project Area ....................................... 3.22 

4.1 Vegetation Communities within the Project Area ................................... 4.1 

4.2 Location of Threatened Species and Endangered Flora 

Populations ................................................................................................ 4.6 

4.3 Location of Known Green and Golden Bell Frog Records in the 

Upper Hunter Green and Golden Bell Frog Key Population ................. 4.20 

4.4 Green and Golden Bell Frog Assessment of Potential Habitat ............ 4.20 


2383/R08/Final February 2010 iv



5.1 Conceptual Final Landform..................................................................... 5.22 

5.2 Ravensworth North Offset Area .............................................................. 5.32 

5.3 Hillcrest Offset Area ................................................................................ 5.32 

5.4 Hillcrest Offset Area Vegetation Communities and Threatened 

Species Locations ................................................................................... 5.35 

5.5 Ravensworth North Offset Area Vegetation Communities and 

Threatened Species Location ................................................................. 5.35 

5.6 Hillcrest Offset Area Management Commitments (Year 5) ................... 5.35 

APPENDICES 

A Biodiversity Offset Strategy Supporting Documentation 

B Threatened Species Assessment 

C Flora Species List 

D Fauna Species List 

E EP&A Act Assessment of Significance 

F EPBC Act Assessment of Significance 


2383/R08/Final February 2010 v

Ravensworth Operations Project Introduction 


1.0 Introduction 

Ravensworth Operations Pty Limited (Ravensworth Operations) comprises Ravensworth 

West Mine and Narama Mine and is situated between the townships of Singleton and 

Muswellbrook, in the Upper Hunter Valley region of New South Wales (NSW) (refer to 

Figure 1.1). 

Ravensworth Operations has undertaken an extensive exploration program within its mining 

leases, which has identified a significant coal resource within the Ravensworth area. The 

extent of the identified coal resource indicates sufficient reserves to enable the continuation 

of open cut mining operations for a further 20 to 30 years. 

The Ravensworth Operations Project (the Project) will involve continued open cut mining 

within the existing mining leases, including accessing additional mining areas and integration 

with surrounding Xstrata operations, particularly in relation to coal handling infrastructure, 

water and environmental management systems (refer to Figure 1.2). 

This ecological assessment has been prepared by Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited as part of 

the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Project. 

1.1 Background 

There has been an extended history of mining operations in the Ravensworth area, with 

open cut mines associated with the former Ravensworth South and Ravensworth No. 2 

mines operating from the early 1970s (refer to Figure 1.2). The former Ravensworth No. 2 

operation ceased in 1987, upon completion of the contract with domestic power generators. 

The former Ravensworth No. 2 mining area has been rehabilitated, with a number of final 

void areas currently being utilised by Macquarie Generation for the disposal of ash, and by 

Ashton Coal for the emplacement of tailings. 

Similarly, the former Ravensworth South operations ceased in 2000 with the final voids 

currently being utilised by Ravensworth Underground Mine for the emplacement of tailings. 

In addition, the existing Narama Mine operations also have approval for overburden 

emplacement within the former Ravensworth South mining area. 

The currently approved and operating mining operations, including Narama Mine and 

Ravensworth West Mine, have been operating since the early 1990s. Both of the existing 

mining operations are approaching their operational extent with the planned cessation of 

mining in approximately 2011. 

Vegetation and fauna habitats located within the approved Ravensworth West mining area 

(approximately 288 hectares) are not included in the assessment of disturbance areas for 

this project as they are already approved for mining impact as part of the Ravensworth West 

Project approved in 1997 (DA165/97). The cumulative impact of the loss of vegetation and 

fauna habitats is addressed in Section 5.7. 

In addition to Ravensworth Operations, Xstrata subsidiaries have a number of mining 

operations within the greater Ravensworth area including Cumnock No. 1 Colliery, 

Ravensworth Underground Mine, Mt Owen Complex which includes Mt Owen, Ravensworth 

East and Glendell mines, and Liddell Colliery. The proximity of these operations provides 

Xstrata with significant opportunities for increased integration to maximise synergies between 

mining operations within the area. 


2383/R08/Final February 2010 1.1



1.2 Proposed Project 

1.2.1 Preliminary Mine Planning 

The potential impacts of the Project on the ecological values of the Project area were 

recognised early in the Project. Ravensworth Operations has undertaken detailed concept 

and pre-feasibility studies into the proposed mining operation and as part of this process 

numerous alternative mine and infrastructure plans were considered. Minimising 

environmental and community impacts while maximising economic resource recovery have 

been major considerations in the evaluation of alternative options. 

In this context, early conceptual mine plans for the Project included mining and out of pit 

overburden emplacement areas extending to the northern extent of the Project area, 

requiring the removal of Davis Creek (refer to Figure 1.3). In response to the identification of 

a number of ecological and archaeological constraints along Davis Creek, a decision was 

made early in the Project design process to limit mining operations to the south of Davis 

Creek, which resulted in the reduction of the proposed disturbance area by approximately 

450 hectares. The reduction of the emplacement areas due, in large part, to ecological 

constraints resulted in the maximization of emplacement of overburden in previously mined 

areas. These changes were made in consideration of balancing potential dust, noise and 

visual impacts, as shown on Figure 1.3. 

Ravensworth Operations has undertaken considerable redesign of the Project to minimise 

direct impacts on threatened species and retain habitat and native vegetation. The overall 

footprint of the Project has reduced considerably and the out of pit dump was further 

modified late in the Project to allow for a 200 metre buffer to the south of Davis Creek to be 

included in the Project to protect potential breeding and dispersal habitat of the threatened 

green and golden bell frog (Litoria aurea). Figure 1.4 shows the change in the mine plan in 

response to the identification of the green and golden bell frog. The 200 metre resulted in 

the reduction in the proposed disturbance area by approximately 40 hectares. This buffer 

also provides additional protection for the River-flat Eucalypt Forest Endangered Ecological 

Community. The substantial reduction in clearing between initial mine plans and the 

proposed project (a total reduction of approximately 490 hectares) has reduced the area of 

disturbance for all threatened species recorded in the Project area. 

In addition, the location of surface infrastructure, such as powerline easements and water 

management structures considered the location of significant ecological features and have 

been located in disturbed areas wherever possible. 

The project as currently proposed in Section 1.2.2 is the result of the consideration of 

numerous alternatives and modifications and is considered to provide the best balance of 

safety, economic, environmental and social outcomes. The alternative of not proceeding with 

the Project has also been considered, however this option is not considered appropriate as it 

is expected that the environmental and social impacts of the Project can be effectively 

managed and not proceeding would result in the loss of the substantial economic and social 

benefits of the Project (refer to EA main text). 

Whilst significant reduction in the proposed disturbance area associated with the Project was 

undertaken, it is acknowledged that it is not possible to fully avoid or minimise all potential 

ecological impact considered likely to arise as a result of the Project. 





1.2.2 Proposed Ravensworth Operations Project 

As noted in Section 1.1, there has been an extended history of mining operations in this 

area since the 1970s. Current mining operations, including Ravensworth West Mine and 

Narama Mine, have been operating since the early 1990s. 

The Ravensworth Operations Project (the Project) proposes to access future coal resources 

through continued open cut mining within existing mine leases and access of additional 

mining areas, to provide for continued mining operations for a further 29 years. The project 

includes the integration of a number of existing operations, including Narama, Ravensworth 

West, Cumnock and the surface facilities of Ravensworth Underground Mines. 

The project is identified as a Part 3A Project as defined by the State Environmental Planning 

Policy Major Projects 2005, and requires the approval of the NSW Minister for Planning 

under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. 

Key features of the Project are provided in Table 1.1. Key features of the Project are shown 

in Figure 1.2. 

Major Project 

Components/Aspects 

Table 1.1 – Overview of the Ravensworth Operations Project 

Proposed Operations 

Limits on Extraction Up to 16 Mtpa ROM coal 

Capital Expenditure $900 million 

Mine Life Up to 29 years from granting of approval 

Operating Hours 24 hours per day, 7 days per week 

Number of Employees Approximately 550 Full Time Equivalents 

Mining Methods Open cut mining using dragline and truck and shovel 

Mining Areas Extension of existing operations and additional open cut mine and out 

of pit dump areas 

Infrastructure � Upgrade/expansion of existing Ravensworth Operations mine 

infrastructure area 

� new surface infrastructure facilities and workshop building north of 

Davis Creek (where required) 

� new ROM coal conveyor system and raw coal stockpile 

� construction of temporary employee, maintenance and equipment 

storage facilities for existing Narama mining facilities 

� expansion and upgrade of the RCHPP/RCT to process up to 

20 Mtpa ROM coal from the Project and other existing approved 

operations 

� expansion of rail load out infrastructure and capacity at 

RCHPP/RCT to enable transport of up to 20 Mtpa product coal 

� realignment of an existing 330 kV transmission line and other 

ancillary services 

� upgrade/expansion of RUM surface infrastructure 

� construction of a mine access road to service existing and 

proposed mine infrastructure areas 

Tailings and Rejects 

Strategy 

� Tailings emplacement in former Cumnock open cut, Ravensworth 

South and Narama voids 

� co-disposal of tailings and rejects with overburden 





Table 1.1 – Overview of the Ravensworth Operations Project (cont) 

Major Project 

Components/Aspects 

Proposed Operations 

External Coal Transport � Use of RCHPP/RCT and transport of up to 20 Mtpa product coal 

via the Ravensworth Rail Loop and the Main Northern Railway line 

� de-linking of the Ravensworth Rail Loop from the Newdell Rail 

Loop 

� use of existing conveyor system for transport of coal to domestic 

power generators 

� construction of a new conveyor and access bridge over the New 

England Highway 

Road Diversions Realignment of Lemington Road requiring the upgrade of the existing 

intersection with the New England Highway approximately 6 kilometres 

south-east of the current Lemington Road intersection. 

Water Management � Construction of a new mine water storage dam 

� construction of clean water diversions and management controls, 

including the diversion of Emu Creek around the proposed mining 

area 

� construction of mine water management controls, including drains, 

pipelines and water storages 

A key feature of the Project is the establishment of a multi-seam open cut mining operation to 

the west of Bayswater Creek (refer to Figure 1.2). This pit is known as the proposed 

Ravensworth North Pit and will incorporate the existing and approved Ravensworth West 

open cut pit. The existing Narama open cut pit will also be integrated into the Project, 

however active mining at this operation will cease during the initial stages of the Project. 

Mining will initially be undertaken through truck and shovel methods. Following completion of 

the Narama open cut mine, a dragline will be established as the main primary overburden 

stripping machine for the remainder of the Project. The mining operations will involve the 

following sequence: 

� pre-stripping – removal of vegetation and topsoil ahead of active mining operations; 

� overburden/interburden removal and management – drilling, blasting and removal of 

material lying above and in between coal seams. Overburden will be placed in out of pit 

dumps as shown on Figure 1.2. The northern out of emplacement area will be developed 

during the initial period of mining and for a period of up to 7 years. The eastern out of pit 

emplacement area includes the former Ravensworth No. 2, Ravensworth South and 

Narama Mine sites; 

� coal extraction – exposed coal will be blasted or ripped using bulldozers. All coal will be 

loaded onto trucks and transported to on-site coal stockpiles, prior to being transported 

either to local power stations or the Ravensworth Coal Terminal; and 

� rehabilitation – this is undertaken progressively following mining and overburden 

emplacement. The rehabilitation process includes shaping of overburden, surface 

preparation and revegetation of shaped areas with a mixture of native woodland or native 

grassland species. A detailed description of the proposed site rehabilitation programme 

is provided in Section 5.1 of the EA main text. 





ROM coal will be transported via the conveyors shown on Figure 1.2 to either local domestic 

power generators or the Ravensworth Coal Terminal (RCT), where it will be processed for 

sale on the export market. 

The project will maximise the use of existing infrastructure through the integration and 

upgrade of the RCT and Ravensworth Underground Mine surface infrastructure facilities. The 

project also includes the construction of a new mine infrastructure area and a dam to the 

south of the eastern out of pit emplacement area (refer to Figure 1.2). An existing 330 kV 

transmission line and Lemington Road, a local public road, would be relocated as part of the 

Project (refer to Figure 1.2). 

1.2.3 Biodiversity Offset Strategy 

In order to ameliorate the residual impacts of the Project on the significant ecological values 

identified in the Project area a Biodiversity Offset Strategy is included as part of the 

ecological assessment. The Biodiversity Offset Strategy has been designed to 

counterbalance the specific impacts on biodiversity that were identified during the ecological 

impact assessment. In doing this the offsetting principles detailed in the Principles for the 

use of Biodiversity Offsets in NSW (DECC 2008) were considered as part of the 

development of the Strategy. 

The Strategy includes the long-term conservation of two offset areas. The Ravensworth 

North Offset Area includes the on-site conservation of 262 hectares of high conservation 

value vegetation communities and threatened species habitat. An additional 1392 hectare 

proposed conservation area is located on non-operational land at Liddell Colliery, to the north 

of the Project area. This area, termed the Hillcrest Offset Area, will result in the conservation 

of high conservation value vegetation and fauna habitats and species. 

The details of the Biodiversity Offset Strategy are documented in Section 5.9 and 

Appendix A. 

1.3 Project Area 

The project area covers approximately 5590 hectares, which encompasses the land area for 

which approval is sought for this project. The project will result in the disturbance of 

1657 hectares of land within the Project area. The project area includes all land proposed for 

continued open cut mining and the upgrade and expansion of associated infrastructure (refer 

to Figure 1.2). 

Analysis of historical aerial photographs shows that the site was substantially cleared prior to 

1974. Significant regeneration of the Project area occurred between 1974 and 1993 and 

clearing has been limited to active mining areas since this time. None of the vegetation 

communities recorded in the Project area can be considered ‘old growth’ vegetation. Old 

growth vegetation refers to any vegetation that was present at the time of European arrival in 

Australia that still remains in essentially similar condition. The extant woodland in the Project 

area is entirely ‘regrowth’ vegetation. Regrowth is, ecologically, any native vegetation that 

has been cleared and has regrown since the time of clearing. Despite this, the native 

woodland and forest communities in the Project area are considered to have high ecological 

value in a local and regional context. Further discussion of the history of disturbance of 

native vegetation within the Project area is provided in Sections 2.0 and 5.0. 





1.4 Purpose of this Document 

This ecological assessment has been prepared by Umwelt to fundamentally report on the 

potential impact of the Project on native flora and fauna species, endangered populations, 

threatened ecological communities (TECs) and their habitats occurring in the Project area. 

Terrestrial vegetation communities, flora and fauna species and fauna habitat, and aquatic 

flora and fauna species and habitat, present in the Project area have been identified and 

considered as part of the impact assessment. The assessment addresses potential impacts 

on any threatened species, endangered populations, TECs, or their habitats (terrestrial or 

aquatic), that may occur in, or in the general vicinity of the Project area. 

The objectives of the ecological assessment were to: 

� record the flora and fauna species (both terrestrial and aquatic) within the Project area; 

� identify any threatened flora and fauna species, endangered populations, TECs, or their 

habitats, within the Project area, particularly those listed under the NSW Threatened 

Species Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act), NSW Fisheries Management Act 1994 

(FM Act), and the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation 

Act 1999 (EPBC Act); 

� assess the potential impact of the Project on any threatened flora and fauna species, 

endangered populations, TECs, or their habitats recorded (or with potential to occur) in 

the Project area; 

� provide management options to minimise ecological impacts associated with the Project, 

including modifications to the design or operation of the Project, and other on-site impact 

mitigation; and 

� determine an appropriate Biodiversity Offset Strategy to counterbalance the ecological 

impacts of the Project. 

This ecological assessment accompanies the broader Environmental Assessment prepared 

for the Project. 

1.5 Relevant Legislation and Guidelines 

The ecological survey and assessment completed as part of this project was prepared in 

accordance with the relevant Department of Planning (DoP) Director-General’s 

Requirements (DGRs) for the Project, being: 

� Biodiversity – including: 

- accurate predictions of the proposed vegetation clearing; 

- a detailed assessment of the potential impacts of the Project on any terrestrial and 

aquatic threatened species, populations, ecological communities or their habitats; 

and 

- an offset strategy to ensure that the Project will maintain or improve the 

biodiversity conservation value of the region; 





In addition, the ecological survey and assessment completed as part of this project was 

considered, including the following guidelines and relevant legislation: 

� Department of Environment Conservation (DEC) (2004) Threatened Biodiversity Survey 

and Assessment: Guidelines for Developments and Activities. Working Draft, November 

2004; 

� Department of Environment and Climate Change (DECC) and Department of Primary 

Industries (DPI) (2005) Draft Guidelines for Threatened Species Assessment (Part 3A), 

July 2005; 

� NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (2003) Environmental Impact Assessment 

Guidelines: Green and Golden Bell Frog Litoria aurea; 

� Department of Primary Industries (DPI) (2008) Threatened Species Assessment 

Guidelines – The Assessment of Significance. February 2008; 

� Commonwealth EPBC Act Policy Statement 1.1 – Significant Impact Guidelines – Matters 

of National Environmental Significance. May 2006; 

� NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act); 

� NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act); 

� NSW Fisheries Management Act 1994 (FM Act); 

� State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) 44 (Koala Habitat Protection) (2000); and 

� Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 

(EPBC Act). 



Ravensworth Operations Project Regional Setting 


2.0 Regional Setting 

2.1 Physiography, Geology and Soils 

The project area is situated centrally on the main floor of the Hunter Valley. It lies within the 

22,000 km 2 Hunter catchment which is drained by the Hunter and Goulburn Rivers and their 

tributaries. The project area is situated approximately 100 kilometres from the coast and 

140 kilometres from the western extremity of the Hunter catchment at the Great Dividing 

Range. 

The project area is situated in the central portion of the Hunter Valley, characterised by 

relatively gentle undulating hills, broad river valleys and floodplains. To the south are the 

dissected sandstone plateaux of Wollemi and Yengo National Parks, while to the north the 

foothills of the Barrington Tops and Mount Royal Range adjoin the Hunter Valley floor, which 

is bounded by the Hunter Thrust System (Peake 2006). To the east and west of the Project 

area extend the highly eroded Permian lowlands of the floor of the Hunter Valley (refer to 

Figure 2.1). 

Geology 

The Central Hunter Valley lies at the intersection (defined by the presence of the Hunter 

Overthrust (McClung 1980)) of the north-eastern margin of the Sydney Basin and the southeastern 

margin of the New England Fold Belt. The Hunter Overthrust is a succession of 

faults where the layers of Carboniferous rock have been thrust south-west and in some areas 

moved over areas of Permian rock (Branagan and Packham 2000). The Sydney Basin 

extends from the south coast of NSW well into the central Queensland Coast (Hawley and 

Brunton 1995), it mostly consists of a thick Permian-Triassic rock succession formed during 

early Permian rifting, and contains large reserves of coal. 

The Central Hunter Valley is primarily underlain by four major geological strata: 

Carboniferous; Permian; Triassic and Quaternary. To a lesser extent it is also underlain by 

Jurassic and Tertiary strata. Carboniferous rocks mostly underlie the areas in the north-east 

of the region and are a combination of erosion resistant marine, volcanic, conglomerate, and 

limestone sediments; these typically form steep-sided hills and valleys. Permian rocks make 

up the majority of the region and mostly consist of the moderately erosion resistant: 

Singleton Coal Measures, conglomerate, sandstone, shale, tuff, and some lava beds; these 

typically form low, undulating hills. The Triassic rock is mostly located in areas in the northwest, 

west, and south of the Central Hunter Valley and consist of highly erosion resistant 

sandstone which tends to form infertile, rugged country. Quaternary sediments are mostly 

identified along and in proximity to the major rivers and creeks of the Central Hunter Valley. 

The Jurassic rocks are typically in the form of Saxonvale volcanics and are mostly found 

around Bayswater, Fordwich and Lemington; and the Tertiary stratum are typically only found 

in the form of small basalt caps in several very small areas. 

Soil Landscapes 

The central Hunter Valley region occurs under two soil landscape maps; the Singleton 

1:250,000 sheet (Kovac and Lawrie 1991); and the Murrurundi 1:100,000 sheet (McInnes- 

Clarke 2002). These two map sheets define a total of 60 different soil landscapes for the 

central Hunter Valley. Forty-four of these soil landscapes were defined under Kovac and 

Lawrie (1991) and the remaining 16 were defined in McInnes-Clarke (2002). Each soil 

landscape consists of an area of land that can be uniquely identified by its specific 

topography and soil, and can be described concisely. The areas of land covered by each 

soil landscape vary in size from less than 5 km² to over 450 km². 





Soil landscapes present in the Project area are shown on Figure 5.2 of the main text and 

include the Liddell (ld), Hunter (hu) and Bayswater soil landscapes (bz). The Liddell Soil 

Landscape dominates the Project area, with a smaller area of the Hunter Soil Landscape 

preset around Bowmans Creek and the lower reaches of Bayswater Creek. A very small area 

of the Bayswater Soil Landscape occurs on the eastern boundary of the Project area, 

adjacent to Bowmans Creek. 

2.2 Catchment Characteristics 

The project area is located within the catchment areas of Bowmans Creek, Bayswater Creek, 

Emu Creek, Davis Creek, Farrells Creek and the Ravensworth West and Ravensworth 

East/Narama mine water management systems. Emu Creek, Davis Creek and Farrells 

Creek are tributaries of Bayswater Creek. Bayswater Creek flows in a southerly direction 

through the central portion of the Project area to its confluence with the Hunter River in the 

southern extremity of the Project area, and Bowmans Creek flows in a southerly direction to 

its confluence with the Hunter River along the eastern edge of the Project area (refer to 

Figure 1.2). 

The Hunter River originates in the Mount Royal Range and Barrington Tops Plateau, flowing 

for some 250 kilometres to the sea at Newcastle (refer to Figure 2.1). River regulation has 

lead to the disruption of natural flow regimes and stream geomorphological impacts. In 

addition, land clearing over the past 200 years has lead to the degradation of riparian 

corridors, broad scale hydrological changes, biodiversity losses, stream bank erosion and 

sedimentation. 

The Hunter River Inquiry (Healthy Rivers Commission 2002) provided evidence that 

ecological sustainability is not currently being achieved in the Hunter catchment. Across the 

catchment, only one third of streams are in good condition, with stable banks and a natural 

pool/riffle structure, and approximately 10 per cent of streams are unstable. Water quality is 

extremely variable and the extraction of water has placed most streams under stress. 

Studies of macroinvertebrates show that between 40 per cent and 70 per cent of sites or 

subcatchments surveyed are in poor condition and approximately 30 per cent of native fish 

species have been lost from the catchment. 

2.3 History of Land Use in the Project Area and Region 

A review of historical aerial photographs was undertaken to ascertain the historical land use 

within the Project area and particularly the historical extent of native vegetation in the Project 

area. Four sets of aerial photographs were obtained from the Department of Lands: with sets 

covering the Project area in 1967, 1974, 1983 and 1993. These photograph sets were 

compared to the extent of native vegetation cover shown on the 2008 aerial photograph of 

the site. 

Examination of the 1967 set of photographs shows that substantial clearing in the Project 

area had been undertaken prior to that time (refer to Figure 2.2). A number of small areas 

(approximately one to two hectare areas) of woodland are visible on the photograph, with a 

remnant of approximately 35 hectares occurring in the south-eastern portion of the Project 

area. At this time however, the Project area generally comprises cleared grazing land with 

scattered trees. 

Examination of the 1974 set of photographs shows little discernible change in the vegetation 

structure and extent within the Project area. Mining commenced at Ravensworth in the early 

1970s with the Ravensworth South mine shown on the 1974 photo. The 35 hectare remnant 





in the south-east of the Project area shows signs of increased vegetation cover with 

approximately 81 hectares then covered with woodland vegetation. The remainder of the 

site remained in the generally cleared state with small patches of vegetation of generally less 

than two hectares. 

Significant regeneration of vegetation in the Project area occurred between 1983 and 1993, 

(refer to Figure 2.3) with approximately 1200 hectares occurring in the Project area in 2009. 

Table 2.1 presents an analysis of the age structure of the vegetation within the area 

proposed for disturbance. The analysis is based on a review of historical aerial photographs 

and provides the area of vegetation that is currently present (2009) in the proposed 

disturbance area that was also present in 1967, 1974, 1983 and 1993. These age classes of 

vegetation present in the area to be disturbed have been factored in to the development of 

the preliminary closure criteria for the Project. 

Table 2.1 - Age Classes of Woodland Vegetation Occurring in the Disturbance Area 

Age Class Area of Vegetation in Proposed 

Disturbance Area (Hectares) 

Proportion of Proposed 

Disturbance Area (per cent) 

Pre 1967 20 3.5 

35-42 years 20 3.5 

26-35 years 306 55 

16-26 years 69 12 



vegetation on behalf of the Hunter-Central Rivers Catchment Management Authority 

(HCRCMA). The vegetation community classification and mapping is referred to as the 

Hunter Remnant Vegetation Project (HRVP) (refer to Figure 2.4). That study area covered 

approximately 315,000 hectares stretching from Scone in the north to Denman in the southwest 

and Branxton in the south-east. The project area is wholly included in the HRVP study 

area. This work included the botanical survey of 327 sites and mapping of approximately 

60,000 hectares of forest or woodland remnants. Peake (2006) found that the native forests 

and woodlands of the central Hunter Valley have probably been reduced by approximately 

76 per cent (238,000 hectares) since European settlement. 

Most remaining forest and woodland remnants on the Hunter Valley floor are small, with 

87 per cent being less than 10 hectares in size, and the median remnant size being 

1.6 hectares (Peake 2006). Approximately 65 per cent of all remnant vegetation on the 

Hunter Valley floor occurs within the relatively few remnants that are over 100 hectares in 

area, with the largest remnant, which is mostly within Myambat Military Area near Denman, 

being approximately 2250 hectares. The second-largest remnant mapped is that located at 

Wybong Uplands covering 2067 hectares. 

Thirty-six vegetation communities were delineated by Peake (2006) in the central Hunter 

Valley, comprising five rainforest communities, 16 woodlands, 13 open forest communities, 

one heath and one (unnatural) plantation community. Six are listed as threatened ecological 

communities (TECs) under the TSC Act 1995, while a further five communities have been 

nominated for listing. Twenty-two of the 36 identified communities meet the criteria for listing 

as EECs under the TSC Act 1995 or the Commonwealth EPBC Act 1999 and the remaining 

13 naturally-occurring vegetation communities are either restricted or limited in extent (Peake 

2006). Only a small number of vegetation communities described by Peake (2006) are wellrepresented 

in the NSW conservation reserve system. Most have relatively poor 

representation and a few communities, that are generally restricted to the valley floor, have 

little or no representation in existing reserves (Peake 2006). 

Peake (2006) recorded 1127 plant species in the remnant vegetation of the central Hunter 

Valley, 22 per cent of which were not native to the area. Twenty-five plant species are of 

significance (either Rare or Threatened Australian Plants (ROTAP) or listed under the TSC 

Act 1995 or EPBC Act 1999). Peake (2006) also recorded two previously undescribed 

species, 31 range extensions and seven species endemic to the Hunter Valley. Thirty-seven 

plant species occurring on the Hunter Valley floor are regionally rare and twelve plant 

populations are regionally endangered (Peake 2006). Of these populations, three are listed 

under the TSC Act 1995. Peake (2006) also recorded twenty noxious or nationally significant 

weed species, and 49 important environmental weeds. 

2.5 Fauna Habitats and Species 

The broad fauna habitat types of grassland, riparian, woodland/forest and aquatic habitat 

found within the Project area are representative of the broad habitat types within the 

surrounding region. All habitats in the region have been extensively cleared or modified for 

agriculture, largely for cattle grazing. Communities occurring on floodplains and more fertile 

soils in the Hunter Valley floor have been most extensively cleared (Peake 2006). Because 

of the widespread clearing of habitats in the region, those remaining contain important 

refuges for a number of fauna species, many of which are now threatened due to habitat loss 

and fragmentation. 

Woodland and forests of the central Hunter Valley floor support a range of fauna species. 

These habitats are characterised by a dry environment with little or no standing water. 

Habitat is provided by a moderately open canopy and a sclerophyllous understorey that 



S o u r c e : 

L e g e n d 

P e a k e ( 2 0 0 6 ) 

P r o j e c t A r e a 

H u n t e r R e m n a n t V e g e t a t i o n P r o j e c t S t u d y A r e a 

F i l e N a m e ( A 4 ) : R 0 8 _ V 1 / 2 3 8 3 _ 1 6 1 . w o r 

Vegetation Community 

Rainforest 

Barrington Footslopes Complex Dry Rainforest 

Hunter Valley Vine Thicket 

Lower Hunter Dry Rainforest 

Upper Hunter Depauperate Dry Rainforest 

Upper Hunter Narrabeen Gully Ironwood Dry Rainforest 

Woodland 

Bulga Wattle Woodland 

Central Hunter Box-Ironbark Woodland 

Central Hunter Paperbark Soaks Woodland 

Hunter Floodplain Red Gum Woodland Complex 

Hunter Valley Weeping Myall Woodland 

Hunter Valley White Box-Spinifex Exposed Woodland 

Narrabeen Footslopes Slaty Box Woodland 

Southern Hunter Escarpement Spotted Gum Woodland 

Upper Hunter Hills Box-Ironbark-Red Gum Woodland 

Upper Hunter Hills Exposed Ironbark Woodland 

Upper Hunter Narrabeen Escarpement Acacia Woodland 

Upper Hunter White Box-Ironbark Grassy Woodland 

Warkworth Sands Woodland 

Western Hunter Narrabeen Exposed Grey Gum-Stringybark Woodland 

Western Hunter Narrabeen Footslopes Ironbark - Cypress Pine Woodland 

Open Forest 

Heath 

Plantation 

Barrington Footslopes Dry Spotted Gum Forest 

Barrington Footslopes White Mahogany Forest 

Central Hunter Bulloak Forest Regeneration 

Central Hunter Ironbark - Spotted Gum - Grey Box Forest 

Central Hunter Swamp Oak Forest 

Hunter Lowlands Red Gum Forest 

Hunter Valley River Oak Forest 

Lower Hunter Spotted Gum - Ironbark Forest 

Mt Arthur Forest Complex 

Southern Hunter Footslopes Sheltered Forest 

Upper Hunter Coastal Myall Exposed Forest 

Upper Hunter Hills Sheltered Moist Forest 

Wollombi Alluvial Red Gum - Apple Forest 

Myambat Narrabeen Mircomyrtus Heath 

Planted Areas 

0 1 2 . 5 2 5 k m 

1 : 5 0 0 0 0 0 

FIGURE 2.4 

Hunter Remnant Vegetation 

Project Study Area



ranges from very dense to sparse, while the ground cover is generally sparse and dominated 

by grasses and forbs. 

Alluvial forests generally provide a denser vegetation cover than woodland and forest 

habitats. The relatively larger sizes of trees supported by the alluvial soils often also provide 

larger-sized hollows than those found on surrounding, drier slopes and ridges. The alluvial 

sites also provide ephemeral standing and moving water, with small wetlands and farm dams 

occurring in some areas. Aquatic habitat provided by farm dams and ephemeral creek lines 

and drainage lines are common across the undulating landscape surrounding the Project 

area. 

Grassland habitats are dominated by a range of native and naturalised perennial grasses 

and forbs. The health and integrity of the vegetation largely corresponds with the grazing 

history, particularly grazing intensity with many grassland habitats formed as a result of the 

clearing of woodland well over 100 years ago. The grass and forb dominated groundcover 

includes log and stump cover that provides habitat for grassland mammals (small and large), 

birds and terrestrial reptile species. The highly scattered trees throughout the grassland 

provided nesting, roosting and perching habitat for bird species, roosting habitat for some 

micro-bat species and shade for larger grazing mammal species. 

2.6 Conservation Areas 

Two large national parks occur approximately 12 and 25 kilometres to the south-west of the 

Project area (Wollemi and Yengo National Parks) (refer to Figure 2.1). These national parks 

contain large areas of native vegetation and offer a wide range of good quality fauna 

habitats. Smaller, yet significant areas of National Park also exist approximately 

35 kilometres to the north-east of the Project area (Mt Royal and Barrington Tops National 

Parks) (refer to Figure 2.1). These national parks also contain significant areas of remnant 

vegetation and important fauna habitats. These conservation areas are located on the edges 

of the Hunter Valley, and are not representative of the central Hunter Valley floor. 

Ravensworth State Forest and adjoining areas represents a significant link and refuge area 

between remnant patches of vegetation in the central Hunter Valley. The Ravensworth State 

Forest is located approximately 10 kilometres to the north-east of the Project area. This 

forest forms an important and integral part in the preservation of the flora and fauna of the 

upper Hunter Valley (Umwelt 2003). Approximately 415 hectares of vegetation contiguous 

with Ravensworth State Forest has been set aside for in perpetuity conservation as part of 

the Mt Owen Biodiversity Offset Strategy (Umwelt 2003), representing a significant area of 

conserved habitats in the central Hunter Valley (refer to Figure 2.5). 

The only reserve occurring on the floor of the central Hunter Valley is the 292 hectare Belford 

National Park that lies approximately 35 kilometres to the east of the Project area. It adjoins 

other areas of vegetation which together comprise some 500 hectares of forest and 

woodland. Singleton Military Area, about 30 kilometres to the south-east, although not a 

formal reserve, acts as a defacto reserve effectively protecting some 3,600 hectares of forest 

and woodland (refer to Figure 2.1). 

2.7 Connectivity 

The project area occurs in a relatively large area of native vegetation of approximately 

1200 hectares. The remnant occurs in the central portion of the Hunter Valley floor, 

approximately 100 kilometres from the coast and 140 kilometres from the western extremity 

of the Hunter catchment. In the central Hunter Valley, the Ravensworth remnant represents 





one of the largest remnants of native vegetation (refer to Figure 2.4), with Myambat Military 

area (2251 hectares), Wybong Uplands (2067 hectares) (which includes the approved 

Mangoola mining area), Singleton Military Area south and east (2020 and 1681 hectares 

respectively) the only remnants greater in area (Peake 2006). As outlined in Section 1.1, 

approximately 288 hectares of this area has been previously approved for clearing for the 

Ravensworth West mine. 

The central location of the remnant increases its significance due to its functionality as a 

fauna refuge and ‘stepping stone’ in a highly fragmented landscape. The remnant probably 

provides a significant link in the generally north/south movement of highly mobile species, 

from other sizeable remnants in the north-west such as those of Antiene and to the northeast 

including Ravensworth State Forest and the adjoining Mt Owen Biodiversity Offset Area, 

to large remnants to the south-east and south-west of the Project area, including remnants at 

Warkworth and Jerry’s Plains. Further from these valley floor remnants the Ravensworth 

remnant provides a central stepping stone between the conserved habitats of Mt Royal and 

Barrington Tops National Parks to the north and Wollemi National Park to the south. 

Connectivity to the east and west of the Project area is limited due to extensive areas of 

cleared land and adjoining open cut mining operations, however as discussed above the 

remnant probably provides an important stepping stone for the movement of the most mobile 

of species in an east-west direction (refer to Figure 2.1). 

The large size of the remnant means that it provides a relatively significant area of habitat for 

a wide range of flora and fauna species. Of particular importance is the ability of the remnant 

to support a range of species whose occurrence is limited by the need for a large area of 

contiguous habitat, such as woodland dependent bird species. Due to the widespread 

historic clearing and fragmentation of valley floor vegetation there are few large remnants 

greater than 100 hectares remaining in the central Hunter Valley (Peake 2006) increasing the 

significance of those remaining large remnants. These remnants are threatened by ongoing 

disturbance and isolation due to the expansion of the mining industry, agriculture, rural 

residential development and other developments. Historic clearing of the Project area 

means, however, that the vegetation on site has a scarcity of tree hollows, despite its 

otherwise significance for fauna species. 

The Hunter River and to a lesser extent Bayswater and Bowmans Creeks, which run 

generally along the eastern and southern boundaries of the Project area, potentially 

comprise important local and regional corridors, as they represent a fairly continuous stretch 

of vegetation, albeit very narrow and highly modified. 



Ravensworth Operations Project Methods 


3.0 Methods 

A detailed survey methodology was designed and completed in order to gain a thorough 

understanding of the ecological features of the Project area. The methods included a detailed 

literature review of relevant reports and vegetation mapping, as well as searches of relevant 

ecological databases. Information gathered from the literature reviews and database 

searches was then used to design a field survey program to map and survey vegetation 

communities, and to target threatened species, endangered populations, TECs, and their 

habitats. 

3.1 Literature Review 

3.1.1 Terrestrial Ecology 

3.1.1.1 Environmental Impact Statement for Cumnock No. 1 Colliery Expansion (HLA- 

Envirosciences Pty Limited 1996) 

This Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was prepared for the expansion of open cut 

mining operations. The location of the study area for the Project is shown on Figure 3.1 and 

occurs in the northern portion of the proposed disturbance area and the proposed 

Ravensworth North Offset Area. Seven vegetation communities were identified, comprising: 

� Eucalyptus crebra open woodland; 

� Eucalyptus crebra/Allocasuarina luehmannii woodland; 

� Eucalyptus tereticornis/Casuarina glauca creekline vegetation; 

� Allocasuarina luehmannii woodland; 

� Eucalyptus crebra/Eucalyptus moluccana open woodland; 

� Casuarina glauca – swamp; and 

� Eucalyptus fibrosa var. fibrosa woodland. 

No threatened flora species were identified in the study area during the survey. Four fauna 

habitats were identified across the site comprising woodland, riparian, Casuarina swamp and 

Typha swamp. Two threatened fauna species were recorded in the study area, being: 

� greater broad-nosed bat (Scoteanax rueppelii); and 

� eastern bentwing-bat (Miniopterus schreibersii oceanensis). 

3.1.1.2 Biodiversity Monitoring – Cumnock No. 1 Colliery. Flora and Fauna Studies 

(Mount King Ecological Surveys and Gingra Ecological Surveys 2006, 2007) 

Mount King Ecological and Gingra Ecological Surveys undertook annual flora and fauna 

monitoring for Cumnock No 1 Colliery in 2006 and 2007. The location of the monitoring 

surveys is shown on Figure 3.1 and was generally undertaken in the northern portion of the 

proposed disturbance area and Ravensworth North Offset Area. Seven vegetation 

communities have been identified comprising: 





� woodland dominated by narrow-leaved ironbark (E. crebra); 

� woodland dominated by narrow-leaved ironbark (E. crebra) and coastal grey box 

(E. moluccana); 

� woodland dominated by bulloak (Allocasuarina luehmannii); 

� riparian woodland dominated by swamp oak (Casuarina glauca); 

� regenerating low woodland with a mix of tree species including bulloak (Allocasuarina 

luehmannii), narrow-leaved ironbark (E. crebra) and grey gum (E. punctata); 

� grassland; and 

� existing development (cleared lands). 

No threatened flora species, endangered flora populations or TECs were identified in the 

study area. Nine threatened fauna species were identified, comprising: 

� speckled warbler (Pyrrholaemus saggitata); 

� hooded robin (South-eastern form) (Melanodryas cucullata cucullata)); 

� scarlet robin (Petroica boodang) – Preliminary Determination; 

� brown treecreeper (eastern subspecies) (Climacteris picumnus victoriae); 

� grey-crowned babbler (eastern subspecies) (Pomatostomus temporalis temporalis); 

� masked owl (Tyto novaehollandiae); 

� eastern freetail bat (Mormopterus norfolkensis); 

� eastern bentwing-bat (Miniopterus schreibersii oceanensis); and 

� large-footed myotis (Myotis adversus). 

A number of permanent monitoring sites are located within the Project area, to the north of 

Davis Creek, as shown on Figure 3.1. Remnant vegetation communities dominated by 

narrow-leaved ironbark (Eucalyptus crebra) mapped during monitoring have recently been 

preliminarily listed as endangered ecological communities (EECs). The threatened species 

recorded during Cumnock ecological monitoring are discussed further in Section 4.2.4. 

3.1.1.3 Extension of Mining Operations EIS (ERM Mitchell McCotter 1998) 

An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was prepared in 1998 to assess the Extension of 

Mining Operations at Ravensworth Mine. An ecological survey and assessment of the 

Ravensworth West study area was undertaken in 1997. The study area is entirely contained 

within the current project area as shown on Figure 3.1. The survey identified five vegetation 

communities: 

� bulloak low woodland; 

� grey box/narrow-leaved ironbark tall open woodland; 

� regenerating low woodland; 





� swamp oak open forest; and 

� grassland. 

The survey did not identify any threatened flora species, however Cymbidium canaliculatum 

was identified. This species has subsequently been listed as an endangered population in 

the Hunter Catchment and it is believed that it has been removed by the approved mining 

operation. 

Fauna surveys identified a total of 13 mammals, 17 birds, 7 reptiles and 5 amphibians. An 

additional six species were recorded during surveys for a Species Impact Statement (SIS). 

Three threatened micro-bat species were recorded in the study area: eastern bentwing-bat 

(Miniopterus schreibersii oceanensis), large-footed myotis (Myotis adversus) and eastern 

false pipistrelle (Falsistrellis tasmaniensis). 

One green and golden bell frog (Litoria aurea) was recorded during surveys undertaken for 

the SIS. A targeted green and golden bell frog survey was not undertaken and the population 

size was not evaluated. 

Further discussion of the threatened species records is provided in Section 4.2.4. 

3.1.1.4 Mine Life Extension Environmental Impact Statement (HLA-Envirosciences 

2001) 

An EIS was prepared on behalf of Cumnock No 1 Colliery to assess the extension of mining 

operations. An ecological survey and assessment was undertaken in 2000 which 

incorporated the results of previous surveys undertaken in the Ravensworth Operations area 

including the ERM Mitchell McCotter (1998) assessment described in Section 3.1.1.3. The 

study area was entirely contained within the current project area as shown on Figure 3.1. 

Additional vegetation communities recorded included: 

� grassland; 

� Eucalyptus crebra woodland; 

� existing development; 

� narrow-leaved ironbark/grey box woodland; 

� bulloak woodland; 

� swamp oak riparian strip; and 

� regenerating low woodland. 

A total of 62 fauna species were identified during field surveys comprising 38 birds, 7 frogs, 

7 reptiles and 10 mammals. Five adult male green and golden bell frogs (Litoria aurea) were 

recorded in a dam immediately north of Davis Creek and a masked owl (Tyto 

novaehollandiae) was identified as road kill adjacent to the New England Highway. A largefooted 

myotis (Myotis adversus) was tentatively recorded via Anabat analysis within the 


The location of the study area for this assessment is shown on Figure 3.1. Further 

discussion of the threatened species records is provided in Section 4.2.4. 





3.1.1.5 Flora and Fauna Assessment Proposed Modification to Reject Emplacement 

and Water Management Systems (Umwelt 2000) 

A Statement of Environmental Effects was undertaken to modify the development consent for 

the Nardell underground coal mine (now Ravensworth Underground Mine). Ravensworth 

Underground coal mine is located in the northern part of the Project area, to the north of the 

New England Highway (refer to Figure 1.2). Flora and fauna studies were undertaken as 

part of the Project. 

Five vegetation communities were recorded, including: 

� Eucalyptus moluccana/Eucalyptus crebra woodland; 

� Mixed regrowth vegetation; 

� Pastoral grassland; 

� Allocasuarina luehmanii Woodland; and 

� Aquatic/semi aquatic vegetation. 

Fauna habitat was considered to be degraded and only 29 fauna species were recorded in 

the study area. This included the threatened eastern bentwing-bat (Miniopterus schreibersii 

oceanensis) and the grey-crowned babbler (eastern subspecies) (Pomatostomus temporalis 

temporalis). 

3.1.1.6 Hunter Remnant Vegetation Project (Peake 2006) 

The Hunter Remnant Vegetation Project (Peake 2006) documents the distribution, 

composition and conservation status of vegetation communities occurring in the central 

Hunter Valley of NSW. Four vegetation communities were mapped within the Project area, 

comprising: 

� Central Hunter Box – Ironbark Woodland; 

� Central Hunter Ironbark – Spotted Gum – Grey Box Forest; 

� Central Hunter Bulloak Forest Regeneration; and 

� Central Hunter Swamp Oak Forest. 

Small pockets of Hunter Valley River Oak Forest were identified along the Hunter River and 

Bowmans Creek. 

Peake (2006) regarded all of the identified vegetation communities to be of conservation 

significance and under threat. Central Hunter Box – Ironbark Woodland and Central Hunter 

Ironbark – Spotted Gum – Grey Box Forest have been preliminarily listed as EECs. 

The Hunter Remnant Vegetation Project (Peake 2006) has been used as a basis for the 

regional assessment of vegetation communities and as a comparison in an impact 

assessment context against which the loss of vegetation communities as a result of the 

Project was assessed. While the Hunter Remnant Vegetation Project utilised imagery from 

2000, the report provides the currently available up-to-date analysis and mapping of remnant 

vegetation in the central Hunter Valley. 





3.1.1.7 Cumnock Wash Plant Pit Mining and Rehabilitation Project (Umwelt 2008) 

An Ecological Assessment was undertaken as part of the Cumnock Wash Plant Mining and 

Rehabilitation Project, as shown on Figure 3.1. The study area for the Project is located in 

the north-west portion of the Project area. A total of 60 flora species were recorded during 

surveys of which 35 are native species. Species were recorded from a total of 26 plant 

families, the most speciose families being Fabaceae (12 species), Myrtaceae (8 species), 

Poaceae (7 species) and Asteraceae (7 species). 

Surveys of the study area identified three vegetation communities: 

� Disturbed Grassland; 

� Central Hunter Box – Ironbark Woodland; and 

� Rehabilitation. 

No threatened flora species, endangered populations or TECs were identified within the 

study area during the flora survey. 

A total of 30 fauna species were recorded in the study area, including one species, the 

eastern bentwing-bat (Miniopterus schreibersii oceanensis), listed as vulnerable under the 

TSC Act. No species listed as migratory under the EPBC Act were recorded in the study 

area. 

Decommissioned portals and drifts associated with Cumnock’s former underground 

operations are considered to provide potential cave roosting micro-bat habitat, with the inland 

broad-nosed bat (Scotorepens balstoni) recorded roosting in a Lower Pikes Gully seam 

portal at the base of an existing highwall in the Wash Plant Pit area. Surveys of the partially 

inundated Barrett seam workings in 1999 (Hoye 1999) identified the presence of 

approximately 100 eastern bentwing-bats. Subsequent surveys identified a maternity colony 

of between 1000 and 2000 individuals (Glenn Hoye pers. comm.). Detailed investigations of 

potential mine infrastructure habitats concluded that safety controls and the rehabilitation of 

drifts and their entries as part of progressive mine closure appears to have prevented microbat 

access to the former workings, reducing their habitat potential. 

The location of the study area for this assessment is shown on Figure 3.1. Further 

discussion of threatened species records is provided in Section 4.2.4. 

3.1.1.8 Xstrata Biodiversity and Land Management Strategy Stage 2b (Umwelt 2009) 

The ecological assessment of the Xstrata Biodiversity and Land Management Strategy 

(BLMS) (Umwelt 2009) aims to document the vegetation communities, threatened species, 

populations and ecological communities on non-operational land managed by Xstrata Coal 

NSW (XCN). 

A gap analysis was conducted initially to determine the information available for each XCN 

operation. For areas where there was limited existing ecological information, field surveys 

were conducted to delineate and describe vegetation communities, and to document the 

occurrence of threatened species, populations and ecological communities. For areas where 

there was existing and reliable information available, surveys were conducted to ground-truth 

existing vegetation mapping and to record any additional threatened species, endangered 

populations or TECs. A field survey was conducted at Ravensworth Operations and 

Ravensworth Underground within the Project area to search for the endangered population 





of river red gums (Eucalyptus camaldulensis) along the Hunter River and to opportunistically 

record flora and fauna. 

This report provided vegetation mapping and information on threatened species, populations 

or ecological communities within the Project area. 

3.1.2 Aquatic Ecology 

Prior to fieldwork, a comprehensive literature review was undertaken to identify aquatic 

habitats and fauna species that have been previously recorded in the Hunter River 

catchment. Department of Primary Industries (NSW Fisheries) guidelines and general 

information regarding freshwater fish and invertebrates of south-eastern Australia were also 

reviewed. 

In addition, current lists of threatened species and key threatening processes were sourced 

from the Department of Primary Industries (NSW Fisheries) and Department of Environment, 

Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA) websites. A review was then conducted of available 

information on threatened species and threatened fish habitats relevant to the Project area. 

3.1.2.1 Cumnock No 1 Colliery Pty Limited Mine Extension EIS Aquatic Ecological 

Aspects (Fish Habitat) Qualitative Assessment (Marine Pollution Research 

2000) 

Marine Pollution Research undertook a qualitative assessment of the aquatic ecology (fish 

habitat) for the Cumnock Mine Extension EIS in 2000. The project described the type and 

condition of fish habitat, including critical fish habitat, species and communities that may be 

impacted by the Project. The qualitative methods included: 

literature review; 

review and update of the results of previous surveys undertaken in the study area; 

site visit and inspection of barriers to fish passage; and 

consideration of impact. 

The assessment provides an aquatic habitat assessment of the Bayswater Creek catchment, 

Davis Creek and Emu Creek. The assessment found Davis Creek could support a diverse 

aquatic biota during periods of high flow, however was unlikely to support a permanent fish 

fauna due to poor water quality and lack of permanent water during periods of low rainfall. 

Emu Creek was considered unlikely to provide any significant fish habitat. Bayswater Creek 

was found to provide some habitat complexity. 

3.1.2.2 Ashton Coal Project EIS Aquatic Ecological Aspects (Fish Habitat) Qualitative 

Assessment (Marine Pollution Research 2001) 

Marine Pollution Research undertook a qualitative assessment of the aquatic ecology (fish 

habitat) for the Ashton Coal Project EIS in 2001. Ashton coal mine is located to the east of 

Ravensworth Operations in the Bowmans Creek catchment. The project described the type 

and condition of fish habitat, including critical fish habitat, species and communities that may 

be impacted by the Project. The qualitative methods included: 

literature review; 

review and update of the results of previous surveys undertaken in the study area; 





� site inspection of Bowmans Creek and Glennies Creek; 

� macroinvertebrate sampling of two sites on each creek; and 

� consideration of impact. 

The assessment found that both Bowmans Creek and Glennies Creek provide permanent to 

semi-permanent fish habitat under most circumstances and significant aquatic habitat. 

3.1.2.3 Preliminary Assessment of assemblages of fish associated with upgrading the 

Bowmans Creek rail bridge crossing. (Roberts and Murray 2005) 

BioAnalysis undertook a before and after quantitative assessment of the fish assemblages in 

Bowmans Creek and two reference creeks at appropriate spatial scales to determine the 

impact of upgrading the Bowmans Creek rail bridge crossing. Reference sites were located 

in Rouchel and Glennies Creeks. 

The assessment was undertaken using an Electrofisher backpack unit. The Electrofisher was 

used to stun the fish in open water and in submerged and emergent aquatic vegetation. Ten 

fish and three crustacean species were identified in the study area during the survey. 

Surveys within Bowmans Creek identified six fish and three crustacean species, with the 

introduced mosquito fish (Gambusia holbrooki) the most abundant species recorded in the 

creek, followed by long-finned eels (Anguilla reinhardtii). 

3.2 Ecological Database Searches 

In order to identify all potential threatened species, endangered populations and TECs with 

the potential to occur in the Project area, an assessment of relevant ecological databases 

was completed. These database sources comprised: 

� a 10 kilometre radius search from the centre of the Project area of the DECC Atlas of 

NSW Wildlife (January 2009); 

� a 10 kilometre radius search from the centre of the Project area of the DEWHA Protected 

Matters Database (January 2009); 

� a 20 kilometre radius search from the centre of the Project area of the Birds Australia 

database (May 2009); and 

� 20 kilometre radius search from the centre of the Project area of the Australian Museum 

database (May 2009). 

Records from these database searches were combined with records derived through 

literature reviews and professional opinion to identify the range of potentially occurring 

threatened species. The identification of potentially occurring threatened species was then 

used to assist in the development of appropriate survey methods. The results of the 

database searches are compiled in Tables 1 and 2 of Appendix B. 





3.3 Flora Survey within the Project Area 

Flora surveys were undertaken between 1 and 2 November 2007, 19 and 21 November 

2007, 12 and 15 February 2008 and 19 February 2009. An additional targeted threatened 

species survey was undertaken on 31 October and 1 November 2007 to specifically search 

for painted diuris (Diuris tricolor), which has a short spring flowering period outside of which it 

is not detectable. 

Surveys of rehabilitation areas were undertaken on 22 and 23 July 2008, specifically 

targeting endangered populations of Acacia pendula and Eucalyptus camaldulensis, species 

that were widely used in rehabilitation and road-side plantings over the past 20 years. Rapid 

Vegetation Assessments of areas that may be impacted by proposed infrastructure 

development were undertaken on 12 May 2009. 

3.3.1 Systematic Plot-based Survey 

The plot-based vegetation survey was undertaken using methods that are more or less 

standard in most NSW government vegetation management agencies (for example DECC, 

Royal Botanic Gardens Sydney and Department of Primary Industries). This ensured that 

data collected by other surveys could be incorporated into the current work, and that the data 

from the current study could be analysed in an equivalent way to that collected by other 

recognised studies. 

When undertaking systematic sampling to assist vegetation community mapping and 

description, plot-based (or quadrat) surveys have several distinct advantages over nonquantitative 

transects, including: 

� providing a quantitative examination of species distribution and abundance; 

� being likely to detect inconspicuous or rare species (especially forbs and grasses) within 

the given sampling area as a smaller area is surveyed in a concentrated search; and 

� providing a basis for any subsequent monitoring required. 

Systematic survey sites were selected by considering a range of attributes that were thought 

to influence or determine the type of vegetation communities present. This stratification was 

done intuitively, but based on existing topographic, soil, vegetation and geological mapping. 

Other factors considered included the spacing of sites across the overall project area, as well 

as topographic position and aspect. 

Plots were located to sample each stratification unit as representatively as possible, while 

recognising the limitations in finding representative locations within inherently heterogenous 

vegetation communities. The location of each plot was recorded using a 1:25,000 

topographic map sheet, as well as a global positioning system (GPS). A total of 42 plots 

were sampled during the flora surveys. 

Systematic 400 m 2 plots were used to undertake semi-quantitative sampling of vegetation. 

The typical dimensions of the plot were 20 metres by 20 metres, although in some places 

this was altered to 10 metres by 40 metres to account for some linear vegetation 

communities, particularly along watercourses. 

Within each plot, roughly 45 to 60 minutes were spent searching for all vascular flora species 

present. Two ecologists were present at each sampled plot, and typically one searched while 

the other recorded and undertook complementary searching. Searches of each plot were 

generally undertaken through parallel transects from one side of the plot to another. Most 





effort was spent on examining the groundcover, because at most sites this supported well 

over half of all species. However, at each plot the surveys also thoroughly examined the 

shrub layer, mid-understorey, canopy and emergents. Effort was made to search the canopy 

and tree trunks for mistletoes, vines and epiphytes. 

Species within the plot were assigned a cover-abundance value (refer to Table 3.1) to reflect 

their relative cover and abundance in the plot. A modified Braun-Blanquet 6-point scale 

(Braun-Blanquet 1927, with modifications by Poore 1955 and Austin et al. 2000) was used to 

estimate the cover-abundances of all plant species within each plot. 

Table 3.1 - Modified Braun-Blanquet Crown Cover-abundance Scale 

Class Cover-abundance* Notes 

1 Few individuals (less than 5% 

cover) 

2 Many individuals (less than 5% 

cover) 

3 5% – less than 20% cover 


5 50%– less than 75% cover 

6 75% – 100% cover 

Forbs, sedges and grasses: < 5 individuals 

Shrubs and small trees: < 5 individuals 

Forbs, sedges and grasses: 5 or more individuals 

Shrubs and small trees: 5 or more individuals 

Medium-large overhanging tree 

Note: * Modified Braun-Blanquet scale (Braun-Blanquet 1927; Poore 1955; Austin et al. 2000). 

Any species observed outside the plot but within the vegetation community being sampled 

were recorded, but detailed systematic searches were not made outside the plot. These 

species were noted as being present but were not assigned any cover-abundance values 

and were not used in subsequent analyses. A recording proforma was used to record plant 

species cover-abundance data. The location of flora survey plots is shown on Figure 3.2. 

3.3.2 Rapid Vegetation Assessments 

Rapid vegetation assessments were completed across the Project area, primarily to assist in 

the delineation and refinement of vegetation mapping. Dominant, common and some 

uncommon plant taxa were recorded within each vegetation community along random 

meandering tracks, carried out by foot, at each location. The location of rapid vegetation 

assessments completed within the Project area is provided on Figure 3.2. 

Rapid assessment points assisted in vegetation community delineation and targeted 

threatened flora species and endangered populations especially along proposed linear 

infrastructure routes and in rehabilitation areas associated with Ravensworth South. 

The rapid vegetation assessments utilised a qualitative sampling approach, as this method 

was designed to allow rapid collection of non-quantitative species dominance data across the 

Project area within limited timeframes. A meandering technique was selected over the plotbased 

method since the amount of replicate plots that could have been sampled within each 

vegetation unit was limited by a restricted survey time. The meandering technique at each 

location increased the amount of data that could be collected within the available survey 

time, thereby maximising the quality and coverage of vegetation description and mapping. 

The relative abundance of vascular plants recorded within each vegetation community was 

recorded using the modified Braun-Blanquet 6-point scale described in Section 3.3.1. At 

each assessment site records were made of all dominant plants, most common plants and a 





selection of occasional and localised plants to facilitate further description of the vegetation 

community. 

3.3.2.1 Targeted Threatened Flora Transects 

Targeted flora transects are useful for detecting threatened flora species across large areas, 

as they enable the surveyor to cover large proportions of the area under investigation, unlike 

plot-based surveys. 

Extensive dedicated transects were walked across most of the Project area to search for 

threatened flora species, particularly painted diuris (Diuris tricolor) (refer to Figure 3.2). 

Transects were variable in length and location, and were tailored to suit the environment in 

which they occurred. In all cases, searches were made in all strata, and around dams and 

riparian areas. This survey was undertaken in areas that were found to support the native 

grassland habitats in which the species occurs. During this survey, searches were also made 

for the undescribed orchid Prasophyllum sp. aff. petilum as this significant but un-listed 

species has been identified in other parts of the upper Hunter Valley. 

3.3.2.2 Determination of Threatened Ecological Communities 

Vegetation communities identified in the Project area were compared to TECs listed under 

the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act) and the Commonwealth 

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). 

The assessment of similarity with TECs was made using the following approach: 

� comparison with published species lists, including lists of ‘important species’, for the TSC 

Act and EPBC Act listed TECs; 

� comparison with habitat descriptions and distributions for the TSC Act and EPBC Act 

listed TECs; 

� assessment using guidelines published by the former Commonwealth Department of 

Environment and Heritage and the NSW Department of Environment Climate Change; 

� collection of ‘box’ eucalypt specimens to determine if white box (Eucalyptus albens) or 

the white box/grey box intergrade (Eucalyptus albens—moluccana) is present in the 

Project area; and 

� comparison with other assessments of white box woodland in the region. 

3.3.2.3 Plant Identification and Taxonomic Review 

All vascular plants were identified using keys and nomenclature in Harden (1992, 1993, 2000 

& 2002), and Wheeler et al. (2002). Where known, changes to nomenclature and 

classification have been incorporated into the results, as derived from PlantNET (Botanic 

Gardens Trust 2009), the on-line plant name database maintained by the National Herbarium 

of New South Wales. 

Common names used follow Harden (1992, 1993, 2000 & 2002) where available, and draw 

on other sources, such as local names where these references do not provide a common 

name. Where the identity of a specimen was unknown or uncertain, it was lodged with the 

National Herbarium of New South Wales at the Royal Botanic Gardens Sydney. 





3.3.2.4 Biases and Limitations 

The survey was influenced by limitations in time and by seasonal factors as the survey was 

primarily conducted during two seasons (spring and summer) and over a four month period, 

however, spring and summer are the peak flowering periods for many cryptic species, such 

as orchids. The use of consistent surveyors for the sampling effort also helped to minimise 

observer bias which may occur when surveys are conducted by more than one surveyor. 

Despite this, specific surveys conducted during some of the drier parts of the overall survey 

period were affected by the impact of drought conditions on plant flowering and fruiting. 

Additional (limited) survey was undertaken in May and July which decreases the seasonal 

bias of the survey. 

For herbaceous and graminoid species, such as those belonging to the families Asteraceae, 

Orchidaceae, Cyperaceae and Poaceae, the allocation of specimens to sub-specific levels 

was affected by the availability of adequate flowering of fruiting material. In this case 

specimens were always forwarded to the National Herbarium of New South Wales if they 

were considered to be of potential significance or importance. 

3.3.3 Total Flora Survey Effort 

Flora surveys were undertaken during the following months and seasons: 

� spring (October, November); 

� summer (February); 

� winter (July); and 

� autumn (May). 

As a result of all botanical surveys, the following total sampling effort was conducted: 

� forty (40) 20 x 20 metre plots sampled; 

� two (2) 10 x 40 metre plots sampled; 

� twenty-one (21) rapid vegetation assessment points; and 

� significant threatened flora search transects. 

Figure 3.2 displays the location of all flora plots, rapid vegetation assessment points and the 

location of threatened flora walking transects within the Project area. 

3.4 Vegetation Mapping 

Vegetation mapping was undertaken using best-practice techniques to delineate vegetation 

communities across the Project area. 

Vegetation mapping involved the following key steps: 

� import of licensed regional vegetation community mapping (Peake 2006) from the Hunter 

– Central Rivers Catchment Management Authority; 

� review of mapping undertaken by ERM Mitchell McCotter (1998) and HLA-Envirosciences 

(2001); 





� preparation of draft vegetation community map based on aerial photograph interpretation 

of 1:25,000 stereo pairs (see below) and preliminary delineation of vegetation community 

floristics; 

� ground-truthing of vegetation map based on survey effort documented in Section 3.3; 

� revision of vegetation community floristic delineations based on plot data; and 

� revision of vegetation map based on ground-truthing. 

Vegetation communities were delineated through the identification of repeating patterns of 

plant species assemblages in each of the identified strata. Communities were then 

compared to those vegetation communities identified in the HRVP (Peake 2006). The 

dendrogram and vegetation community profiles provided in the HRVP report were 

interrogated to identify those communities that contained similar species and structural 

compositions to ensure that, where possible, the communities identified in the Project area 

were aligned with similar communities known to occur elsewhere in the Hunter Valley. 

Communities were then named in accordance with those communities described by Peake 

(2006). 

Vegetation communities were grouped into four vegetation formations, which were based 

solely on structural characteristics rather than floristic components. These comprised: 

� woodland (dominated by trees of 10-40 per cent cover and typically 6-20 metres height, 

with or without a mid-understorey or understorey); 

� shrubland (dominated by low trees or shrubs of 10-80 per cent cover and typically 

2-6 metres height, with or without an understorey); 

� riparian and floodplain woodland (dominated by trees of 10-80 per cent cover and 

typically 6-20 metres height, in a linear strip along waterways of dense, or restricted to 

floodplains, with or without a mid-understorey or understorey); and 

� grassland (dominated by grasses, sedges and forbs, with trees and shrubs very sparse 

or absent). 

Mapping was undertaken using 1:25,000 stereo pairs of photographs flown in November 

2005, and a mirror stereoscope, which enabled three dimensional viewing of the land 

surface. Vegetation boundaries were directly digitised on to a digital aerial photograph using 

the MapInfo geographic information system (GIS), thus avoiding traditional errors that occur 

through the use of overlays and multiple mappers. 

3.5 Fauna Survey 

Four fauna surveys were completed within the Project area between 2007 and 2009. A 

preliminary investigation of broad vegetation communities and fauna habitats was 

undertaken across the Project area in August 2007. Detailed systematic fauna surveys were 

undertaken in spring 2007 and summer 2008. A targeted survey for the green and golden 

bell frog was undertaken in February 2008 and again in January and February 2009. A 

summary of the fauna survey schedule is provided in Table 3.2. Figure 3.3 details the 

location of all fauna surveys undertaken for the Project. 





Table 3.2 – Umwelt Fauna Survey Periods 

Timing Duration Location 

Winter 2007 3 days Preliminary habitat assessment across whole project area 

Spring 2007 5 days Across whole project area 

Summer 2008 5 days Across whole project area 

Summer 2008 3 days/3 nights Aquatic assessment and green and golden bell frog surveys 

Summer 2009 2 days/3 nights Green and golden bell frog surveys 

During each of the fauna survey periods, a variety of survey techniques was employed. Each 

technique is described in detail in the following sections. 

3.5.1 Trapping Surveys 

A variety of different types of traps, targeting a wide range of mammal species, was used 

during the trapping surveys and is detailed below. 

Terrestrial Elliot Traps 

Terrestrial Elliot A and Elliot B traps were set in pairs approximately 20 metres apart on the 

ground and baited with a mixture of rolled oats and peanut butter. All traps were positioned 

amongst habitat features such as logs, fallen bark, rocks and ground cover. All Elliot traps 

were covered with a plastic bag to prevent rain entering and were lined with woollen wadding 

to provide insulation for captured animals. All terrestrial Elliot traps were positioned to avoid 

overheating in early morning sunlight, and were tilted towards the front to prevent rain from 

entering the plastic bag covering the trap. 

A total of 800 terrestrial Elliot trap nights were completed across the Project area, comprising 

400 terrestrial Elliot A trap nights and 400 terrestrial Elliot B trap nights. Elliot trapping was 

undertaken across two seasons, spring 2007 and summer 2008. 

Arboreal Elliot B Traps 

Arboreal Elliot B traps were set approximately 30 metres apart on tree trunks, and were 

baited with a mixture of rolled oats, peanut butter and honey. Traps were positioned on 

platforms attached to the trunks of large trees, 3-4 metres above the ground. Where 

possible, large trees with hollows were targeted as trap sites, although traps were also set on 

trees without hollows. The trunk of the tree and entrance to the trap were sprayed with a 

honey and water emulsion to attract arboreal mammals. All Elliot traps were covered with a 

plastic bag to prevent rain entering and were lined with woollen wadding to provide insulation 

for captured animals. All traps were positioned to avoid exposure to morning sunlight, and 

were tilted to prevent rain from entering the plastic bag covering the trap. 

A total of 160 arboreal Elliot B trap nights were completed across the Project area. 

Terrestrial Cage Traps 

Single ended cage traps (600 mm (L) × 300 mm (H) × 300 mm (W)) were baited with raw 

chicken necks. Half of the length of each trap was covered with shade cloth to provide rain, 

wind and shade protection for captured animals. All cage traps were positioned to avoid 

exposure to early morning sunlight. Traps were positioned on level ground or amongst 

vegetation where the trap was unable to roll away if a captured animal struggled within the 

trap. 





A total of 96 terrestrial cage trap nights were completed across the Project area. 

Terrestrial Hair Funnels and Hair Tubes 

Three styles and two sizes of terrestrial hair funnels or tubes were utilised as part of the 

fauna survey. Large Faunatech style hair funnels and large (90 millimetre) single opening 

PVC hair tubes were baited with either meat (raw chicken necks) or a rolled oats and peanut 

butter mixture, depending on the target species at the survey site. Small (50 millimetre) 

double opening PVC hair tubes were baited with a rolled oats and peanut butter mixture. All 

terrestrial hair funnels and tubes were positioned amongst habitat features such as logs, 

fallen bark, rocks and ground cover. All hair tubes were left in position for a minimum of 

twenty-one nights and all hair samples collected were identified by Barbara Triggs, (a 

recognised expert in the field of hair and scat identification) of ‘Dead Finish’, Victoria. 

A total of 6400 terrestrial hair funnel or tube sampling nights were completed across the 

Project area. Terrestrial hair funnel and tube sampling was undertaken across three seasons 

with 6000 trap nights during each spring 2007 and summer 2008, with an additional 400 trap 

nights in winter 2008. 

Arboreal Hair Funnels and Tubes 

Large Faunatech style hair funnels were baited with a rolled oats, peanut butter and honey 

mixture. Arboreal hair funnels were positioned three to four metres above the ground on tree 

trucks or branches. The hair funnel and the tree trunk were sprayed with a honey and water 

emulsion as an attractant. All collected hair samples were identified by Barbara Triggs. 

A total of 1300 arboreal hair funnel sampling nights were completed across the Project area. 

Arboreal hair funnel sampling was undertaken across two seasons, spring and summer. 

Arboreal hair funnel and tube sampling was undertaken across three seasons with 600 trap 

nights each during spring 2007 and summer 2008, with an additional 100 trap nights in winter 

2008. 

Harp Traps 

Harp traps were positioned along potential micro-bat flyways such as existing tracks and 

gaps in the vegetation. Captured bats were kept during the day in small calico bags 

suspended inside an animal-holding box, which was kept in a cool, sheltered position at all 

times. All bats were released at dusk on the day of capture after they had aroused from daily 

torpor. Harp traps were also inspected during nocturnal surveys and any captured bats were 

released immediately at night following identification. 

A total of 16 harp trap nights were completed within the Project area. Harp trapping was 

undertaken across two seasons, spring and summer. 

3.5.2 Area Searches 

A variety of area searches of differing duration and purpose was undertaken as part of the 

fauna survey. The area searches employed across the Project area are detailed below, and 

Figure 3.3 displays the locations of all area searches. 

Spotlighting Searches 

Spotlighting searches were undertaken both on foot and from a moving vehicle. Walking 

spotlighting searches were undertaken by two observers for a period of at least 30 minutes 

(total of one person hour) on each occasion. Vehicle spotlighting searches were undertaken 





by the passenger(s) from a slow moving vehicle for a minimum of 1 kilometre. Walking and 

vehicle spotlighting searches were undertaken using 30 watt Lightforce spotlights. 

A total of 12 walking person hours and four driving person hours of spotlighting searches 

were completed across the Project area during spring 2007 and summer 2008 surveys with 

an additional 4 walking person hours and four driving person hours completed during winter 

2008. 

Diurnal Reptile and Amphibian Searches 

Diurnal searches targeting reptiles and amphibians were undertaken during the warmest 

parts of the day. Nocturnal searches targeted amphibians and nocturnal reptiles. All reptile 

and amphibian searches were undertaken by two ecologists for a period of at least 

30 minutes. Nocturnal reptile and amphibian searches were undertaken using Petzl 

headlamps and/or 30 watt Lightforce spotlights. 

Habitat features investigated during reptile and amphibian searches included water bodies, 

emergent vegetation, wet soak areas, logs, rocks, loose bark on tree trunks, exposed 

bedrock, leaf litter and open grassland areas. Amphibians not identifiable from their calls 

were captured for visual identification. All amphibians were handled according to the hygiene 

protocol for the control of disease in frogs (Wellington and Haering 2001). Non-venomous 

snake species and small lizards were captured for identification. 

A total of 6.5 person hours of herpetological searches were completed across the Project 

area during each of spring 2007 and summer 2008 with an additional 2 person hours 

completed during winter 2008. Targeted surveys for the green and golden bell frog (Litoria 

aurea) were undertaken in summer 2008 and 2009 (refer to Section 3.5.3). 

Bird Searches 

Bird surveys were undertaken in a range of different habitat types at various times of the day, 

primarily in early to mid morning and mid to late afternoon. Bird searches were undertaken 

by two observers for a minimum of 30 minutes. Opportunistic observations were recorded 

during all other aspects of the field survey, particularly while checking traps and when 

travelling between survey sites. Bird species were identified from characteristic calls and by 

observation using a 15 - 45 × 50 spotting scope or 10 × 42 binoculars. 

A total of 7 person hours of bird surveys were completed across the Project area during each 

of spring 2007 and summer 2008 with an additional 4 person hours completed during winter 

2008. 

Signs of Presence Searches 

Searches for indirect evidence of animal presence were conducted opportunistically during 

all survey activities, particularly during habitat searches and reptile and amphibian searches. 

Due to the opportunistic nature of signs of presence surveys the level of survey effort was 

not recorded. Evidence of presence included scats, feathers, nests, burrows, bones, tufts of 

hair and scratch marks on trees. All hair, scat and bone samples were identified by Barbara 

Triggs (a recognised expert in the field of hair and scat identification) of ‘Dead Finish’, 

Victoria. 

Micro-bat Echolocation Recordings 

Echolocation calls were detected using an Anabat II Bat Detector. Echolocation calls were 

recorded digitally on to memory cards using an Anabat CF storage ZCAIM. The combination 

of detector and recording device is hereafter collectively referred to as the ‘Anabat 





echolocation recorder’. The recorders were positioned horizontally, with a small roof 

protecting the detector from rain. This protective cover enabled the recording of calls 

regardless of weather conditions. While micro-bat activity is likely to be reduced during rain, 

calls were still able to be collected during dry parts of the night (particularly nights with brief 

thunderstorms). Each Anabat echolocation recorder was mounted on a small platform 

attached to a tree trunk three to four metres above the ground. 

Anabat echolocation recorders were positioned within the vicinity of potential micro-bat 

flyways. The recorders were automated and programmed to start recording one hour before 

dusk and to stop recording one hour after sunrise the following morning. Recordings were 

collected over four nights at any single Anabat echolocation recording location. A total of 

25 nights of survey were completed in the Project area. 

All recorded calls were analysed by Glenn Hoye of Fly by Night Surveys Pty Limited (a 

recognised expert in the identification of micro-bat calls). The echolocation calls of species 

were identified to one of three levels of confidence: 

� confident; 

� probable; and 

� possible. 

For the purposes of this assessment, all three levels of confidence were treated as positive 

identifications. The location of Anabat surveys is shown on Figure 3.3. 

Nocturnal Call Playback 

Nocturnal call playback sessions were undertaken within the first 4 hours after dusk. Calls 

were broadcast using a 10 watt directional loud hailer. Call playback sessions commenced 

with a quiet listening period of approximately five minutes. Each species’ call was played for 

a minimum of 4 minutes followed by a listening period of 2 minutes before the beginning of 

the next species’ call. Mammal calls were played before bird calls to prevent the calls of 

predators (such as owls) decreasing the likelihood of prey species (such as gliders) 

responding to call playback. Call playback sessions included the calls of: 

� squirrel glider (Petaurus norfolcensis); 

� koala (Phascolarctos cinereus); 

� masked owl (Tyto novaehollandiae); 

� barking owl (Ninox connivens); and 

� powerful owl (Ninox strenua). 

Fourteen nocturnal call playback sessions were completed in the Project area, with multiple 

sessions undertaken over consecutive days at many sites during surveys (refer to 

Figure 3.3). 

3.5.3 Targeted Surveys for the Green and Golden Bell Frog 

Targeted surveys for green and golden bell frogs (Litoria aurea) were undertaken over 

three nights in February 2008 and three nights in January and February 2009. All surveys 

were undertaken in summer, during the identified breeding season of the species, and 

following heavy storm and rain events. 





Nine dams and three creeklines within the Project area were surveyed during 2008 and 12 

dams were surveyed during 2009 (refer to Figure 3.4). Surveys at each site consisted of two 

ecologists searching the surface of the water and other habitat features present with 

spotlights for a period of at least 30 minutes. Recorded calls of L. aurea were played more or 

less continuously during spotlight searches of each dam, interspersed with quiet listening 

periods to detect any response calls. Each site was surveyed at least twice during the survey 

periods. 

The location of the targeted surveys is shown on Figure 3.4. Targeted surveys in 2009 also 

incorporated a thorough habitat assessment, undertaken following the re-identification of the 

green and golden bell frog in January 2009. All dams in the proposed disturbance area were 

assessed for habitat suitability and an intuitive assessment of habitat quality was made 

based on published literature relating to preferred habitat characteristics of the species (Pyke 

and White 1996; Daly et al. 2008; Pyke et al. 2002). Habitat quality was intuitively ranked as 

high, moderate or poor based on the presence or absence of habitat characteristics such as: 

� presence of emergent vegetation such as Typha sp. and Juncus sp.; 

� extent of shading; 

� adjacent basking sites such as logs, rocks; 

� shelter sites e.g. logs, rocks, industrial waste; 

� proximity to other preferred habitat features; 

� previous record of occurrence; 

� presence of Gambusia holbrooki; 

� water quality; and 

� foraging habitat. 

Diurnal basking sites and foraging habitat were searched during the diurnal herpetological 

surveys shown on Figure 3.3. 

3.5.4 State Environmental Planning Policy No. 44 – Koala Habitat Survey 

Methods 

Any development application in a SEPP 44 specified local government area, affecting an 

area of 1 hectare or greater, must be assessed under SEPP 44. Assessment under 

SEPP 44 is based on an initial determination of whether the land constitutes potential koala 

(Phascolarctos cinereus) habitat. This is determined by assessing whether the eucalypt 

species present in Schedule 2 of the policy constitute 15 per cent or more of the total number 

of trees in the upper or lower strata of the tree component. If potential koala habitat is 

present, the area must be further assessed to determine if the land is core koala habitat. 

The species listed in Schedule 2 of the policy are listed in Table 3.3. 





Table 3.3 – Species of Eucalypt listed in Schedule 2 of SEPP 44 

Scientific Name Common Name 

Eucalyptus tereticornis forest red gum 

Eucalyptus microcorys tallowwood 

Eucalyptus punctata grey gum 

Eucalyptus viminalis ribbon or manna gum 

Eucalyptus camaldulensis river red gum 

Eucalyptus haemastoma broad-leaved scribbly gum 

Eucalyptus signata scribbly gum 

Eucalyptus albens white box 

Eucalyptus populnea bimble box or poplar box 

Eucalyptus robusta swamp mahogany 

Across the Project area an assessment of the presence of koala feed tree species (as listed 

on Table 3.3) was made. Where koala feed species were present in the Project area, an 

assessment of the proportion of feed species (compared to non-feed species) within the 

canopy was undertaken. A total of 42 20 metre x 20 metre plots were assessed for the 

presence of koala feed tree species. These plots correspond to the flora survey plots 

identified on Figure 3.2. 

3.5.5 Fauna Survey Summary 

Table 3.4 summarises the survey effort undertaken by Umwelt in the Project area between 

2007 and 2009. The table does not include a quantification of survey methods for other 

projects undertaken in the Project area for previous surveys, assessments and monitoring 

(refer to Section 3.1). 

Table 3.4 – Summary of Fauna Survey Effort and Seasonality 

Survey Method Season Survey Effort 

Terrestrial Elliot A Spring 2007 

Summer 2008 

Terrestrial Elliot B Spring 2007 

Summer 2008 

Terrestrial cage traps 

Spring 2007 

Summer 2008 

Arboreal Elliot B 

Spring 2007 

Summer 2008 

Terrestrial hair funnels and tubes Spring 2007 

Summer 2008 

Winter 2008 

Arboreal hair funnels and tubes Spring 2007 

Summer 2008 

Winter 2008 

Harp traps Spring 2007 

Summer 2008 

200 trap nights 








3000 nights 

3000 nights 

400 nights 

600 nights 

600 nights 

100 nights 

8 trap nights 

8 trap nights 





Table 3.4 – Summary of Fauna Survey Effort and Seasonality (cont) 

Survey Method Season Survey Effort 

Spotlighting searches 

Spring 2007 

6 hrs walking and 4 hrs driving 

Summer 2008 


Winter 2008 


Reptile and Amphibian Searches Spring 2007 

6.5 person hours 

Summer 2008 

6.5 person hours 

Winter 2008 

2 person hours 

Avifauna surveys 

Spring 2007 


Summer 2008 


Winter 2008 


Micro-bat echolocation Spring 2007 

12 Anabat nights 

Summer 2008 

12 Anabat nights 

Winter 2008 

1 one hour walking transect and 

1 all night recording 

Nocturnal call playback Spring 2007 

6 sessions 

Summer 2008 

6 sessions 

Winter 2008 

2 sessions 

Targeted green and golden bell frog Summer 2008 

3 days/nights 

surveys (inc. all nocturnal amphibian 

surveys) 

Summer 2009 

3 days/nights 

Tracks, scats and signs of presence All survey periods Throughout all surveys 

SEPP 44 surveys Summer 2009 42 20 m by 20 m survey plots 

3.6 Habitat and Condition Assessment Methodology 

The condition assessment was designed to target vegetation communities and habitats for 

key threatened fauna species. Surveys of the Project area identified one threatened flora 

species, however as this species will not be impacted by the Project the condition 

assessment did not include targeted surveys for threatened flora species habitats. 

Key threatened species were defined as those that are likely to, or may possibly, be 

significantly impacted by the Project and are listed in Table 3.5. 

Table 3.5 – Key Threatened Fauna Species for Condition Assessment 

Common Name 

Amphibians 

Scientific Name 

green and golden bell frog Litoria aurea 

Birds 

brown treecreeper Climacteris picumnus victoriae 

grey-crowned babbler Pomatostomus temporalis temporalis 

scarlet robin Petroica boodang 

hooded robin Melanodryas cucullata cucullata 

speckled warbler Pyrrholaemus sagittata 

diamond firetail Stagonopleura guttata 

masked owl Tyto novaehollandiae 





Table 3.5 – Key Threatened Fauna Species for Condition Assessment (cont) 

Common Name 

Mammals 

Scientific Name 

grey-headed flying-fox Pteropus poliocephalus 

eastern bentwing-bat Miniopterus schreibersii oceanensis 

eastern freetail bat Mormopterus norfolkensis 

eastern false pipistrelle Falsistrellus tasmaniensis 

little bentwing-bat Miniopterus australis 

large-footed myotis Myotis adversus 

3.6.1 Selection of Size and Location of Survey Sites 

The field sampling for the condition assessment was based on stratification using vegetation 

communities as the base unit and the sampling of a 20 metre by 20 metre quadrat. Ten 

vegetation communities were delineated in the Project area of which three are non-native 

communities. Planted areas and rehabilitation were not sampled as part of the condition 

assessment as they are not considered to provide significant fauna habitat in the local area 

or region. 

Number of sites 

The number of survey sites per vegetation community was determined by an intuitive 

process that allocated a given number of sites based on the size of the vegetation formation 

(refer to Table 3.6). 

Table 3.6 - Number of Survey Sites per Vegetation Formation 

Vegetation Formation Number of survey sites 

Woodland/Forest 19 

Riparian 10 

Grassland 4 

Figure 3.5 shows the location of each of the condition assessment survey sites in the Project 

area. 

3.6.1.1 Collection of Habitat Data 

At each quadrat the following habitat data were collected. 

Physical site characteristics: 

� aspect; 

� slope; 

� soil depth; and 

� soil texture. 





Disturbance Level: 

� fire history; 

� cut stump density; 

� grazing pressure level; 

� erosion severity and type; 

� weed infestation level and dominant species; 

� level of rubbish dumping; and 

� signs of feral animals. 

Foliage Health: 

� dieback level; 

� mistletoe infestation level; and 

� level of foliage insect attack. 

Ground Cover: 

� number and types of ground logs; 

� number and types of stumps; 

� per cent rock cover; 

� per cent boulder and solid rock cover; 

� ground vegetation cover percentage, dominant growth form, number of species and 

dominant species; and 

� understorey layer cover percentage, dominant growth form, number of species and 

dominant species. 

Tree Cover: 

� mid-understorey layer cover percentage, dominant growth form, number of species and 

dominant species; 

� canopy cover percentage, dominant growth form, number of species and dominant 

species; and 

� diameter of up to 15 trees greater than 100 millimetres diameter at breast height (DBH). 

Target Species Habitat Features: 

� amount of horizontal perch sites; 

� number of trees with loose bark; and 

� number of trees with bark/litter mound at base. 





Many of the habitat parameters measured at each quadrat were scored into categories or 

ranges, while the remainder were derived from direct measurements. 

3.6.1.2 Measurement of average Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) per quadrat 

The average DBH (mm) of trees (greater than 100 mm DBH) was one of the key 

measurements made at each sampling site. The minimum number of trees required to 

determine a representative average was considered to be 15 trees. Not all plots sampled 

contained 15 trees greater than 100 mm DBH however, and in such cases all trees present 

were measured and the average was calculated from less than 15 trees. Where more than 

15 trees greater than 100 mm DBH were present within the quadrat, the 15 closest to the 

north-eastern corner of the quadrat were measured, to reduce bias that could result from 

individual selection. 

3.6.2 Hollow-bearing Tree Density 

All trees present within each condition assessment quadrat were searched for the presence 

of hollows. When hollows were present, the size, orientation and location of each hollow was 

recorded. Tree hollows were recorded with consideration of the individual classes of hollow 

size, orientation and location. The DBH, height, percentage dead timber and species of each 

hollow-bearing tree were also recorded. 

The mean number of hollows per hectare for each vegetation formation was calculated 

based on condition assessment data, using the following formula: 

Where: 

Mean number of hollows per hectare, per vegetation formation = 

�� H x�� 

25 � 

� S 

Hx = total hollows for each site in the vegetation formation (H1, H2, H3,...Hn) 

S = sites surveyed 

3.7 Aquatic Survey 

A survey of aquatic flora and fauna species, including detailed habitat assessments and 

macroinvertebrate sampling, was undertaken in the Project area in February 2008. Habitat 

assessment and macroinvertebrate sampling were conducted at three creeks located in the 

Project area: Davis Creek, Emu Creek and Farrells Creek. Two sites along each creek were 

sampled (refer to Figure 3.6). The aquatic habitats of Bayswater and Bowmans Creeks 

were not sampled as the Project will not impact the aquatic habitat of these creeks. 

3.7.1 Literature Review 

Prior to the fieldwork, a comprehensive literature review was undertaken to identify aquatic 

habitats and fauna species that have been previously recorded in the Hunter River 

catchment (refer to Section 3.1.2). Department of Primary Industries (NSW Fisheries) 

guidelines and general information regarding freshwater fish and invertebrates of southeastern 

Australia were also reviewed. 

In addition, current lists of threatened species and key threatening processes were sourced 

from the Department of Primary Industries (NSW Fisheries) and DEWHA websites. A review 





was then conducted of available information on threatened species and threatened fish 

habitats relevant to the Project area. 

3.7.2 Aquatic Habitat Assessment 

Preliminary mapping of the broad scale aquatic habitats within the Project area was 

undertaken using recent aerial photography in conjunction with topographic maps prior to 

field surveys. Topographic maps were used to gain a broad understanding of catchment 

characteristics including adjacent land use, elevation, access routes, distance from source 

and location of barriers to fish passage, such as dams and weirs. 

An assessment of the aquatic habitat characteristics within each of the sampling sites was 

undertaken, and indicators of stream condition were also noted. The aquatic habitat 

characteristics were recorded using standard recording sheets (adapted from those 

developed for the AUSRIVAS sampling protocol available as a web resource, 

(AUSRIVAS 2007)). 

Some of the habitat features and stream condition indicators assessed included: 

� characteristics of bed substrate; 

� presence of in-stream woody debris; 

� presence of gravel beds; 

� presence of drought and flood refuge areas; 

� depth of water; 

� width of channel; 

� presence of pool, riffle and edge habitats; 

� height of bank and evidence of erosion; 

� channel geomorphology; 

� evidence of sediment deposition; 

� the presence of natural or artificial barriers to fish passage upstream and downstream; 

� colour and clarity of water, and any visual evidence of water quality; and 

� characteristics of in-stream, riparian and floodplain vegetation. 

The likelihood of aquatic mammals occurring within the study area was also considered 

during the habitat assessment, in particular the water rat (Hydromys chrysogaster) and the 

platypus (Ornithorhynchus anatinus). The potential presence of these species was assessed 

by searching for suitable bank habitat, burrows and also through identification of any scats 

observed. 





3.7.3 Aquatic Sampling 

A quantitative assessment, in accordance with the Australian Rivers Assessment Scheme 

(AUSRIVAS) was not undertaken for this project due to a lack of suitable sampling habitat in 

the Project area. The AUSRIVAS NSW standardised sampling method is designed to target 

the two most common aquatic habitats (that is riffle and edge habitat), requiring a ten metre 

section of both habitats to be sampled per sampling site. The ephemeral nature of the 

creeks and drainage lines and the generally low water levels that characterise the creeks, 

prevented the use of this assessment method. Low flows and lack of pool habitat also 

hindered the application of other quantitative assessment methods such as poddy trapping 

and dip netting, both of which require minimum water levels and channel dimensions. 

3.7.3.1 Macroinvertebrate Sampling 

Macroinvertebrate sampling was undertaken at two sites along each of the three creeks 

sampled (refer to Figure 3.6). A hand-held dip net was used to sample macroinvertebrates 

at all sampling sites. Dip netting was conducted using a 35 millimetre diameter, 250 μm 

mesh net. Samples were collected from pool habitats by dragging the net over a standard 

area (1 cubic metre), whilst disturbing the bed sediments or edge habitat in order to dislodge 

any associated fauna. 

Net samples were then placed into white sorting trays for in-situ live sorting (picking), with 

edge and riffle habitats being sorted separately. The sorted samples were then preserved in 

70 per cent ethanol in clearly labelled plastic bottles. In accordance with the AUSRIVAS 

guidelines (Turak et al. 2004), live sorting (picking) was undertaken for a minimum of 

40 minutes and up to 1 hour, depending on the diversity of species encountered. 

Macroinvertebrates were identified by BioAnalysis: Marine, Estuarine & Freshwater Ecology 

Pty Limited, experts in the field of macroinvertebrate identification. 

The SIGNAL Biotic Index (Stream Invertebrate Grade Number) was used to obtain a 

comparative index of the water quality within each of the sampling sites. The SIGNAL index 

is based on a pollution-sensitivity grading system, which gives a score of between 1 (most 

tolerant) and 10 (most sensitive) for 210 macroinvertebrate taxa. The SIGNAL score for a 

macroinvertebrate sample is calculated by averaging these pollution-sensitivity grades of the 

families present within each sample. A high average grade indicates the presence of many 

sensitive taxa and infers a high water quality in the stream reach where the sampling was 

undertaken. A SIGNAL value greater than six indicates clean water quality, a value of five to 

six indicates water quality is doubtful, four to five indicates probable moderate pollution while 

a grade of less than four indicates probable severe pollution (Chessman 1995). 

The SIGNAL-95 (Chessman 1995) version of the biotic index provides sensitivity grades 

applicable to eastern Australia while SIGNAL-2 (Chessman 2003) was developed for 

application Australia-wide. SIGNAL-HU97, developed by Chessman et al. 1997, provides 

sensitivity grades which apply more specifically to the Hunter River system. SIGNAL-HU97 

is based on data from spring and autumn surveys in 42 sites in the Hunter River and 

tributaries. The SIGNAL-HU97 grades were used for this analysis, however for taxa where 

there were no published HU-97 grades, published SIGNAL-2 grades were used. The results 

tables provide both the HU97 and SIGNAL-2 grades for comparison. 





3.7.3.2 Vertebrate Sampling 

Aquatic vertebrate sampling was not undertaken due to the ephemeral nature of the three 

creeks surveyed and the lack of permanent water and suitable habitats that would support 

aquatic vertebrate (fish) habitat. 

3.7.4 Aquatic Flora 

A walking transect was undertaken at each sampling site to assess the presence and types 

of aquatic flora. These walking transects were conducted to determine species composition 

and community structure. Walking transects were also used to determine species 

composition and community structure of fringing riparian vegetation. 

Samples of all unknown plant species were collected in the field, pressed and dried for later 

identification, and forwarded to the National Herbarium of New South Wales if necessary. 



Ravensworth Operations Project Survey Results within 

Ecological Assessment the Project Area 

4.0 Survey Results within the Project Area 

4.1 Flora Survey Results 

The results of the flora survey, including field survey and desktop components, are presented 

in the following sections. 

4.1.1 Database Searches 

The threatened flora species recorded on the DECC Atlas of NSW Wildlife and DEWHA 

Protected Matters Database are included in Appendix B. 

4.1.2 Flora Species 

A total of 368 species were recorded within the Project area, of which 275 (75 per cent) are 

native and 93 (25 per cent) are introduced species. A full list of the flora species recorded 

during surveys of the Project area is presented in Appendix C. 

Of the total flora species recorded, 3 species were from the Class Filicopsida (ferns), and 

365 from Magnoliopsida (flowering plants) (of which 109 were from sub-class Liliidae 

(monocots) and 256 from sub-class Magnoliidae (dicots)). Flora species were recorded from 

a wide representation of plant families, 71 in total. The most speciose families in the Project 

area were found to be grasses, Poaceae (74 species), daisies, Asteraceae (48 species), 

peas, Fabaceae (34 species) and chenopods, Chenopodiaceae (14 species). 

One threatened flora species was recorded in the Project area, lobed bluegrass 

(Bothriochloa biloba). Further discussion of this threatened species is provided in Section 

4.1.4. 

Seven listed noxious weed species were recorded in the Project area; creeping pear 

(Opuntia humifusum), prickly pear (Opuntia stricta var. stricta), tiger pear (Opuntia 

aurantiaca), blackberry (Rubus fruticosus sp. agg), galvanised burr (Sclerolaena birchii), 

nodding thistle (Carduus nutans) and weeping willow (Salix x sepulcralis var. sepulcralis). 

4.1.3 Vegetation Communities 

Surveys of the Project area identified 10 vegetation communities, including three non-native 

communities. These vegetation communities were aligned with vegetation map units as 

described in the Hunter Remnant Vegetation Project (Peake 2006), where possible. 

The dominant communities identified in the Project area are Central Hunter Box – Ironbark 

Woodland and Derived Grassland with Central Hunter Bulloak Forest Regeneration occurring 

across a substantial proportion of the Project area (refer to Figure 4.1). 

Descriptions of each of the vegetation communities recorded in the Project area are provided 

below. These descriptions draw upon data obtained during field surveys and also from 

information contained within Peake (2006). 

4.1.3.1 Central Hunter Box – Ironbark Woodland 

A mid-high woodland dominated by narrow-leaved ironbark (Eucalyptus crebra) and grey box 

(Eucalyptus moluccana). A sub-canopy dominated by bulloak (Allocasuarina luehmannii) is 

usually present. Low trees are very occasionally present and include cooba (Acacia 

salicina), sickle wattle (Acacia falcata) and native olive (Notelaea microcarpa var. 





microcarpa). A variant of this community is present along high-order tributaries of Davis 

Creek, where forest red gum (Eucalyptus tereticornis) becomes a co-dominant species with 

narrow-leaved ironbark and grey box. 

Shrubs are generally present within this community and include fan wattle (Acacia 

amblygona), western boobialla (Myoporum montanum), native blackthorn (Bursaria spinosa 

subsp. spinosa), wilga (Geijera salicifolia), hickory wattle (Acacia implexa) and cooba (Acacia 

salicina). The introduced shrubs African boxthorn (Lycium ferocissimum) and African olive 

(Olea europea subsp. cuspidata) are present occasionally. 

The understorey is usually mid-dense and dominated by a variety of native grasses and 

forbs. Common species include threeawn speargrass (Aristida vagans), Austrodanthonia 

tenuior, speargrass (Austrostipa scabra var. scabra), slender bamboo grass (Autrostipa 

verticillata), slender chloris (Chloris divaricata var. divaricata), barbed wire grass 

(Cymbopogon refractus), blue trumpet (Brunoniella australis), yellow burr-daisy (Calotis 

lappulacea), berry saltbush (Einadia hastata), ruby saltbush (Enchylaena tomentosa), kidney 

weed (Dichondra repens), amulla (Eremophila debilis), Glycine tabacina, bristly cloak fern 

(Cheilanthes distans), poison rock fern (Cheilanthes sieberi subsp. sieberi), many-flowered 

mat-rush (Lomandra multiflora subsp. multiflora) and wattle mat-rush (Lomandra filiformis). 

Introduced species such as galenia (Galenia pubescens), fireweed (Senecio 

madagascariensis) and common prickly pear (Opuntia stricta var. stricta) were regularly 

recorded, occasionally in high abundance. 

A variant of this community contains a canopy dominated by rough-barked apple (Angophora 

floribunda), which occurs in a small number of isolated locations in the Project area. The 

understorey of this variant is similar to that described above. 

This is the dominant woodland community in the Project area, being present on slopes and 

ridges (refer to Figure 4.1) and conforms to the Central Hunter Box – Ironbark Woodland 

described by Peake (2006). The majority of the community is regenerating from historical 

clearing for agriculture, with regeneration occurring since approximately 20-30 years ago, 

presumably after the relaxation of stock grazing. Scattered narrow-leaved ironbark trees 

which survived this clearing are present within the Project area. 

The NSW Scientific Committee has made a preliminary determination to list Central Hunter 

Grey Box – Ironbark Woodland as an EEC. The Central Hunter Box – Ironbark Woodland 

mapped within the Project area conforms to the description of the preliminary determination 

and has been considered as an EEC for the purposes of this ecological assessment. 

4.1.3.2 Central Hunter Bulloak Forest Regeneration 

A low to mid-high open forest dominated by bulloak (Allocasuarina luehmannii). Narrowleaved 

ironbark (Eucalyptus crebra) and grey box (Eucalyptus moluccana) occur 

occasionally as emergents. Forest red gum (Eucalyptus tereticornis) occurs in areas 

adjacent to River-flat Eucalypt Forest. 

Shrubs are generally absent from this community, however fan wattle (Acacia amblygona) 

and native blackthorn (Bursaria spinosa subsp. spinosa) were occasionally recorded in low 

abundance. 

The groundcover vegetation is generally vary sparse and comprises native grasses and 

forbs. Commonly recorded species include threeawn speargrass (Aristida vagans), 

Austrodanthonia tenuior, weeping grass (Microlaena stipoides var. stipoides), many-flowered 

mat-rush (Lomandra multiflora subsp. multiflora), wattle mat-rush (Lomandra filiformis), 

poison rock fern (Cheilanthes sieberi subsp. sieberi), blue trumpet (Brunoniella australis), 

berry saltbush (Einadia hastata), climbing saltbush (Einadia nutans), ruby saltbush 





(Enchylaena tomentosa) and Glycine tabacina. Introduced species such as common prickly 

pear (Opuntia stricta var. stricta) and fireweed (Senecio madagascariensis) were recorded in 

low abundance. 

This community was mainly present in the northern part of the Project area adjacent to 

Central Hunter Box – Ironbark Woodland (refer to Figure 4.1). It conforms to the Central 

Hunter Bulloak Forest Regeneration community described by Peake (2006). 

4.1.3.3 Central Hunter Ironbark – Spotted Gum – Grey Box Woodland 

A tall woodland dominated by broad-leaved ironbark (Eucalyptus fibrosa) with grey box 

(E. moluccana) and bulloak (Allocasuarina luehmannii) commonly occurring in the canopy 

and sub-canopy. 

A very sparse shrub layer to a height of 2 metres is present and dominated by fan wattle 

(Acacia amblygona) and sickle wattle (Acacia falcata). 

The understorey is generally sparse and dominated by grasses, forbs and ferns. Commonly 

occurring species include threeawn speargrass (Aristida vagans), Austrodanthonia tenuior, 

Austrostipa scabra var. scabra, slender chloris (Chloris divaricata var. divaricata), mat-rush 

(Lomandra confertifolia), wattle mat-rush (Lomandra filiformis), many-flowered mat-rush 

(Lomandra multiflora subsp. multiflora), Sida corrugata, winter apple (Eremophila debilis) and 

Glycine tabacina. Weed species occurring in this community were generally in low 

abundance and diversity. 

This community was only recorded in one location, to the south of Davis Creek (refer to 

Figure 4.1). Based on historical aerial photography, this area has remained largely intact 

since at least 1967, and was not cleared along with the majority of the vegetation in the 

Project area. This remnant is not considered to be ‘old growth’ vegetation, however it 

predates the majority of vegetation recorded in the Project area, and is likely to be less than 

120 years old. This community is broadly consistent with the Central Hunter Ironbark – 

Spotted Gum – Grey Box Forest described by Peake (2006), although no spotted gum trees 

were recorded. 


Ironbark – Spotted Gum – Grey Box Forest as an EEC. The Central Hunter Ironbark – 

Spotted Gum – Grey Box Forest mapped within the Project area conforms to the description 

of the preliminary determination and has been considered as an EEC for the purposes of this 

ecological assessment. 

4.1.3.4 Central Hunter Swamp Oak Forest 

A low to mid-high closed forest with a canopy dominated more or less solely by swamp oak 

(Casuarina glauca). Cooba (Acacia salicina) can occasionally co-dominate. Shrubs are 

usually absent from this community. 

The groundcover is sparse to dense and is dominated by native grasses, forbs and ferns. 

The most abundant species recorded include slender bamboo grass (Austrostipa verticillata), 

weeping grass (Microlaena stipoides var. stipoides), bristly cloak fern (Cheilanthes distans), 

berry saltbush (Einadia hastata), kidney weed (Dichondra repens), blue trumpet (Brunoniella 

australis), amulla (Eremophila debilis), Oxalis perennans, trailing speedwell (Veronica 

plebeia) and Glycine tabacina. Introduced species such as galenia (Galenia pubescens), 

flaxleaf fleabane (Conyza bonariensis), spear thistle (Cirsium vulgare), fireweed (Senecio 

madagascariensis), common prickly pear (Opuntia stricta var. stricta), Paddys lucerne (Sida 

rhombifolia), black-berry nightshade (Solanum nigrum) were recorded within Central Hunter 

Swamp Oak Forest, occasionally in high abundance. 





This community conforms to the Central Hunter Swamp Oak Forest described by Peake 

(2006). It occurs along creeklines within the Project area: Davis Creek; Emu Creek; 

Bayswater Creek; and Farrells Creek; as well as isolated locations on lower slopes adjacent 

to Davis Creek (refer to Figure 4.1). 

4.1.3.5 Hunter Valley River Oak Forest 

A mid-high to tall forest dominated by river oak (Casuarina cunninghamiana subsp. 

cunninghamiana). The introduced weeping willow (Salix x sepulcralis var. sepulcralis) occurs 

as a co-dominant species. Rough-barked apple (Angophora floribunda) can occur less 

frequently, where this community grades into Hunter Floodplain Red Gum Woodland. Shrub 

species are generally absent. 

The mid-stratum of this community is generally sparse (



debilis), blue trumpet (Brunoniella australis), climbing saltbush (Einadia nutans), Phyllanthus 

virgatus, Narrawa burr (Solanum cinereum) and Glycine tabacina. Weed species such as 

common prickly pear (Opuntia stricta var. stricta), castor oil plant (Ricinus communis), 

flaxleaf fleabane (Conyza bonariensis), fireweed (Senecio madagascariensis) and common 

sowthistle (Sonchus oleraceus) were recorded in relatively low abundance. 

This community was recorded on the lower slopes and flats adjacent to Davis Creek (refer to 

Figure 4.1). It very broadly conforms to the Hunter Lowlands Red Gum Forest described by 

Peake (2006). River-flat Eucalypt Forest is listed as a EEC under the TSC Act and the 

community described in the Project area conforms to the description of this EEC provided by 

the NSW Scientific Committee. 

4.1.3.7 Hunter Floodplain Red Gum Woodland 

Hunter Floodplain Red Gum Woodland was recorded on the floodplains of the Hunter River 

and Bayswater Creek, in the south and central portions of the Project area. A highly 

disturbed and modified example of this community was mapped on Pikes Gully in the northwest 

of the Project area. Two variants of this community were recorded in the Project area. 

The variant recorded on the floodplain of the Hunter River was dominant by yellow box 

(Eucalyptus melliodora) with rough-barked apple (Angophora floribunda) occurring less 

frequently. A second variant of the community was recorded on the floodplain of Bayswater 

Creek and Pikes Gully, which was largely dominated by rough-barked apple. 

Native species are generally absent from the shrub layer with introduced species such as 

African olive (Olea europea subsp. cuspidata) and African boxthorn (Lycium ferocissimum) 

occurring in high abundance in places. 

The community is highly fragmented and generally has a very high proportion of weed 

species present in the understorey. Native species commonly recorded in the understorey 

include couch (Cynodon dactylon), kidney weed (Dichondra repens), berry saltbush (Einadia 

hastata), weeping grass (Microlaena stipoides var. stipoides) and native wandering Jew 

(Commelina cyanea). Commonly recorded understorey species include introduced species 

such as galenia (Galenia pubescens), turnip weed (Rapistrum rugosum), common sowthistle 

(Sonchus oleraceus), variegated thistle (Silybum marianum), creeping pear (Opuntia 

humifusum), white horehound (Marrubium vulgare), cobblers pegs (Bidens pilosa), Paddys 

lucerne (Sida rhombifolia), Coolatai grass (Hyparrhenia hirta) and perennial ryegrass (Lolium 

perenne). The understorey of this community can changed markedly on a seasonal basis, 

due to the dominance of annuals. 

This community forms part of the Hunter Floodplain Red Gum Woodland Complex as 

described by Peake (2006). No plots were sampled in the yellow box variant of the 

community during field surveys and the description is based on observations from walking 

transects (refer to Figure 4.1). The NSW Scientific Committee has made a preliminary 

determination to list Hunter Floodplain Red Gum Woodland as an EEC. The Hunter 

Floodplain Red Gum Woodland described above conforms to the descriptions of the 

preliminary determination and has been considered as an EEC for the purpose of this 

assessment. 

4.1.3.8 Derived Grassland 

Two variants of Derived Grassland are present in the Project area. The first variant is high to 

moderate quality native grassland located between remnants of Central Hunter Box – 

Ironbark Woodland and is likely to have once comprised this community. Scattered narrowleaved 

ironbark (Eucalyptus crebra) and bulloak (Allocasuarina luehmannii) are present 

within the grassland areas. 





Commonly recorded native species include purple wiregrass (Aristida ramosa), threeawn 

speargrass (Aristida vagans), red grass (Bothriochloa decipiens), barbed wire grass 

(Cymbopogon refractus), two-colour panic (Panicum simile), many-flowered mat-rush 

(Lomandra multiflora subsp. multiflora), bristly cloak-fern (Cheilanthes distans), poison rock 

fern (Cheilanthes sieberi subsp. sieberi), yellow buttons (Chrysocephalum apiculatum), 

sprawling bluebell (Wahlenbergia gracilis) and Glycine tabacina. 

Commonly recorded introduced species include saffron thistle (Carthamnus lanatus), 

fireweed (Senecio madagascariensis), spike centaury (Centaurium spicatum), French flax 

(Linum trigynum), Paddys lucerne (Sida rhombifolia), scarlet pimpernel (Anagallis arvensis), 

and hop clover (Trifolium campestre). Saffron thistle, an annual species, can form a 

dominant part of this variant, however, much of the year the grassland is dominated by native 

grasses. 

The second variant is generally low quality Derived Grassland occurring of the floodplains of 

the Hunter River, Bowmans Creek and Bayswater Creek (refer to Figure 4.1), which are 

likely to have once been dominated by Hunter Floodplain Red Gum Woodland. These areas 

generally suffer high levels of weed infestation with species such as galenia (Galenia 

pubescens) and creeping pear (Opuntia humifusum) comprising much of the understorey. 

Other commonly occurring introduced species include giant mustard (Rapistrum rugosum), 

Coolatai grass (Hyparrhenia hirta), perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne), variegated thistle 

(Silybum marianum), greater beggars ticks (Bidens subalternans), common sowthistle 

(Sonchus oleraceus) and prairie grass (Bromus catharticus). Native species, which occur in 

low abundance, include slender bamboo grass (Austrostipa verticillata), native wandering 

Jew (Commelina cyanea) and native geranium (Geranium solanderi var. solanderi). 

4.1.3.9 Planted Areas 

Planted areas are located along the New England Highway, Lemington Road and Old 

Lemington Road and are comprised of indigenous and non-indigenous eucalypt species with 

some areas also containing belah (Casuarina cristata). 

A planted area adjacent to Old Lemington Road contains a large number of planted weeping 

myall (Acacia pendula) which, where it occurs in the Hunter Valley, is listed as an 

endangered population under the TSC Act. This area was estimated to contain 

approximately 70 to 90 adults and 10 to 20 juveniles which are likely to be suckers from adult 

plants. One juvenile plant within the road reserve may have naturally recruited from the 

planted adults. An additional weeping myall record occurs in a planted area along the New 

England Highway (refer to Figure 4.2) and two records occur along the western boundary of 

the Project area. 

4.1.3.10 Rehabilitation 

A number of small patches of rehabilitation occur within the Project area associated with 

mine rehabilitation. These areas appear to have been planted with a mixture of locally native 

and non-locally native flora species. The rehabilitation generally comprises a low 

(6-10 metres) canopy dominated by Acacia spp. and Eucalyptus spp. The vegetation within 

the rehabilitation ranges from poor to good condition with many bare and rocky areas. These 

patches of woody vegetation are mapped on Figure 4.1 as Rehabilitation (woody 

vegetation). 

The upper stratum of the rehabilitation areas comprised species including golden wreath 

wattle (Acacia saligna), Queensland silver wattle (Acacia podalyrifolia), flax-leaved paperbark 

(Melaleuca linariifolia) and Melaleuca decora. The introduced sugar gum (Eucalyptus 

cladocalyx) was commonly recorded in rehabilitation associated with Ravensworth South. 





The ground cover was dominated by the introduced Rhodes grass (Chloris gayana) and 

kikuyu grass (Pennisetum clandestinum). 

Some areas have also been rehabilitated to pasture within the Project area. These areas are 

dominated by the introduced Rhodes grass (Chloris gayana) and kikuyu grass (Pennisetum 

clandestinum) and have been mapped as Rehabilitation (pasture) (refer to Figure 4.1). 

The rehabilitation generally lacks species diversity and does not replicate native vegetation 

community structure or floristics. 

4.1.4 Threatened Flora Species, Endangered Flora Populations and 

Threatened Ecological Communities 

A detailed table of all potentially occurring threatened flora species, endangered populations 

and TECs is provided in Appendix B. One threatened flora species, Bothriochloa biloba, 

was recorded in the Project area at one location south of the Narama Extended area. This 

species is expected to occur in other locations throughout the Project area. The location of 

the Bothriochloa biloba record is shown on Figure 4.2. The extent of each of the TECs 

described in Section 4.1.3 is shown on Figure 4.1. 

Those threatened flora species, endangered populations and TECs that have been recorded 

or have the potential to occur in the Project area are listed in Table 4.1. 

Table 4.1 - Threatened Flora Species, Endangered Populations and 

TECs Recorded or with Potential Habitat in the Project Area 

Scientific Name Legal Status Potential to Occur 

Bothriochloa biloba V (EPBC) Recorded 

tricolour diuris 

Diuris tricolor 

finger panic grass 

Digitaria porrecta 

Austral toadflax 

Thesium australe 

slaty red gum 

Eucalyptus glaucina 

austral toadflax 

Thesium australe 

Weeping Myall in the Hunter Catchment 

Acacia pendula 

tiger orchid in the Hunter Catchment 

Cymbidium canaliculatum 

river red gum in the Hunter Catchment 

Eucalyptus camaldulensis 

V (EPBC) 

V (TSC) 

E (TSC) 

E (EPBC) 

V (TSC) 

V (EPBC) 

V (EPBC) 

V (TSC) 

V (TSC) 

V (EPBC) 


2383/R08/Final February 2010 4.7 

Low 

Low 

Low 

Low 

Low 

EP (TSC) Recorded 

EP (TSC) Low (previously 

recorded at 

Ravensworth West) 

EP (TSC) Recorded 

River-flat Eucalypt Forest EEC (TSC) Recorded 

Hunter Floodplain Red Gum Woodland in the 

NSW North Coast and Sydney Basin 

Bioregions 

Preliminary determination 

EEC (TSC) 

Hunter Valley Weeping Myall Woodland EEC (TSC) Low 

Central Hunter Grey Box – Ironbark Woodland Preliminary determination 

EEC (TSC) 

Central Hunter Ironbark – Spotted Gum – Grey 

Box Forest 

Preliminary determination 

EEC (TSC) 

Recorded 

Recorded 

Recorded



The locations of the threatened species, endangered populations and TECs recorded in the 

Project area are shown on Figures 4.1 and 4.2. 

4.1.4.1 Threatened Flora Species Recorded in the Project Area 

The following threatened flora species (as listed under the TSC Act and EPBC Act), 

endangered populations and EECs were recorded within (or close to) the Project area either 

as part of the current survey, or from other sources such as previous surveys, databases 

searches or literature reviews. A précis of ecological requirements for each species, 

population and EEC is provided, sourced from the DECC Threatened Species website 

(http://www.threatenedspecies.environment.nsw.gov.au), unless indicated otherwise. 

Lobed bluegrass – Bothriochloa biloba 

Lobed bluegrass is an erect or decumbent caespitose perennial to c. 1 metre high, flowering 

during summer (Jacobs and Wall 1993). The species typically grows in woodlands on poorer 

soils (Wheeler et al. 2002), and is known to occur on slopes and northern parts of NSW, and 

Queensland (Peake 2006). Regionally, the species has been recorded across much of the 

central and upper Hunter Valley with fewer records in the lower Hunter but as far east as 

Maitland (Hill 2003). Bean (1999) suggested that grazing may have a positive effect on this 

species in two ways: firstly, unrestricted grazing reduces the growth of the dominant purple 

wiregrass (Aristida ramosa); and secondly, stock selectively graze grass species other than 

lobed bluegrass because of its coarser culms. Abnormal embryology has been suggested as 

the reason for poor seed production by this species (Yu et al. 2003). 

Woodland and derived grassland communities within the Project area provide potential 

habitat for this species. The location of this species is shown on Figure 4.2. Due to the 

extensive level of flora survey effort undertaken within the Project area as part of this and 

previous development assessments and ongoing ecological monitoring, the species is 

considered to be rare within the Project area. Further assessment of this species is provided 

in Sections 5.4 and 5.8 and Appendix E. 

4.1.4.2 Endangered Flora Populations Recorded in the Project Area 

Acacia pendula (a tree) in the Hunter Catchment – Endangered Population 

The endangered population of weeping myall (Acacia pendula) consists of a disjunct 

population of fewer than 1000 mature individuals that occurs in the Hunter Valley at the 

eastern distributional limit of the species' range. The trees are erect or spreading 5-13 metres 

high with a pendulous habit. Their bark is hard, fissured, dark grey to black. The species 

occurs on the western slopes, western plains and far western plains of NSW, and south into 

Victoria and north into Queensland. The Hunter population is known to occur naturally as far 

east as Bulga, and extends north-west to Muswellbrook and to the west of Muswellbrook at 

Wybong. About 35 locations have been recorded, including Jerrys Plains, Edderton, 

Wybong, Appletree Creek, Warkworth, Bulga, Sandy Hollow and Appletree Flat. Within the 

Hunter catchment the species typically occurs on heavy soils, sometimes on the margins of 

small floodplains, but also in more undulating locations. It is not known to occur within any 

conservation areas. 

Weeping myall has been recorded at four locations within the Project area (records near 

Narama mine are considered as one location) as shown on Figure 4.2. A planted area 

adjacent to Old Lemington Road contains a large number of planted weeping myall (Acacia 

pendula) that was estimated to contain 70 to 90 adult plants and 10 to 20 juveniles which are 

likely to be suckers from adult plants. One juvenile plant within the road reserve may have 

naturally recruited from the planted adults through seed dispersal. Planted weeping myall 

are currently not considered to form part of the listed endangered population unless there is 





evidence of natural regeneration. Since natural recruitment may be occurring within the 

planted area, the stand is cautiously considered to conform to the description of the Weeping 

Myall (Acacia pendula) in the Hunter Catchment Endangered Population. 

The northern two of the remaining three locations of weeping myall each support one 

individual (refer to Figure 4.1). The fourth location, towards the south of the Coal & Allied 

conveyor, supports a number of individuals. In all cases, although it is likely that the species 

was planted at all of these locations, based on disturbance history, each individual has been 

considered to conform to the description of the endangered population as there is no firm 

evidence to suggest that they have been planted at these locations. 

Eucalyptus camaldulensis (a tree) in the Hunter Catchment 

River red gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis) is listed as an endangered population in the 

Hunter Valley, where it occurs on riverbanks, floodplains and billabongs along the Hunter 

River and its tributaries. The population occurs throughout the alluvial flats of the Hunter 

Valley, predominantly between Scone, Denman and Singleton, but also as far east as 

Maitland, south to Broke and west to Bylong (Peake 2006). In the local area it is known to 

occur along the Hunter River and Bowmans Creek. Three locations of river red gum were 

recorded along the Hunter River and each occurrence consisted of single trees. The records 

of river red gum are shown on Figure 4.2. 

4.1.4.3 Endangered Ecological Communities Recorded in the Project Area 

One vegetation community recorded in the Project area conforms to the description provided 

by the NSW Scientific Committee of a listed endangered ecological community (EEC). 

River-flat Eucalypt Forest on coastal floodplains was recorded on the floodplain associated 

with Davis Creek to the north of the proposed out of pit dump, covering an area of 

approximately 24 hectares. A full floristic description of this community is provided in 

Section 4.1.3.6. 

In addition, there are three preliminary EEC listings under the TSC Act with relevance to the 

Project area. While the preliminary determinations are not covered under legislation until 

listed under the Schedules of the TSC Act they have been considered in this context in order 

to adequately address the ecological impacts of the Project. It is expected that these 

communities are likely to be listed by the Scientific Committee within the approval timeframe 

for this project. Despite the preliminary status of each of the three determinations, the 

communities recorded in the Project area have been assessed in the same legislative 

context as would be the case if they were listed EECs and further assessment is provided in 

Section 5.8 and Appendix E. An overview of the preliminary EECs recorded within the 

Project area is provided below. 

The Hunter Floodplain Red Gum Woodland was recorded on the Floodplain of Bayswater 

Creek and Pikes Gully and in a small patch on the Hunter River floodplain, covering a total of 

5.5 hectares. This community has a preliminary determination under the TSC Act for listing 

as an EEC. A floristic description of the community is provided in Section 4.1.3.7. 

Central Hunter Box – Ironbark Woodland is the most extensive woodland community in the 

Project area with approximately 939 hectares of this proposed EEC identified in the Project 

area of which 248 hectares is approved to be removed as part of the Ravensworth West 

development. The NSW Scientific Committee has prepared a preliminary determination to 

list Central Hunter Grey Box – Ironbark Woodland as an EEC under the TSC Act. The 

Central Hunter Box – Ironbark Woodland recorded in the Project area is consistent with the 

description of this EEC. A floristic description of the community is provided in 






Central Hunter Ironbark – Spotted Gum – Grey Box Forest was recorded in an isolated 

location to the south of Davis Creek covering an area of approximately 4.5 hectares. The 

NSW Scientific Committee has prepared a preliminary determination to list this community as 

an EEC under the TSC Act. A floristic description of the community is provided in 


Surveys within the Project area for this project did not identify the White Box – Yellow Box – 

Blakely’s Red Gum Woodland (TSC Act) or the White Box – Yellow Box – Blakeley’s Red 

Gum Woodland and Derived Native Grassland (EPBC Act). These communities are not 

expected to occur. 

4.2 Fauna Survey Results 

4.2.1 Database Searches 

The threatened fauna species recorded on the DECC Atlas of NSW Wildlife and DEWHA 

Protected Matters Database, based on searches within 10 kilometres of the Project area, are 

included in Appendix B. 

4.2.2 Fauna Habitat of the Project Area 

The assessment of terrestrial fauna habitat identified a range of habitat characteristics which 

contribute to the distribution, abundance and diversity of terrestrial fauna within the Project 

area. 

Several general fauna habitat types are located within the Project area. Each of these broad 

habitat types has a range of characteristics which influence the habitat value, and the range 

of fauna species which are likely to be identified within each type. The broad habitat types 

recorded within the Project area consisted of woodland, grassland, riparian and aquatic 

habitat. 

4.2.2.1 Woodland Habitat 

Woodland communities occur across most of the Project area with regenerating trees 

dominating the landscape. This habitat type is the most extensive in the Project area, 

comprising approximately 1200 hectares. Scattered mature trees were identified in a 

generally even spaced pattern across the site, as expected due to the long history of 

agriculture prior to the commencement of mining at Ravensworth South in the early 1970s. 

The eucalypt species present within the woodland habitat provide seasonal foraging 

resources for a number of nectarivorous bird species and mammals, as well as insectivorous 

birds. The eucalypt species present also provide a nesting resource for small birds (such as 

the grey fantail, (Rhipidura fuliginosa)) and larger birds of prey (such as the black-shouldered 

kite (Elanus notatus)). Mistletoe is present throughout the woodland habitat, providing a 

foraging and nesting resource for small birds. 

Hollow-bearing trees were present throughout the woodland, but in low densities due to the 

domination of relatively young narrow-leaved ironbark (Eucalyptus crebra) in the canopy. 

Hollows range in size from small (26 to 50 millimetres diameter) to large (100 to 

300 millimetres diameter) and occur at a density of approximately 7.9 per hectare. These 

hollows could provide nesting habitat for a number of bird species, arboreal mammals and 

micro-bats. The shrub layer within this habitat type ranges from scarce to medium density, 

providing shelter for a number of small woodland birds. Scattered logs and rocks within the 

woodland habitat type provide refuge and foraging habitat for reptiles and amphibians. The 





grassy understorey provides foraging habitat for macropods and for omnivorous birds such 

as the Australian magpie (Gymnorhina tibicen). 

Approximately 1200 hectares of woodland habitat occurs within the Project area of which 

288 hectares is approved to be removed as part of the Ravensworth West approval (refer to 

Section 1.1). 

Table 4.2 provides a summary of the habitat and condition assessment results for woodland 

and forest communities in the Project area. The results for each of the woodland and forest 

communities have been combined as Woodland/Forest formation as they are considered to 

provide comparable habitat features across the Project area. 

Table 4.2 – Summary of Habitat and Condition Assessment Results 

for Woodland/Forest Formation in the Project Area 

Woodland/Forest Formation 

Total area 1044 hectares 

Vegetation structure and health 

Canopy dominants E. moluccana, E. crebra, A. luehmannii 

Height Cover 

Canopy 12-18 m




for Woodland/Forest Formation in the Project Area (cont) 


Ground habitats 

Log cover




for Grassland Formation in the Project Area (cont) 

Grassland formation 

Age/maturity There are very few canopy trees scattered through the grassland 

formation. Where present, these are generally regenerating young to 

middle-aged trees. There are very few large mature trees present. 

Vegetation health Good 

Disturbances 

Fire No evidence of fire was observed in the grassland formation. 

Weeds There is a moderate abundance of weed species in this formation. 

Commonly recorded weed species include saffron thistle (Carthamus 

lanatus), Paddys lucerne (Sida rhombifolia), flaxleaf fleabane (Conyza 

sumatrensis), spear thistle (Cirsium vulgare) and galenia (Galenia 

pubescens). 

Dieback No dieback was observed within any sites assessed within the grassland 

formation. It is likely that slight to mild dieback occurs in the few scattered 

canopy trees that occur in this formation. 

Erosion Due to the history of mining and formerly grazing in the Project area, there 

is evidence of sheet erosion where the ground has been heavily impacted. 

Furthermore, due to the widespread removal of woody vegetation, there is 

mild to moderate gully erosion in areas of water flow across the 

landscape. 

Mistletoe No evidence of mistletoe in the grassland formation was observed at any 

of the sites assessed. There is potential for mild occurrence of mistletoe 

in the few scattered canopy trees that occur in this formation. 

Grazing The grassland formation of the site is not currently grazed, however is 

likely to have previously been subject to mild to moderate grazing 

pressures. 

Feral animals No evidence of feral animals was observed in the grassland formation, 

however it is likely that a moderate population of rabbits (Oryctolagus 

cuniculus) and foxes (Vulpes vulpes) occurs. 

Insect attack Little evidence of insect attack in the remnant canopy trees was observed. 


Log cover Overall, log cover in the grassland formation was low, however it is 

moderate to high under the larger, older remnant trees that have dropped 

several limbs over time. 

Leaf litter Leaf litter cover was generally low throughout this formation. 

Bare soil The extent of bare soil varied depending on disturbance. Those areas 

previously subject to previous or ongoing disturbance generally had a 

higher area of bare soil. 

Specific habitats and foraging resources 

Hollow density The hollow density is very low in this formation given the general lack of a 

tree stratum. 

Foraging resources The foraging resources in this formation would be limited due to the highly 

modified structure of the vegetation. The flowering canopy trees provide 

limited foraging resources for nectarivorous and insectivorous species, 

and there are a range of small birds which would benefit from foraging in 

the grassland, particularly in taller areas of grassland which have been left 

free of grazing long enough to develop seed heads on the grasses. 

Dominant winter- E. crebra 

flowering tree species 






for Grassland Formation in the Project Area (cont) 


Perch sites Given the lack of a tree stratum, there is a very low abundance of perch 

sites in the grassland formation. These are only present where there are 

scattered paddock trees and cut stumps. 

Water resources A number of farm dams occur in this formation across the Project area. 

No other freshwater resources occur within this formation. 

4.2.2.3 Riparian Habitat 

The riparian habitat recorded within the Project area occurs along Davis Creek, Bayswater 

Creek, Emu Creek, Farrells Creek, Bowmans Creek and in limited areas along the Hunter 

River. This habitat type is dominated by swamp oak (Casuarina glauca) and river oak 

(Casuarina cunninghamiana subsp. cunninghamiana); with river flats dominated by forest red 

gum (Eucalyptus tereticornis) and rough-barked apple (Angophora floribunda). The mature 

eucalypts identified along river flats within this habitat type provide a seasonal foraging 

resource for arboreal mammals and nectarivorous birds. These large eucalypts also provide 

a foraging habitat for insectivorous birds, and foraging and roosting resources for micro-bats. 

The scattered hollow-bearing trees within this habitat type provide a nesting resource for a 

number of bird species as well as arboreal mammals and micro-bats with hollow bearing 

trees occurring at a density of 12.5 hollows per hectare. The shrub layer, although scarce in 

density, provides a foraging and refuge resource for small birds. The grassy understorey 

provides a foraging and refuge resource for reptiles and amphibians. Some water was 

present within the generally ephemeral riparian habitat type, providing a drinking resource for 

native fauna as well as a foraging, refuge and breeding resource for amphibians. 

Approximately 170 hectares of riparian habitat occurs within the Project area of which 

28 hectares occur within the Ravensworth West approval area. Table 4.4 provides a 

summary of the habitat and condition assessment for the riparian formation. 


for Riparian Formation in the Project Area 

Riparian Formation 



Canopy dominants E. tereticornis, E. crebra, A. floribunda, C. glauca 

Height Cover 

Canopy 10-15 (20) m 26-50% 

Mid-storey 1 2-3 m




for Riparian Formation in the Project Area (cont) 


Vegetation health Due to the moist conditions of the riparian environment being favourable to 

weeds, the native flora species diversity is relatively low, and weed species 

diversity high. The riparian community is fairly significantly modified and the 

banks have experienced erosion due to vegetation loss and increased flow 

intensities due to the clearing in the catchment. Overall vegetation 

condition, therefore, would be described as moderate. 

Disturbances 

Fire No evidence of fire was observed in this formation. 

Weeds A moderate to severe density of weeds was recorded within the riparian 

formation. Species recorded included galenia (Galenia pubescens), creeping 

pear (Opuntia humifusa), Paddys lucerne (Sida rhombifolia), African olive 

(Olea europaea subsp. cuspidata) and balloon cotton bush (Gomphocarpus 

fruticosus). 

Dieback The extent of dieback was nil to mild at all sites assessed. 

Erosion Moderate sheet and gully erosion was recorded in the riparian formation. 

Mistletoe Mistletoe infestation was observed to be mild at the majority of sites 

assessed in this formation, however one site was found to have severe 

infestation with mistletoe. 

Grazing All sites were located in areas of nil to slight grazing. Some areas in the 

riparian formation have been grazed in the past and are now regenerating. 

Feral animals Minimal evidence of feral animals was observed, however it is likely that 

rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus) and foxes (Vulpes vulpes) would occur 

reasonably widely throughout this formation. 

Insect attack All sites displayed mild signs of insect attack in foliage. 


Log cover



4.2.2.4 Aquatic Habitat 

Aquatic habitat is provided in the form of creeks, ephemeral drainage lines, farm dams, mine 

water dams and water fill points. Twenty farm dams are located within the Project area, and 

these provide a water source for native fauna. The dams also provide a foraging and refuge 

resource for a diverse and abundant number of amphibian species, particularly in those 

dams where fringing vegetation is present. 

A full description of aquatic habitat is provided in Section 4.3. 

The area of aquatic habitat within the Project area is difficult to quantify due to the very small 

area of dams and the ephemeral nature of Davis, Emu and Farrells Creeks. Much of Emu 

Creek and many of the dams within its catchment occur within the Ravensworth West 

approval area. 

4.2.3 Fauna Species Recorded 

A total of 180 fauna species were recorded during surveys of the Project area. An outline 

and discussion of the species recorded within each of the four major fauna groups is 

presented in the following sections. 

A list of all fauna species recorded within the Project area is presented in Appendix D of this 

report. This species list was compiled from data recorded during field surveys undertaken by 

Umwelt from 2007 to 2009, as well as records from previous surveys undertaken for mining 

projects and ecological monitoring by ERM Mitchell McCotter (1998), HLA-Envirosciences 

(2001), and Mount King and Gingra Ecological surveys (2006-2007) (refer to Section 3.1 

and Figure 3.1 for details of survey locations). 

Records of fauna species should be interpreted carefully, since a record of a species within a 

particular area does not suggest it only occurs within that specific part of the Project area, 

and not within other parts. The high levels of mobility of many fauna species (particularly 

many birds and mammals) mean that those species could readily occur in areas other than 

where they were recorded. 

4.2.3.1 Birds 

A total of 116 bird species have been recorded in the Project area. Forty-two families are 

represented in the Project area with the Pardalotidae (pardalotes) recording 10 species, 

Meliphagidae (honeyeaters) recording 9 species and the Petroicidae (robins) and Artamidae 

(woodswallows) each with 6 species. Raptor diversity was moderate with 6 species recorded 

including the wedge-tailed eagle (Aquila audax). 

Some of the more frequently observed bird species recorded in woodland communities 

included the rufous whistler (Pachycephala rufiventris), grey fantail (Rhipidura fuliginosa) 

eastern rosella (Platycercus eximius), willie wagtail (Rhipidura leucophrys), rainbow beeeater 

(Merops ornatus), yellow thornbill (Acanthiza chrysorrhoa), noisy friarbird (Philemon 

corniculatus), black-faced cuckoo-shrike (Coracina novaehollandiae), Australian magpie 

(Gymnorhina tibicen), pied butcherbird (Cracticus nigrogularis), Australian raven (Corvus 

coronoides) and white-winged chough (Corcorax melanorhamphos). 

The galah (Cacatua roseicapilla) and Richards pipit (Anthus novaeseelandiae) were 

commonly recorded in grassland habitats. 





Farm dams and mine water storage facilities provided a permanent area of aquatic habitat 

for 12 species. Commonly recorded species included the black swan (Cygnus atratus), 

Australian wood duck (Chenonetta jubata) and hoary headed grebe (Poliocephalus 

poliocephalus). 

Two introduced species were recorded: the common starling (Sturnus vulgaris) and common 

myna (Acridotheres tristis). These species were generally recorded around the existing mine 

offices and workshop. 

Six threatened bird species were recorded in the Project area. The speckled warbler 

(Chthonicola saggitatus), brown treecreeper (eastern subspecies) (Climacteris picumnus 

victoriae), grey-crowned babbler (eastern subspecies) (Pomatostomus temporalis 

temporalis), scarlet robin (Petroica boodang) and hooded robin (south-eastern form) 

(Melanodryas cucullata cucullata) have been recorded widely throughout woodland and 

grassland habitats of the Project area since surveys were undertaken by ERM Mitchell 

McCotter in 1998. The masked owl (Tyto novaehollandiae) was recorded in 2001 (HLA- 

Envirosciences) adjacent to Lemington Road (road kill). The preliminarily listed (TSC Act) 

scarlet robin has been recorded at two locations since 2006. 

Of the species recorded, 13 listed migratory and 23 listed marine species were recorded. 

These species are protected under the schedules of the EPBC Act which have been 

formulated to protect migratory and marine species listed under international conventions. 

These species are addressed further in Section 5.6.4 and Appendix F. 

4.2.3.2 Reptiles 

Eighteen species have been recorded within the Project area comprising a total of 6 reptile 

families, with the skink family (Scincidae) being the most well represented. 

The most commonly encountered reptile species were the tree skink (Egernia striolata) and 

the southern rainbow skink (Carlia tetradactyla). The snake-necked turtle (Chelodonia 

longicollis) was commonly recorded in dams and two snakes, the nocturnal red-naped snake 

(Furina diadema) and the marsh snake (Hemiaspis signata), were also recorded. The redbellied 

black snake (Pseudechis porphyriacus) and eastern brown snake (Pseudonaja 

textilis) are also expected to occur. 

Three nocturnal reptile species were recorded in the Project area with two geckos and the 

red-naped snake (Furima diadema) identified during surveys. 

4.2.3.3 Amphibians 

Fourteen species of frog were recorded in the Project area comprising seven species of 

Myobatrachidae (southern frogs) and six tree frogs from the family Hylidae. Frog species 

diversity was considered to be high for the central Hunter Valley area and frog abundance 

was considered to be very high during both the 2008 and 2009 targeted frog surveys. 

Farm dams and ephemeral areas on floodplains following significant rain events were found 

to comprise the most significant breeding habitat on site with all species except the green 

and golden bell frog (Litoria aurea) recorded calling following rain events. The green and 

golden bell frog was not recorded calling and did not respond to call playback surveys. One 

adult frog (approximately 80 millimetre snout-vent length) was recorded on submerged 

vegetation in a farm dam. No additional green and golden bell frogs were recorded during 

subsequent targeted surveys. The green and golden bell frog has previously been recorded 

in the Project area in 1998 and 2001 (refer to Figure 4.2). 





The most commonly recorded frogs in the 2009 survey period were the smooth toadlet 

(Uperoleia laevigata), common eastern froglet (Crinia signifera), broad-palmed frog (Litoria 

latopalmata), dwarf tree frog (Litoria fallax) and Perons tree frog (Litoria peronii). Tylers tree 

frog (Litoria tyleri) was recorded during 2008 surveys and the Pobblebonk frog 

(Limnodynastes dumerilii dumerilii) was recorded in a dam north of Davis Creek during the 

2008 survey. 

4.2.3.4 Mammals 

Thirty-two mammal species were recorded within the Project area with the most common 

family (Vespertilionidae) recording 11 species. 

One arboreal mammal species has been recorded in the Project area: the common brushtailed 

possum (Trichosurus vulpecula). Additional arboreal species known to occur in the 

central Hunter Valley have not been recorded on site most likely due to the general lack of 

suitable hollow resources, as detailed in Section 4.2.2. Ground-dwelling mammals are 

represented by four species: the yellow-footed antechinus (Antechinus flavipes) and common 

dunnart (Sminthopsis murina) have been trapped in the Project area and the brown 

antechinus (Antechinus stuartii) has been recorded through hair analysis. The introduced 

house mouse (Mus musculus) was recorded through hair analysis and small mammal 

trapping. 

Two species of macropod were recorded in the Project area comprising the eastern grey 

kangaroo (Macropus giganteus) and red-necked wallaby (Macropus rufogriseus). Each of 

these species was principally observed in the open grassland areas, however, were also less 

frequently recorded in the woodland communities. 

Six threatened mammal species were recorded within the Project area; including the eastern 

bentwing-bat (Miniopterus schreibersii oceanensis), little bentwing-bat (Miniopterus 

australis), large-footed myotis (Myotis adversus), eastern false pipistrelle (Falsistrellus 

tasmaniensis), eastern freetail-bat (Mormopterus norfolcensis) and grey-headed flying-fox 

(Pteropus poliocephalus). The location of the threatened mammal species recorded in the 

Project area is shown on Figure 4.2. 

Seven introduced species were recorded in the Project area including feral dogs (Canis 

familiaris), fox (Vulpes vulpes) and the rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus). 

4.2.4 Threatened Fauna Records 

A table of all threatened fauna species and endangered populations known to occur in the 

local area is provided in Appendix B. Table 4.5 below lists the threatened fauna species 

recorded or those considered likely to occur within the Project area. The project area is not 

considered to provide habitat for any listed endangered fauna populations. 





Table 4.5 – Threatened Fauna Species Recorded or 

Considered Likely to Occur in the Project Area 

Species Name Recorded Status 

Common name Scientific name in Project 

Area? 

TSC 

Act 

EPBC 

Act 

1995 1999 

green and golden bell frog Litoria aurea � E V 

turquoise parrot Neophema pulchella V 

masked owl Tyto novaehollandiae �� V 

brown treecreeper (eastern 

subspecies) 

black-chinned honeyeater 

(eastern subspecies) 

Climacteris picumnus victoriae �� V 

Melithreptus gularis gularis V 

painted honeyeater Grantiella picta V 

speckled warbler Chthonicola saggitatus �� V 

scarlet robin Petroica boodang �� V (PD) 

hooded robin (south-eastern 

form) 

grey-crowned babbler (eastern 

subspecies) 

Melanodryas cucullata 

cucullata 

Pomatostomus temporalis 

temporalis 

�� V 

�� V 

diamond firetail Stagonopleura guttata V 

swift parrot Lathamus discolor E E 

Marine 

regent honeyeater Anthochaera phrygia E E M 

grey-headed flying-fox Pteropus poliocephalus �� V V 

yellow-bellied sheathtail bat Saccolaimus flaviventris � V 

eastern freetail-bat Mormopterus norfolkensis �� V 

little bentwing-bat Miniopterus australis �� V 

eastern bentwing-bat Miniopterus schreibersii 

oceanensis 

�� V 

greater long-eared bat Nyctophilus timoriensis V V 

little pied bat Chalinolobus picatus V 

eastern false pipistrelle Falsistrellis tasmaniensis �� V 

large-eared pied bat Chalinolobus dwyeri V V 

large-footed myotis Myotis adversus �� V 

greater broad-nosed bat Scoteanax rueppellii V 

eastern cave bat Vespadelus troughtoni V 

Notes: E = endangered 

M = migratory 

PD = preliminary determination 

V = vulnerable 

4.2.4.1 Threatened Fauna Species Recorded in the Project Area 

The following threatened species (as listed under the TSC Act and EPBC Act) were recorded 

within the Project area either as part of the current survey, or from other sources such as 

previous surveys, databases searches or literature reviews. The location of each of the 

threatened species is shown on Figure 4.2. A précis of ecological requirements for each 

species is provided, sourced from the DECC Threatened Species website 

(http://www.threatenedspecies.environment.nsw.gov.au), unless indicated otherwise. Details 





of the number and location of records for each species are provided also, as well as any 

other relevant ecological information relating to these records. 

Green and Golden Bell Frog – Litoria aurea 

The green and golden bell frog (Litoria aurea) has been recorded in the Project area on three 

occasions over an 11 year period, as shown on Figure 4.2 (ERM Mitchell McCotter 1998; 

HLA-Envirosciences 2001; current study, 2009). The site forms part of the Upper Hunter 

Green and Golden Bell Frog Key Population consisting of one main diffuse population at, or 

in the vicinity of, the Ravensworth and Liddell area and bordering areas of the Singleton and 

Muswellbrook local government areas (DECC 2007). The Upper Hunter Key Population is 

one of two inland populations of the species and is known from eight verified locations. The 

population is assumed to have a diffuse distribution across lands encompassed by these 

locations and has been recorded sporadically, probably caused by climatic circumstances 

and/or seasonal life cycle changes of the species (DECC 2007). 

The species was ‘rediscovered’ in the upper Hunter in 1994 at Mt Owen mine, approximately 

8 kilometres to the north-east of the Project area, where it was subsequently recorded 

annually between 1996 and 1999 (Hoye et al. 2008). An unconfirmed record of the species 

exists from 2005 at this location from constructed habitats (Hoye et al. 2008). No more than 

three individuals were recorded at any one time at Mt Owen. 

A small colony of the species was recorded from Bayswater Power Station sewage treatment 

plant finishing pond in 1995, approximately 3 kilometres to the west of the Project area. Four 

or five adult males were recorded along with juvenile specimens and tadpoles. 

The species was recorded during surveys undertaken in 1997 at Ravensworth West (within 

the Project area) with one individual recorded (ERM Mitchell McCotter 1998). The species 

was subsequently recorded in the Project area in 2000, with approximately 10 individuals 

recorded in a saline dam created within an ephemeral drainage line as a result of subsidence 

(DECC 2007). The EIS (HLA-Envirosciences 2001) reported five adult males recorded 

during surveys and therefore there is some discrepancy over the number of individuals 

recorded. One individual was recorded during targeted surveys in 2009 in a farm dam 

adjacent to the slightly saline dam which provided habitat for the species in 2000. 

An additional unconfirmed record of the species exists from the north-west shore of Lake 

Liddell in 2006 (DECC 2007). 

Figure 4.3 shows the location of all verified and unconfirmed observations of the species 

within the Upper Hunter Key Population since 1994. 

All confirmed records of the species since 1994 have comprised low numbers of adult 

individuals and only one record included tadpoles of the species. Consequently, DECC 

recognises the Upper Hunter GGBF Key Population as one of high conservation significance 

and a priority for conservation efforts (DECC 2007). 

To meet all of its life cycle requirements the green and golden bell frog requires a complex 

mosaic of habitats including permanent breeding habitat such as dams, ephemeral areas for 

breeding and dispersal, woodland and grassland for foraging and shelter opportunities and 

micro-habitats such as fallen logs, rocks and sometimes disused industrial waste. However, 

the way in which the green and golden bell frog uses habitat in the field is poorly understood 

despite advances in knowledge regarding habitat preferences (Goldingay 2008). Known 

habitat areas and other high, moderate and other available habitat areas for this species in 

the Project area are shown on Figure 4.4. Permanent aquatic sites within the Project area 

were mapped as high, moderate or low in relation to the likely utilisation of each site by green 

and golden bell frogs. 





The intuitive assessment of habitat quality was made with reference to the published data 

relating to the habitat preferences of the species (Pyke and White 1996; Daly et al. 2008; 

Pyke et al. 2002). In order to gain an understanding of the extent of habitat available to the 

green and golden bell frog in the Project area a 500 metre radius was applied to all moderate 

and high quality mapped potential breeding sites, which includes dams and ephemeral 

drainage lines. This is considered to comprise the core habitat for the species in the Project 

area. A 500 metre radius was chosen to represent core habitat as the species is known to 

range over variable distances for foraging and dispersal between proximate habitats, 

including up to 2-3 kilometres (Goldingay 2008; Goldingay and Newell 2005). The species is 

not, however, expected to be limited to the habitats mapped on Figure 4.4 as core habitat. 

As indicated on Figure 4.4, the northern portion of the Project area provides a significant 

habitat area for this species. 

Recent research suggests that to conserve populations of the green and golden bell frog the 

surrounding terrestrial habitats need to be conserved in combination with wetland habitat to 

provide connectivity between breeding and non-breeding sites and to conserve foraging, 

dispersal and shelter habitat (Hamer et al. 2008). Goldingay and Lewis (1999) recommend 

the conservation of multiple breeding sites, of varying hydroperiod and area, within a 

relatively small area (2.5 kilometre radius) to ensure the reproductive viability of green and 

golden bell frog populations. It is of note that the vast majority of research undertaken in 

relation to the ecology and conservation of this species has been undertaken in coastal 

areas and not in the dryer habitats of inland populations. 

The four objectives of the Upper Hunter GGBF Management Plan (DECC 2007) are: 

� to determine GGBF population status and location; 

� maintain existing GGBF key populations elements and enhance existing GGBF habitat 

and thus the likely measures of population viability for this key population; 

� to increase connectivity within the key population; and 

� if/when individuals are located from this population develop a captive breeding program 

at a recognised facility. 

A detailed assessment of significance for the green and golden bell frog is provided in 

Appendix E and F. 

Masked Owl – Tyto novaehollandiae 

The masked owl (Tyto novaehollandiae) occurs sparsely throughout the continent and 

nearby islands, including Tasmania and New Guinea (Kavanagh 2002). Its distribution 

extends from the coast where it is most abundant to the western plains. This species is 

generally recorded from open forest habitat with a sparse mid-storey and patches of dense, 

low ground cover. It is also recorded from ecotones between wet and dry eucalypt forest, 

along minor drainage lines and near boundaries between forest and cleared land (Kavanagh 

2004). Home range estimates vary between 800 and 1200 hectares (Kavanagh 2002). 

Masked owls nest (and roost) in large hollows of old trees and they also roost among dense 

foliage in variety of sub-canopy trees (Kavanagh 2004). They have been recorded nesting 

and roosting in caves. Tyto species have a variable breeding season (likely to be in response 

to prey fluctuations), however are most likely to breed in autumn or winter (Kavanagh 

2002a). Masked owls commonly prey on small terrestrial and scansorial mammals, 

occasionally supplementing with diurnal birds (Kavanagh 2002). 





The masked owl was recorded on one occasion adjacent to the intersection of Lemington 

Road and the New England Highway by HLA-Envirosciences in 2001. The project area is 

considered to provide an extensive area of potential foraging habitat for this species and the 

species has been recorded approximately 6 kilometres to the north of the Project area during 

fauna surveys conducted as part of the Biodiversity Offset Strategy (refer to Appendix A) 

and may form part of an extensive home range. Large tree hollows suitable for roosting and 

breeding habitat for the species were not identified in the Project area. It is considered 

unlikely that the species roosts and breeds within the Project area. 

A detailed assessment of significance for the masked owl is provided in Appendix E. 

Brown Treecreeper (eastern subspecies) – Climacteris picumnus victoriae 

The brown treecreeper (eastern subspecies) (Climacteris picumnus victoriae) is endemic to 

eastern Australia and occurs in eucalypt forests and woodlands of inland plains and slopes of 

the Great Dividing Range. It is less commonly found on coastal plains and ranges. The 

western boundary of the range of the brown treecreeper runs approximately through Wagga 

Wagga, Temora, Forbes, Dubbo and Inverell and along this line the subspecies intergrades 

with the arid zone subspecies of brown treecreeper (Climacteris picumnus picumnus). 

This species occurs over central NSW, west of the Great Dividing Range and sparsely 

scattered to the east of the divide in drier areas such as the Cumberland Plain of Western 

Sydney, and in parts of the Hunter, Clarence, Richmond and Snowy River valleys (NSW 

Scientific Committee 2001a). It is found in eucalypt woodlands (including Box-Gum 

Woodland) and dry open forest of the inland slopes and plains, where it mainly inhabits 

woodlands dominated by stringybarks or other rough-barked eucalypts, usually with an open 

grassy understorey, sometimes with one or more shrub species. It is also found in mallee 

and river red gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis) forest bordering wetlands with an open 

understorey of acacias, saltbush, lignum, cumbungi and grasses but is usually not found in 

woodlands with a dense shrub layer. Fallen timber is an important habitat component for 

foraging. It is also recorded, though less commonly, in similar woodland habitats on the 

coastal ranges and plains. This species is sedentary, territorial year-round, although some 

birds may disperse locally after breeding. It is gregarious and is usually observed in pairs or 

small groups of 8 to 12 birds; it is active, noisy and conspicuous while foraging on trunks and 

branches of trees and amongst fallen timber. This species is known to spend more time 

foraging on the ground and fallen logs than other treecreepers. Hollows in standing dead or 

live trees and tree stumps are essential for nesting. The species breeds in pairs or cooperatively 

in territories which range in size from 1.1 to 10.7 hectares (mean = 4.4 hectares). 

Each group is composed of a breeding pair with retained male offspring and, rarely, retained 

female offspring. Breeding can be cooperative in this species, with groups of 2 to 5 birds 

participating. 

This species is highly sensitive to habitat fragmentation, with disrupted dispersal due to 

habitat isolation being the primary threat (Walters et al. 1999). Major declines of this species 

have occurred in remnant vegetation fragments smaller than 300 hectares that have been 

isolated or fragmented for more than 50 years. 

The brown treecreeper has been recorded at five locations within the Project area all of 

which occur in Central Hunter Box – Ironbark Woodland. This species occurs throughout the 

Project area in suitable habitat. 

A detailed assessment of significance for the brown treecreeper is provided in Appendix E. 





Speckled Warbler – Chthonicola saggitatus 

The speckled warbler (Chthonicola saggitatus) has a distribution from south-eastern 

Queensland, through central and eastern NSW to Victoria. In NSW, this species occupies 

eucalypt and cypress woodlands, generally on the western slopes of the Great Dividing 

Range. It is rarely recorded from coastal areas. It inhabits woodlands with a grassy 

understorey, leaf litter and shrub cover, often on ridges or gullies (Garnett & Crowley 2000). 

This species has also been recorded in cypress woodlands of the northern Riverina and in 

drier coastal areas such as the Cumberland Plain, Western Sydney and the Hunter and 

Snowy River valleys (NSW Scientific Committee 2001b). 

Typical habitat for this species would include scattered native tussock grasses, a sparse 

shrub layer, some eucalypt regrowth and an open canopy. The species is sedentary, living 

in pairs or trios and nests on the ground in grass tussocks, dense litter and fallen branches. 

Home ranges vary from 6-12 hectares (NSW Scientific Committee 2001b). The nest is 

located in a slight hollow in the ground or the base of a low dense plant, often among fallen 

branches and other litter. Breeding occurs between August and January, with cooperative 

breeding occasionally occurring. Barrett et al. (1994) found that the species decreased in 

abundance as woodland area decreased, and it appears to be extinct in districts where no 

fragments larger than 100 hectares remain. Speckled warblers often join mixed species 

feeding flocks in winter, with other species such as the yellow-rumped thornbill (Acanthiza 

chrysorrhoa), buff-rumped thornbill (Acanthiza reguloides), brown thornbill (Acanthiza pusilla) 

and striated thornbill (Acanthiza lineata). 

The speckled warbler has been recorded at nine locations within the Project area, occurring 

in Central Hunter Box – Ironbark Woodland and Central Hunter Bulloak regeneration 

vegetation communities. This species occurs throughout the Project area in suitable habitat. 

A detailed assessment of significance for the speckled warbler is provided in Appendix E. 

Hooded Robin (south-eastern form) – Melanodryas cucullata cucullata 

The species is widespread, found across Australia, except for the driest deserts and the 

wetter coastal areas in northern and eastern coastal Queensland and Tasmania. The southeastern 

form of the hooded robin (Melanodryas cucullata cucullata) is found from Brisbane to 

Adelaide throughout much of inland NSW, with the exception of the north-west, where it 

intergrades with the northern form Melanodryas cucullata picata (NSW Scientific Committee 

2001c). It prefers lightly wooded country, usually open eucalypt woodland, acacia scrub and 

mallee, often in or near clearings or open areas. Hooded robins require structurally diverse 

habitats featuring mature eucalypts, saplings, some small shrubs and a ground layer of 

moderately tall native grasses. They often perch on low dead stumps and fallen timber or on 

low-hanging branches, using a perch-and-pounce method of hunting insect prey. It is 

considered to be a sedentary species, with relatively large home ranges (ranging from 

10 hectares during the breeding season, to 30 hectares in the non-breeding season) but 

local seasonal movements are possible. This species may breed any time between July and 

November, often rearing several broods. Two females often cooperate in raising young. 

Hooded robins appear unable to survive in remnants smaller than 100-200 hectares (NSW 

Scientific Committee 2001c). 

The hooded robin was recorded at four locations within Central Hunter Box – Ironbark 

Woodland (2 locations), derived grassland and rehabilitation vegetation communities (Mount 

King and Gingra 2006; 2007). All vegetation communities within the Project area are 

expected to provide potential habitat for this species. 

A detailed assessment of significance for the hooded robin is provided in Appendix E. 





Scarlet Robin – Petroica boodang (Preliminary Determination) 

This robin can be found in woodlands and open forests from the coast through to inland 

slopes. The birds can sometimes be found on the eastern fringe of the inland plains in the 

colder months of the year. Woody debris and logs are both important structural elements of 

its habitat. It forages from low perches on invertebrates either on the ground or in woody 

debris or tree trunks. The scarlet robin can be found in south-eastern Australia, from 

Tasmania to the southern end of Queensland, to western Victoria and southern South 

Australia. 

The scarlet robin was recorded at one location within River-flat Eucalypt Forest (Mount King 

2006) and at one location in Central Hunter Box – Ironbark Woodland vegetation community. 

All woodland and forest communities within the Project area are expected to provide 

potential habitat for this species. 

A detailed assessment of significance for the scarlet robin is provided in Appendix E. 

Grey-crowned Babbler (eastern subspecies) – Pomatostomus temporalis temporalis 

The grey-crowned babbler (eastern subspecies) (Pomatostomus temporalis temporalis) is 

found throughout parts of northern Australia and south-eastern Australia. In NSW, the 

eastern sub-species occurs on the western slopes of the Great Dividing Range, and on the 

western plains reaching as far as Louth and Hay. It is less common on the higher tablelands 

(NSW Scientific Committee 2001d). It also occurs in woodlands in the Hunter Valley and in 

several locations on the north coast of NSW. 

This species inhabits open Box-Gum Woodlands on the slopes, and Box-Cypress Pine and 

Open Box Woodlands on alluvial plains. It has been recorded from open forest and 

woodland, acacia scrubland and adjoining open areas (Garnett & Crowley 2000). This 

species is highly susceptible to habitat fragmentation (Garnett & Crowley 2000), as birds are 

generally unable to cross large open areas. This species lives in sedentary family groups that 

consist of a breeding pair and young from previous breeding seasons. A group may consist 

of up to 15 birds. All members of the family group remain close to each other when foraging. 

It feeds on invertebrates, either by foraging on the trunks and branches of eucalypts and 

other woodland trees or on the ground, digging and probing amongst litter and tussock 

grasses. 

This species will build and maintain several conspicuous, dome-shaped stick nests, which 

are used as dormitories for roosting each night. Nests are usually located in shrubs or 

sapling eucalypts, although they may be built in the outermost leaves of low branches of 

large eucalypts. Nests are maintained year round, and old nests are often dismantled to build 

new ones. This species breeds between July and February. Young birds are fed by all 

members of the group. Territories range from 1 to 50 hectares (usually around 10 hectares) 

and are defended all year. 

The grey-crowned babbler occurs widely in the Project area with 17 recorded locations of the 

species, predominantly in Central Hunter Box – Ironbark Woodland but also in Central 

Hunter Bulloak Forest Regeneration. In addition, multiple babbler nests were recorded which 

identifies the species as a breeding resident within the Project area. All woodland vegetation 

within the Project area is expected to provide habitat, including breeding habitat, for this 

species. 

A detailed assessment of significance for the grey-crowned babbler is provided in 

Appendix E. 





Grey-headed Flying fox – Pteropus poliocephalus 

This species has generally been recorded within 200 kilometres of the eastern coast, from 

Bundaberg in Queensland, through NSW and south to eastern Victoria. It has been recorded 

from Melbourne, some occurring west to Warrnambool (NSW Scientific Committee 2001e). 

Regular movements are made over the Great Dividing Range to the western slopes of NSW 

and Queensland. This species is known to occur in subtropical and temperate rainforests, 

tall sclerophyll forests and woodlands, heaths and swamps as well as urban gardens and 

cultivated fruit crops. Grey-headed flying-foxes (Pteropus poliocephalus) feed on a variety of 

flowering and fruiting plants, including native figs and palms, blossoms from eucalypts, 

angophoras, tea-trees and banksias (Tidemann 2002). 

This species will travel up to 50 kilometres a night to forage. It plays an important role in 

seed dispersal. Camp sites are usually formed in gullies, usually in vegetation with a dense 

canopy and not far from water (Tidemann 2002). Single camps may have tens of thousands 

of animals. Individuals generally exhibit a high fidelity to traditional camps and return 

annually to give birth and rear offspring (NSW Scientific Committee 2001e). Most births 

occur in September or October (Churchill 1998). The closest known camp of this species 

occurs within Singleton township at Burdekin Park where approximately 2000 individuals are 

known to roost and breed. The project area is approximately 20 kilometres north-west of 

Burdekin Park and is considered to comprise suitable foraging habitat for the species when 

canopy species are flowering. 

The grey-headed flying-fox was recorded in Central Hunter Box – Ironbark Woodland south 

of Davis Creek. All woodland vegetation within the Project area is expected to provide 

foraging habitat for this species. Camp sites were not identified and are not expected to 

occur due to a lack of suitable habitat. 

A detailed assessment of significance for the grey-headed flying-fox is provided in 

Appendix E. 

Eastern Bentwing-bat – Miniopterus schreibersii oceanensis 

This species has an eastern distribution from Cape York along the coastal side of the Great 

Dividing Range, and into the southern tip of South Australia (Churchill 1998). Habitat varies 

widely, from rainforest, wet and dry sclerophyll forest, monsoon forest, open woodland, 

paperbark forests and open grasslands (Churchill 1998). It is generally a cave-dwelling 

species, congregating in maternity caves with very specific temperature and humidity ranges. 

During the non-breeding season, this species will disperse to satellite caves, generally within 

300 kilometres (Churchill 1998). Breeding or roosting colonies can number from 100 to 

150,000 individuals. The eastern bentwing-bat (Miniopterus schreibersii oceanensis) 

hibernates over winter in the southern parts of its range (Churchill 1998). It has been 

recorded roosting in a variety of artificial structures including buildings and culverts (Dwyer 

2002), as well as derelict mines and storm-water tunnels. A single young is born in 

December (Churchill 1998). The species hunts in forested areas, catching moths and other 

flying insects above the tree tops. 

The eastern bentwing-bat (Miniopterus schreibersii oceanensis) was recorded from analysis 

of echolocation calls from the all night Anabat location outside of a Lower Pykes Gully seam 

portal within the Cumnock Wash Plant Pit site and at eight locations in Central Hunter Box – 

Ironbark Woodland across the Project area (refer to Figure 4.2). Woodland communities 

across the Project area are considered to provide an extensive area of foraging habitat for 

this species. 

Potential roosting habitat is limited within the Project area. Natural caves and crevices 

suitable for bat occupation were not identified and therefore potential roost sites are limited to 





anthropogenic habitats such as sheds, roofs and culverts which are very sparsely distributed 

across the Project area. Potential habitat also occurs in old mine workings associated with 

Cumnock underground mine. These mine workings have previously been known to provide 

eastern bentwing-bat habitat. 

Underground workings within the Project area were identified at Cumnock. The eastern 

bentwing-bat was identified during ecological assessment undertaken for the Cumnock 

Washplant Pit and Rehabilitation Project (Umwelt 2008) and detailed assessment of potential 

habitat within the mine workings was undertaken. The identification of the eastern bentwingbat 

was given a ‘Probable’ identification confidence by Fly by Night Bat Surveys Pty Ltd. The 

location of the Anabat detector on the outside of the Lower Pikes Gully seam portal means 

that the species may have been flying over the study area, rather than roosting within the 

portal. Additional Anabat detection analysis failed to record eastern bentwing-bats exiting 

the portals or drifts at dusk, or returning to roosting locations at dawn. Similarly, harp 

trapping and stag watching the Barrett Seam drifts did not identify any bats exiting the drifts 

at dusk, indicating that a maternity roost was not present at the time of the survey (Umwelt 

2008). 

Surveys of the partially inundated Barrett Seam workings at Cumnock in 1999 (Hoye 1999) 

identified the presence of approximately 100 eastern bentwing-bats. Subsequent surveys 

identified a maternity colony of between 1000 and 2000 individuals (Glenn Hoye pers. 

comm.). Gating of the Barrett Seam workings in around 2002 using mesh to temporarily seal 

the entrances to the drifts for decommissioning and safety reasons is expected to have 

resulted in the habitat becoming unavailable for bat occupation. 

A detailed assessment of significance for the eastern bentwing-bat is provided in 

Appendix E. 

Little Bentwing-bat – Miniopterus australis 

Habitat for the little bentwing-bat includes wet and dry sclerophyll forest, rainforest, dense 

coastal banksia scrub, and Melaleuca swamps. The species is known to be cave-dwelling, 

often sharing roosts with the eastern bentwing-bat (Miniopterus scheribersii oceanensis). 

However, it is also known to roost in tree hollows. This fast flying species forages for small 

insects beneath the canopy of densely vegetated habitats. Research indicates that the 

species may depend on a large colony for the high temperatures required to rear the young. 

The little bentwing-bat is known to hibernate over winter in southern parts of its range. 

The little bentwing-bat was recorded foraging in Central Hunter Box – Ironbark Woodland in 

summer 2008. All woodland habitats within the Project area are considered to provide 

potential foraging habitat for this species. Potential roosting habitat is limited within the 

Project area. Natural caves and crevices suitable for bat occupation were not identified and 

therefore potential roost sites are limited to anthropogenic habitats such as sheds, roofs and 

culverts which are very sparsely distributed across the Project area. Potential habitat also 

occurs in old mine workings associated with Cumnock underground mine. These mine 

workings have previously been known to provide eastern bentwing-bat and inland broadnosed 

bat (Scotorepens balstoni) habitat. As discussed above, the gating of the Barrett 

Seam workings is expected to have resulted in known roosting habitat becoming unavailable 

for bat occupation, and therefore a maternity colony of the little bentwing-bat is not expected 

to occur in the Project area. 

A detailed assessment of significance for the little bentwing-bat is provided in Appendix E. 





Eastern False Pipistrelle – Falsistrellus tasmaniensis 

This species has a range from south-eastern Queensland, through NSW and Victoria and 

into Tasmania (Churchill 1998). Habitat includes sclerophyll forest from the Great Dividing 

Range to the coast. This species prefers moist habitats, with trees taller than 20 metres. It 

generally roosts in tree hollows in groups of 6-36, but is occasionally recorded from caves or 

buildings (Churchill 1998). This species hunts beetles, moths, weevils and other flying 

insects above or just below the tree canopy. The eastern false pipistrelle (Falsistrellus 

tasmaniensis) appears to hibernate over winter in southern parts (Phillips 2002). A single 

young is born in December (Churchill 1998). 

The eastern false pipistrelle was recorded at one location in the Project area (ERM Mitchell 

McCotter 1998). All woodland communities in the Project area are expected to provide 

foraging habitat and the small tree hollows recorded at low densities in the Project area are 

expected to provide potential roosting habitat for the species. As the species is known to 

prefer moist habitats with tall trees it is considered that the Ravensworth area provides a 

marginal area of habitat for this species. 

A detailed assessment of significance for the eastern false pipistrelle is provided in 

Appendix E. 

Eastern Freetail-bat – Mormopterus norfolkensis 

This species has a distribution along the east coast of NSW from south of Sydney north into 

south-east Queensland, near Brisbane (Churchill 1998). Most records are from dry eucalypt 

forest and woodland east of the Great Dividing Range. This species has also been recorded 

over a rocky river in rainforest and wet sclerophyll forest (Churchill 1998). Generally only 

solitary animals are recorded (Allison & Hoye 2002). This species generally roosts in tree 

hollows, however have been recorded from roofs, under bark and the metal caps of 

telegraph poles (Churchill 1998). It generally forages above the forest canopy, over water 

and also on the ground. 

The eastern freetail-bat (Mormopterus norfolkensis) was recorded at one location in the 

Project area in Central Hunter Box – Ironbark Woodland (Mount King and Gingra Ecological 

Surveys 2006) (refer to Figure 4.2). All woodland communities in the Project area are 

expected to provide foraging habitat and the small tree hollows recorded at low densities in 

the Project area are expected to provide potential roosting habitat for the species. The 

project area is considered to provide an extensive area of habitat for this species. 

A detailed assessment of significance for the eastern freetail-bat is provided in Appendix E. 

Large-footed Myotis – Myotis adversus 

This is a coastal species, ranging from the Kimberley to South Australia (Churchill 1998). It is 

rarely found more than 100 kilometres inland, except along major rivers. It will occur in most 

habitat types providing they are near to water (Richards 2002). It will forage over streams 

and pools, catching insects and small fish by raking their feet across the water surface. This 

species is commonly cave-dwelling in groups of 10 to 15, however it is also recorded from 

tree hollows, dense vegetation, bridges, mines and drains (Churchill 1998). When breeding, 

it roosts in small groups, with males defending a territory and a harem of females (Richards 

2002). A single young is born in November through to December (Churchill 1998). 

Farm dams, water fill points, mine water dams and creeks are expected to provide a 

significant area of foraging habitat for this species. The species was recorded at one 

location within the Project area. Potential roosting habitat is limited within the Project area. 

Natural caves and crevices suitable for bat occupation were not identified and therefore 





potential roost sites are limited to anthropogenic habitats such as sheds, roofs and culverts 

which are very sparsely distributed across the Project area. Potential habitat also occurs in 

old mine workings associated with Cumnock underground mine. 

A detailed assessment of significance for the large-footed myotis is provided in Appendix E. 

4.2.4.2 SEPP 44 (Koala Habitat) Assessment Results 

River-flat Eucalypt Forest was identified as potential koala habitat with forest red gum 

(Eucalyptus tereticornis) recorded as a dominant overstorey species within the community. 

None of the other native vegetation communities recorded in the Project area are considered 

to provide potential koala habitat as Schedule 2 species listed under the policy were not 

recorded in densities greater than 15 per cent of all overstorey species within each 

community. 

Given that potential koala habitat occurs in the Project area, the policy requires that it must 

be determined whether the area forms core koala habitat under the definition of SEPP 44. 

Core koala habitat is defined under this legislation as; ‘an area of land with a resident 

population of koalas, evidenced by attributes such as breeding females (that is, females with 

young) and recent sightings of and historical records of a population’. Targeted searches 

and area searches for scats failed to identify the koala and the Atlas of NSW Wildlife 

database was interrogated to determine if any historical record of the species exists within 

the Project area. 

No koalas were identified during extensive walking or driving spotlight searches (refer to 

Section 3.5) completed as part of this study. No koalas responded to the 12 call playback 

sessions. No koala scats were collected during the fauna surveys or at condition assessment 

survey sites. Interrogation of the DECC Atlas of NSW Wildlife did not identify historical 

records of the koala in the Project area. 

No koalas or koala scats were identified in any part of the Project area despite a significant 

level of survey effort. Therefore no koala core habitat was identified and the Project area is 

not considered to provide koala habitat. 

4.3 Aquatic Survey Results 

The project area is located within the catchment areas of Bowmans Creek, Bayswater Creek, 

Emu Creek, Davis Creek, Farrells Creek and the Ravensworth West and Ravensworth East / 

Narama mine water management systems. Emu Creek, Davis Creek and Farrells Creek are 

all tributaries of Bayswater Creek. Bayswater Creek flows in a southerly direction through 

the central portion of the Project area to its confluence with the Hunter River south of the 

Project area and Bowmans Creek flows in a southerly direction to its confluence with the 

Hunter River along the eastern edge of the Project area (refer to Figure 1.2). 

Emu Creek is a third order stream, Davis Creek a fourth order stream, Farrells Creek a third 

order stream and Bayswater Creek is a fourth order stream under the Strahler stream 

ordering system. Bayswater Creek is highly modified due to an existing diversion channel 

which was constructed as part of open cut mining operations in Ravensworth/Narama. 

Bowmans Creek is a fifth order stream and is permanently flowing. 

The natural catchment areas of Davis Creek, Emu Creek, Farrells Creek and Bayswater 

Creek have all been reduced by open cut mining. The open cut mines located within the 

natural catchment areas include Cumnock, Ravensworth West, Ravensworth, Narama and 

Howick. 





A number of dams were identified within the Project area, especially in the upper reaches of 

the drainage lines. These also provide habitat for aquatic flora and fauna. The creek beds 

and banks of the Project area are generally sandy, with mobile eroded sands and some 

gravels. The creeks generally flow during storm events or extended rain periods, washing 

much eroded sediment downstream. 

Due to a low flow regime, the creeks within the Project area provide limited habitat for fish 

species, however small riffle-dwelling native fish such as gudgeons (Eleotridae family) may 

occur in Bayswater Creek during periods of moderate flow, and Bowmans Creek provides a 

permanent aquatic habitat for a range of vertebrate an invertebrate species. 

4.3.1 Aquatic Habitat and Stream Assessment 

4.3.1.1 Bowmans Creek 

Bowmans Creek rises in the western foothills of the Mount Royal Range, and its upper 

catchment is deeply incised in steep bedrock controlled terrain. Downstream of the junction 

with Sawyers Creek (i.e. in the vicinity of Ravensworth and Mount Owen mines), the northeast 

trending channel leaves the confines of the mountain catchment and turns west and 

then south (after the junction with Cedar Creek) to flow to the Hunter River. These reaches 

of Bowmans Creek are set in a broad alluvial flood plain and terrace sequence that is up to 

1 kilometre wide. 

The modern channel carries an abundant cobble bedload, with grain sizes ranging 

50 millimetres-200 millimetres and well-developed point bar deposits. There are two levels 

of benches adjacent to the active channel, each with some evidence of former channels. 

The floodplain is approximately 1 metre above the bed of the active channel and abandoned 

channel, and is 20 metres wide. 

Bowmans Creek exhibited the greatest diversity of habitats of all drainage systems surveyed 

as part of this assessment. Deep, low flows were recorded in the creek, with moderate water 

levels present. Pool and run habitats were common, with pool/riffle sequences evident in the 

low flow channel. Overhanging riparian vegetation was recorded and macrophyte cover was 

present and variable. Fallen woody debris and snags were also recorded. 

4.3.1.2 Bayswater Creek 

The catchment of Bayswater Creek lies entirely within the Permian Branxton formation 

(conglomerate, sandstone and siltstone) in the Central Lowlands of the Hunter Valley. The 

natural catchment of Bayswater Creek was approximately 15000 hectares, but the catchment 

has been severely modified by a range of structures and controls, that affect catchment area, 

channel form, water flow, water quality and erosion status. 

Bayswater Creek meanders within alluvial deposits that have accumulated to form a valley 

approximately 200-300 metres wide. 

Soil and alluvial stratigraphic sections that are visible in the bank of Bayswater Creek, from 

channel floor to terrace surface, show a well differentiated texture contrast soil formed in fine 

alluvium that overlies a cobble deposit. 

The majority of Bayswater Creek in the Project area is highly modified due to the 

construction of the Bayswater Creek diversion for the Narama Mine. As a result, ecological 

surveys focused on the northern extent of the Creek within the Project area. 





4.3.1.3 Emu Creek 

Emu Creek is a third order stream and minor tributary of Bayswater Creek, occurring in the 

central portion of the Project area. Emu Creek supports well-defined riparian vegetation 

dominated by swamp oak (Casuarina glauca). Some minor pools were evident along the 

creek; however additional aquatic microhabitats were not identified such as pool/riffle 

sequences. 

Emu Creek generally comprises a narrow channel, with widths generally in the order of 

3-5 metres. The channel is mostly well vegetated by sedge vegetation, dominated by the 

introduced sharp rush (Juncus acutus subsp. acutus), indicating an intermittent flow regime. 

Bank heights were generally 1-3 metres and evidence of active erosion was frequently 

observed. 

The ephemeral habitats of Emu Creek are likely to lack significant aquatic vertebrate and 

invertebrate species due to an absence of suitable habitat structures and habitat variability. 

4.3.1.4 Davis Creek 

Davis Creek flows in a south-easterly direction in the northern portion of the Project area. 

The creek supports well developed riparian vegetation dominated by Central Hunter Swamp 

Oak Forest with the floodplain dominated by River-flat Eucalypt Forest. In-channel 

vegetation is dominated by the weed sharp rush (Juncus acutus subsp. acutus), with 

cumbungi (Typha orientalis) occurring sporadically in deeper pools. Aquatic species were 

not recorded at the time of the survey. The creek is well defined, with channel widths 

generally between 1 and 4 metres with bank heights generally between 1 and 4 metres. 

Minor erosion of banks and the channel was recorded. 

A range of in-stream aquatic habitats were recorded including refuge pools, woody debris 

and detritus. The creek exhibits moderate shading of instream habitats. 

4.3.1.5 Farrells Creek 

Farrells Creek is a third order tributary flowing generally in a southerly direction to its 

confluence with the Hunter River. The width of the channel varies between 1 and 4 metres in 

the sections surveyed and bank height ranged from 0.5 metres to in excess of 4 metres. The 

aquatic habitat of Farrells Creek lacked complexity and a range of microhabitats such as 

pool/riffle sequences, snags, permanent water and aquatic flora. 

The sites surveyed as part of the assessment showed evidence of active erosion. 

4.3.1.6 Pikes Gully 

Pikes Gully, along the western side of Pikes Gully Road, has been historically modified to 

allow for the construction of Pikes Gully Road and the Cumnock CHPP. The exact timing of 

these works are unknown, however, mining has been ongoing at the site since the 1950s. 

Pikes Gully consists of on open channel dominated by instream sedge and rush vegetation 

with poorly developed riparian vegetation and aquatic habitat. 

4.3.2 Aquatic Flora 

The project area supports very limited aquatic vegetation with low species diversity. This 

vegetation was not mapped as a separate community due to the very limited extent of the 

association and the scale of vegetation mapping; rather, it is included as a component of the 

terrestrial vegetation. 





Most creeklines of the Project area support vegetation that prefers moist or waterlogged soil. 

Instream vegetation of each of the ephemeral creeks in the Project area (Davis Creek, Emu 

Creek and Farrells Creek) was dominated by the introduced sharp rush (Juncus acutus 

subsp. acutus), often forming dense infestations and out-competing native instream species. 

Bowmans Creek supports the greatest range of aquatic species recorded during the aquatic 

flora survey due to the permanent nature of the creek. Commonly recorded species included 

common reed (Phragmites australis) and cumbungi (Typha orientalis) in addition to the 

introduced sharp rush. Fennel pondweed (Potamogeton pectinatus) and water milfoil 

(Myriophyllum aquaticum) were also identified. 

The project area supports 20 dams, ranging from small, steep-sided dams through to larger 

bodies with shallow sides. In all cases, however, the aquatic vegetation occurring within and 

fringing the dams were found to be very species poor, and frequently very sparsely 

distributed. Common species recorded in or on the edges of farm dams included swamp lily 

(Ottelia ovalis), water ribbons (Triglochin procerum), Eleocharis equisetina, Juncus 

continuus, cumbungi (Typha orientalis), lesser joyweed (Alternanthera denticulata), water 

pepper (Persicaria hydropiper), water plantain (Alisma plantago-aquatica) and the introduced 

parrots feather (Myriophyllum aquaticum), dirty Dora (Cyperus difformis) and sharp rush 

(Juncus acutus subsp. acutus). 

A list of aquatic flora species recorded in the Project area is provided in the flora species list 

in Appendix C. 

4.3.3 Aquatic Fauna 

A total of 25 aquatic fauna species were recorded during the aquatic survey of the Project 

area, comprising two vertebrate and 23 invertebrate species. Vertebrate species recorded in 

the Project area are listed in Appendix D and invertebrate species are included in Table 4.3 

below. 

4.3.3.1 Aquatic Invertebrates 

Aquatic invertebrates are sensitive to changes in flow regime, water quality and habitat 

condition. As a result of this, they are frequently used as biological indicators of waterway 

health and to assess impacts on freshwater ecosystems. The diversity, composition and 

abundance of macro-invertebrate communities provide a general measure of the ecological 

health of waterways. 

Macro-invertebrate sampling was undertaken at two sites each along Davis, Emu and 

Farrells Creeks and at one farm dam (refer to Figure 3.6). The dam site is considered to be 

representative of the farm dams identified in the Project area and the sampling program is 

supported by significant habitat assessment. The macroinvertebrate taxa collected are listed 

in Table 4.6 below. The SIGNAL-HU97 (Hunter River specific sensitivity grade, Chessman 

et al. 1997) sensitivity grades are also indicated in Table 4.6 and a breakdown of the 

numbers of each taxon recorded at each site is provided. 

Twenty-three families of macroinvertebrates were identified during the aquatic survey. 

Seventeen of the 23 species are regarded as being tolerant to very tolerant of environmental 

stress, with only three of the recorded species being considered sensitive. Six of the species 

recorded in the survey were not assigned pollution tolerance levels in the Chessman et al. 

(1997) survey and assessment. 





Table 4.6 – Aquatic Invertebrate Families Recorded within the Project Area 

Family Name Common Name Signal Index 

(Chessman 

1997) 

Emu 

Creek 

Sample Location 

Davis 

Creek 

Farrells 

Creek 

Acarina mite - 1 1 6 

Aeshnidae dragonfly 7 1 

Atyidae freshwater shrimp 5 1 1 

Baetidae mayfly nymph 8 4 1 2 

Ceratopogonidae fly larvae and pupa 4 3 3 

Chrionomidae non-biting midges 1 4 3 

Collembola springtail - 3 1 

Corixidae water boatmen 5 2 8 2 1 

Culicidae mosquito larvae 6 9 9 

Daphniidae water flea - 6 

Dytiscidae diving beetle 4 1 5 3 3 

Hydrophilidae beetle larvae 5 2 1 5 

Leptoceridae caddisly larvae 9 3 

Lestidae damselfly nymph - 2 

Libellulidae dragonfly nymph 5 4 

Mesoveliidae water treader 3 2 

Notonectidae backswimmers 6 7 6 5 

Ostracoda crustacea - 27 10 12 

Physidae snail (introduced) 3 4 2 

Scirtidae beetle larvae 5 2 1 

Stratiomyidae fly larvae and pupa 4 2 

Veliidae small water strider 6 2 1 

Diptera pupae bloodworms - 2 

The most commonly encountered species included the ostracoda, mosquito larvae, back 

swimmers, the introduced Physidae snail and water boatmen. All of these species are 

considered to be very tolerant of pollution and poor water quality. Three families 

(Leptoceridae, Baetidae and Acarina) were recorded that are considered to be sensitive or 

very sensitive to disturbance and pollution, recorded from sites in Davis Creek and the 

surveyed farm dam. 

Macro-invertebrate species were recorded in each of the sampling sites shown on 

Figure 3.6. Nine invertebrate species were recorded from a dam in the upper reaches of 

Emu Creek, which was the most species rich habitat sampled within the Project area. A total 

of 16 families were recorded from two sampling sites along Davis Creek, with 15 families 

recorded from Farrells Creek and 14 from the dam sampling location. Two families were 

recorded within Emu Creek, with only very low numbers of each species recorded. The 

ephemeral nature of the creeks and drainage lines within the Project area limits the diversity 

and density of aquatic organisms. 



Dam



4.3.3.2 Aquatic Vertebrates 

Three aquatic vertebrates were recorded during sampling and habitat assessment in the 

Project area. The eastern snake-necked turtle (Cheladonia longicollis) was recorded in 

moderate numbers in suitable habitat within the Project area, with records at numerous dams 

across the Project area. The European carp (Cyprinus carpio) was recorded in a deep pool 

in Bowmans Creek and the mosquito fish (Gambusia holbrooki) was recorded in high 

numbers in shallow verges of the creek. Numerous farm dams within the Project area 

provide only a limited area of permanent aquatic habitat and long-finned eels (Anguilla 

reinhardtii) are expected to occur in these habitats across the Project area. 

Previous surveys of fish in Bowmans Creek identified a total of nine species (including two 

species of crustaceans) (Roberts and Murray 2005). The most abundant species recorded 

were the mosquito fish (Gambusia holbrooki) and long-finned eel (Anguilla reinhardtii) with 

small numbers freshwater catfish (Tandanus tandanus), striped gudgeon (Gobiomorphus 

australis) and the introduced goldfish (Carassius auratus) recorded (Roberts and Murray 

2005). 

Table 4.7 shows the range of fish species that were recorded in the Hunter River drainage 

basin in the NSW Rivers Survey (Harris and Gerhke 1997). Bowmans Creek is expected to 

provide a permanent aquatic habitat for many of the species recorded in this table. Davis 

Creek and Bayswater Creek may provide some aquatic vertebrate habitat during periods of 

high rainfall when pool habitats support sufficient water levels and water quality. Emu Creek, 

Farrells Creek and Pikes Gully are not expected to provide aquatic vertebrate habitat. 

Table 4.7 – Vertebrate Fish Species Previously Recorded 

within the Hunter River Drainage Basin 

Common Name Scientific Name 

long-finned eel Anguilla reinhardtii 

goldfish *Carassius auratus 

common carp *Cyprinus carpio 

mountain galaxias Galaxias olidus 

mosquito fish *Gambusia holbrooki 

striped gudgeon Gobiomorphus australis 

Coxs gudgeon Gobiomorphus coxii 

sprat Herklotsichthys castelnaui 

Australian bass Macquaria novemaculeata 

striped mullet Mugil cephalus 

freshwater mullet Myxus petardi 

bullrout Notesthes robusta 

flathead gudgeon Philypnodon grandiceps 

dwarf flathead gudgeon Philypnodon sp. 1 

freshwater herring Potamalosa richmondia 

Australian smelt Retropinna semoni 

freshwater catfish Tandanus tandanus 

Note: * introduced species 





No impediments to fish passage were observed in the immediate vicinity of the Project area 

(based on on-ground observations and from analysis of topographic maps and aerial 

photography), and therefore it is likely that a wider range of fish species may occur at this 

location over time as they travel upstream and downstream through the river system. 

4.3.3.3 Threatened Aquatic Species 

The Hunter River catchment does not provide habitat for any of the listed threatened aquatic 

species, populations and endangered ecological communities listed under the Fisheries 

Management Act 1994. 

No threatened aquatic species were recorded during the assessment and none are expected 

to occur within the Project area. 



Ravensworth Operations Project Impact Assessment 


5.0 Impact Assessment 

The project will result in the clearing of approximately 1657 hectares of land, of which 

approximately 550 hectares occurs in previously disturbed areas. A total of 1200 hectares of 

native vegetation occurs in the Project area (which includes 288 hectares of native 

vegetation in the Ravensworth West development consent area) providing habitat for one 

endangered species, 12 vulnerable species, two endangered flora populations, and 

972 hectares of EEC (including PDs) as listed under the TSC Act (refer to Section 4.1.4). 

The clearing associated with the Project and assessed as part of this Ecological Assessment 

includes 559 hectares of native woodland, forest and riparian vegetation. In addition to the 

loss of native vegetation communities, the Project will result in the loss of 527 hectares of 

Derived Grassland, 31 hectares of Planted Areas and 541 hectares of Rehabilitation (of 

which 59 hectares is woody vegetation). 

In addition to actions undertaken by Ravensworth Operations to avoid and minimise impacts 

on ecological values (refer to Sections 1.2.2 and 5.1), significant impact mitigation measures 

and a Biodiversity Offset Strategy are required to ameliorate the impact of the Project on 

ecological values. 

5.1 Project Changes to Avoid and Minimise Impacts 

The potential impacts of the Project on the ecological values of the Project area were 

recognised early in the Project. Ravensworth Operations has undertaken detailed concept 

and pre-feasibility studies into the proposed mining operation and as part of this process 

numerous alternative mine and infrastructure plans were considered. Minimising 

environmental and community impacts and maximising economic resource recovery have 

been major considerations in the evaluation of alternative options. 

In this context, early conceptual mine plans for the Project included mining and out of pit 

overburden emplacement areas extending to the northern extent of the Project area, 

requiring the removal of Davis Creek. In response to the identification of a number of 

ecological constraints along Davis Creek, a decision was made early in the Project design 

process to limit mining operations to the south of Davis Creek. 

Throughout the Project planning process, Ravensworth Operations has undertaken some 

substantial reviews of the proposed disturbance area to avoid impacts on the significant 

ecological features of the Project area. The most substantial change was the revision of the 

proposed mining and overburden emplacement areas to avoid the disturbance of Davis 

Creek due to the identified habitat for River-flat Eucalypt Forest EEC (refer to Figure 4.1). 

This avoidance of Davis Creek resulted in an overall reduction of the disturbance associated 

with the Project by approximately 450 hectares. The reduction in the footprint of the initially 

proposed overburden emplacement areas due, in large part, to ecological constraints 

resulted in the maximisation of emplacement of overburden in previously mined areas. The 

relative difference in disturbance area associated with mine plan revisions is shown on 

Figures 1.3 and 1.4. 

Ravensworth Operations has undertaken considerable redesign of the Project to minimise 

direct impacts on threatened species and retain habitat and native vegetation. The overall 

footprint of the Project has reduced considerably and the out of pit dump was further 

modified late in the Project with this re-design allowing for a 200 metre buffer to Davis Creek 

to be included in the Project to protect the habitat of the green and golden bell frog (Litoria 

aurea). The reduction in clearing has reduced the area of disturbance for all threatened 

species recorded in the Project area. 





5.2 Impact of the Project on Ecological Values 

5.2.1 Summary of Ecological Values 

The project area contains significant ecological features and values. It is located within a 

large area of remnant vegetation on the central Hunter Valley floor, a landscape which has 

been heavily cleared and disturbed over a long period of time. As a result, vegetation 

remnants of the type and size occurring in the Project area are important at local and 

regional scales. 

The ecological values identified in the Project area that have been considered in determining 

impact mitigation and biodiversity offsetting requirements include: 

� high quality threatened species (refer to Figure 4.2) habitat including: 

� known habitat of the green and golden bell frog (Litoria aurea) (listed as endangered 

under the TSC Act and vulnerable under the EPBC Act). The species was positively 

identified within the Project area in January 2009 and was previously recorded at 

Ravensworth West in 1997 and in 2001 adjacent to the current record. This 

represents an important record of the species which has not been positively recorded 

in the central Hunter Valley since 1999 at Mt Owen and 2001 in the Cumnock 

underground mining area; 

� a large area of threatened woodland bird and micro-bat habitat. Five vulnerable 

woodland bird species and five vulnerable species of micro-bat were recorded widely 

across the Project area and the vulnerable grey-headed flying-fox (Pteropus 

poliocephalus) was recorded at one location; 

� a historical record of the vulnerable (TSC Act) masked owl (Tyto novaehollandiae) 

which was recorded as road kill in 2000 (HLA-Envirosciences 2001); and 

� one record of the EPBC listed vulnerable grass species lobed bluegrass (Bothriochloa 

biloba). 

� weeping myall (Acacia pendula) in the Hunter Catchment EP was recorded at two 

locations adjacent to the western boundary of the Project area, near the New England 

Highway in the north and adjacent to the Narama extended project area (refer to 

Figure 4.2); 

� river red gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis) in the Hunter Catchment EP recorded along 

the Hunter River in the southern portion of the Project area (refer to Figure 4.2); 

� Hunter Floodplain Red Gum Woodland EEC (PD) recorded in small patches on the 

Hunter River and Bayswater Creek floodplains (refer to Figure 4.1); 

� Central Hunter Grey Box – Ironbark Woodland EEC (PD) recorded extensively across the 

Project area (refer to Figure 4.1); 

� River-flat Eucalypt Forest EEC along the floodplain of Davis Creek (refer to Figure 4.1); 

� Central Hunter Ironbark – Spotted Gum – Grey Box Forest EEC (PD) recorded in a small 

location to the south of Davis Creek (refer to Figure 4.1); and 

� a large area of contiguous native vegetation that is one of the few remaining large 

remnants in the local area (large remnants being >100 hectares (Peake 2006)). The 

vegetation of the Project area is of local and regional importance due to its size (greater 





than 1200 hectares) and the presence of active regeneration of canopy species. The 

remnant provides an important corridor in a local and regional context and provides 

habitat for many species that are unable to persist in small, fragmented remnants. 

5.2.2 Potential Ecological Impacts of the Project 

Without mitigation, the Project has the potential to result in a variety of impacts on the 

ecological features of the Project area. The majority of these impacts will be direct impacts 

from the extension of existing open cut mining operations, however there are also likely to be 

ongoing impacts as a result of the operation of the expanded mine. A detailed impact 

mitigation strategy is proposed in order to reduce the potential incidence and consequences 

of these impacts. This strategy is outlined in detail within Section 5.8 of this report. 

Potential impacts from the construction of the mine would include, but may not be limited to 

the following: 

Clearance of vegetation/loss of habitat: the clearing of vegetation will comprise the 

main impact of the Project. This impact will come from the direct removal of vegetation 

(including constituent flora) as well as the removal of foraging and breeding habitat for 

fauna. 

Felling of hollow-bearing trees: this has the potential to impact considerably on 

hollow-dependent fauna species occurring in the Project area, particularly during the 

felling process. As the majority of hollow-dependent species are nocturnal, they are 

likely to be sheltering within hollows at the time of felling, greatly increasing the 

possibility of injury and death as trees are felled. Added risk comes from species that 

enter torpor or hibernation and are not able to readily vacate hollows when trees are 

disturbed. Because a high proportion of the threatened species occurring in the Project 

area are hollow-dependent (and many undergo at least some degree of torpor), the 

vegetation removal process has the potential to create significant impacts on numerous 

species. This potential impact can be reduced by adopting mitigation/management 

actions such as rigorous pre-clearing surveys, fauna-sensitive felling practices and 

provision of alternate habitat to compensate for the loss of tree hollows. These actions 

have been adopted as part of the Project, and are discussed further in Section 5.8. 

Fragmentation: the clearing of vegetation within the Project area will increase the levels 

of fragmentation of the local area. Such existing fragmentation is likely to impact a suite 

of species that are unwilling/unable to cross large open spaces. Such species include 

numerous small woodland birds such as the threatened grey-crowned babbler (eastern 

subspecies) (Pomatostomus temporalis temporalis), as well as smaller terrestrial 

mammals, reptiles and amphibians. Arboreal mammals can also be impacted by 

fragmentation, particularly from predation travelling across the ground between habitat 

patches. 

A secondary impact from increased isolation and fragmentation results from a reduced 

gene flow throughout the landscape. Limited genetic flow into or out of a particular area 

can lead to reduced genetic variation and inbreeding depression within flora and fauna 

species. This can lead to isolated populations being placed at increased risk of extinction 

due to a reduced ability to cope with stochastic events and environmental change. 

Increased competition for resources: the removal of areas of habitat for fauna 

species will create the need for individuals to disperse into new areas and compete with 

existing residents for foraging, roosting and breeding resources. Such resources will 

include suitable hollows, territories and home ranges, mates and other habitat features 

such as specific feed species and foraging resources. Where the habitat is isolated, 





overcrowding can occur, further exacerbating conflict for resources. Increased 

competition has the potential to cause the death of individuals, either due to direct 

conflict, resulting injuries or inability to access resources. Within the Project area, 

considerable amounts of habitat currently exist. It is likely that the removal of resources 

from the Project area will increase competition in adjoining areas, however suitable 

mitigation measures can be implemented that will reduce the impact of this on native 

fauna species, particularly threatened species. These actions have been adopted as part 

of the Project, and are discussed further in Section 5.8. 

� Disease: the incidence of disease is often increased when normal population thresholds 

are pressured, and overcrowding occurs. This is particularly so with fauna species, 

when overcrowding facilitates the rapid spread of some diseases throughout a 

population. 

� Human interaction: the increased presence of humans within the Project area may 

cause disturbances to flora and fauna species. Increased usage of the Project area is 

likely to increase the incidence of human-induced impacts such as damage to vegetation 

from vehicles or trampling, increased rubbish and alteration to normal behaviour patterns 

due to human presence. Such impacts can be managed through procedures/controls 

and education about the identification and significance of ecological features within the 


� Operational impacts: include impacts from operational activities, such as disturbance 

to normal behaviour patterns due to noise, vibration, lighting or dust. Such disturbances 

may cause areas of previously suitable habitat to become sub-optimal, and may cause 

fauna species to vacate such areas. Increased human and vehicular activity in 

previously undisturbed areas may cause additional impact to vegetation, habitat and 

behavioural patterns, however this is not expected to be substantial. 

� Edge impacts: many native species are known to be sensitive to edge-effects. Such 

edge effects result in the deterioration of the quality of vegetation as habitat along the 

interface with cleared or disturbed environments. Such habitat deterioration can result 

from impacts such as increased weed invasion, rubbish, increased predation, increased 

presence of introduced species or increased human presence. The clearing of 

vegetation within the Project area will increase the edge-effects on retained vegetation. 

� Introduced species: importation of materials to the Project area, management 

activities, increased human presence and clearing of vegetation all have the potential to 

increase the incidence of introduced species within the Project area. Weed species may 

be inadvertently brought into the Project area with imported materials, or encouraged by 

removal of native vegetation. Introduced fauna species such as foxes, rabbits and feral 

cats may increase within the Project area due to the alteration in land use. An increase 

in introduced species within the Project area could have considerable impacts on 

existing native species. Such impacts can be managed through procedures/controls and 

are discussed further in Section 5.8. 

5.2.3 Conceptual Plans for Vegetation Clearance and Rehabilitation 

The construction and operation of the mine will be progressive, as will the rehabilitation of the 

site, which is designed to achieve the post-mining final land use objectives of creating a 

stable final landform featuring self-sustaining vegetation communities consistent with the 

floristic and structural characteristics of the extant vegetation of the Project area. The key 

stages of the conceptual mine plan, together with the status of progressive vegetation 

disturbance and rehabilitation, are outlined below: 





� Year 3 – including the establishment of infrastructure such as access roads, facilities, 

ROM Pad, product stockpiles, relocation of the 330 kV transmission line. 

This stage will involve the establishment and initial workings of the pit, and the construction 

of the out-of-pit dump. By Year 3 approximately 220 hectares of shaped final landform will be 

available for revegetation. This includes areas available for rehabilitation associated with 

existing mining operations within the Project area. 

Approximately 1071 hectares of existing vegetation will require clearing up until Year 3. The 

Disturbed Grassland and Central Hunter Box – Ironbark Woodland vegetation communities 

will be subject to the majority of this impact with 421 and 422 hectares requiring clearing, 

respectively. 

� Year 5 – including the progression of the main pit. Areas of rehabilitation will be 

established on the out-of-pit dumps. 

The additional clearing required for this stage will equate to approximately 287 hectares, 

mainly consisting of rehabilitation associated with overburden emplacement at Ravensworth 

South; and additional Central Hunter Box – Ironbark Woodland (44 hectares) and Disturbed 

Grassland (30 hectares). As part of this stage, approximately 415 hectares of shaped final 

landform will be available for revegetation. 

� Year 10 – will include the progression of the main pit and processing of out of pit 

overburden emplacement areas and progressive rehabilitation. 

Additional clearing required for this stage will equate to approximately 200 hectares, mainly 

of rehabilitation. At Year 10, approximately 97 per cent of native vegetation in the Project 

area will be removed. Large areas of reshaped final landform will be available for 

revegetation within the pit and out-of-pit dump (800 hectares). 

� Year 15 – will include the progression of the main pit and active overburden 

emplacement and rehabilitation. 

There will be no additional clearing of native vegetation communities from the Project area 

following Year 15. The addition of approximately 1350 hectares of revegetated land will see 

over half of the main pit reformed and subject to rehabilitation. 



At this stage of the Project, the area incorporated into revegetation and regeneration is 

approximately 1770 hectares. 



The preliminary closure criteria have been designed to facilitate the creation of post-mining 

landscape consisting of vegetation of a similar age, structure and diversity to the pre-mining 

landscape. Based on the preliminary rehabilitation schedule, significant rehabilitation will be 

undertaken in the first five years of the Project. By Year 5 approximately 415 hectares of 

shaped final landform will be available for rehabilitation. This shaped final landform includes 

areas associated with existing mining operations within the Project area, including the former 

Cumnock open cut mine. The rehabilitation of approximately 415 hectares equates to 

approximately 75 per cent of the area of native vegetation that is proposed to be removed as 

a result of the Project. 





Based on the progressive achievement of the preliminary closure criteria over the life of the 

Project, at the completion of mining in Year 29 it is anticipated that this vegetation will be 

approximately 24 years old. With rehabilitation undertaken in accordance with the strategies 

provided in Section 5.8 and with the aims and objectives of the Interim Rehabilitation Criteria 

(refer to Table 5.3), it is anticipated that this rehabilitation is likely to provide significant 

ecological values in a local and regional context. 

There will be no additional clearing of native vegetation communities from the Project area, in 

addition to those areas already approved for disturbance, following approximately Year 15 of 

the conceptual mine plan. At the completion of the Project life, this rehabilitated land will be 

approximately 14 years old. As outlined in Section 5.2.3, rehabilitation will be undertaken 

throughout the proposed disturbance area until Year 29, and will also be undertaken as part 

of mine closure and decommissioning. At completion of these activities, approximately 

2200 hectares would have been rehabilitated, including approximately 1600 hectares of 

vegetation characteristic of extant communities with approximately 60 per cent of the total 

area of the vegetation community re-establishment at least 14 years old. 

Mining will progress through to the proposed project completion at Year 29 of the Project. 

Rehabilitation will be undertaken through to this time, and will also be undertaken as part of 

mine closure and decommissioning. At completion of these activities approximately 2200 

hectares would have been rehabilitated, including approximately 1600 hectares of vegetation 

characteristic of extant communities. 

The conceptual mine plan will result in the removal of 84 per cent of Central Hunter Box – 

Ironbark Woodland occurring in the disturbance area by Year 3 and all of the floodplain 

woodland EECs and Central Hunter Ironbark – Spotted Gum – Grey Box Forest will similarly 

be removed by Year 3. A total of 82 per cent of native vegetation will be cleared by Year 3, 

representing a significant and immediate loss of native vegetation and fauna habitat. 

5.2.4 Summary of Ecological Impacts 

Based on the ecological values of the Project area summarised in Section 5.2.1 and the 

staged vegetation clearance and rehabilitation described in Section 5.2.3 the Ravensworth 

Project is likely to result in a significant impact on ecological values. Even when the proposed 

impact mitigation strategy is taken into account a biodiversity offset will be required to 

address residual impacts. The project will result in the removal of a total of 559 hectares of 

native vegetation, including (approximately): 

� 473 hectares of Central Hunter Box – Ironbark Woodland EEC (PD); 

� 35 hectares of Central Hunter Bulloak Forest Regeneration; 

� 4 hectares of Central Hunter Ironbark – Spotted Gum – Grey Box Forest EEC (PD); 

� 38 hectares of Central Hunter Swamp Oak Forest; 

� 4 hectares of Hunter Valley River Oak Forest; 

� 5 hectares of River-flat Eucalypt Forest EEC; and 

�



regionally significant large remnant; disrupt fauna movement and dispersal corridors; and 

reduce the area of occupancy for a wide range of flora and fauna species in the local area. 

The loss of vegetation and fauna habitats associated with the Project, is likely to result in the 

loss of significant ecological features from the Project area. These features comprise: 

� fauna species and fauna habitat that is significant in a local and regional context; 

� threatened and regionally significant vegetation communities; 

� significant threatened species habitat including that of the: 

� grey-crowned babbler (eastern subspecies) (Pomatostomus temporalis temporalis); 

� hooded robin (south-eastern form) (Melanodryas cucullata cucullata); 

� scarlet robin (Petroica boodang); 

� speckled warbler (Chthonicola sagittata); 


� grey-headed flying-fox (Pteropus poliocephalus); 

� eastern bentwing-bat (Miniopterus schreibersii oceanensis); 

� eastern freetail-bat (Mormopterus norfolkensis); 

� little bentwing-bat (Miniopterus australis); 

� eastern false pipistrelle (Falsistrellus tasmaniensis); 

� large-footed myotis (Myotis adversus); and 

� green and golden bell frog (Litoria aurea). 

� significant local and regional habitat and movement corridors. 

5.3 Impact of the Project on Flora Species 

A total of 368 flora species were recorded in the Project area, of which 25 per cent were not 

native to the area. The diversity of species recorded in the Project area is considered likely 

to be greater than in surrounding areas due to the extent of clearing for agriculture, 

expansion of mining operations and lack of natural regeneration in actively used parts of the 

local area. The size of the Ravensworth remnant, together with the lack of large-scale, 

ongoing disturbance since the early 1970s, has resulted in a high level of species diversity 

compared to surrounding landscapes. 

The project is considered likely to result in a substantial impact on species diversity in the 

Project area, Ravensworth Operations area and local area. In order to ameliorate the loss of 

species diversity from within the Project area rehabilitation on site will target the reestablishment 

of native vegetation communities and will involve the use of native flora 

species of local provenance to promote increased biodiversity in rehabilitation (refer to 

Section 5.8). 





5.4 Impact of the Project on Vegetation Communities 

Central Hunter Grey Box – Ironbark Woodland and Central Hunter Ironbark – Spotted Gum – 

Grey Box Forest were (preliminarily) listed as EECs on 8 May 2009. While the preliminary 

determinations are not legal until listed under the schedules of the Threatened Species 

Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act) they have been considered as EECs in an impact 

assessment context in order to adequately address the ecological impacts of the Project. 

DECCW guidelines stipulate that it is appropriate to treat preliminary determinations as fullylisted 

entities for the purposes of impact assessments. It is anticipated that the communities 

will be listed by the Scientific Committee over the course of the next three to six months. 

The dominant vegetation community in the Project area is Central Hunter Box – Ironbark 

Woodland, which is consistent with Central Hunter Grey Box – Ironbark Woodland EEC (PD). 

Table 5.1 summarises the area of each vegetation community to be removed. A range of 

impact mitigation measures have been formulated to minimise the impact of vegetation loss, 

as discussed in Section 5.8 and 5.9. 

Table 5.1 – Area of Each Vegetation Community to be Removed as Part of the Project 

Vegetation Community Area of Vegetation to 

be Removed (ha) 

Central Hunter Box – Ironbark Woodland EEC (PD) 473 

Central Hunter Bulloak Forest Regeneration 35 

Central Hunter Ironbark – Spotted Gum – Grey Box Forest EEC (PD) 4 

Central Hunter Swamp Oak Forest 38 

Hunter Valley River Oak Forest 4 

River-flat Eucalypt Forest EEC 5 

Hunter Floodplain Red Gum Woodland EEC (PD)



contiguous habitat in a regional landscape that has been heavily impacted by habitat loss 

and fragmentation. 

The HRVP further demonstrates the importance of large remnants as the average remnant 

size of all native vegetation in the HRVP study area is 13.9 hectares, with a median remnant 

size of 1.6 hectares (Peake 2006). Only 2 per cent of remnants in the HRVP study area 

were classified as large (>100 hectares). This analysis of extant vegetation shows that 

relatively few remnants contain the majority of the remnant vegetation in the study area 

(Peake 2006). This general pattern is representative of Central Hunter Box – Ironbark 

Woodland, with 45 per cent of the extant area of the community occurring within large 

remnants (>100 hectares) which represent 2 per cent of the community in the HRVP study 

area (Peake 2006). The distribution of large remnants in the local area and region is 

similarly uneven, with most large remnants occurring at the edge of the valley floor, where it 

adjoins the extensive dissected sandstone landscapes (Peake 2006). 

The loss of approximately 473 hectares of Central Hunter Box – Ironbark Woodland EEC 

(PD) will be significant at a local and regional scale. Approximately 120 hectares of Central 

Hunter Box – Ironbark Woodland will be conserved in the Ravensworth North Offset Area as 

part of the Biodiversity Offset Strategy (refer to Section 5.9) and an additional 

(approximately) 50 hectares will remain unaffected in the Project area. 

The impact of the Project on Central Hunter Box – Ironbark Woodland is assessed further 

due to the preliminary listing of the community as an EEC (refer to Section 5.6 and 

Appendix E). The assessment of significance has determined that the loss of approximately 

473 hectares of the community is likely to result in the removal of a significant area of known 

habitat of the EEC in a regional context. 

Central Hunter Bulloak Forest Regeneration covers approximately 101 hectares of the 

Project area of which approximately 35 hectares will be removed. Thirty-four hectares of this 

community will be conserved in the Ravensworth North Offset Area. The loss of 35 hectares 

of Central Hunter Bulloak Forest Regeneration is not expected to be significant from a local 

or regional perspective and the community is likely to re-establish unassisted across the 

retained grassland habitats within the Project area. 

Central Hunter Ironbark – Spotted Gum – Grey Box Forest EEC (PD) occurs as a small 

remnant of approximately 4 hectares to the south of Davis Creek. Approximately 

18,300 hectares of this community remains extant in the Hunter Valley, with 89 per cent of 

remnants being less than 10 hectares in size (Peake 2006). The loss of a total of 4 hectares 

of Central Hunter Ironbark – Spotted Gum – Grey Box Forest will not be significant from a 

local or regional perspective. A total of 140 hectares of this community is located within the 

Hillcrest Offset Area. Further assessment of this preliminarily listed community was 

undertaken and the assessment of significance has determined that the loss of 

approximately 4 hectares of the community will not constitute a significant loss of the 

community in a regional context. 

The mining and removal of Emu Creek will result in the loss of approximately 38 hectares of 

Central Hunter Swamp Oak Forest. An additional 68 hectares of this community will remain 

unaffected in the Project area including 20 hectares to be managed for conservation along 

Davis Creek as part of the Biodiversity Offset Strategy (refer to Section 5.9). The loss of 

38 hectares of Central Hunter Swamp Oak Forest is not considered significant from a local or 

regional perspective, however to mitigate this loss the community will be reinstated as part of 

the final landform reinstatement of Emu Creek (refer to Section 5.8.5) and there will be no 

net loss of Central Hunter Swamp Oak Forest in the medium term. 

Approximately 0.2 hectares of Hunter Floodplain Red Gum Woodland EEC (PD), 

approximately 5 hectares of River-flat Eucalypt Forest EEC and approximately 4 hectares of 





Hunter Valley River Oak Forest may need to be removed from the Project area to allow the 

construction of infrastructure such as transmission lines, conveyors and service easements. 

Despite the small extent of each community occurring across the Project area, this is not 

regarded as significant. To compensate for this loss, it is proposed to encourage the 

regeneration of these fragmented and highly significant communities on currently cleared 

floodplains through the replanting of key species and a dedicated weed eradication plan 

(refer to Section 5.8). 

The Derived Grassland identified within the development area is a degraded community that 

has been significantly affected by past clearing, grazing practices and mining activities such 

that it is dominated by introduced species in many areas. One threatened flora species, 

Bothriochloa biloba, was identified at one location within the Project area and is considered 

to be rare within the community. The removal of 527 hectares of this vegetation as part of 

the Project is considered unlikely to be significant from a local or regional perspective, due to 

the dominance of Derived Grassland communities in the Hunter Valley. 

Areas of Derived Grassland that are dominated by native species have been recorded widely 

across the Project area and will not be significantly impacted by the removal of up to 

approximately 527 hectares by the Project. 

Aquatic vegetation to be removed as a result of the Project was identified as the fringing 

sedge and rush vegetation of farm dams and the portions of Emu Creek that were not 

approved as part of the Ravensworth West DA that support aquatic vegetation. These 

vegetation communities are widespread in the local area and region and are not considered 

significant. Water management structures constructed as part of the Project are expected to 

be colonised by similar fringing vegetation resulting in no net loss of aquatic habitat in the 

Project area. Emu Creek will be reinstated in the final land form. Suitable habitat for aquatic 

vegetation will be included in the design of the reinstated Emu Creek (refer to Section 5.8.5). 

The proposal incorporates significant habitat reinstatement objectives (refer to 

Sections 5.8.2, 5.8.3 and 5.8.4) with the aim to recreate both vegetation communities and 

fauna habitats. The recreation of vegetation communities and the conservation of similar 

communities as part of the Biodiversity Offset Strategy (refer to Section 5.9) will 

counterbalance the loss of all native vegetation communities currently occurring within the 


5.5 Impact of the Project on Fauna Habitat and Fauna Species 

The project area is located in a region that has been subject to a long history of vegetation 

clearing for agricultural purposes, such as grazing and, in the last 20 years, open cut coal 

mining. This has led to the current condition where the vegetation of the region is highly 

fragmented and disturbed. The vegetation and fauna habitats at Ravensworth Operations 

represent one of the largest remnants remaining in this fragmented landscape. 

The project will result in the loss of up to approximately 1086 hectares of native habitat within 

the Project area. This comprises approximately 512 hectares of woodland and forest habitat, 

approximately 47 hectares of riparian habitat (including aquatic habitats) and approximately 

527 hectares of highly disturbed grassland habitat. The remnant provides a substantial and 

important area of habitat for native fauna species. 

Detailed ameliorative measures will be implemented as part of the Project to limit impacts on 

fauna species and habitats. Such measures include a substantial Biodiversity Offset 

Strategy, the re-establishment of arboreal habitat; the revegetation of mining areas with 

native vegetation communities, erection of nest boxes and implementation of pre-clearing 

surveys to reduce the impact on native fauna, particularly threatened species. The proposed 





impact mitigation strategy and Biodiversity Offset Strategy is discussed in detail in 

Section 5.8 and 5.9. 

5.5.1 Woodland and Forest Habitat 

The removal of over 473 hectares of woodland and 39 hectares of forest habitat within the 

Project area represents a considerable loss of fauna habitat. The majority of this habitat will 

be foraging habitat in the form of canopy vegetation, tree trunks and large branches and bark 

subsurfaces. Associated with the extensive tree canopies of this habitat are moderate levels 

of leaf litter coverage, as well as fallen timber. Such features form an important foraging 

resource for the threatened fauna species recorded in the Project area. Other habitat 

features such as an open to moderately dense mid-understorey and shrub layer provide 

additional resources for foraging and nesting for the threatened woodland bird species 

recorded in the Project area. 

The relatively low level of hollows in the woodland and forest habitat reduces its value as 

roosting and nesting habitat for hollow-dependent species, however this is offset by the 

general paucity of structurally mature vegetation in the local area which increases the value 

of even low to moderate hollow densities. The woodland habitat is likely to be most valuable 

to the non-hollow-dependent threatened species such as the grey-crowned babbler 

(Pomatostomus temporalis temporalis), hooded robin (Melanodryas cucullata cucullata) and 

speckled warbler (Chthonicola sagittata). This vegetation formation would also be valuable 

to those hollow-dependent species that are sufficiently mobile to travel between areas 

containing roosting hollows and this valuable foraging resource. Such species would include 

the micro-bat species eastern freetail-bat (Mormopterus norfolkensis), eastern false 

pipistrelle (Falsistrellus tasmaniensis) and eastern bentwing-bat (Miniopterus schreibersii 

oceanensis). 

The loss of 512 hectares of woodland and forest habitat is expected to have a significant 

impact on native fauna species assemblages and in particular the range of woodland 

dependent threatened fauna species recorded in the Project area. 

5.5.2 Riparian and Aquatic Habitat 

The loss of approximately 47 hectares of riparian and aquatic habitat is related primarily to 

the removal of 38 hectares of Central Hunter Swamp Oak Forest along Emu Creek. A total 

of 48 hectares of Central Hunter Swamp Oak Forest will remain unaffected in the Project 

area of which 20 hectares will be conserved within the Ravensworth North Offset Area as 

part of the Biodiversity Offset Strategy. Fauna species dependent on Swamp Forest habitats 

are not expected to be significantly impacted by the loss of 38 hectares of vegetation. 

A minimal area of eucalypt dominated riparian habitat will be removed comprising 

approximately 0.2 hectares of Hunter Floodplain Red Gum Woodland Complex and 

5 hectares of River-flat Eucalypt Forest. Eucalypt dominated riparian communities recorded 

the highest densities of habitat trees (12.5 per hectare), which includes moderate levels of 

very small, small, medium and large hollows. These small areas of riparian habitat are 

important in the ironbark dominated woodland landscape as this habitat would be most 

valuable to hollow-dependent threatened species such as the threatened eastern false 

pipistrelle (Falsistrellus tasmaniensis) and brown treecreeper (Climacteris picumnus 

victoriae). The loss of approximately 5 hectares of this habitat is not expected to be 

significant, however in order to ameliorate the potential loss of hollow-bearing trees a 

detailed pre-clearance survey and hollow re-instatement program will be implemented as 

part of the Project. Further details can be found in Section 5.8. 





The loss of approximately 4 hectares of Hunter Valley River Oak Forest for the construction 

of the 330kv transmission line is not expected to result in a significant impact on native fauna 

species and approximately 23 hectares will remain unaffected in the Project area. 

The project will result in the loss of approximately 20 farm dams and the ephemeral aquatic 

habitat of Emu Creek. Significant numbers of farm dams and ephemeral and permanent 

aquatic habitat will remain unaffected in the Project area and aquatic species and habitats 

and the native fauna species dependent on those habitats will not be significantly impacted. 

Habitat reinstatement objectives include the re-instatement of dams in the post mining 

landscape. 

With the impact mitigation measures detailed in Section 5.8 enacted as part of the Project 

the loss of approximately 47 hectares of riparian and aquatic habitat will not result in a 

significant impact on native fauna species. 

5.5.3 Grassland habitat 

Grassland habitat is most likely to provide open foraging habitat for fauna species occurring 

in adjoining vegetated refuge areas. It is likely that these open areas provide foraging habitat 

for a number of threatened fauna species, however this would be as sub-optimal, modified 

habitat only. Such habitat is most likely to benefit species that favour woodland margins and 

open areas such as the hooded robin (Melanodryas cucullata cucullata), as well as species 

that would benefit from ecotones for foraging, such as the masked owl (Tyto 

novaehollandiae). It is unlikely that this vegetation community would form the primary 

foraging resource for any threatened fauna species identified within the Project area. In 

excess of 660 hectares of grassland habitat will be retained in the Project area and the loss 

of 527 hectares as a result of the Project is not expected to be significant. 

5.6 Impact of the Project on Threatened Species, Populations 

and Ecological Communities 

The project will result in the loss of threatened fauna habitat including the habitat of one 

endangered fauna species and an additional 11 vulnerable fauna species (refer to 

Sections 4.1.4 and 4.2.4). Habitat for one threatened flora species, the EPBC Act listed 

Bothriochloa biloba, together with the Acacia pendula EP and Eucalyptus camaldulensis EP, 

will not be impacted as a result of the Project. The project includes a comprehensive 

Biodiversity Offset Strategy (refer to Section 5.9) to assist in the amelioration of these 

significant ecological impacts. 

The basic principles of reducing impacts on threatened species are to: 

1. avoid direct impacts and retain habitat; 

2. minimise impacts where ever possible; 

3. mitigate or ameliorate impacts; and as a last resort; and 

4. compensate or offset for any unavoidable impacts. 

Consequently, consideration must be given to retention of all habitat components including 

foraging, shelter and over-wintering habitat that may be at some distance from the more 

readily identified breeding habitat (NPWS 2003). 





The project includes a substantial impact mitigation strategy and a Biodiversity Offset 

Strategy to protect the threatened species recorded or considered likely to occur in the 

Project area, as detailed in Sections 5.8 and 5.9. 

5.6.1 Threatened Species Assessed Under the Environmental Planning and 

Assessment Act 1979 

As there are no formal assessment guidelines in place for Part 3A projects, the key 

components of the ‘Seven Part Test’ were retained and used for this assessment. To achieve 

this, the ‘Assessment of Significance’ used for this project is divided into the following four 

key components, each with its own specific questions: 

� threatened species; 

� endangered populations; 

� threatened ecological communities; and 

� key threatening processes. 

An assessment of significance was undertaken using an initial screening process to identify 

species that may be potentially impacted by the Project (Tables 1 and 2 of Appendix B), 

with a consequential full assessment of the likely significance of impacts being completed for 

these species. The Assessment of Significance does not take into account the full range of 

impact mitigation strategies and biodiversity offsets proposed for the Project, rather it 

considers the impacts of the Project without any mitigation or offsetting. The Assessment of 

Significance was completed for the following threatened species and TECs, either due to 

their recorded presence or the presence of potential habitat in the Project area, and the 

potential for the species or TECs to be impacted: 

� green and golden bell frog (Litoria aurea); 

� grey-crowned babbler (eastern subsp.) - (Pomatostomus temporalis temporalis); 

� speckled warbler (Chthonicola sagittata); 

� brown treecreeper (eastern subsp.) – (Climacteris picumnus victoriae); 

� hooded robin (south eastern form) – (Melanodryas cucullata cucullata); 





� eastern false pipistrelle (Falsistrellis tasmaniensis); 

� large-footed myotis (Myotis adversus); 

� Central Hunter Grey Box – Ironbark Woodland EEC (PD); 

� Central Hunter Ironbark – Spotted Gum – Grey Box Forest EEC (PD); 





� River-flat Eucalypt Forest EEC; and 

� Hunter Floodplain Red Gum Woodland EEC (PD). 

The project will result in the loss of a substantial and important area of habitat for all of the 

woodland dependent threatened species recorded in the Project area. This includes all 

threatened bird and micro-bat species recorded in the Project area. The loss of 512 hectares 

of woodland/forest, 47 hectares of riparian habitat and 527 hectares of derived grassland is 

considered likely to result in the significant reduction in the local population of all threatened 

species recorded or considered likely to occur in the Project area. The long-term 

conservation of the Ravensworth North Offset Area within the Project area will allow for the 

retention of an approximately 262 hectare remnant. The size of this remnant is considered 

sufficient to support those woodland dependent species that are known to be threatened by 

habitat fragmentation and are unable to persist in small, fragmented remnants. The project 

will not, therefore, affect the life cycle of the following threatened species such that the local 

population of the species becomes extinct in the Project area: 

� grey-crowned babbler (eastern subsp.) – (Pomatostomus temporalis temporalis); 

� speckled warbler (Chthonicola saggitatus); 

� brown treecreeper (eastern subsp.) – (Climacteris picumnus victoriae); 

� hooded robin (south eastern form) – (Melanodryas cucullata cucullata); 






� eastern false pipistrelle (Falsistrellis tasmaniensis); and 

� large-footed myotis (Myotis adversus). 

Similarly, the Project will not result in the significant reduction of the regional distribution of 

River-flat Eucalypt Forest EEC or Hunter Floodplain Red Gum Woodland EEC (PD), which 

are known to occur on floodplains throughout the central Hunter Valley. 

It is considered likely that any reduction of potential habitat in the extant area of the local 

population of the green and golden bell frog is likely to significantly impact the local 

population due to the cumulative effects of habitat loss, isolation and habitat fragmentation 

and without significant impact mitigation and offsetting the Project may result in the extinction 

of the local population of the species. 

As discussed above, significant re-design and minimisation of the disturbance footprint was 

undertaken during project planning. This has resulted in a considerable decrease in the 

impact on the green and golden bell frog (and all recorded threatened species) and allows for 

the inclusion and buffering of significant breeding, dispersal and foraging habitat of the 

species. Substantial impact amelioration measures will be implemented as part of the 

Project for this species in order to reduce the overall impact of the Project on the green and 

golden bell frog. These management measures have focused on limiting fragmentation and 

isolation of the species which was highlighted in the Green and Golden Bell Frog Key 





Population in the Upper Hunter Management Plan (DECC 2007) as a significant risk to the 

life cycle of the local population of the species. The Ravensworth sub-population of the 

green and golden bell frog is vital to the survival of the local population of the species. Due 

to the lack of knowledge related to the extent of the species in the local area and the 

apparent small and variable size of the local population, the preservation of the Ravensworth 

sub-population is regarded to be a priority for conservation efforts for the Ravensworth 

population. 

The project is also expected to result in the significant reduction in the regional distribution of 

Central Hunter Grey Box – Ironbark Woodland EEC (PD). The loss of 473 hectares from the 

largest remnant of the community is considered likely to compromise the integrity of the 

community at the local and regional scale. Much of the community occurs in small 

fragmented remnants that are adversely affected by edge effects such as weed invasion. 

The loss of one of the few remaining large remnants is expected to be significant. 

Approximately 120 hectares of the EEC will be conserved in the Ravensworth North Offset 

Area as part of the Biodiversity Offset Strategy. 

The comprehensive Biodiversity Offset Strategy (refer to Section 5.9) will counterbalance 

the residual impacts of the Project, including the extensive loss of vegetation and fauna 

habitat, with the provision of the 1392 hectare Hillcrest Offset Area, on-site conservation in 

the 262 hectare Ravensworth North Offset Area and significant impact amelioration 

measures as detailed in Section 5.8. 

The assessment of significance conducted for each of the threatened species recorded in the 

Project area or considered likely to be potentially impacted is included in Appendix E. 

5.6.2 Threatened Species Assessed Under the Fisheries Management (FM) 

Act 1994 

No FM Act listed threatened aquatic flora or fauna species were recorded within the Project 

area. 

A list of aquatic threatened species, endangered populations and EECs listed under the 

FM Act and the EPBC Act is provided in Appendix B. An assessment of the known range 

and habitat requirements of the entities listed in Appendix B was undertaken to identify 

those with potential to occur within the Project area. 

This assessment concluded that no threatened aquatic species, populations or EECs have 

potential to occur within the Project area. The Hunter River does not provide known habitat 

for any threatened species listed under the FM Act. 

5.6.3 SEPP 44 Assessment 

The area is not considered to be core koala habitat as defined under SEPP 44, and the 

preparation of a Koala Plan of Management is not required. SEPP 44 does not place any 

constraints on the Project. 

5.6.4 Threatened Species Assessed under the Environment Protection and 

Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act 1999 

Under the Commonwealth EPBC Act, the approval of the Commonwealth Minister for the 

Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts is required for any action that may have a 

significant impact on matters of national environmental significance (NES). These matters 

are: 





� listed threatened species and communities; 

� migratory species protected under international agreements; 

� Ramsar wetlands of international importance; 

� the Commonwealth marine environment; 

� World Heritage properties; 

� National Heritage places; and 

� nuclear actions. 

The EPBC Act 1999 lists criteria which are used to determine whether an action is likely to 

have a significant impact on matters of NES. These criteria are addressed in the Assessment 

of Significance provided in Appendix F. 

One EPBC Act threatened flora species, Bothriochloa biloba, was recorded during surveys. 

The assessment of significance (refer to Appendix F) concludes that the Project will not 

pose a significant impact on listed threatened species recorded in the Project area. 

One EPBC Act threatened fauna species, the vulnerable green and golden bell frog (Litoria 

aurea), was recorded in the Project area in January 2009. This species has been recorded 

in the Project area previously in 1998 and 2001. As discussed in Section 5.6.1, the 

Ravensworth sub-population is vital to the survival of the local population of the species. 

Due to the lack of knowledge related to the extent of the species in the local area and the 

apparent small and variable size of the local population, the preservation of the Ravensworth 

sub-population is regarded to be a priority to conserve the local population of the species. It 

is considered likely that any reduction of potential habitat in the ‘core’ of the local population 

is likely to significantly impact the species due to the cumulative effects of habitat loss, 

isolation and habitat fragmentation. 

When considering the impact of a project on a vulnerable species the impacts are considered 

in the context of an important population. As described by the EPBC Act impact assessment 

guidelines, an important population is a population that is necessary for a species’ long-term 

survival and recovery. This may include populations that are: 

� key source populations either for breeding or dispersal; or 

� populations that are necessary for maintaining genetic diversity, and/or 

� populations that are near the limit of the species range. 

The project area forms part of the Upper Hunter GGBF Key Population consisting of one 

main diffuse population at, or in the vicinity of, the Ravensworth and Liddell area and 

bordering areas of the Singleton and Muswellbrook local government areas (DECC 2007). 

The green and golden bell frog recorded in the Project area is considered to comprise a subpopulation 

of the Upper Hunter Key Population and therefore is considered to comprise an 

important population as defined by the EPBC Act impact assessment guidelines 

(2006). 

The EPBC Act impact assessment guidelines outline eight criteria that indicate whether an 

action has, will have, or is likely to have a significant impact on threatened species. Due to 

the uncertainty relating to the ecological requirements of the green and golden bell frog in the 

Project area and the Upper Hunter Key Population generally, the Precautionary Principle has 





been applied and it is considered that the Project may have the following impacts on the 

important population: 

lead to a long-term decrease in the size of the important population of the species; 

reduce the area of occupancy of the important population; and 

disrupt the breeding cycle of the important population. 

The project is not expected to: 

adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of the species; 

interfere substantially with the recovery of the species; 

result in invasive species that are harmful to a vulnerable species becoming established 

in the vulnerable species’ habitat; or 

fragment an existing important population into two or more populations. 

The outcome of the EPBC Act Assessment of Significance in relation to the green and 

golden bell frog indicates that the Project may result in a significant impact on this species 

and the Project will be referred to the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and 

the Arts for approval. 

Sixteen EPBC listed migratory species were recorded within the Project area. These species 

were considered in the Assessment of Significance provided in Appendix F. The project 

area is not considered to provide habitat for an important population of any migratory 

species, as defined by the EPBC Act impact assessment guidelines, and a significant impact 

on migratory species is not expected to occur. 

5.7 Cumulative Vegetation and Fauna Habitat Loss 

The cumulative impact of the Project in relation to ecological values has been assessed. 

Table 5.2 outlines the area of each vegetation community recorded in the Project area that 

occurs within the Ravensworth West Development Consent area and the additional area of 

each vegetation community to be removed as a result of the Project. The cumulative loss of 

each vegetation community has been totalled. 





Table 5.2 – Cumulative Vegetation Loss 

Vegetation Community Area of Vegetation Community to be 

Removed 

Central Hunter Box – Ironbark 

Woodland EEC (PD) 

Central Hunter Bulloak Forest 

Regeneration 

Central Hunter Ironbark – Spotted 

Gum – Grey Box Forest EEC (PD) 

Central Hunter Swamp Oak 

Forest 

Ravensworth 

West 

Narama 

Extended 

The Project Cumulative 

Total 

248 22 473 743 

12 2 35 49 

0 4 4 

28 38 66 

Hunter Valley River Oak Forest 0 4 4 

River-flat Eucalypt Forest EEC 0 5 5 

Hunter Floodplain Red Gum 


Subtotal Native 

Woodland/Forest 

0 0.2 0.2 

288 24 559.2 871.2 

Derived Grassland 435 46 527 1008 

Rehabilitation and planted areas 33 571 604 

Total 756 70 1657.2 2483.2 

As shown in Table 5.2, a total of 871 hectares of native woodland and forest vegetation will 

be removed as a result of the Ravensworth West Mine and the Project. The cumulative 

impact of the Project is the substantial reduction in the size of the Ravensworth remnant to 

approximately 30 per cent of its current size. This reduction is expected to have a significant 

impact on the flora species, vegetation communities, fauna assemblages and habitat of the 

local area and region. 

5.8 Impact Mitigation Strategy 

One of the key goals of the impact mitigation strategy is to maintain or improve ecological 

features within the proposed Biodiversity Offset Areas, in order to compensate for 

unavoidable impacts on the ecological features of the Project area. To achieve this, current 

management actions that are being employed across the Project area are described, as well 

as additional actions that will be adopted as part of this project. 

5.8.1 Actions to Maintain and Improve Ecological Value 

5.8.1.1 Actions to Maintain Ecological Value 

Ravensworth Operations currently complete management actions across the Project area as 

identified in the Ravensworth West Flora and Fauna Management Plan (Umwelt 2005). As 

part of the requirements of this Plan, the following specific control measures are considered 

to be integral to the protection and preservation of the ecological features of the Project area: 





� understanding existing flora and fauna characteristics prior to any new development 

through the undertaking of baseline studies at feasibility and baseline phases; 

� rehabilitation of disturbed and mined land as soon as practical; 

� ensuring appropriate erosion and sediment control systems are in place to prevent 

damage to flora and fauna from erosion and unnatural flooding events; and 

� seasonal monitoring of fauna. 

Each of these existing control measures contributes to the maintenance of habitat quality 

across the Project area. 

In addition to the above, weed and pest animal management occurs across the Project area, 

as needed or identified as part of the ecological monitoring recommendations. These works 

involve targeted weed removal using a variety of techniques and feral animal control in 

accordance with all relevant government approvals. 

Additional measures proposed as part of the current project that will serve to further maintain 

habitat features and quality include: 

� establishment and protection of Biodiversity Offset Areas (refer to Section 5.9), including 

the Ravensworth North Offset Area (262 hectares) and Hillcrest Offset Area 

(1392 hectares); and 

� establishment of fencing/access control/signage for these areas, where necessary (see 

Section 5.9). 

The Ravensworth West Flora and Fauna Management Plan will be replaced with a 

Rehabilitation and Offsets Management Plan (ROMP) which will direct the future ecological 

management of the total project area and proposed Biodiversity Offset Areas, on an 

integrated basis. 

5.8.1.2 Improve Ecological Value 

A number of specific actions have been included in the Project that are designed to actively 

improve habitat features and quality within the Biodiversity Offset Areas. These will act in 

addition to the above maintenance actions to result in an improvement to the ecological 

values of the Biodiversity Offset Areas, and will include: 

� revegetation and regeneration actions to increase the extent of target native vegetation 

communities (including TEC variants) in the Ravensworth North and Hillcrest Offset 

Areas; 

� removal or control of existing impacts such as disturbance and grazing from these areas 

to allow native vegetation to regenerate naturally; 

� erosion remediation works in the Hillcrest Offset Area to improve native vegetation cover; 

� subsidence management associated with historical mining at Cumnock; 

� habitat enhancement such as provision of nest boxes, salvaged hollows, fallen timber, 

hollow logs and boulders, as deemed necessary; and 

� other ecological management works as deemed necessary from detailed monitoring. 





Each of these actions is discussed further below and in Section 5.9 of this report. 

5.8.2 General Ecological Management Strategies 

A range of management strategies will be used by Ravensworth Operations to limit impacts 

on native flora and fauna in the Project area. These strategies will be detailed in the 

Rehabilitation and Offsets Management Plan (ROMP) that will be prepared prior to 

commencement of operations. The strategies will include: 

� feral animal and noxious weed control consistent with existing practices at Ravensworth 

Operations; 

� rehabilitation of disturbed areas with species characteristic of extant vegetation 

communities (as addressed in Section 5.8.3); 

� use of local native species in revegetation, and the linkage and integration of 

rehabilitation areas with existing vegetated areas to improve ecological function and 

provide appropriate fauna habitat (as addressed in Section 5.8.3); 

� management of erosion and sedimentation to ensure that adjoining vegetation 

communities and aquatic systems are not adversely impacted (as addressed in the Main 

Text of the EA); 

� adaptive management, as required, if a previously unrecorded or assessed threatened 

species is identified in the Project area during operations; 

� ongoing monitoring and maintenance of all revegetation works and habitat enhancement 

activities; and 

� ongoing monitoring of native flora and fauna across the Ravensworth Operations site (as 

discussed in Section 6.0). 

5.8.2.1 Fencing 

Fencing will be used to demarcate vegetation that is identified in target areas of floodplain 

regeneration and along the boundary of the Ravensworth North Offset Area to prevent 

unauthorised access. Any new fencing used within the Project area will use non-barbed 

(plain) wire only, as these areas are to be managed specifically for ecological purposes. The 

exclusion of barbed wire from fencing will minimise potential injury to or death of fauna 

species, particularly macropods and gliding or flying mammals, such as the grey-headed 

flying-fox (Pteropus poliocephalus) and threatened micro-bats. The use of as few wire 

strands as practical will be considered to reduce potential for fauna entanglement, 

particularly macropods. 

5.8.2.2 Weed Control 

Weed species could be inadvertently brought into the Project area with imported materials, or 

could invade naturally through removal of native vegetation. The presence of weed species 

has the potential to be a major impediment to revegetation and regeneration activities. In 

addition to this, the presence of weed species within the Ravensworth North Offset Area has 

the potential to significantly decrease the value of this vegetation to native species, 

particularly threatened species. 

Existing weed management controls at Ravensworth Operations will be incorporated into the 

Project, particularly targeting galenia (Galenia pubescens) which was identified across the 





Project area and in significant abundance in many places, particularly on floodplains. Other 

emerging threatening weeds, such as African olive (Olea europaea subsp. cuspidata) will be 

targeted by control programs. Weed control will be undertaken in accordance with current 

mine practices. 

Biannual monitoring of weed species will be undertaken by the environmental officer and 

appropriate weed control methods will be implemented, in consultation with appropriate 

experts where appropriate. This monitoring will include floodplain regeneration areas, 

Biodiversity Offset Areas and rehabilitation areas. 

5.8.2.3 Feral Animal Control 

Introduced fauna species such as foxes, rabbits, pigs, dogs and feral cats could increase 

within the Project area due to the alteration in existing land uses. Clearing, thinning of 

vegetation and the creation of tracks through existing dense vegetation might assist the 

penetration of introduced fauna species such as pigs, cats and foxes, and allow them to 

establish in new areas. An increase in feral species within the Project area has the potential 

to increase impacts on existing native species, particularly via predation and habitat 

destruction. In addition to this, a number of introduced herbivores have been recorded within 

the Project area, and are likely to be competing with native species and causing considerable 

damage to native vegetation. 

Regular monitoring of revegetation and regeneration areas will be undertaken to determine 

the impact of feral animals, particularly on vegetation establishment. Feral animal control 

works will be undertaken periodically to ensure the suppression of feral animals, and will 

consider ecological impacts. 

5.8.2.4 Bushfire Management 

The vegetation that will be retained within the Project area (including the Ravensworth North 

Offset Area) will require appropriate bushfire management to protect life and property, while 

providing necessary protection to the significant ecological features identified in the Project 

area. A Bushfire Management Plan will be included in the ROMP and will allow for the 

application of fire research knowledge to generate ecological outcomes through the 

appropriate use of fire as an ecological management tool. 

The Bushfire Management Plan will consider: 

� exclusion of planned bushfire from revegetation and regeneration areas to allow 

replanted and regenerating communities to mature to a stage where they are able to 

withstand bushfire and regenerate naturally following such an event (nominally at least 

15 years, but dependent on the success of plant establishment and the vegetation 

community present); 

� consideration of the sensitivities of threatened species and TECs to bushfire and 

appropriate bushfire planning and management in relation to known occurrences of 

these; 

� the use of ecologically appropriate fire regimes (be they related to burn frequency, 

duration or intensity), as these have the potential to impact negatively on significant 

ecological features; 

� asset protection; and 

� appropriate incorporation of all relevant ecological requirements into an updated Bushfire 

Management Plan. 





5.8.3 Establishment of Vegetation Communities in the Post-mining 

Landscape 

The aim of the rehabilitation of the Project area will be to re-establish those vegetation 

communities and fauna habitats currently occurring in the Project area and connect, as far as 

practicable, the habitat areas to the north and south of the disturbance area with a vegetated 

corridor. A range of criteria relating to biodiversity issues has been developed to direct the 

rehabilitation activities. Rehabilitation biodiversity objectives will be used in rehabilitation 

planning, and will comprise: 

� re-establishment of vegetation consistent with extant vegetation communities of the 

Project area within the post-mining landform; 

� re-establishment of fauna habitats consistent with extant fauna habitats of the Project 

area within the post-mining landform; 

� regeneration of self-sustaining floodplain woodland communities; 

� no net loss of any forest/woodland community; 

� connection of the Ravensworth North Offset Area and retained vegetation south of the 

final void by a vegetated corridor; 

� use of native grasses in establishment of grassland areas in the rehabilitated landform; 

and 

� re-establishment of threatened species habitat. 

5.8.3.1 Vegetation Community Establishment in Rehabilitation 

Rehabilitation works will ensure that the area of native vegetation established is consistent 

with the pre-mining extent of native vegetation. Central Hunter Box – Ironbark Woodland will 

be established at a minimum ratio of 1:1 to replace the area of this vegetation community 

cleared as a result of the Project, with Central Hunter Bulloak Forest Regeneration replaced 

at a similar ratio to ensure that there is no net loss of this community. Native grasses will 

also be used in grassland areas established as part of the rehabilitated landform. 

The following vegetation communities will be targeted for rehabilitation works in the 

rehabilitated mining area: 

� Central Hunter Box – Ironbark Woodland; 

� Central Hunter Swamp Oak Forest; 

� Central Hunter Bulloak Forest Regeneration; and 

� native grassland. 

The final rehabilitated landform is shown on Figure 5.1. This figure outlines a conceptual 

plan of rehabilitation on the site. The conceptual plan includes a provision to ensure 

connectivity between areas of retained remnant vegetation, including broad linkages to 

neighbouring Xstrata sites such as Cumnock and Liddell (refer to Figure 2.5). 

The composition of vegetation communities established as part of rehabilitation works will be 

generally consistent with the pre-mining vegetation as described in Section 4.1.3. 





5.8.3.2 Preliminary Rehabilitation Criteria 

Rehabilitation completion criteria have been established in order to guide the rehabilitation 

works to ensure the ecological objectives of the rehabilitation, as detailed in Section 5.8.3.1, 

are met. The rehabilitation completion criteria have been developed to be in accordance with 

the completion criteria for the Ravensworth West rehabilitation, as described in the Flora and 

Fauna Management Strategy for Ravensworth West (Umwelt 2005) and the Xstrata HSEC 

Standard 5.13 Closure Criteria Development and Rehabilitation Monitoring. 

The preliminary rehabilitation criteria, as outlined in Table 5.3, have been developed to meet 

the rehabilitation and mine closure objectives as outlined in main text of the Environmental 

Assessment. These criteria will be used as the basis for further refinement following the 

implementation of rehabilitation and biodiversity monitoring programs. The full preliminary 

closure criteria are presented in the main text and the following criteria specifically relate to 

biodiversity and the establishment of self-sustaining native vegetation communities. 

Landform 

Table 5.3 – Interim Rehabilitation Criteria that Relate to Biodiversity Values 

� no significant erosion is present that would constitute a safety hazard or compromise the 

capability of supporting the end land use; 

� contour banks are stable and there is no evidence of overtopping or significant scouring as a 

result of runoff; and 

� surface layer to be free of any hazardous materials. 

Water 

� runoff water quality from rehabilitation areas is within the range of water quality data recorded 

from analogue sites and does not pose a threat to downstream water quality. 

Vegetation 

� revegetation areas contain flora species assemblages characteristic of the desired native 

vegetation community; 

� second generation tree seedlings are present, or are likely to be, based on monitoring in 

comparable older rehabilitation sites; 

� more than 75% of trees are healthy and growing as indicated by long term monitoring; 

� there is no significant weed infestation such that weeds do not comprise a significant proportion 

of species in any stratum. 

Fauna 

� rehabilitated areas provide a range of micro-habitats (e.g. eucalypts, shrubs, ground cover, 

developing litter layer etc.). 

Bushfire hazard 

� Appropriate bushfire hazard controls have been implemented on the advice from the NSW 

Rural Fire Service. 

Progress in meeting the completion criteria will be considered in mine closure planning and 

reported to the Department of Primary Industries, DoP and other relevant agencies, as 

required. 





5.8.3.3 Local Provenance 

Seed and tube stock of local, preferably on-site, provenance will be used in rehabilitation. 

Local provenance will ensure that there is no net loss of the genetic integrity of the 

vegetation communities as a result of the Project. Ravensworth Operations currently 

sources approximately 30 per cent of its native seed stock on site for use in rehabilitation. 

5.8.3.4 Future Land Use 

Following completion of mining and the re-establishment of native vegetation communities in 

accordance with the rehabilitation criteria and to the satisfaction of the relevant government 

agencies, the long-term management of the rehabilitated Ravensworth Operations project 

area will consider the maintenance of ecological values. 

As outlined in Section 5.8.3.2, the preliminary closure criteria have been designed to 

facilitate the creation of post-mining landscape consisting of vegetation of a similar age, 

structure and diversity to the pre-mining landscape. Based on the preliminary rehabilitation 

schedule, significant rehabilitation will be undertaken in the first five years of the Project. By 

Year 5 approximately 415 hectares of shaped final landform will be available for 

rehabilitation. This shaped final landform includes areas associated with existing mining 

operations within the Project area, including the former Cumnock open cut mine. The 

rehabilitation of approximately 415 hectares equates to approximately 75 per cent of the area 

of native vegetation that is proposed to be removed as a result of the Project. 

Based on the progressive achievement of the preliminary closure criteria over the life of the 

Project, at the completion of mining in Year 29 it is anticipated that this vegetation will be 

approximately 24 years old. With rehabilitation undertaken in accordance with the strategies 

provided in this section and with the aims and objectives of the Interim Rehabilitation Criteria 

(refer to Table 5.3), it is anticipated that this rehabilitation is likely to provide significant 

ecological values in a local and regional context. 

There will be no additional clearing of native vegetation communities from the Project area, in 

addition to those areas already approved for disturbance, following approximately Year 15 of 

the conceptual mine plan. At the completion of the Project life, this rehabilitated land will be 

approximately 14 years old. As outlined in Section 5.2.3, rehabilitation will be undertaken 

throughout the proposed disturbance area until Year 29, and will also be undertaken as part 

of mine closure and decommissioning. At completion of these activities, approximately 

2200 hectares would have been rehabilitated, including approximately 1600 hectares of 

vegetation characteristic of extant communities with approximately 60 per cent of the total 

area of the vegetation community re-establishment at least 14 years old. 

5.8.4 Regeneration of Floodplain Vegetation 

Regeneration of floodplain communities will be a priority for the post mining landscape. 

Historically, floodplain communities have been extensively cleared in the Hunter Valley 

generally and the Project area in particular. 

Regeneration of floodplain vegetation communities will include: 

� a dedicated weed eradication plan on the floodplains of Bayswater Creek and the Hunter 

River; 

� planting of target species to assist natural regeneration; and 

� monitoring of regeneration success. 





The targeted weed eradication plan is the key to the successful natural (assisted) 

regeneration of floodplain communities. The vegetation of the floodplains of Bayswater 

Creek and the Hunter River is highly fragmented and generally has a very high proportion of 

weed species present in the understorey. Weed eradication will specifically target African 

olive (Olea europaea subsp. cuspidata), galenia (Galenia pubescens), Coolatai grass 

(Hyparrhenia hirta) and perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne) along Bayswater Creek, and 

galenia (Galenia pubescens) and a range of annual weeds along the Hunter River. 

Figure 5.1 shows the target areas for natural regeneration and the relationship of the 

regeneration of floodplain communities with the final rehabilitation landform. 

Key canopy and shrub species of Hunter Floodplain Red Gum Woodland will be planted 

within and adjacent to the existing floodplain vegetation to supplement the regeneration of 

the communities. 

As detailed in Section 5.8.3.3 local provenance seed and tubestock will be used to assist in 

the natural regeneration of floodplain communities in the Project area. 

In accordance with commitments made in the Flora and Fauna Management Strategy 

(Umwelt 2005), the Bayswater Creek diversion, downstream of the Ravensworth site offices 

and workshop, will be rehabilitated through the planting of 20 metre wide strip of Central 

Hunter Swamp Oak Forest. 

5.8.5 Fauna Habitat Re-instatement 

Following the completion of topsoiling and seeding in rehabilitation areas Ravensworth 

Operations will re-establish ground fauna habitat through the relocation of cleared vegetation 

and rocks in targeted rehabilitation areas. This will contribute to the more rapid development 

of fauna species diversity in the medium to long term as vegetation re-establishment 

progresses. This will occur throughout the areas designated as Vegetation Community Reestablishment 

on Figure 5.1. 

Once the rehabilitated vegetation communities are of sufficient maturity, nest boxes will be 

installed to supplement arboreal habitat. Nest boxes will be maintained within rehabilitation 

areas for the life of the mine to ensure that hollow-roosting and nesting species are able to 

inhabit rehabilitated areas. The design of nest boxes will include a range of boxes suitable 

for the full range of arboreal fauna species known to occur within the Project area prior to 

mining. At an estimated density of 7.9 hollows per hectare (refer to Sections 3.6.2 and 

4.2.2), approximately 3600 hollows will be lost from the Project area. To ensure no net loss 

of arboreal habitat, the re-instatement of hollow habitat will require to installation of nest 

boxes in rehabilitation at a density of 3.5 per hectare. 

Dams will be constructed in the post-mining landform to facilitate the re-colonisation of 

woodland fauna communities. Dams generally provide a source of permanent water in the 

landscape and associated fauna species such as frogs and invertebrates will constitute 

suitable prey for many additional fauna species such as reptiles. Increasing the habitat 

complexity and range of micro habitats occurring in the post-mining landscape will result in 

the increased utilisation of the rehabilitation by a much wider range of fauna species thereby 

meeting the objective of the re-establishment of fauna habitats and threatened species 

habitats in the post-mining land form. 

5.8.6 Aquatic Habitat Re-instatement 

A range of management strategies will be implemented to reduce the impact of the Project 

on aquatic flora and fauna communities recorded during the aquatic assessment. These 

strategies include the: 





� re-instatement of native aquatic flora species in water management structures and in the 

re-created Emu Creek; 

� construction of dams to provide fauna habitat in the post-mining rehabilitated landscape; 

� design and construction of water management structures with shallow verges allowing 

colonisation by aquatic macrophytes and sedges; 

� incorporation of meander design and features contributing to habitat complexity 

(e.g. pool, riffle sequences, snags, shade etc) in the design of the re-created Emu Creek; 

and 

� monitoring of the re-created Emu Creek, following the return of base flows at Year 20 

(refer to Section 6.1.1.3). 

5.8.7 Protection and Management of Arboreal Species and Habitat 

A robust tree felling procedure will be implemented to minimise the potential for impacts on 

native fauna species (including threatened species) as a result of the clearing of hollowbearing 

trees. This procedure will be detailed within the ROMP, and may consider a number 

of factors, including seasonal considerations (particularly the avoidance of large-scale 

clearing during breeding seasons of target threatened fauna species, where possible), 

maximising the salvage and re-use of cleared tree hollows, and the salvage of specific 

habitat features such as hollow logs, fallen timber and rocks to relocate to regeneration areas 

or other parts of the Project area. The procedure will be developed in consultation with the 

appropriate authorities, and will detail the necessary pre-clearing activities, requirements 

during clearing operations, and post-clearing requirements. The procedure will include: 

� comprehensive pre-clearing surveys by a suitably experienced and licensed person, no 

more than two weeks prior to felling. This will include marking of hollow-bearing trees, as 

well as any other notable features such as fallen timber, hollow logs or boulders suitable 

for salvage; active nests, dreys or dens requiring consideration; and seed-bearing trees 

for salvage. Surveys will include detailed searches for threatened flora and fauna 

species, including micro-bats; 

� removal of non hollow-bearing trees/vegetation as close to the hollow-bearing tree felling 

date as possible (in order to discourage fauna usage of the area). It is not considered 

necessary for a suitably experienced and licensed person to be present to supervise 

such works, providing pre-clearing surveys have been completed within the designated 

timeframe; and 

� detailed hollow-bearing tree felling procedures, including (but not limited to): 

� supervision of all hollow-bearing tree felling works by a suitably experienced and 

licensed person. If an ecological issue is encountered, this person is to advise on the 

most appropriate measures to ensure minimal impact on fauna species, particularly 

threatened species; 

� visual canopy inspection on the day of the felling of hollow-bearing trees for fauna 

species and active nests; 

� shaking of hollow-bearing tree (with heavy machinery) for at least 30 seconds to 

encourage resident fauna to abandon tree, prior to felling; 

� lowering of hollow-bearing trees as gently as possible with heavy machinery; 





� inspection of all hollows in felled trees by a suitably experienced and licensed person; 

� capture of any displaced/injured fauna by a suitably experienced and licensed person; 

� release of unharmed fauna into nearby secure habitats by a suitably experienced and 

licensed person; 

� injured fauna to be assessed and taken to wildlife carer, if necessary, by a suitably 

experienced and licensed person; 

� felled trees to be rolled so that the number of hollows blocked against the ground are 

minimised; 

� all felled trees to remain in place overnight to allow any unidentified fauna to escape; 

and 

� salvage of suitable hollows for treatment and installation within rehabilitation and 

revegetation areas as compensatory habitat, where practicable. 

All personnel who will capture/handle/house and/or transport native fauna species (injured or 

uninjured) will be appropriately licensed under the requirements of the NSW Animal Ethics 

Committee. 

Site personnel (particularly vehicle operators) will be briefed on fauna awareness issues and 

will be required to report incidents involving injury to native wildlife. Assistance from a wildlife 

carer or veterinarian will be sought if injured native wildlife are encountered. 

Further detail on this tree felling procedure will be developed as part of the ROMP. This 

procedure will be employed for all project-related clearing requirements. 

5.8.7.1 Transmission Line 

The project includes the relocation of a 330KV transmission easement. Barbed wire access 

prevention measures have been historically used on powerlines to prevent unauthorised 

human access to the stanchions. As barbed wire is a threat to many native species, 

including threatened species recorded and considered to potentially occur in the Project 

area, the transmission line will not used barbed wire, rather it will utilise plain wire and roofing 

mesh to prevent climbing access. 

5.8.8 Strategies to Protect Threatened Woodland Birds and Bats 

A range of strategies to minimise the impact on threatened woodland birds and bats 

identified or potential occurring in the Project area have been formulated. These strategies 

include the long-term conservation of known habitat in the Ravensworth North Biodiversity 

Offset Area and Hillcrest Offset Area as part of the Biodiversity Offset Strategy (refer to 

Section 5.9). 

Additional strategies include: 

� rehabilitation of the post-mining landscape to support self-sustaining vegetation 

communities and fauna habitats characteristic of those currently occurring in the Project 

area, as detailed in Sections 5.8.3 and 5.8.4; 

� fauna habitat re-instatement measures aimed to improve the suitability of the post-mining 

landscape for woodland bird and bat species, as described in Section 5.8.5; 





� pre-clearance surveys and clearing procedures to minimise the impact of woodland bat 

species and the hollow-dependent brown treecreeper (Climacteris picumnus victoriae), 

as described in Section 5.8.7; and 

� re-instatement of aquatic habitat, as detailed in Section 5.8.6 to ensure the continued 

viability of habitat for the large-footed myotis (Myotis adversus) in the post-mining 

landscape. 

A discussion of the impacts of the Project on threatened woodland birds and bat is provided 

in Section 5.6. 

5.8.9 Strategies to Protect the Green and Golden Bell Frog 

A range of strategies to minimise the impact of the Project on the green and golden bell frog 

(Litoria aurea) has been formulated. These strategies include the long-term conservation of 

known habitat in the Ravensworth North Biodiversity Offset Area as part of the Biodiversity 

Offset Strategy (refer to Section 5.9). Additional strategies are detailed below and have 

been formulated in consideration of the green and golden bell frog Draft Recovery Plan (DEC 

2005) and the Green and Golden Bell Frog Key Population in the Upper Hunter Management 

Plan (DECC 2007). 

Supplementary Habitat 

The project includes the creation of supplementary habitat for the green and golden bell frog 

to provide a habitat linkage between Davis and Bayswater Creeks and to ameliorate the 

impact of habitat loss as a result of the Project. A series of 10 dams that provide suitable 

habitat for the green and golden bell frog will be established between Davis and Bayswater 

Creeks. Suitable green and golden bell frog habitat has been extensively researched (refer 

to Pyke and White 1996; Daly et al. 2008; Pyke et al. 2002) and the nearby Xstrata Mt Owen 

site has included constructed green and golden bell frog habitats in their Biodiversity Offset 

Area. Constructed habitats should include the following habitat components: 

� unshaded dams; 

� free of predatory mosquito fish (Gambusia holbrookii); 

� adjacent diurnal sheltering sites (piles of rocks); 

� contouring of banks to increase the area of shallow reed beds; and 

� woodland and open grassland habitats in proximity to constructed green and golden bell 

frog habitats. 

All constructed habitats should be filled with clean water following construction to ensure 

there is no time lag in creating suitable habitat. 

A further 10 dams will be constructed in rehabilitated vegetation to provide additional fauna 

micro-habitats in the post-mining landscape. These dams will be constructed to provide 

habitat for the green and golden bell frog. 

In addition, all water management structures constructed as part of the development will be 

designed to provide green and golden bell frog habitat, where practicable, in accordance with 

the above habitat descriptions and detailed in the ROMP. 





Population Surveys in Accordance with the Upper Hunter GGBF Management Plan 

As detailed in Section 4.2.4.1, population surveys of the Upper Hunter Population of the 

green and golden bell frog is one of the four key objectives of the Upper Hunter GGBF 

Management Plan (DECC 2007). Ravensworth Operations proposes to fund a population 

survey and census on land within the bounds of the Ravensworth Population (as described in 

DECC 2007). It is anticipated that the population surveys would be undertaken and 

managed by suitably qualified and experienced ecologists in combination with in kind 

contributions from applicable post graduate students, the University of Newcastle and DECC. 

The population survey and census would be undertaken during suitable seasonal and 

weather conditions, as detailed in Section 3.5.3 and over a two year period. The results of 

the survey will be collated and provided to the DECC and contribute significant knowledge for 

the ongoing protection and management of this significant population of an endangered 

species. 

Weed Management 

Excessive infestations of spike rush (Juncus acutus subsp. acutus) in Davis Creek and farm 

dams within the Ravensworth North Offset Area have the potential to decrease the quality of 

habitat for the green and golden bell frog. Infestations of the weed within Davis Creek will be 

removed through manual removal as mechanical and herbicide methods are likely to 

negatively impact the green and golden bell frog. 

Management of Chytridiomycosis 

Chytridiomycosis is a fatal disease of amphibians and is caused by the chytrid 

Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis fungus. Access to the Ravensworth North Offset Area 

needs to manage the potential spread of Chytrid fungus, which has been implicated in the 

decline of the green and golden bell frog (DECC 2007). 

All vehicle and person access to the Ravensworth North Offset area will be in accordance 

with the Hygiene Protocol for the Control of Disease in Frogs (Wellington and Haering 2001). 

Annual Monitoring 

Due to the infrequent nature of green and golden bell frog records in the Project area and 

region, despite significant survey effort at a number of sites, the species is rarely recorded 

and always in low numbers. It is propose to undertake annual monitoring of the species to 

gain an understanding of the population size, population dynamics and potential breeding 

episodes of the species in the Project area. This information will be critical to the survival of 

the population in the region and will be applicable to the protection of the species in the 

Project area and on neighbouring sites. 

Monitoring will be undertaken at all dam sites in the Ravensworth North Offset Area and in 

created habitats outside the Offset Area. Each dam should be surveyed on at least two 

different nights and in appropriate seasonal and weather conditions conducive to the 

identification of the species. 

Monitoring will also include assessment of the presence of the introduced and predatory 

mosquito fish (Gambusia holbrookii). In the event that mosquito fish are identified, 

appropriate steps will be undertaken to remove the species from green and golden bell frog 

habitat, in consultation with an appropriately qualified and experienced ecologist. 





5.9 Biodiversity Offset Strategy 

5.9.1 General Approaches to Biodiversity Offsetting 

5.9.1.1 ‘Traditional’ Approaches 

Over the course of the last 5-10 years, biodiversity offsets have been used in NSW as an 

effective measure to compensate for development impacts on biodiversity. Biodiversity 

offsets are frequently used where there will be a residual impact on biodiversity once impact 

avoidance, minimisation and mitigation have all been addressed. While there are no 

consistent, universally applied guidelines, it has generally been accepted that in principle, 

biodiversity offsets should be: 

� located as close as possible to the areas subject to impact, depending on the availability 

of such areas; 

� appropriately monitored and managed for biodiversity outcomes; 

� appropriately protected; and 

� at least as large as the area impacted. 

Although these principles are not universally employed, it is recognised that they form an 

appropriate approach around which individual development offsets are assessed. In the 

past, biodiversity offsetting has taken the form of: 

� developers (including mining companies) managing land that is set aside for biodiversity 

conservation; 

� developers donating appropriate land to DECCW or other similar bodies; and 

� financial contributions to the government to fund land purchases or management, or 

threatened species recovery. 

Recently, DECCW released guidelines titled Principles for the Use of Biodiversity Offsets in 

NSW (DECC 2008a). These guidelines provide a more formal approach through which 

biodiversity offsetting can be measured, and incorporate some of the principles enshrined in 

the DECC BioBanking scheme. The DECC (2008a) principles state that: 

� impacts must be avoided first by using prevention and mitigation measures; 

� all regulatory requirements must be met; 

� offsets must never reward ongoing poor performance; 

� offsets will complement other government programs; 

� offsets must be underpinned by sound ecological principles; 

� offsets must be enduring and they must offset the impact of the development for the 

period that the impact occurs; 

� offsets should be agreed prior to the impact occurring; 

� offsets must be quantifiable and the impacts and benefits must be reliably estimated; 





� offsets must be targeted; 

� offsets must be located appropriately; 

� offsets must be supplementary; and 

� offsets and their actions must be enforceable through development consent conditions, 

licence conditions, conservation agreements or a contract. 

Section 5.10 details how the above DECC (2008) biodiversity offsetting principles have been 

incorporated into the Biodiversity Offset Strategy for the Project. The Biodiversity Offset 

Strategy is generally consistent with the principles for the use of biodiversity offsets in NSW. 

5.9.1.2 BioBanking 

Recently the NSW Government developed the BioBanking scheme to enable a more 

consistent approach to biodiversity offsetting. It forms an alternative approach against which 

developments can be assessed and through which proponents can achieve appropriate 

biodiversity offsetting without having ongoing management or legal responsibility for the 

offset areas. Although participation in BioBanking is voluntary, the principles underpinning 

BioBanking were considered in the development of the Biodiversity Offset Strategy. 

The BioBanking scheme works though applying a rule-based approach to determining the 

likely impact a development will have on biodiversity, and through then calculating the 

number of biodiversity credits (comprising ecosystem credits and/or threatened species 

credits) that are required to be purchased to offset the development’s impact. The credits are 

purchased from registered BioBanking Sites and the funds generated from the purchase are 

used by the BioBanking site manager(s) to achieve a set of previously-agreed management 

actions at that site(s). This process is known as credit retirement, and once the developer 

has purchased all of the necessary credits, their development has been offset and they have 

no further responsibility to any biodiversity offsetting requirements. BioBanking sites will be 

protected, managed and funded in-perpetuity. 

Although the Project is not required to adopt the BioBanking scheme, it is recognised that 

many of the principles established under the BioBanking scheme are relevant to the 

amelioration of ecological impacts associated with the Project. The Ravensworth Operations 

Project has been used as a case study to DoP and DECCW to assist in the consideration of 

the applicability of BioBanking to Part 3A development applications. The BioBanking credit 

calculator was used to assist in the development of the impact amelioration package for this 

project, however the Project will not further utilise the BioBanking scheme. 

5.9.2 Biodiversity Offset Strategy Development 

A preliminary ecological values assessment and impact assessment was undertaken during 

project planning to determine the potential impact of the Project on ecological values. The 

values assessment identified a significant remnant of regionally significant vegetation (of 

which a substantial proportion was subsequently listed as a preliminary EEC), with important 

species habitat for 13 threatened species and potentially for two endangered flora 

populations. The loss of significant ecological values as a result of the Project identified the 

need for refinement of the disturbance area to the minimum practicable area; the 

development of appropriate impact mitigation measures and the development of a 

Biodiversity Offset Strategy. The need for a Biodiversity Offsets Strategy was identified early 

in project planning because the refinement to the proposed disturbance area and the 





implementation of a range of impact mitigation strategies were not considered sufficient to 

counterbalance the impacts of the Project on ecological values. 

The Biodiversity Offset Strategy consists of a number of components designed to address 

the identified impacts on EECs and threatened species, as summarised in Section 5.1. 

These measures include: 

� immediate establishment and long-term protection of the Ravensworth North Offset Area 

and the Hillcrest Offset Area to allow for the conservation of large areas of existing 

vegetation within the Project area and close to the Project area (refer to Figures 5.2 and 

5.3); 

� direct offsetting of the impact of the Project on the green and golden bell frog (Litoria 

aurea), threatened woodland birds and micro-bats, within the Project area and close to 

the Project area; and 

� the development of an appropriate ecological monitoring program to assess the success 

of the Biodiversity Offset Strategy in counterbalancing the impacts of the Project on 


5.9.2.1 Preliminary Biodiversity Offset Options Assessment 

Four potential Biodiversity Offset Options were assessed as part of the progressive 

preparation of the Biodiversity Offset Strategy. The preliminary listing of the Central Hunter 

Grey Box – Ironbark Woodland EEC and Central Hunter Ironbark – Spotted Gum – Grey Box 

Forest EEC during the assessment phase of the Project did not require a change in the 

approach to offsetting, however it increased the ecological value of the Project area and 

therefore influenced the extent of biodiversity offset proposed for the Project. 

The Biodiversity Options Assessment prepared during the assessment phase of the Project 

included a combined approach to offsetting using the options discussed below. In light of the 

increased ecological value of the site following the recent EEC preliminary listings, each of 

these options was reviewed in order to maximise the contribution each made to the final 

Biodiversity Offset Strategy. The location of the Ravensworth North and Hillcrest Offset 

Areas is shown on Figures 5.2 and 5.3. 

The Biodiversity Options Assessment included the assessment of the following options to 

determine the most appropriate Biodiversity Offset Strategy for the Project. 

� Option 1 – on-site ‘like for like’ biodiversity offsetting. 

On-site conservation was identified as contributing the most significant value vegetation and 

fauna habitat in the Biodiversity Offset Strategy. The area available for on-site conservation 

was reviewed throughout project planning in conjunction with the minimisation of the 

disturbance footprint in order to maximise the area of vegetation available for offsetting. This 

was undertaken because it was regarded as being likely to achieve the most appropriate 

ecological outcome, particularly in relation to addressing the offsetting principles (DECC 

2008). 

The Ravensworth North Offset Area (Figure 5.2) was identified and delineated as an 

appropriate biodiversity offset. 





� Option 2 – biodiversity offsetting on alternative Xstrata sites. 

Mapping and survey of all vegetation communities occurring at Xstrata NSW sites has been 

undertaken as part of the preparation of the Xstrata NSW Biodiversity and Land 

Management Strategy (BLMS) (Umwelt 2009), which focuses on the future management of 

non-operational land, particularly for the maximisation of biodiversity outcomes. 

These sites were assessed for the presence of appropriate areas of the vegetation types and 

fauna habitats that would be impacted by the Project. None of the non-operational areas on 

Xstrata NSW landholdings were found to provide appropriate areas of such ‘like for like’ 

vegetation communities and ecological values and further assessment of this option was not 

undertaken. 

Notwithstanding this, an interrogation of the ecological values of alternative Xstrata NSW 

sites included an assessment of the availability of similar vegetation communities to those 

proposed to be disturbed. An analysis of vegetation communities was undertaken to 

determine which communities known to occur on the Hunter Valley floor are floristically 

similar to the target vegetation communities occurring in the Project area. The dendrogram 

included in the Hunter Remnant Vegetation Project (Peake 2006) was used to identify those 

vegetation communities that are most similar to the target vegetation communities that are 

proposed to be impacted by the Project. Communities that were shown in the analysis to be 

‘similar’ or closely aligned with the target vegetation communities were included in the 

assessment. 

The dendrogram identified Central Hunter Spotted Gum – Ironbark – Grey Box Forest as 

being closely related to the target Central Hunter Box – Ironbark Woodland occurring in the 

Project area. These communities are considered to intergrade in many areas of the central 

Hunter Valley and share many similarities in terms of species assemblages, structure and 

habitat type and quality. The geographically proximate Barrington Footslopes Spotted Gum 

Forest is also related to Central Hunter Box – Ironbark Woodland and both communities 

were included in the investigation of ‘similar’ vegetation communities on alternative Xstrata 

sites. 

Vegetation communities that are closely related or intergrade with the target vegetation 

communities identified in the Project area were sought on non-operational Xstrata NSW 

landholdings. Nearby Liddell Coal Mine was identified as providing significant areas of 

vegetation communities that are floristically similar to Central Hunter Box – Ironbark 

Woodland, the most extensive vegetation community in the Project area. Detailed field 

surveys were undertaken at the Hillcrest site (refer to Section 5.9.4.1 and Appendix A) to 

determine the ecological values of the site and to provide information for comparison with the 

ecological values identified in the disturbance area. 

� Option 3 – purchase of large woodland remnants on private land to provide a ‘like for like’ 

offset; 

A strategic investigation of remnant vegetation on private land was undertaken, with the 

objective of determining if any areas were present that, if purchased, would provide potential 

future biodiversity offset value. The assessment was undertaken to identify remnants of 

vegetation that are located on land that is not owned or managed by Xstrata; that would be 

broadly appropriate in terms of their ecological offsetting suitability; and are located on or 

close to the main Hunter Valley. The purchase of a large woodland remnant on private land 

was considered the most likely mechanism to provide an immediate ‘like-for-like’ biodiversity 

offset. 

Despite the investigation, suitable large remnants currently available for purchase were not 

identified during the development of the Strategy. 





� Option 4 – BioBanking 

A preliminary assessment using a draft version of the BioBanking credit calculator was 

undertaken in January 2009, followed by an assessment using Version 1.1 of the calculator 

in June 2009. The outcomes of the assessment were used to broadly inform likely offset 

requirements. There are no active credit market credits available for purchase for the 

Project, therefore this option is not currently a viable pathway for the Project. 

5.9.3 Biodiversity Offset Strategy 

The Biodiversity Offset Strategy includes the long-term conservation of two areas: the on-site 

Ravensworth North Offset Area (Figure 5.2) and the Hillcrest Offset Area (Figure 5.3) at 

Liddell, approximately 9 kilometres to the north of the Project area. 

In addition to the provision of suitable vegetation communities, fauna habitats and species, 

the security of the offset sites was considered. One of the broad principles that drives 

offsetting is the adequate and appropriate security of the biodiversity offset site (DECC 

2008). The Biodiversity Offset Strategy therefore includes long-term protection of the offset 

sites. The mechanism to achieve the long-term protection objective will be determined in 

consultation with DECCW. 

The Ravensworth North Offset Area covers approximately 262 hectares and is located to the 

north of the proposed disturbance area between the out-of-pit dump and the New England 

Highway and incorporates Davis Creek. The area of each vegetation community occurring in 

the Ravensworth North Offset Area is provided in Table 5.4 below. 

Table 5.4 – Area of each Vegetation Community 

occurring in the Ravensworth North Offset Area 

Vegetation Community Area (hectares) 

Central Hunter Box – Ironbark Woodland EEC (PD) 120 

Central Hunter Bulloak Forest Regeneration 34 

Central Hunter Swamp Oak Forest 20 

River-flat Eucalypt Forest EEC 19 

Derived Grassland 65 

Planted areas





� speckled warbler (Chthonicola sagitatta); 

� brown treecreeper (eastern subsp.) (Climacteris picumnus victoriae); and 

� eastern bentwing-bat (Miniopterus schreibersii oceanensis). 

The location of the threatened species recorded in the Ravensworth North Offset Area is 

shown on Figure 5.4. The Offset Area is also expected to provide a significant area of 

habitat for the range of threatened species recorded at other locations within the Project area 

and those species that are known to occur in the local area and region that are likely to occur 

in the Project area (refer to Table 4.2). 

The Ravensworth North Offset area is contiguous with the proposed disturbance area and 

generally provides a direct offset in terms of the vegetation communities, ecological 

condition, fauna habitat and threatened species known to occur in the disturbance area. The 

Ravensworth North Offset Area is considered to provide a ‘like-for-like’ offset in term of 


5.9.3.1 Hillcrest Offset Area 

The Hillcrest Offset Area is located approximately 6 kilometres to the north of the Project 

area on non-operational land at Liddell Coal Mine. The Hillcrest Offset Area was selected to 

form part of the Biodiversity Offset Strategy due to the presence of regionally significant 

vegetation communities, particularly the presence of Central Hunter Ironbark – Spotted Gum 

– Grey Box Forest EEC (PD) and Barrington Footslopes Dry Spotted Gum Forest, which are 

structurally and floristically similar to Central Hunter Box – Ironbark Woodland. The Hillcrest 

Offset Area represents approximately 1392 hectares of ecologically significant vegetation 

and fauna habitats and is considered a significant addition to flora and fauna species 

conservation outcomes in the Hunter Valley. The location of vegetation communities 

occurring in the Hillcrest Offset Area are shown on Figures 5.5 and 5.6. 

The Hillcrest Offset Area includes dry rainforest, forest, grassland and aquatic habitats, with 

forest the dominant habitat type in the Offset Area. Analysis of condition assessment data 

indicates that the offset area provides similar habitat characteristics and is generally in better, 

or at least comparable, condition to the proposed disturbance area (refer to Appendix A for 

additional data). The Hillcrest Offset Area provides known habitat for 12 threatened species, 

including: 

� The state (V TSC Act) and federally (E EPBC Act) listed spotted-tailed quoll (Dasyurus 

maculatus), a species that requires in excess of 800 hectares to meet its life cycle 

requirements (DECC 2008b); 

� masked owl (Tyto novaehollandiae) which similarly requires a 1000 hectare home range 

(Kavanagh 2000); 

� large-eared pied bat (Chalinolobus dwyeri) (V TSC Act and EPBC Act); 


� large-footed myotis (Myotis adversus); 






� squirrel glider (Petaurus norfolcensis); 

� koala (Phascolarctos cinereus); 

� grey-crowned babbler (eastern subsp.) (Pomatostomus temporalis temporalis); 

� speckled warbler (Chthonicola sagitatta); 

� brown treecreeper (eastern subsp.) (Climacteris picumnus victoriae); and 

� varied sittella (PD) (Daphoenositta chrysoptera). 

The location of the threatened species recorded in the Hillcrest Offset Area is shown on 

Figure 5.4. 

Table 5.5 outlines the area of each vegetation community mapped in the Hillcrest Offset 

Area during detailed flora and vegetation mapping surveys. 

Table 5.5 – Area of each Vegetation Community Occurring in the Hillcrest Offset Area 

Vegetation Community Area (hectares) 

Barrington Footslopes Dry Spotted Gum Forest 382 

Black Cypress Pine Low Forest 1 

Central Hunter Ironbark – Spotted Gum – Grey Box Forest EEC (PD) 138.4 

Dry Gully Rainforest VEC (PD) 144 

Grass Tree Low Woodland 4 

River-flat Eucalypt Forest EEC 1.6 

Grey Gum – Rough-barked Apple Forest on Sheltered Slopes 103 

Derived Grassland 618 

Total 1392 

The Hillcrest Offset Area provides a significant and appropriate conservation outcome and is 

considered to be generally consistent with the principles used to guide biodiversity offsetting 

(DECC 2008). 

5.9.4 Ecological Values of the Biodiversity Offset Areas 

The Biodiversity Offset Strategy includes the long-term conservation of the Hillcrest Offset 

Area at Liddell and the onsite conservation of the Ravensworth North Offset Area. The 

ecological values of the offset sites were determined through significant survey and 

assessment. The Ravensworth North Offset Area was surveyed in conjunction with the 

proposed disturbance area and therefore the methods utilised are described in Section 3. 

The survey methods used in the Hillcrest Offset Area are described in detail in Appendix A. 

The ecological values of each offset area are described below. 

5.9.4.1 Hillcrest Offset Area 

Flora Species 

A total of 305 flora species were recorded in the Hillcrest Offset Area during surveys, of 

which 252 are native and 53 (21 per cent) are introduced species. This is a relatively low 

diversity of weed species considering the highly disturbed nature of the southern section of 

the Offset Area. 





Of the species recorded, one is from class Coniferopsida, 12 are from class Filicopsida and 

292 are from class Magnoliopsida (of which 62 are from sub-class Liliidae and 243 are from 

sub-class Magnoliidae). 

Flora species recorded were from 88 different plant families. The most speciose families 

recorded were Poaceae (36 species), Asteraceae (29 species) and Fabaceae (23 species). 

Vegetation Communities 

Surveys of the Hillcrest Offset Area identified seven vegetation communities. The distribution 

of vegetation communities within the Hillcrest Offset Area is shown on Figure 5.4. The 

vegetation communities were aligned with vegetation map units as described in the Hunter 

Remnant Vegetation Project (Peake 2006), where possible. However, four of these 

communities have not been described by Peake (2006): Black Cypress Pine Low Forest; Dry 

Gully Rainforest; Grass Tree Low Woodland; and Grey Gum – Rough-barked Apple Forest 

on Sheltered Slopes. 

The Black Cypress Pine Low Forest and the Grey Gum – Rough-barked Apple Forest on 

Sheltered Slopes are considered to be variations of the Barrington Footslopes Dry Spotted 

Gum Forest described by Peake (2006), which is the dominant community within the Hillcrest 

Offset Area (refer to Figure 5.4). 

Descriptions of each of the vegetation communities recorded in the Hillcrest Offset Area are 

provided below. These descriptions draw upon data obtained during field surveys and also 

from information contained within Peake (2006). 

Barrington Footslopes Dry Spotted Gum Forest 

The Barrington Footslopes Dry Spotted Gum Forest is the most widespread community with 

in the Hillcrest Offset Area (refer to Figure 5.4). It occurs in the undulating, rugged hills, 

predominantly on slopes and ridges but also less frequently on lower lying areas. It is a 

higher variable community, and in places spotted gum (Corymbia maculata), can be entirely 

absent or occur only at low densities. 

The canopy of this community is most frequently dominated by spotted gum (Corymbia 

maculata) and narrow-leaved ironbark (Eucalyptus crebra), however there are localised 

stands where other canopy species can become more frequent. Other canopy species 

occurring include Blakelys red gum (Eucalyptus blakelyi), rough-barked apple (Angophora 

floribunda), grey gum (Eucalyptus punctata) and narrow-leaved stringybark (Eucalyptus 

sparsifolia). The canopy cover is generally 16-22 metres in height, and has a moderately 

dense cover of 20-30 per cent. 

The mid-stratum of this community is most frequently sparse or absent, however a small 

proportion of this community supports a dense mid-stratum dominated by one or two 

species. Where present, the mid-stratum typically occurs at 1-3 metres. Commonly 

recorded shrub species in the mid-stratum of this community include native olive (Notelaea 

microcarpa var. microcarpa), coffee bush (Breynia oblongifolia), bead bush (Spartothamnella 

juncea), violet nightshade (Solanum brownii), narrow-leaved wattle (Acacia linearifolia) and 

small-leaved bluebush (Maireana microphylla). The introduced African olive (Olea europaea 

subsp. cuspidata) is locally dominant, generally in sheltered, moister parts of this community, 

and poses a threat to the future viability of the community. 

The ground cover in this community can be sparse to moderately dense, on average being 

around 30-40 per cent cover and always less than one metre in height. This stratum 

comprises grasses, herbs, ferns and sedges including purple wire grass (Aristida ramosa), 





barbed wire grass (Cymbopogon refractus), wallaby grass (Austrodanthonia fulva), purple 

burr-daisy (Calotis cuneifolia), yellow burr-daisy (Calotis lappulacea), Vittadinia hispidula var. 

hispidula, blue flax lily (Dianella caerulea), Vernonia cinerea var. cinerea, kidney weed 

(Dichondra repens), poison rock fern (Cheilanthes sieberi subsp. sieberi), Lepidosperma 

laterale and wattle mat-rush (Lomandra filiformis subsp. filiformis). 

A number of weeds were recorded in this community, in particular on disturbed edges and in 

moist or sheltered sites. Commonly recorded weed species included prickly pear (Opuntia 

stricta var. stricta), Paddy’s lucerne (Sida rhombifolia), stinking Roger (Tagetes minuta), 

kikuyu (Pennisetum clandestinum), paspalum (Paspalum dilatatum), galenia (Galenia 

pubescens) and flaxleaf fleabane (Conyza bonariensis). 

It is estimated that 72.1 per cent of the Barrington Footslopes Dry Spotted Gum Forest has 

been cleared since European settlement (Peake 2006). The occurrence of this community in 

the Hillcrest Offset Area is likely to be at the southern limit of the distribution of this 

community. Given the extent of clearing of this community, and that the Hillcrest Offset Area 

represents the southern extent of the community, it is regarded as having moderate 

conservation significance in a regional context. 

Central Hunter Ironbark – Spotted Gum – Grey Box Forest 

Central Hunter Ironbark – Spotted Gum – Grey Box Forest occurs in the southern portion of 

the Hillcrest Offset Area, on the lower slopes and flats (refer to Figure 5.4). Less disturbed 

remnants of this community can be found in the northern limit of its occurrence, however this 

community predominantly occurs as small fragmented remnants with few trees and a heavily 

modified understorey. 

The canopy species dominant in this community are spotted gum (Corymbia maculata), 

narrow-leaved ironbark (Eucalyptus crebra), while grey box (Eucalyptus moluccana) is less 

common. The canopy height is generally between 18 and 25 metres. The canopy cover 

varies greatly, however in the more in-tact remnants it is generally 20-30 per cent. 

This community supports a sparse to very sparse shrub layer to a height of 2 metres in the 

more intact remnants, however this is generally absent in areas subject to grazing. Shrub 

species recorded included small-leaved bluebush (Maireana microphylla), sickle wattle 

(Acacia falcata), western boobialla (Myoporum montanum) and native olive (Notelaea 

microcarpa var. microcarpa). 

The understorey is generally sparse and dominated by grasses, forbs and ferns. Commonly 

occurring species include purple wiregrass (Aristida ramosa), red grass (Bothriochloa 

macra), spear grass (Austrostipa scabra var. scabra), slender chloris (Chloris divaricata var. 

divaricata), mat-rush (Lomandra confertifolia), wattle mat-rush (Lomandra filiformis), manyflowered 

mat-rush (Lomandra multiflora subsp. multiflora), Sida corrugata, winter apple 

(Eremophila debilis) and Glycine tabacina. 

A number of weed species were recorded in this community, including Paddy’s lucerne (Sida 

rhombifolia), spear thistle (Cirsium vulgare), prickly pear (Sida rhombifolia), white clover 

(Trifolium repens) and dandelion (Taraxacum officinale). 


Ironbark – Spotted Gum – Grey Box Forest as an EEC. The Central Hunter Ironbark – 

Spotted Gum – Grey Box Forest mapped within the Project area conforms to the description 

of the preliminary determination and has been considered as an EEC for the purposes of this 

Biodiversity Offset Strategy. 





Grey Gum – Rough-barked Apple Forest on Sheltered Slopes 

Grey Gum – Rough-barked Apple Forest on Sheltered Slopes occurs in sheltered positions, 

in particular in the south and far north of the Hillcrest Offset Area (refer to Figure 5.4). The 

dominant canopy species include grey gum (Eucalyptus punctata), rough-barked apple 

(Angophora floribunda) and Blakely’s red gum (Eucalyptus blakelyi), with spotted gum 

(Corymbia maculata) and narrow-leaved ironbark (E. crebra) also occurring, particularly at 

the ecotone. The relative dominance of the key canopy species is highly variable across the 

Hillcrest Offset Area. 

A shrub layer up to 4 metres in height and ranging from sparse to moderately dense is 

dominated by western boobialla (Myoporum montanum), coffee bush (Breynia oblongifolia), 

wilga (Geijera salicifolia subsp. salicifolia), galvanized burr (Sclerolaena birchii) and violet 

nightshade (Solanum brownii). 

The density of the ground stratum varies widely within this community, ranging from 30 to 

70 per cent cover, however it is generally around 40 to 50 per cent. Commonly occurring 

native species in this stratum include purple wiregrass (Aristida ramosa), weeping grass 

(Microlaena stipoides var. stipoides), hairy panic (Panicum effusum), barbed-wire grass 

(Cymbopogon refractus), Indian weed (Sigesbeckia orientalis), basket grass (Oplismenus 

aemulus), forest hedgehog grass (Echinopogon ovatus), slender bamboo grass (Austrostipa 

verticillata), berry saltbush (Einadia hastata) and pastel flower (Pseuderantheranum 

variabile). 

There are generally few weed species in this community, the most common being fireweed 

(Senecio madagascariensis), flaxleaf fleabane (Conyza bonariensis), stinking roger (Tagetes 

minuta) and Paddy’s lucerne (Sida rhombifolia). African olive (Olea europaea subsp. 

cuspidata) however, is spreading and poses a significant future threat. In addition, 

blackberry (Rubus fruticosus sp. Agg) infests some creeklines in their middle and lower 

reaches of the Hillcrest Offset Area. 

This community is regarded to be a variant of the Barrington Footslopes Dry Spotted Gum 

Forest of Peake 2006. As such, the conservation significance of that community is also likely 

to apply to the Grey Gum – Rough-barked Apple Forest on Sheltered Slopes. 

Dry Gully Rainforest 

Dry Gully Rainforest occurs widely throughout the Hillcrest Offset Area (refer to Figure 5.4), 

generally in rocky sheltered gullies and often in small remnants with strong ecotonal 

influence and edge effects. The canopy is generally in the range of 15 – 18 metres however 

this varies widely according to aspect and exposure. The canopy of this community is 

dominated by rusty fig (Ficus rubiginosa), native quince (Alectryon subcinereus), rosewood 

(Dysoxylum fraserianum), cassine (Elaeodendron australe var. australe), yellow ash 

(Emmenosperma alphitonoides) and native olive (Olea paniculata). 

The mid stratum comprises low trees and shrubs, up to approximately 6 metres in height, 

and generally has less than a 20 per cent cover. This stratum is dominated by rosewood 

(Dysoxylum fraserianum), snow wood (Pararchidendron pruinosum var. pruinosum), coffee 

bush (Breynia oblongifolia), hairy clerodendrum (Clerodendrum tomentosum), wild quince 

(Alectryon subcinereus), grey myrtle (Backhousia myrtifolia), Deeringia amaranthoides and 

the introduced species black-berry nightshade (Solanum nigrum) and inkweed (Phytolacca 

octandra). 

The understorey is very sparse at all locations, particularly those with a very rocky surface, 

and is rarely greater than 10 per cent cover. Commonly occurring species in this stratum are 

sickle fern (Pellaea falcata), Indian weed (Sigesbeckia orientalis), common maidenhair fern 





(Adiantum aethiopicum), spiny-headed mat-rush (Lomandra longifolia), weeping grass 

(Microlaena stipoides var. stipoides), basket grass (Oplismenus aemulus) and kidney weed 

(Dichondra repens). 

A diversity of vines and scramblers also occurs throughout the mid and upper strata in 

moderate density (although at some locations there are dense vine thickets). Dominant vine 

species recorded in this community include water vine (Cissus hypoglauca), pearl vine 

(Sarcopetalum harveyanum), stiff jasmine (Jasminum volubile) and gum vine 

(Aphanopetalum resinosum). 

A number of epiphytes were recorded on the branches and trunks of trees and shrubs in this 

community, including rock felt fern (Pyrrosia rupestris) and elkhorn (Platycerium bifurcatum). 

The Hunter Valley forms the most southern extent of the known range of native olive (Olea 

paniculata), which was recorded widely within this community in low to moderate density. 

The Dry Gully Rainforest occurring in the Hillcrest Offset Area is consistent with the Lower 

Hunter Valley Dry Rainforest, which is listed as a vulnerable ecological community (VEC) 

under the TSC Act. Peake (2006) estimated that there are only 24 hectares of Lower Hunter 

Dry Rainforest remaining on the floor of the Central Hunter Valley; the community areas most 

widely on the footslopes between the Hunter Valley floor and Barrington Tops. The Hillcrest 

Offset Area supports some reasonably large patches of this VEC which are in moderate to 

high ecological condition. These remnants are regarded to be of high ecological significance 

in a regional context. 

Grass Tree Low Woodland 

Grass Tree Low Woodland occurred in two isolated areas on mid and upper slopes in the 

north of the Hillcrest Offset Area (refer to Figure 5.4). The community is dominated by grass 

tree (Xanthorrhoea glauca subsp. glauca) to approximately 2 metres in height. 

Tree and shrub species occur sparsely in this community, with rough fruit pittosporum 

(Pittosporum revolutum), western boobialla (Myoporum montanum), coffee bush (Breynia 

oblongifolia) and the introduced pepper tree (Schinus areira) occurring sporadically. 

The understorey is dominated by native grasses and forbs, such as barbed wire grass 

(Cymbopogon refractus), hairy panic (Panicum effusum), poison rock fern (Cheilanthes 

sieberi subsp. sieberi), yellow buttons (Chrysocephalum apiculatum) and many-flowered 

mat-rush (Lomandra multiflora subsp. multiflora). 

The Grass Tree Low Woodland does not align with any of the communities described by 

Peake (2006) and is most likely a restricted and moderately significant occurrence of grass 

tree (Xanthorrhoea glauca subsp. glauca) which occurs sporadically on the southern 

footslopes of the Barrington Tops area. 

River-flat Eucalypt Forest EEC 

River-flat Eucalypt Forest was recorded in one location, covering an area of approximately 

1.6 hectares, along a drainage line in the south eastern portion of the Offset Area. The 

community has been highly modified due to a long history of grazing however it retains 

species characteristic of River-flat Eucalypt Forest. 

The dominant canopy species recorded in the community are forest red gum (Eucalyptus 

blakelyi) and rough-barked apple (Angophora floribunda). The shrub layer was generally 

absent and ground cover species were dominated by a range of native and introduced herbs 

and grasses. Commonly recorded species include couch (Cynodon dactylon), kikuyu 





(Pennisetum clandestinum), speargrass (Austrostipa scabra), Paddy’s lucerne (Sida 

rhombifolia), kidney weed (Dichondra repens) and winter apple (Eremophila debilis). 

Black Cypress Pine Low Forest 

The Black Cypress Pine Low Forest occurs in one small area in the south of the Hillcrest 

Offset Area (refer to Figure 5.4). This community is dominated by a moderately dense 

(40 per cent cover) canopy of black cypress pine (Callitris endlicheri), which is generally the 

sole canopy species present. No shrub species were recorded in this community within the 

Hillcrest Offset Area but it is possible that they would occur in other examples of this 

community. 

The moderately dense (40 per cent cover) understorey is dominated by native grasses and 

forbs, such as spear grass (Aristida sp.), hairy panic (Panicum effusum), wattle mat-rush 

(Lomandra filiformis), poison rock fern (Cheilanthes sieberi subsp. sieberi) and Vittadinia 

hispidula var. hispidula. 

The only weed species recorded in this community were fireweed (Senecio 

madagascariensis), common prickly pear (opuatia stricta var. stricta) and flaxleaf fleabane 

(Conyza bonariensis), each of which were found at low abundance. 

This community is regarded to be a variant of the Barrington Footslopes Dry Spotted Gum 

Forest of Peake 2006. As such, the conservation significance of that community is also likely 

to apply to the Black Cypress Pine Low Forest. 

5.9.4.2 Threatened Flora Species, Endangered Flora Populations and Threatened 

Ecological Communities 

Surveys in the Hillcrest Offset Area did not identify any threatened flora species or 

endangered populations. Although not recorded, it is anticipated that the endangered 

population of tiger orchid (Cymbidium canaliculatum) is likely to occur in the Hillcrest Offset 

Area. Two TECs were recorded: Dry Gully Rainforest VEC and Central Hunter Ironbark – 

Spotted Gum – Grey Box Forest (PD) EEC. 

The Dry Gully Rainforest community occurring within the Hillcrest Offset Area (refer to 

Figure 5.4) is consistent in a number of characteristics including floristic and structural 

composition with the Lower Hunter Valley Dry Rainforest vulnerable ecological community 

(VEC), listed under the TSC Act. There are few large, good condition remnants of this 

community within the Hunter Valley, therefore the occurrence of 144 hectares of good 

condition Dry Rainforest within the Hillcrest Offset Area is regarded to be of high 

conservation significance. 

Central Hunter Ironbark – Spotted Gum – Grey Box Forest was recorded in the southern 

portion of the Hillcrest Offset Area, covering an area of approximately 140 hectares (refer to 

Figure 5.3). The NSW Scientific Committee has prepared a preliminary determination to list 

this community as an EEC under the TSC Act. A floristic description of the community is 

provided in Section 5.9.4.1. The remnants of this community in the Hillcrest Offset Area vary 

in condition, ranging from patchily distributed paddock remnants with a modified understorey, 

to more intact remnants in the northern parts of its occurrence. 

5.9.4.3 Fauna Habitat and Condition Assessment 

Three broad fauna habitats were identified in the Hillcrest Offset Area, including Forest 

Formation, Rainforest Formation and Grassland Formation. The fauna habitat 

characteristics recorded during the condition assessment is detailed in the following sections. 





Forest Formation 

The forest formation is highly variable, comprising a number of communities that are 

generally structurally and floristically diverse. Despite this variance in communities, the 

habitat they provide is comparable across the formation. The canopy is dominated by a 

variety of eucalypt species and a well-developed and varied shrub layer is generally present, 

comprising a range of native olive (Notelaea microcarpa var. microcarpa), coffee bush 

(Breynia oblongifolia), small-leaved bluebush (Maireana microphylla) and western boobialla 

(Myoporum montanum). The groundcover of the woodland formation generally comprises 

grasses, litter and rock cover. 

This formation contains a number of specific habitat resources for bird species, including 

threatened species. A moderate abundance of mistletoe (Amyema spp.) provides resources 

for specialist species such as nomadic honeyeaters. Winter-flowering canopy trees are 

moderately widespread and provide important resources for winter migrants. The diversity of 

flowering canopy trees throughout the woodland formation provides a year-round resource 

for nectarivorous birds, particularly honeyeaters, as well as arboreal mammals including the 

squirrel glider (Petaurus norfolcensis). Such flowering resources attract large numbers of 

insects which provide foraging habitat for a diversity of threatened micro-bats. Many of the 

understorey species are valuable flowering resources utilised by a diversity of nectarivorous 

bird species. Bird assemblages are likely to vary considerably according to such seasonal 

flowering events. 

Large amounts of terrestrial habitat (leaf litter, rocky areas, low vegetation and fallen timber) 

provide protection and foraging resources for small terrestrial mammals, such as antechinus, 

and reptiles. Fallen timber is particularly important in open areas fringing grassland, as it 

provides valuable foraging perches for species such as the hooded robin (south eastern 

form) (Melanodryas cucullata cucullata), where they forage in the grasslands, then return 

regularly to woodland areas for cover. The moderately dense shrub and canopy layers 

provide excellent habitat for arboreal mammals, such as possums and gliders. A moderate 

abundance of tree hollows is present. 

A summary of the habitat assessment results of the forest formation within the Hillcrest 

Offset Area is shown in Table 5.6. 

Table 5.6 – Summary of Habitat Assessment Results 

for Forest/Open Forest Formation 

Forest/open forest formation 



Canopy dominants E. crebra, C. maculata, A. floribunda, E. blakelyi, E. punctata, E. moluccana 

Height Cover 

Canopy 18-22m 20-30% 

Mid 1 1-2m 10-20% 

Mid 2 - - 

Ground




for Forest/Open Forest Formation (cont) 

Forest/open forest formation 

Vegetation health The forest formation health is good overall, with very few disturbances 

affecting it. The vegetation is generally young due to past clearing and 

grazing, however is developing good structural and floristic diversity. There 

are a number of weeds in this formation, however these are generally 

restricted to edges, particularly where adjoining grazed grassland. 

Disturbances 

Fire Nil to slight evidence of fire across this formation. Likely >10 years since last 

fire. 

Weeds Weed extent slight to moderate across this formation. Dominant species 

included flaxleaf fleabane (Conyza bonariensis), Paddy’s lucerne (Sida 

rhombifolia), spear thistle (Cirsium vulgare), kikuyu (Pennisetum 

clandestinum), prickly pear (Opuntia stricta var. stricta) and African olive 

(Olea europaea subsp. cuspidata). African olive will become a significant 

threat to the vicinity of this habitat in future without appropriate management. 

Weeds are generally concentrated at the edges of remnants and where the 

canopy is more open. 

Dieback Evidence of mild dieback in the canopy trees was common across all sites in 

this formation. 

Erosion Only minor sheet erosion was recorded in this formation, which was 

particularly evident where the ground cover was sparse (due to a history of 

grazing). 

Mistletoe Mild mistletoe infestation was recorded at a small number of sites in this 

formation, the majority of sites not supporting any mistletoe. 

Grazing Moderate grazing occurs in approximately 50% of the area covered by this 

formation. However, many areas are very steep and rocky, and therefore 

difficult or impossible for stock to access. 

Feral animals Moderate evidence of feral animals was recorded across this formation. The 

presence of rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus) and foxes (Vulpes vulpes) was 

determined through scats, while small groups of wild pigs (sus scrofa) were 

observed on a number of occasions during surveys. 

Insect attack Mild insect attack recorded at most sites. 


Log cover



Rainforest Formation 

The rainforest formation occurs in isolated pockets in less disturbed drainage lines and steep 

slopes throughout the Project area. The structure of this habitat comprises a low canopy (to 

18 metres), moderately dense understorey, open ground cover and an abundance of vines, 

particularly in the ecotone with other habitat formations. 

The canopy species provide blossom and fruit in summer for mammals and birds. Hollowbearing 

trees are not common however occasional large eucalypt species provide valuable 

hollow resources for hollow- dependent fauna. The dense understorey provides nesting and 

fruiting resources for birds in summer and autumn and potential foraging habitat for microbats 

in areas of open understorey and above the canopy. The ground cover is open, 

generally with a rocky understorey and moderate amounts of fallen timber, providing valuable 

foraging and nesting resources for small reptiles and mammals, including the spotted-tailed 

quoll (Dasyurus maculatus), bandicoot (Isoodon spp.) and antechinus (Antechinus spp.). 

Water resources are only available during moderate to high rainfall events. 

A summary of the habitat assessment results of the rainforest formation within the Hillcrest 

Offset Area is shown in Table 5.7. 


for Dry Rainforest Formation 

Dry Rainforest Formation 

Total area 144 hectare 


Canopy dominants Ficus rubiginosa, Dysoxylum fraserianum, Alectryon subcinereus, 

Elaeodendron australe, Emmenosperma alphitonoides and Olea paniculata 

Height Cover 

Canopy 12-15m 30-50% 

Mid 1 1-6m




for Dry Rainforest Formation (cont) 

Dry Rainforest Formation 

Grazing Given the very rocky nature of the substrate and the dense vegetation 

structure in this formation, stock access is virtually absent from these areas. 

As such, grazing impacts are minimal in this formation. 

Feral animals A large number of house mouse (Mus musculus) were recorded from hair tube 

sampling in this formation, and scats of rabbit and fox were also observed. 

Insect attack 


All sites displayed mild signs of insect attack in foliage. 

Log cover




for Grassland Formation 




Canopy dominants Generally, a tree canopy is absent from the grassland formation, however 

scattered remnant trees do occur. The most frequently occurring species 

include E. moluccana, E. crebra and C. maculata. 

Height Cover 

Canopy Generally absent Generally absent 

Mid 1 0.5-1.5m




for Grassland Formation (cont) 



Hollow density Data on the density of hollows per hectare are not available for this 

formation. The hollow density is very low in this formation given the general 

lack of a tree stratum. However, where present, the canopy trees generally 

displayed a high density of hollows per tree. These old, remnant trees 

provide a very important hollow resource, and generally support much larger 

hollows due to their maturity. 


modified structure of the vegetation. However the flowering eucalyptus 

canopy trees provide foraging resources for nectarivorous and insectivorous 

species, and there are a range of small birds which would benefit from 

foraging in the grassland, particularly in taller areas of grassland which have 

been left free of grazing long enough to develop seed heads on the grasses. 

Dominant winter- C. maculata, E. moluccana and E. crebra. 

flowering tree 

species 

Perch sites Given the lack of a tree stratum, there is a very low abundance of perch sites 

in the grassland formation. These are only present where there are 

scattered paddock trees. 

Water resources Freshwater resources in this formation are limited to farm dams, a number of 

which occur across the site. 

5.9.4.4 Fauna Species Recorded 

A total of 104 fauna species were recorded during surveys of the Hillcrest Offset Area. An 

outline and discussion of the species recorded within each of the four major fauna groups is 

presented in the following sections. 

A list of all fauna species recorded within the Project area is presented in Appendix A of this 

report. 

Birds 

A total of 63 bird species were recorded in the Project area from 30 families. Pardalotidae 

(pardalotes and thornbills) was the most speciose families with 11 species recorded followed 

by Petroicidae (robins), Psittacidae (parrots and rosellas), Dicruridae (fantails and 

flycatchers) and Artamidae (butcherbirds and magpies) each with six species recorded. 

Some of the more frequently observed bird species recorded in the woodland communities 

included the yellow-faced honeyeater (Lichenostomus chrysops), noisy miner (Manorina 

melanocephala), grey fantail (Rhipidura fuliginosa) and eastern rosella (Platycercus eximius). 

The pied butcherbird (Cracticus nigrogularis) and Australian magpie (Gymnorhina tibicen) 

were commonly recorded in open areas. 

One threatened bird species, the masked owl (Tyto novaehollandiae) listed as Vulnerable 

under the TSC Act, was recorded in the Project area. This species was recorded in 

response to call playback on two occasions. The grey-crowned babbler (Pomatostomus 

temporalis temporalis) was recorded in adjacent vegetation and is expected to occur in the 

Hillcrest Offset Area. The location of threatened bird species is shown on Figure 5.3. 





Of the bird species recorded, eight listed migratory and 11 listed marine species were 

recorded. These species are protected under the schedules of the EPBC Act 1999 which 

have been formulated to protect migratory and marine species listed under international 

conventions. 

Reptiles 

Ten species of reptiles have been recorded within the Hillcrest Offset Area from four families. 

The most speciose families were from Scincidae (skinks) with five species recorded and 

Gekkonidae (geckos) with four species recorded. The most commonly encountered reptile 

species were the lace monitor (Varanus varius), skink (Egernia modesta) and thick-tailed 

gecko (Underwoodisaurus milii). 

No EPBC Act or TSC Act listed threatened reptile species were recorded within the Hillcrest 

Offset Area during the survey effort. 

Amphibians 

Four species of frog were recorded in the Hillcrest Offset Area from two families. The most 

commonly recorded frogs were the common eastern froglet (Crinia signifera) and broadpalmed 

frog (Litoria latopalmata). 

No EPBC Act or TSC Act listed threatened amphibian species were recorded within the 

Hillcrest Offset Area during the survey effort. 

Mammals 

Twenty-six mammal species were recorded within the Hillcrest Offset Area from 13 families. 

Vespertilionidae (evening micro-bats) was the most speciose family with 9 species recorded. 

The most common species recorded during the survey effort included the common brushtailed 

possum (Trichosurus vulpecula), common wallaroo (Macropus robustus) and rednecked 

wallaby (Macropus rufogriseus). 

Six threatened mammal species, listed as Vulnerable under the TSC Act, were recorded 

within the Project area during surveys, including the squirrel glider (Petaurus norfolcensis), 

eastern bentwing-bat (Miniopterus schreibersii oceanensis), spotted-tailed quoll (Daryurus 

maculatus) and large-footed myotis (Myotis adversus). 

One species, the large-eared pied bat (Chalinolobus dwyeri), is listed as Vulnerable under 

the TSC Act and EPBC Act. 

The endangered (E EPBC Act and V TSC Act) spotted-tailed quoll was recorded on one 

occasion during spotlighting. The species has previously been recorded along Bowmans 

Creek during ecological monitoring surveys in March 2008 (Umwelt 2008). The location of 

threatened species recorded in the Hillcrest Offset Area is shown on Figure 5.3. 

5.9.4.5 Threatened Fauna Records 

Table 5.9 below lists the threatened fauna species recorded or those considered likely to 

occur within the Hillcrest Offset Area. 





Table 5.9 – Threatened Fauna Species Recorded in the Hillcrest Offset Area or 

Considered Likely to Occur 

Species Name Recorded in 

Status 

Common name Scientific name Hillcrest 

Offset Area? 

TSC Act 

1995 

EPBC 

Act 1999 

speckled warbler Chthonicola sagittata �� V 

grey-crowned babbler Pomatostomus temporalis 

temporalis 



�� 

� 

varied sittela Daphoenositta chrysoptera �� 

masked owl Tyto novaehollandiae �� 

spotted-tailed quoll Dasyurus maculatus �� V E 

squirrel glider Petaurus norfolcensis �� V 

grey-headed flying-fox Pteropus poliocephalus � V V 

yellow-bellied sheathtailbat 

Saccolaimus flaviventris � V 

eastern freetail-bat Mormopterus norfolkensis �� V 

little bentwing-bat Miniopterus australis � V 


oceanensis 

� 

�� 


eastern false pipistrelle Falsistrellis tasmaniensis � V 

large-eared pied bat Chalinolobus dwyeri � V V 

large-footed myotis Myotis adversus �� V 



5.9.4.6 Ravensworth North Offset Area 

The Ravensworth North Offset Area was included in the proposed disturbance area when 

project specific ecological surveys commenced in 2007. Vegetation community delineation 

and floristic surveys and detailed fauna surveys were undertaken across four survey periods 

in accordance with the survey methods described in Section 3. 

The results of the surveys that are applicable to the Ravensworth North Offset Area are 

provided below, however the results should be considered in the context of the broader 

contiguous project area described in the ecological assessment. 

Flora Species 

A total of 155 species were recorded within the Ravensworth North Offset Area from 

45 families. Poaceae (grasses) was the most speciose plant family (25 species recorded), 

followed by Asteraceae (daisies) with 24 species recorded and Malvaceae with 8 species 

recorded. Of the 155 species recorded, 121 (78 per cent) were native and 34 (22 per cent) 

were introduced. 

The most abundant introduced species recorded were common prickly pear (Opuntia stricta 

var. stricta), fireweed (Senecio madagascariensis) and spear thistle (Cirsium vulgare) 

recorded at several locations throughout the Ravensworth North Offset Area. Galenia 

(Galenia pubescens) was dominant where it occurred. Introduced species are not currently 

dominating any large areas within the Ravensworth North Offset Area. 

V 

V



A full list of the flora species recorded in the Ravensworth North Offset Area is presented in 

Appendix A. 

Vegetation Communities 

Surveys of the Ravensworth North Offset Area identified six vegetation communities, 

including two non-native communities. These vegetation communities were aligned with 

vegetation map units as described in the Hunter Remnant Vegetation Project (Peake 2006), 

where possible. 

The dominant communities identified in the Ravensworth North Offset Area are Central 

Hunter Box Ironbark Woodland and Derived Grassland with Central Hunter Bulloak Forest 

Regeneration also occurring (refer to Figure 5.5). 

Descriptions of each of the vegetation communities recorded in the Project area are provided 

below. These descriptions draw upon data obtained during field surveys and also from 

information contained within Peake (2006). 

Central Hunter Box – Ironbark Woodland 

A mid-high woodland dominated by narrow-leaved ironbark (Eucalyptus crebra) and grey box 

(Eucalyptus moluccana). A sub-canopy dominated by bulloak (Allocasuarina luehmannii) is 

usually present. Low trees are very occasionally present and include Acacia falcata and 

native olive (Notelaea microcarpa var. microcarpa). 

Shrubs are generally present within this community and include fan wattle (Acacia 

amblygona), western boobialla (Myoporum montanum), native blackthorn (Bursaria spinosa 

subsp. spinosa), wilga (Geijera salicifolia), hickory wattle (Acacia implexa) and cooba (Acacia 

salicina). The introduced shrubs African boxthorn (Lycium ferocissimum) and African olive 

(Olea europea subsp. cuspidata) are present occasionally. 

The understorey is usually mid-dense and dominated by a variety of native grasses and 

forbs. Common species include threeawn speargrass (Aristida vagans), Austrodanthonia 

tenuior, speargrass (Austrostipa scabra var. scabra), slender bamboo grass (Autrostipa 

verticillata), slender chloris (Chloris divaricata var. divaricata), barbed wire grass 

(Cymbopogon refractus), blue trumpet (Brunoniella australis), yellow burr-daisy (Calotis 

lappulacea), berry saltbush (Einadia hastata), ruby saltbush (Enchylaena tomentosa), kidney 

weed (Dichondra repens), amulla (Eremophila debilis), Glycine tabacina, bristly cloak fern 

(Cheilanthes distans), poison rock fern (Cheilanthes sieberi subsp. sieberi), many-flowered 

mat-rush (Lomandra multiflora subsp. multiflora) and wattle mat-rush (Lomandra filiformis). 

Introduced species such as galenia (Galenia pubescens), fireweed (Senecio 

madagascariensis) and common prickly pear (Opuntia stricta var. stricta) were regularly 

recorded, occasionally in high abundance. 

This is the dominant woodland community in the Ravensworth North Offset Area, being 

present on slopes and ridges and it conforms to the Central Hunter Box Ironbark Woodland 

described by Peake (2006). The majority of the community is regenerating from historical 

clearing for agriculture with regeneration occurring since approximately 30 years ago. 

Scattered narrow-leaved ironbark which survived this clearing are present within the 

Ravensworth North Offset Area. 


Grey Box Ironbark Woodland as an EEC. The Central Hunter Box Ironbark Woodland 

mapped within the Ravensworth North Offset Area conforms to the description of the 





preliminary determination and has been considered as an EEC for the purposes of this 

Biodiversity Offset Strategy. 

Central Hunter Bulloak Forest Regeneration 

A low to mid-high open forest dominated by bulloak (Allocasuarina luehmannii). Narrowleaved 

ironbark (Eucalyptus crebra) and grey box (Eucalyptus moluccana) occur 

occasionally as emergents. Forest red gum (Eucalyptus tereticornis) occurs in areas 

adjacent to River-flat Eucalypt Forest. 

Shrubs are generally absent from this community, however fan wattle (Acacia amblygona) 

and native blackthorn (Bursaria spinosa subsp. spinosa) were occasionally recorded in low 

abundance. 

The groundcover vegetation is generally vary sparse and is comprised of native grasses and 

forbs. Commonly recorded species include threeawn speargrass (Aristida vagans), 

Austrodanthonia tenuior, weeping grass (Microlaena stipoides var. stipoides), many-flowered 

mat-rush (Lomandra multiflora subsp. multiflora), wattle mat-rush (Lomandra filiformis), 

poison rock fern (Cheilanthes sieberi subsp. sieberi), blue trumpet (Brunoniella australis), 

berry saltbush (Einadia hastata), climbing saltbush (Einadia nutans), ruby saltbush 

(Enchylaena tomentosa) and Glycine tabacina. Introduced species such as common prickly 

pear (Opuntia stricta var. stricta) and fireweed (Senecio madagascariensis) were recorded in 

low abundance. 

This community comprises a significant proportion of the vegetation communities recorded in 

the Ravensworth North Offset Area. It conforms to the Central Hunter Bulloak Forest 

Regeneration community described by Peake (2006). 

Central Hunter Swamp Oak Forest 

A low to mid-high closed forest with a canopy dominated solely by swamp oak (Casuarina 

glauca). Shrubs are usually absent from this community. 

The groundcover is sparse to dense and is dominated by native grasses, forbs and ferns. 

The most abundant species recorded include slender bamboo grass (Austrostipa verticillata), 

weeping grass (Microlaena stipoides var. stipoides), bristly cloak fern (Cheilanthes distans), 

berry saltbush (Einadia hastata), kidney weed (Dichondra repens), blue trumpet (Brunoniella 

australis), amulla (Eremophila debilis), Oxalis perennans, trailing speedwell (Veronica 

plebeia) and Glycine tabacina. Introduced species such as galenia (Galenia pubescens), 

flaxleaf fleabane (Conyza bonariensis), spear thistle (Cirsium vulgare), fireweed (Senecio 

madagascariensis), castor oil plant (Ricinus communis), common prickly pear (Opuntia 

stricta var. stricta), Paddy’s lucerne (Sida rhombifolia), black-berry nightshade (Solanum 

nigrum) were recorded within Central Hunter Swamp Oak Forest, occasionally in high 

abundance. 

This community conforms to the Central Hunter Swamp Oak Forest described by Peake 

(2006). The community occurs along Davis Creek as well as isolated locations on lower 

slopes adjacent to Davis Creek. 

River-flat Eucalypt Forest 

A mid-high to tall open forest dominated by forest red gum (Eucalyptus tereticornis). Grey 

box (Eucalyptus moluccana) and rough-barked apple (Angophora floribunda) can dominate 

the canopy in some areas and narrow-leaved ironbark (Eucalyptus crebra) can occur 

occasionally within this community. Bulloak (Allocasuarina luehmannii) is usually present in 

low abundance in the sub-canopy. 





A shrub layer is generally very sparse or may be absent entirely. Commonly occurring shrub 

species include fan wattle (Acacia amblygona), Acacia falcata, native olive (Notelaea 

microcarpa var. microcarpa) and white dogwood (Ozothamnus diosmifolius). 

The understorey varies from sparse to relatively dense and is dominated by grasses and 

forbs. Common species include threeawn speargrass (Aristida vagans), speargrass 

(Austrostipa scabra var. scabra), weeping grass (Microlaena stipoides var. stipoides), kidney 

weed (Dichondra repens), yellow burr-daisy (Calotis lappulacea), winter apple (Eremophila 

debilis), blue trumpet (Brunoniella australis), climbing saltbush (Einadia nutans), Phyllanthus 

virgatus, Narrawa burr (Solanum cinereum) and Glycine tabacina. Weed species such as 

common prickly pear (Opuntia stricta var. stricta), flaxleaf fleabane (Conyza bonariensis), 

fireweed (Senecio madagascariensis) and common sowthistle (Sonchus oleraceus) were 

recorded in relatively low abundance. 

This community was recorded on the lower slopes and flats adjacent to Davis Creek. This 

community broadly conforms to the Hunter Lowlands Red Gum Forest described by Peake 

(2006). River-flat Eucalypt Forest is listed as a EEC under the TSC Act and the community 

described in the Ravensworth North Offset Area conforms to the description of this EEC 

provided by the NSW Scientific Committee. 

Derived Grassland 

Derived Grassland occurring on the Ravensworth North Offset Area is of high to moderate 

quality native grassland located between remnants of Central Hunter Box Ironbark Woodland 

and is likely to have once comprised this community. Scattered narrow-leaved ironbark 

(Eucalyptus crebra) and bulloak (Allocasuarina luehmannii) are present within the grassland 

areas. 

Commonly recorded native species include purple wiregrass (Aristida ramosa), threeawn 

speargrass (Aristida vagans), red grass (Bothriochloa decipiens), barbed wire grass 

(Cymbopogon refractus), two-colour panic (Panicum simile), many-flowered mat-rush 

(Lomandra multiflora subsp. multiflora), bristly cloak-fern (Cheilanthes distans), poison rock 

fern (Cheilanthes sieberi subsp. sieberi), yellow button (Chrysocephalum apiculatum), 

sprawling bluebell (Wahlenbergia gracilis) and Glycine tabacina. 

Commonly recorded introduced species include saffron thistle (Carthamnus lanatus), 

fireweed (Senecio madagascariensis), spike centaury (Centaurium spicatum), French flax 

(Linum trigynum), Paddys lucerne (Sida rhombifolia), scarlet pimpernel (Anagallis arvensis), 

and hop clover (Trifolium campestre). Saffron thistle, an annual species, can form a 

dominant part of this variant, however, much of the year the grassland is dominated by native 

grasses. 

Planted Areas 

Planted areas are located along the New England Highway, along the northern boundary of 

the Ravensworth North Offset Area. The Planted Areas comprise endemic and non-endemic 

eucalypt species with some areas also containing belah (Casuarina cristata). 

5.9.4.7 Threatened Flora Species, Endangered Flora Populations and Threatened 

Ecological Communities 

Surveys in the Ravensworth North Offset Area did not identify any threatened flora species 

or endangered populations. Two TECs were recorded: River-flat Eucalypt Forest EEC and 

Central Hunter Grey Box – Ironbark Woodland EEC (PD). 





One vegetation community recorded in the Ravensworth North Offset Area conforms to the 

description provided by the NSW Scientific Committee of a listed endangered ecological 

community (EEC). River Flat Eucalypt Forest on coastal floodplains was recorded on the 

floodplain associated with Davis Creek, covering an area of approximately 19 hectares. A 

full floristic description of this community is provided in above. 

Central Hunter Box – Ironbark Woodland is the most extensive woodland community in the 

Ravensworth North Offset Area covering an area of approximately 120 hectares. The NSW 

Scientific Committee has prepared preliminary determination to list Central Hunter Grey Box 

Ironbark Woodland as an EEC under the TSC Act. The Central Hunter Box – Ironbark 

Woodland recorded in the Ravensworth North Offset Area is consistent with the description 

of this preliminary EEC. 

5.9.4.8 Fauna Habitat and Condition Assessment 

Three broad habitat formations were identified in the Ravensworth North Offset Area: 

woodland, riparian and grassland habitats. 

Woodland Formation 

Woodland communities dominate the Ravensworth North Offset Area with regenerating trees 

dominating the landscape. Scattered mature trees were identified in a generally even 

spaced pattern across the site, which provide seasonal foraging resources for a number of 

nectarivorous bird species and mammals, as well as insectivorous birds. The eucalypt 

species present also provide a nesting resource for small birds (such as the grey fantail, 

(Rhipidura fuliginosa)) and larger birds of prey (such as the black-shouldered kite (Elanus 

notatus)). Mistletoe is present throughout the woodland habitat, providing a foraging and 

nesting resource for small birds. 

Hollow-bearing trees were scattered throughout the woodland, however in low densities due 

to the dominance of regenerating narrow-leaved ironbark (Eucalyptus crebra) in the canopy. 

Hollows range in size from small (26 to 50 mm) to large (100 to 300 mm) at a rate of 

approximately 7.9 per hectare. These hollows may provide nesting habitat for a number of 

bird species, arboreal mammals and micro-bats. The shrub layer within this habitat type 

ranges from scarce to medium density, providing shelter for a number of small woodland 

birds. Scattered logs and rocks within the woodland habitat type provide refuge and foraging 

habitat for reptiles and amphibians. The grassy understorey provides foraging habitat for 

macropods and for omnivorous birds such as the Australian magpie (Gymnorhina tibicen). 


for Woodland/Forest Formation 




Canopy dominants E. moluccana, E. crebra, A. luehmannii 

Height Cover 

Canopy 8-15m 30-40% 

Mid 1 4-8m 50-60% 

Mid 2 1-3m




for Woodland/Forest Formation (cont) 


Age/maturity Due to a history of selective logging and clearing for agriculture, the majority of 

trees in this formation are of younger age classes, with the average DBH 

being only 15 centimetres. Very few old, mature trees are present. The range 

in size classes is limited, with the majority of trees being of a similar age class 

indicating they have all regenerated at a similar time. 

Vegetation health Despite past clearing, the woodland/forest vegetation is regenerating well and 

is in moderately good condition. Weed invasion is primarily a concern on 

disturbed edges, while deeper in the remnants weed density is generally low. 

Disturbances 

Fire No evidence of fire was observed in this formation within the Ravensworth 

North Offset Area. 

Weeds All sites had only a slight level of weed infestation. Those areas on roadsides 

or more disturbed areas (such as grazed sites) had a higher abundance of 

weeds. Key weed species recorded included galenia (Galenia pubescens), 

balloon cotton bush (Gomphocarpus fruticosus) and prickly pear (Opuntia 

stricta var. stricta). 

Dieback The majority of the sites in the Ravensworth North Offset Area showed no 

signs of dieback, with a small proportion showing evidence of mild dieback. 

The lack of dieback can, in part be attributed to the young age class of the 

trees. 

Erosion Only minor sheet erosion was recorded in this formation. 

Mistletoe All sites had a mild density of mistletoe – only one site had no mistletoe. 

Grazing There is no current grazing of the woodland/ forest formation, however the 

majority of the site has been subject to grazing in the past. 






Log cover




for Woodland/Forest Formation (cont) 


Dominant winter- E. moluccana, E. crebra 


species 

Perch sites Generally moderate density. 

Water resources There are several small farm dams which occur in this formation across the 

Project area. Furthermore, Davis Creek, which occurs adjacent to areas of 

this formation, provides a semi-permanent freshwater resource. 


The riparian habitat recorded within the Ravensworth North Offset Area occurs along Davis 

Creek. This habitat type is dominated by swamp oak (Casuarina glauca), with river flats 

dominated by forest red gum (Eucalyptus tereticornis) and rough-barked apple (Angophora 

floribunda). The mature eucalypts identified along river flats within this habitat type provide a 

seasonal foraging resource for arboreal mammals and nectarivorous birds. These large 

eucalypts also provide a foraging habitat for insectivorous birds, and foraging and roosting 

resources for micro-bats. The scattered hollow-bearing trees within this habitat type provide 

a nesting resource for a number of bird species as well as arboreal mammals and micro-bats 

with hollow bearing trees occurring at a density of 12.5 hollows per hectare. The shrub layer, 

although scarce in density, provides a foraging and refuge resource for small birds. The 

grassy understorey provides a foraging and refuge resource for reptiles and amphibians. 

Some water was present within the generally ephemeral riparian habitat type, providing a 

drinking resource for native fauna as well as a foraging, refuge and breeding resource for 

amphibians. 


for Riparian Formation 




Canopy dominants E. tereticornis, A. floribunda, E. moluccana, E. crebra 

Height Cover 

Canopy 12-16m 26-50% 

Mid 1 4-6m




for Riparian Formation (cont) 


Disturbances 

Fire No evidence of fire was observed in this formation. 

Weeds A moderate density of weeds was recorded within the riparian formation – 

the moister, slightly more fertile soils in the riparian areas provide favourable 

conditions for weed growth. Species recorded included galenia (Galenia 

pubescens), prickly pear (Opuntia stricta var. stricta) flax-leaf fleabane 

(Conyza sumatrensis). 

Dieback The extent of dieback was mild at all sites assessed. 

Erosion Moderate gully erosion was recorded in Davis Creek. 

Mistletoe Mistletoe infestation was observed to be mild at all sites assessed in this 

formation. 

Grazing There is no current grazing in the Ravensworth North Offset Area; however 

some areas in the riparian formation have been grazed in the past and are 

now regenerating. 






Log cover




for Grassland Formation 




Canopy dominants Generally, a tree canopy is absent from the grassland formation, however 

scattered remnant trees do occur. 

Height Cover 

Canopy Generally absent Generally absent 

Mid 1 - - 

Mid 2 - - 

Ground




for Grassland Formation (cont) 



Hollow density The hollow density is very low in this formation given the general lack of a 

tree stratum. 


modified structure of the vegetation. The flowering canopy trees provide 

limited foraging resources for nectarivorous and insectivorous species, and 

there are a range of small birds which would benefit from foraging in the 

grassland, particularly in taller areas of grassland which have been left free 

of grazing long enough to develop seed heads on the grasses. 

Dominant winter- E. moluccana, E. crebra 


species 

Perch sites Given the lack of a tree stratum, there is a very low abundance of perch sites 

in the grassland formation. These are only present where there are 

scattered paddock trees. 

Water resources A number of farm dams occur in this formation across the Project area. No 

other freshwater resources occur within this formation. 

5.9.4.9 Fauna Species Recorded 

A total of 103 fauna species were recorded during surveys of the Ravensworth North Offset 

Area. An outline and discussion of the species recorded within each of the four major fauna 

groups is presented in the following sections. 

A list of all fauna species recorded within the Ravensworth North Offset Area is presented in 

Appendix A of this report. 

Birds 

A total of 51 bird species were recorded in the Ravensworth North Offset Area comprising 

Twenty-six families. The most well represented families include the Pardalotidae 

(pardalotes) recording nine species, Meliphagidae (honeyeaters) recording five species and 

Artamidae (woodswallows) with four species and the Petroicidae (robins) with three species. 

None of the six raptor species that were recorded in the Project area were recorded from the 

Ravensworth North Offset Area, however all species recorded in the Project area are 

expected to occur. 

Some of the more frequently observed bird species recorded woodland communities 

included the rufous whistler (Pachycephala rufiventris), grey fantail (Rhipidura fuliginosa) 

willie wagtail (Rhipidura leucophrys), rainbow bee-eater (Merops ornatus), yellow thornbill 

(Acanthiza chrysorrhoa), black-faced cuckoo-shrike (Coracina novaehollandiae), Australian 

magpie (Gymnorhina tibicen), pied butcherbird (Cracticus nigrogularis), Australian raven 

(Corvus coronoides) and white-winged chough (Corcorax melanorhamphos). 

Farm dams provide a permanent area of aquatic habitat for six species. Commonly recorded 

species included the Australian wood duck (Chenonetta jubata) and purple swamphen 

(Porphyrio porphyrio). 

Five threatened bird species were recorded in the Ravensworth North Offset Area. The 

speckled warbler (Chthonicola sagittata), brown treecreeper (Climacteris picumnus victoriae), 





grey-crowned babbler (Pomatostomus temporalis temporalis), hooded robin (Melanodryas 

cucullata cucullata) and scarlet robin (PD) (Petroica boodang) have been recorded. 

Of the species recorded, four are listed migratory and nine are listed marine species which 

are protected under the schedules of the EPBC Act 1999. The migratory species schedules 

have been formulated to protect migratory and marine species listed under international 

conventions. 

Reptiles 

Nine reptile species have been recorded within the Ravensworth North Offset Area 

comprising a total of three families, with the skink family (Scincidae) being the most well 

represented. 

The most commonly encountered reptile species were the tree skink (Egernia striolata) and 

the southern rainbow skink (Carlia tetradactyla). 

Amphibians 

Nine species of frog were recorded in the Ravensworth North Offset Area comprising five 

species of Myobatrachidae (southern frogs) and four tree frogs from the family Hylidae. Frog 

species abundance was considered to be very high during both the 2008 and 2009 targeted 

frog surveys. 

Farm dams and ephemeral areas on floodplains following significant rain events were found 

to comprise the most significant breeding habitat in the Ravensworth North Offset Area with 

all nine species except the green and golden bell frog (Litoria aurea) recorded calling 

following rain events. The green and golden bell frog was not recorded calling and did not 

respond to call playback surveys. One adult frog (approximately 80mm SVL) was recorded 

on submerged vegetation in a farm dam. No additional green and golden bell frogs were 

recorded during subsequent targeted surveys. The endangered green and golden bell frog 

has previously been recorded in the Ravensworth North Offset Area in 2001 (refer to 

Figure 3.2). 

The most commonly recorded frogs in the 2009 survey period were the smooth toadlet 

(Uperoleia laevigata), common eastern froglet (Crinia signifera), broad-palmed frog (Litoria 

latopalmata), dwarf tree frog (Litoria fallax) and Peron’s tree frog (Litoria peronii). Tyler’s tree 

frog (Litoria tyleri) was recorded during 2008 surveys and the pobblebonk frog 

(Limnodynastes dumerilii dumerilii) was recorded north of Davis Creek during 2008. 

Mammals 

Twenty-six mammal species were recorded within the Ravensworth North Offset Area with 

the most common family Vespertilionidae (evening micro-bats), with nine species of bats 

recorded. 

Arboreal mammal species were not recorded in the Ravensworth North Offset Area due to 

paucity of hollow bearing trees. Ground dwelling mammals are represented by four species: 

the yellow-footed antechinus (Antechinus flavipes) and common dunnart (Sminthopsis 

murina) have been trapped and the brown antechinus (Antechinus stuartii) has been 

recorded through hair analysis. The introduced house mouse (Mus musculus) was recorded 

through hair analysis and small mammal trapping. 

Two species of macropod were recorded in the Project area comprising the eastern grey 

kangaroo (Macropus giganteus) and red-necked wallaby (Macropus rufogriseus). Each of 





these species was principally observed in the open grassland areas, however, were also less 

frequently recorded in woodland communities. 

Two threatened mammal species were recorded within the Ravensworth North Offset Area; 

the eastern bentwing-bat (Miniopterus schreibersii oceanensis), and grey-headed flying-fox 

(Pteropus poliocephalus). The location of the threatened mammal species recorded in the 

Ravensworth North Offset Area is shown on Figure 3.2. 

Seven introduced species were recorded in the Ravensworth North Offset Area including 

feral dogs (Canis familiaris), fox (Vulpes vulpes) and the rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus). 

5.9.4.10 Threatened Fauna Records 

Table 5.13 below lists the threatened fauna species recorded or those considered likely to 

occur within the Ravensworth North Offset Area. The locations of threatened species 

recorded in the Ravensworth North Offset Area are shown on Figure 5.5. 

Table 5.13 – Threatened Fauna Species Recorded 

in the Ravensworth North Offset Area 

Species Name Recorded in 

Status 

Common name Scientific name Ravensworth 

North Offset 

Area? 

TSC Act 

1995 

EPBC 

Act 1999 

green and golden bell frog Litoria aurea � E V 

turquoise parrot Neophema pulchella V 

masked owl Tyto novaehollandiae � V 

brown treecreeper Climacteris picumnus �� V 

black-chinned honeyeater Melithreptus gularis V 

painted honeyeater Grantiella picta V 

speckled warbler Chthonicola saggitatus �� V 

scarlet robin Petroica boodang �� V (PD) 

hooded robin Melanodryas cucullata �� V 

grey-crowned babbler Pomatostomus 

temporalis temporalis 

�� V 

diamond firetail Stagonopleura guttata V 

grey-headed flying-fox Pteropus poliocephalus �� V V 

yellow-bellied sheathtail bat Saccolaimus flaviventris � V 

eastern freetail-bat Mormopterus 

norfolkensis 

� V 

little bentwing-bat Miniopterus australis � V 


oceanensis 

�� V 


little pied bat Chalinolobus picatus V 

eastern false pipistrelle Falsistrellis 

tasmaniensis 

� V 

large-eared pied bat Chalinolobus dwyeri V V 

large-footed myotis Myotis adversus � V 



Note: PD - Preliminary Determination 





5.9.5 Summary and Comparison of Offset Area Values to Project Impacts 

The Biodiversity Offset Strategy provides an adequate and appropriate means to 

counterbalance the residual impact of the Project on ecological values. 

5.9.5.1 Fauna Habitat and Condition 

The results of the fauna habitat and condition assessment indicate that the Ravensworth 

North and Hillcrest Offset Areas provide a comparable type and condition of habitat to that 

which is being impacted by the Project. The Ravensworth North and Hillcrest Offset Areas 

are considered to be in similar or better condition than the proposed disturbance area. 

As can be seen from the discussion of fauna habitat provided in Section 3, the condition and 

habitat values of the woodland, riparian and grassland formations do not differ significantly 

between the proposed disturbance area and the Offset Areas. The combination of offset 

areas provide the full extent of habitat types for a wide range of fauna species known to 

occur in the local area and region, and have similar characteristics in terms of vegetation 

condition and signs of disturbance. 

The age distribution of the vegetation is similar between the impact area and Offset Areas, 

with the majority of the canopy trees being of middle-age classes with low DBH. The 

Hillcrest Offset Area is considered to comprise more mature vegetation due to a higher mean 

and median DBH and a greater tree hollow density. Similarly, the presence of more mature 

riparian vegetation along Davis Creek in the Ravensworth North Offset Area provides a 

greater hollow density and DBH in comparison to the habitats of Emu Creek, which will be 

removed as part of the Project. 

5.9.5.2 Vegetation Communities 

As part of the development of the Biodiversity Offset Strategy an analysis of vegetation 

communities was undertaken to determine which communities known to occur on the Hunter 

Valley floor are floristically similar to the target vegetation communities that are proposed to 

be impacted in the Project area. The HRVP (Peake 2006) includes a dendrogram showing 

the relationship of vegetation communities. Communities that were shown in the analysis to 

be ‘similar’ or closely aligned with the target vegetation communities were identified and 

targeted for inclusion in the Strategy. 

The Biodiversity Offset Strategy is considered to provide an adequate and appropriate offset 

to counterbalance the loss of regionally and state significant vegetation communities. 

Vegetation communities are one of the main drivers in biodiversity offsetting and Table 5.14 

details the area of each vegetation community that is proposed to be impacted as a result of 

the Project and the area of each vegetation community in the Ravensworth North and 

Hillcrest Offset Areas that offsets the loss of each vegetation community. As discussed 

above, similar or intergrade communities have been used as direct offsets for many 

communities due to the lack of like-for-like vegetation communities in some instances. 

The most significant loss of vegetation as a result of the Project is the removal of 

approximately 473 hectares of Central Hunter Grey Box – Ironbark Woodland EEC. The 

Biodiversity Offset Strategy includes the provision of approximately 644 hectares of the same 

or floristically and structurally similar woodland communities; including 120 hectares of 

contiguous Central Hunter Box–Ironbark Woodland EEC in the Ravensworth North Offset 

Area; 141 hectares of Central Hunter Ironbark – Spotted Gum – Grey Box Forest and 

383 hectares of Barrington Footslopes Dry Spotted Gum Forest in the Hillcrest Offset Area. 





Each of these communities was considered to be floristically similar to the target Central 

Hunter Box–Ironbark Woodland EEC, and is considered to provide an appropriate offset. 

The 19 hectares of River-flat Eucalypt Forest EEC and 20 hectares of Central Hunter Swamp 

Oak Forest occurring in the Ravensworth North Offset Area is considered to adequately 

offset the impact of a combined total of approximately 42 hectares of riparian vegetation to 

be lost as a result of the proposal. 

All vegetation communities proposed to be disturbed will be offset at a minimum of 1:1 ratio 

with appropriate vegetation communities, except Central Hunter Swamp Oak Forest of which 

20 hectares Central Hunter Swamp Oak Forest and 18 hectares of River-flat Eucalypt Forest 

will be conserved in the Ravensworth North Offset Area to offset the loss of 38 hectares. An 

additional area of approximately 28 hectares of Central Hunter Swamp Oak Forest will 

remain unaffected in the Project area along Bayswater and Farrells Creek and the 

community will be re-established along Emu Creek in the post mining landscape. In addition, 

a further 252 hectares of significant vegetation communities will be conserved in the longterm, 

including the Vulnerable Ecological Community (VEC) Hunter Valley Dry Rainforest. 





Table 5.14 - shows the area of each vegetation community that is proposed to be impacted in the Project area along with the area of each 

vegetation community in the proposed Ravensworth North and Hillcrest Offset Areas that is considered to counterbalance this loss 

Area of Each Vegetation Community to be 

Impacted 

Area of Each Vegetation Community Available to Provide a direct vegetation community 

offset 

Proposed Impacted Area Ravensworth North Offset Area Hillcrest Offset Area 

Vegetation Community Area 

(ha) 

Central Hunter Box – Ironbark 


Central Hunter Bulloak Forest 

Regeneration 

Central Hunter Ironbark – Spotted 

Gum – Grey Box Forest EEC (PD) 


(ha) 

473 Central Hunter Box Ironbark Woodland 

EEC (PD) 


(ha) 



Total 

(ha) 

120 120 

Central Hunter Ironbark Spotted Gum 

Grey Box Forest EEC (PD) 

Barrington Footslopes Dry Spotted 

Gum Forest 

137 137 

(of 140 total 

area) 

383 383 

Total area of Vegetation available to offset Central Hunter Box Ironbark Woodland is 639 hectares 

35 Central Hunter Bulloak Forest 

Regeneration 

34 34 

4 Central Hunter Ironbark - Spotted 

Gum - Grey Box Forest EEC (PD) 

4 4 

(of 141 

Total area) 

Central Hunter Swamp Oak Forest 38 Central Hunter Swamp Oak Forest 21 21 

River-flat Eucalypt Forest EEC 10 10 

(of 20.6 ha) 

Hunter Valley River Oak Forest 4 River-flat Eucalypt Forest EEC 4 5 

(of 20.6 ha) 

River-flat Eucalypt Forest EEC 5 River-flat Eucalypt Forest EEC 5 5 

(of 20.6 ha) 

Hunter Floodplain Red Gum 




5.9.5.3 Threatened Species and EECs 

The project will result in a significant loss of threatened species habitat and the likely 

substantial reduction in the local populations of several threatened species including the 

species listed in Section 5.2.2. The Ravensworth North and Hillcrest Offset Areas provide 

substantial threatened species habitat, including known habitat for a large proportion of the 

threatened species that are considered likely to be significantly impacted by the Project. 

Table 5.15 shows the threatened species, populations and EECs recorded in the Project 

area and whether habitat for those species is known to occur in the Offset Areas. 

Table 5.15 – Threatened Species Potentially impacted by the Project and a 

Comparison of Potential Habitat in the Ravensworth North Offset Area 

and Hillcrest Offset Area 

Threatened Species Significantly 

Affected by Project 

Green and golden bell frog 

(Litoria aurea) 

grey-crowned babbler 

(Pomatostomus temporalis 

temporalis) 

hooded robin 

(Melanodryas cucullata cucullata) 

scarlet robin 

(Petroica boodang) 

speckled warbler 

(Chthonicola sagittata) 

brown treecreeper 

(Climacteris picumnus victoriae) 

eastern bentwing-bat 

(Miniopterus schreibersii oceanensis) 

eastern freetail-bat 

(Mormopterus norfolkensis) 

little bentwing-bat 

(Miniopterus australis) 

eastern false pipistrelle 

(Falsistrellus tasmaniensis) 

large-footed myotis 

(Myotis adversus); 

Central Hunter Box–Ironbark 



North Offset 

Area 

Hillcrest Offset 

Area 

recorded compensatory 

habitat to be 

constructed 

Does the 

Biodiversity Offset 

Strategy Provide 

Adequate Offset? 



yes 

recorded recorded yes 

recorded potential habitat yes 

recorded potential habitat yes 




likely habitat recorded yes 

likely habitat likely habitat yes 

likely habitat likely habitat yes 

likely habitat recorded yes 

recorded Central Hunter 

Ironbark– 

Spotted Gum– 

Grey Box Forest 

EEC (PD) 

yes



The Hillcrest Offset area also provides for the conservation of other threatened fauna species 

that have limited secure protection in the local and regional area including the state and 

federally listed spotted-tailed quoll (Dasyuris maculatus) and large-eared pied bat 

(Chalinolobus dwyeri) and the state listed squirrel glider (Petaurus norfolcensis), masked owl 

(Tyto novaehollandiae) and varied sittella (Daphoenositta chrysoptera). The conservation of 

the spotted-tailed quoll and masked owl in particular represents a significant conservation 

outcome in the Hunter Valley as few conservation reserves are of an adequate size to 

conserve the habitats of these species as they require very large home ranges to meet their 

life cycle requirements. 

5.9.5.4 Remnant Size and Connectivity 

Section 2.7 identifies the importance of the Ravensworth remnant in a local and regional 

context. The project area occurs in a large area of native vegetation of approximately 

1200 hectares. In the central Hunter Valley, the Ravensworth remnant represents one of the 

largest remnants of native vegetation and is significant due to its functionality as a fauna 

refuge and “stepping stone” in a highly fragmented landscape. 

The inclusion of the Hillcrest Offset Area in the Biodiversity Offset Strategy meets the 

objective of the Biodiversity Offset Strategy to counterbalance the loss of identified ecological 

values, which includes a regionally important large remnant. The Hillcrest Offset Area 

provides a long-term conservation agreement for a 1392 hectare remnant of significant 

Hunter Valley vegetation and fauna habitat, including threatened species habitat. 

In the medium term (c. 40 years) the re-establishment of native vegetation communities in 

the post mining landform in accordance with the ecological objectives and criteria outlined in 

Section 5.8.3 and the inclusion of the post-mining landscape in an area appropriately 

managed for long term conservation will provide for the conservation of a >1000 hectare 

remnant, when combined with the contiguous Ravensworth North Conservation Area. 

The long-term conservation of the Ravensworth North Offset Area, Hillcrest Offset Area and 

the inclusion of the post-mining landscape in an appropriately managed area will ensure that 

two large remnants are secured in the long-term within the central Hunter Valley. 

5.9.5.5 Summary of Comparison of Ecological Values between the Project area and 

Biodiversity Offset Areas 

Table 5.16 summarises the ecological values identified in the Project area and those 

identified during targeted surveys of the Biodiversity Offset Areas. The table indicates that 

the Biodiversity Offset Areas provide an adequate and appropriate offset for the Project to 

counterbalance the residual ecological impacts of the Project. 

Ecological Values of the 


Table 5.16 – Ecological Values in the Biodiversity Offset Areas 

Ravensworth North Offset 

Area 

Large remnant (1200 ha) Contiguous with the proposed 

disturbance area 

(>250 hectares) 

Presence of Threatened 

Woodland EECs 

Hillcrest Offset Area 

Greater than 1000 hectares 

120 hectares 383 of floristically similar valley 

floor vegetation 

141 hectares of Central Hunter 

Ironbark – Spotted Gum – Grey 

Box Forest EEC (PD) 





Table 5.16 – Ecological Values in the Biodiversity Offset Areas (cont) 

Ecological Values of the 


Presence of Threatened 

Floodplain EECs 

Green and golden bell frog 

habitat 

Threatened woodland bird 

habitat 

Ravensworth North Offset 

Area 

Yes Yes 

Hillcrest Offset Area 

Yes Enhancement of existing 

habitat and creation of habitat. 

Yes – for all species affected Yes 

Threatened micro-bat habitat Yes Yes 

Presence of other significant 

ecological features 

5.10 Summary of Net Ecological Impacts 

No Large-eared pied bat; spotted– 

tailed quoll; masked owl; koala; 

varied sittela and squirrel glider 

habitat. 

Lower Hunter Valley Dry 

Rainforest VEC. 

As a result of the modifications made during mine planning that avoided and minimised 

impacts on ecological features, and the impact mitigation and Biodiversity Offset strategies, 

the significant impact on vegetation communities and fauna species, including threatened 

species has been substantially reduced. It is considered likely that there will be no significant 

impact on threatened species, populations, endangered ecological communities, or their 

habitats, with the exception of the potentially significant impact on the green and golden bell 

frog and Central Hunter Grey Box – Ironbark Woodland (PD) EEC. The re-establishment of 

vegetation communities consistent with the extant Central Hunter Box – Ironbark Woodland 

will ensure that there is and no net loss of flora and fauna values, over the medium to long 

term as a result of the Project. 

5.10.1 Performance of the Biodiversity Offset Strategy against the Principles 

for Biodiversity Offsetting (DECC 2008) 

The following section provides a comparison of the performance of the Biodiversity Offset 

Strategy proposed as part of the Project against the principles for biodiversity offsetting 

(DECC 2008). 

1. Impacts must be avoided first by using prevention and mitigation measures. 

The project has been designed to create as little disturbance to the ecological features of the 

Project area as possible, whilst maintaining the economic feasibility and practicality of all 

components of the Project. 

Following the identification of important ecological values in the Project area a substantial 

reduction in the disturbance area was incorporated into the Project including the reduction in 

the size of the out-of-pit-dump which limited mining to the south of Davis Creek, thereby 

allowing for the conservation of significant riparian habitats, including River-flat Eucalypt 

Forest EEC. 

The overall footprint of the Project has reduced considerably and the out of pit dump was 

modified late in the Project with this re-design allowing for a 200 metre buffer to the southern 

boundary of Davis Creek to be included in the Project to protect the habitat of the green and 





golden bell frog (Litoria aurea). The reduction in clearing has reduced the area of disturbance 

for all threatened species recorded in the Project area. 

2. All regulatory requirements must be met. 

The Biodiversity Offset Strategy has been developed in accordance with the required 

offsetting regulatory requirements, particularly the requirements of the Director-General of 

the Department of Planning (which includes consideration of all other relevant regulatory 

authorities). 

3. Offsets must never reward ongoing poor performance. 

Ravensworth Operations is currently managing ecological values of the Ravensworth West 

project area under an approved Flora and Fauna Management Strategy (Umwelt 2005) and 

Xstrata is committed to the maintenance of ecological values on all of its sites as detailed in 

the Xstrata plc Biodiversity and Land Management Standard (Standard 10) and the Xstrata 

Coal NSW HSEC Biodiversity and Land Management Standard (Standards 5.09). 

4. Offsets will complement other government programs. 

The proposed Biodiversity Offset Strategy is consistent with government programs relevant 

to the local area, and does not impact on national parks, nature reserves, state conservation 

areas or state forests in the area. The Biodiversity Offset Strategy is consistent with the 

Synoptic plan integrated landscapes for coal mine rehabilitation in the Hunter Valley of NSW 

(Andrews Neil 1999) which guides the rehabilitation of mining areas in the Hunter Valley and 

identifies conceptual biodiversity corridors. The Biodiversity Offset Strategy will assist in the 

development of a cross valley biodiversity corridor and will assist in the linkage of conserved 

habitats between conservation areas, including National Parks, to the north and south of the 

Hunter Valley floor. 

5. Offsets must be underpinned by sound ecological principles. 

The Biodiversity Offset Strategy has been developed with the aim to maintain or improve the 

biodiversity values of the surrounding region in the medium to long term. To achieve this, a 

variety of strategies will be employed to address specific impacts of the Project. Such 

strategies are commonly employed in projects of this type and magnitude, and are well 

tested and accepted in relation to their ability to address impacts. The Biodiversity Offset 

Areas have been selected because of the significant ecological features they contain and 

their ability to adequately counterbalance the impacts of the Project. 

6. Offsets should aim to result in a net improvement in biodiversity over time. 

The proposed Biodiversity Offset Strategy has been developed with the aim to maintain or 

improve the biodiversity values of the surrounding region in the medium to long term. With 

the impact mitigation strategies to be employed as part of the Project, it is likely that a net 

improvement will occur. The project includes the long-term conservation of the Ravensworth 

North and Hillcrest Offset Areas, augmentation of existing habitat and long-term ecological 

management and monitoring. 

7. Offsets must be enduring and they must offset the impact of the development 

for the period that the impact occurs. 

The Biodiversity Offset Strategy will be implemented as part of the Project. Commitments 

and the long-term conservation of the Offset Areas will be answered by an appropriate 

mechanism to be determined in consultation with DoP and relevant agencies. 





8. Offsets should be agreed prior to the impact occurring. 

The Biodiversity Offset Strategy is included as part of the Project. Should the Project be 

approved the commitments made in the Biodiversity Offset Strategy will be part of the 

approved project and will be legally binding. 

9. Offsets must be quantifiable and the impacts and benefits must be reliably 

estimated. 

The Biodiversity Offsets Strategy has been developed through detailed consideration of 

impacts on threatened species and TECs (including their habitats), which have been 

identified and discussed in Section 5 of the Ecological Assessment. The planning of the 

Biodiversity Offset Strategy took into account identified impacts and ability of potential offset 

areas to counterbalance impacts on ecological values. The potential for revegetation and 

regeneration of substantial areas of native vegetation was also prioritised in the selection of 

Offset Areas. 

The area of impact has been derived from detailed GIS-based mapping of project boundaries 

and impact areas, and the ecological survey, mapping and impact assessments have been 

completed by qualified ecologists with considerable experience in the region. 

10. Offsets must be targeted. 

The development of the Biodiversity Offset Strategy has been based on addressing the 

identified ecological impacts of the Project. These impacts have been identified via a 

thorough survey and assessment process, which has been described in detail within the 

Ecological Assessment. The Biodiversity Offset Strategy has been designed to provide 

mitigation actions targeted to each of the identified impacts on ecological values. 

11. Offsets must be located appropriately. 

Hunter Valley floor vegetation and fauna habitat was targeted in the first instance in the 

development of the Biodiversity Offset Strategy in order to ensure that potential offset areas 

were located appropriately. The Ravensworth North Offset Area is located within the Project 

area on the central Hunter Valley floor as is the southern portion of the Hillcrest Offset Area. 

The Hillcrest Offset Area is predominantly located on Hunter Valley footslopes which lie 

adjacent the Hunter Valley floor. All offset areas are located within the Hunter Valley which 

is considered to be in an appropriate location. 

12. Offsets must be supplementary. 

The Biodiversity Offset Strategy is supplementary and does not make use of any area that is 

funded under another scheme. 

13. Offsets and their actions must be enforceable through development consent 

conditions, licence conditions, conservation agreements or a contract. 

As the Biodiversity Offset Strategy is being proposed as an integral component of the 

Project, it is expected that the commitments in this Strategy will be included within the Project 

approval conditions, and any other legally binding consents. 





5.10.2 Impact Assessment Conclusion 

As a result of the implementation of the Impact Mitigation Strategy and Biodiversity Offset 

Strategy, it is considered likely that there will be no significant impact on threatened species, 

TECs or their habitats, and that the objective to maintain or improve the biodiversity values of 

the surrounding region in the medium to long term will be achieved. 



Ravensworth Operations Project Management and 

Ecological Assessment Monitoring Requirements 

6.0 Management and Monitoring Requirements 

6.1 Proposed Disturbance Area 

Management strategies formulated for the Project area are detailed in Section 5.8. 

Section 6.1 details the monitoring requirements applicable to the Project area and 

Section 6.2 includes both management strategies and monitoring requirements for the 

Biodiversity Offset Areas. 

6.1.1 Monitoring and Maintenance 

Ravensworth Operations has an existing ecological monitoring program for its Ravensworth 

West operation which is implemented at the site with the results reported externally in the 

Annual Environmental Management Report. This program includes monitoring of fauna, 

remnant vegetation, rehabilitated areas and the use of nest boxes. 

Proposed additions to the existing monitoring program at Ravensworth Operations are 

discussed in the following sections. 

6.1.1.1 Rehabilitation Monitoring 

Standard 20 metre by 20 metre survey plots will be established in rehabilitation and 

regeneration areas, which will be re-sampled over time and compared to benchmark sites. 

Three benchmark sites will be established in the Ravensworth North Offset Area and will be 

surveyed once every three years to provide sufficient data against which the establishment of 

vegetation communities in rehabilitation can be compared. The locations of the plots and the 

selection of benchmark sites will be determined following the commencement of 

rehabilitation, and additional plots will be added to the monitoring program as rehabilitation 

continues over the life of the mine. Permanent rehabilitation monitoring locations will be 

established at a rate of approximately 1 for every 100 hectares of rehabilitation, or as 

required as part of a positive feedback loop from previous monitoring outcomes. 

The standard monitoring approach will be completed by an appropriately qualified and 

competent botanist in selected rehabilitation areas at least every three years to record 

species diversity and structural composition of the vegetation. This will allow for a 

comparison of flora species and abundance over time and will be used to determine whether 

the rehabilitation has achieved its objective of re-establishing existing vegetation 

communities. 

Monitoring of any revegetated areas will also include annual inspections of the following 

aspects by site environmental personnel: 

� revegetation germination rates; 

� plant health; 

� feral animals and the need for control; 

� weed infestation and the need for control; 

� requirements for additional planting to be undertaken; 

� need for further fertilisation; 

� requirement for application of lime or gypsum to control pH and improve soil structure; 





� erosion and the need for repair of eroded areas; 

� fire management; 

� quality and effectiveness of fencing; 

� signs of disturbance, either by animals or humans; and 

� success of any management programs implemented following previous monitoring 

inspections. 

In the event that the monitoring reveals unsatisfactory progress, recommendations will be 

provided to rectify the situation. 

6.1.1.2 Fauna Monitoring 

At each of the proposed rehabilitation monitoring points, a range of fauna survey techniques 

will be employed to assess ongoing fauna use of habitat within the Project area, particularly 

focussing on the ongoing presence of threatened species. It is proposed that thorough 

monitoring of fauna be undertaken at least once every three years, consistent with 

rehabilitation monitoring (refer to Section 6.1.1.1). The types of surveys that will be required 

to undertake adequate monitoring of fauna may include spotlighting, herpetological surveys, 

diurnal bird surveys, Anabat echolocation call detection, and the use of hair funnels to detect 

terrestrial and arboreal mammals. As the rehabilitated communities mature, the range of 

fauna monitoring techniques will increase, as microhabitats and niches for a wider range of 

species become established. Fauna surveys will specifically target threatened species 

previously recorded, or with reasonable potential to occur within the area. The results of the 

monitoring will be analysed and compared to previous survey results to determine general 

population trends. In the event that negative trends are identified, indicating the possible 

decline of particular threatened species, appropriate amelioration measures will be 

determined. 

In the event that further threatened species are identified within the Project area the 

monitoring program will incorporate surveys to adequately assess and monitor these 

species. 

Green and Golden Bell Frog Monitoring 

Annual monitoring for the green and golden bell frog (Litoria aurea) within the Project area is 

detailed in Section 5.8.9. 

6.1.1.3 Monitoring of Emu Creek Habitats 

Monitoring of aquatic habitats will begin in Year 20, when flows are returned to the reinstated 

Emu Creek. Monitoring should include assessment of the following characteristics: 

� general health of the aquatic vegetation; 

� occurrence and abundance of weed species; 

� signs of disturbance; 

� any observable impacts of mining such as the effectiveness of sediment and erosion 

control structures; 

� the habitat attributes of the aquatic vegetation; 





� the presence of fauna species utilising the habitat, particularly amphibians; and 

� the presence and type of macroinvertebrates utilising the recreated habitats. 

Monitoring should be continued until it can be demonstrated that the re-instated habitats are 

characteristic of original conditions. Baseline monitoring should be undertaken prior to 

removal of Emu Creek to provide a comparison for future monitoring. 

6.1.1.4 Nest Box Monitoring 

Nest box monitoring will be undertaken every three years to record the effectiveness of 

artificial habitat structures. This monitoring will report on the degree of use of nest boxes and 

make recommendations regarding maintenance activities as required. 

Monitoring should be undertaken during spring when the use of boxes by bird species can be 

detected. While mammal species will den in the nest boxes all year, bird species such as 

parrots using the boxes solely for breeding will only be present for 8 to 12 weeks during early 

to late spring. 

At these times, nest box condition monitoring will also be undertaken and boxes replaced as 

required to prevent the loss of boxes through deterioration over time. 

6.1.1.5 Natural Regeneration Monitoring 

Monitoring will be undertaken at three permanent locations within natural floodplain 

regeneration sites, at least once every three years. The monitoring should be undertaken in 

accordance with the rehabilitation monitoring methodology described in Section 6.1.1.1. 

Site selection will be undertaken following demarcation of the natural floodplain regeneration 

sites, as shown on Figure 5.1, in the initial year of monitoring. 

6.1.1.6 Identification of Additional Threatened Species 

If, through the course of monitoring or through during general operation of the Project, 

additional threatened species, populations or TECs are identified, such records will be 

assessed by a qualified ecologist to advise on the most appropriate management. This may 

result in: 

� certain planned activities being postponed or modified; and/or 

� modification of the monitoring program; and/or 

� immediate survey and assessment of the new record, and implementation of specific 

management measures as, required. 

6.1.1.7 Adaptive Management 

A strong positive feedback loop between monitoring and adaptive management will be 

established. The management of the ecological components of the Project will be responsive 

to any new ecological data that may arise through the ecological monitoring of the Project 

area, or any other studies completed as part of the Project. This will enable a flexible 

approach to the management requirements of the Project, allowing ongoing feedback and 

refinement of the management and monitoring strategy. 





6.2 Biodiversity Offset Area Management and Monitoring 

Requirements 

6.2.1 General Biodiversity Management Strategies for Ravensworth North 

Offset Area and Hillcrest Offset Area 

A number of general management strategies will be employed across the Biodiversity Offset 

Areas to maintain and improve the biodiversity values of the Offset Areas. These include the 

strategies addressed in the following sub-sections. 

6.2.1.1 Strategic Management of Grazing 

Grazing activities will be strategically managed within the Hillcrest Offset Area to allow the 

derived grassland areas of the site to regenerate. It is expected that the strategic 

management/removal of grazing will allow approximately 635 hectares of derived grassland 

currently occurring throughout the Hillcrest Offset Area to regenerate, with Central Hunter 

Ironbark Spotted Gum Grey Box Forest expected to regenerate in the southern portion of the 

Offset Area; Dry Gully Rainforest in gullies and lower slopes; and Barrington Footslopes Dry 

Spotted Gum Forest on upper slopes and ridges in the central and northern portions of the 

Offset Area. 

The natural regeneration of the Hillcrest Offset Area will significantly improve the ecological 

value of the Offset Area and provide additional threatened species habitat in the medium and 

long term. 

6.2.1.2 Fencing/Access Control 

Areas of retained vegetation within the Biodiversity Offset Areas and broader project area will 

be appropriately protected from human-induced impacts such as damage to vegetation from 

vehicles or trampling, increased rubbish dumping and alteration to normal fauna behaviour 

patterns due to human presence. Fencing/access control will be used to protect existing 

vegetation from accidental disturbance and will clearly demarcate areas of vegetation to be 

retained. 

Any fencing used within or on the boundary of the Biodiversity Offset Areas will use nonbarbed 

(plain) wire only, as these areas are to be managed specifically for ecological 

purposes. The exclusion of barbed wire from fencing will minimise potential injury or death of 

fauna species, particularly macropods and gliding or flying mammals, such as the squirrel 

glider (Petaurus norfolcensis) and threatened micro-bats. 

Appropriate signage will be used throughout the Biodiversity Offset Areas to identify the 

areas as having high ecological significance and restricting unauthorised access. 

6.2.1.3 Weed Control 

The presence of weed species has the potential to be a major hindrance to revegetation and 

regeneration activities. In addition to this, the presence of weed species within the 

Biodiversity Offset Areas has the potential to significantly decrease the value of vegetation 

and habitat to native species, particularly threatened species. The presence of weeds will 

also devalue revegetation and regeneration activities in Biodiversity Offset Areas. 

Annual inspections of the Biodiversity Offset Areas will be undertaken to determine the need 

for weed control and appropriate weed control methods will be employed. 





The Ravensworth North Offset Area will be limited to mechanical removal of weeds only as 

the spraying of herbicides threatens the endangered green and golden bell frog (Litoria 

aurea). 

6.2.1.4 Feral Animal Control 

Introduced fauna species such as foxes, rabbits, pigs, wild dogs and feral cats have all been 

recorded in the Biodiversity Offset Areas. An increase in feral species within the Biodiversity 

Offset Areas has the potential to cause impacts on existing native species, particularly via 

predation and habitat destruction. In addition to this, a number of introduced herbivores have 

been recorded within the Project area, and are likely to be competing with native species and 

causing considerable damage to vegetation. 

Feral animal control will be undertaken following annual monitoring undertaken in the 

Biodiversity Offset Areas, if required. 

6.2.1.5 Bushfire Management 

The vegetation that will be retained within the Biodiversity Offset Areas will require 

appropriate bushfire management to protect the significant ecological features of the area. 

Bushfire planning will consider: 

� exclusion of planned bushfire from regeneration areas to allow replanted and 

regenerating communities to mature to a stage where they are able to withstand bushfire 

and regenerate naturally following such an event (nominally at least 15 years, but 

dependent on the success of plant establishment and the vegetation community present); 

� consideration of known records of threatened species and TECs; 

� the use of ecologically appropriate fire regimes (be they related to burn frequency or 

intensity), as these have the potential to impact negatively on significant ecological 

features; and 

� asset protection. 

Any bushfire management activities will incorporate up to date fire research knowledge to 

generate ecological outcomes through the appropriate use of fire as an ecological 

management tool. 

6.2.1.6 Adaptive Management 

A strong positive feedback loop between monitoring and adaptive management will be 

established. The management of the ecological components of the Project will be responsive 

to any new ecological data that may arise through the ecological monitoring of the 

Biodiversity Offset Areas, or any other studies completed as part of the Project. 

6.2.2 Regeneration and Remediation of Biodiversity Offset Areas 

Both the Hillcrest and Ravensworth North Offset Areas will be subject to regeneration and 

remediation activities in order to improve ecological value and threatened species habitat 

potential. The Hillcrest Offset Area has been divided into two areas in relation to the natural 

and assisted regeneration, remediation and management of the site. The northern portion of 

the Offset Area incorporates the valley footslopes and comprises well-vegetated areas and 

high quality vegetation communities. The southern portion of the Offset Area occurs on the 





Hunter Valley floor and has been heavily cleared and grazed in the past. Figure 5.6 shows 

the demarcation of the offset area into Hillcrest Offset Area (south) and Hillcrest Offset Area 

(north) for management purposes. 

The objectives of the natural and assisted regeneration and remediation of the Biodiversity 

Offset Areas are to: 

� re-establish vegetation consistent with extant vegetation communities and the likely pre- 

European extant vegetation; 

� re-establish fauna habitats consistent with extant fauna habitats of the Biodiversity Offset 

Areas; 

� re-establish threatened species habitat; and 

� provide increased connectivity from the Biodiversity Offset Areas to the north, south and 

east, particularly to the rehabilitation associated with adjacent Xstrata operations. 

The detailed approach to the regeneration and remediation of the Biodiversity Offset Area 

will be determined in the ROMP, however the following sections provide an overview of the 

likely approaches. 

6.2.2.1 Passive Regeneration and Remediation of Ravensworth North Offset Area 

Ravensworth North Offset Area is considered to provide high quality vegetation communities 

and fauna habitat and considerable threatened species habitat. The Offset Area is 

considered to be in moderate condition with some evidence of ongoing disturbance or areas 

requiring active remediation. The regeneration of vegetation communities in Ravensworth 

North Offset Area is expected to be passive and consist of the management weeds and feral 

animal control where required. Passive management activities will include: 

� weed management particularly focusing on galenia (Galenia pubescens) and African 

olive (Olea europea subsp. cuspidata) which are important environmental weeds that are 

capable of severe reduction in ecological value without targeted management activities; 

and 

� feral animal control if required. 

Through building on existing remnants, natural regeneration is proposed for areas of derived 

grassland (maximum area: 65 hectares) in the Ravensworth North Offset Area as shown on 

Figure 5.4. Open areas will be retained within the landscape to provide foraging habitat for 

the green and golden bell frog (Litoria aurea). Each of the woodland vegetation communities 

identified in the Ravensworth North Offset Area is expected to increase in area as a result of 

passive regeneration activities. Strategies for passive regeneration and remediation will be 

detailed in the ROMP prepared for the Project. 

6.2.2.2 Natural and Assisted Regeneration and Remediation of Hillcrest Offset Area 

(South) 

Natural Regeneration 

The Hillcrest Offset Area has been divided into separate management areas (north/south) to 

reflect the different management approaches required to address specific issues for each 

area based on differences in past land use. 





Remnant woody vegetation in the Hillcrest Offset Area is considered likely to range between 

5 and 150 years old. Although there are substantial areas of younger (less than 20 years 

old) regeneration present, most of the woody vegetation is likely to be at least 50 years old 

and up to 150 years old. Using a 5-10 year planning horizon for the regeneration of 

vegetation communities in the Hillcrest Offset Area, regenerated woodland and forest 

communities are expected to be approximately 20-25 years old over the life of the Project. 

Based on the age class of the areas of regrowth vegetation characteristic of the Project area 

(refer to Section 2.3), regenerated communities of a 20-25 year age class are considered 

likely to provide significant ecological values in a regional context. 

Much of the Hillcrest Offset Area is expected to naturally regenerate following the removal of 

grazing. It is proposed to remove and/or appropriately manage cattle grazing in areas of 

high quality derived grassland and the larger woodland remnants. It is envisaged that over 

time Central Hunter Ironbark – Spotted Gum – Grey Box Forest EEC (PD) will naturally 

regenerate in these areas without any additional assistance other than weed and feral animal 

control (refer to Section 5.8.2). In some cases specific planting might be required, 

particularly in remediation areas (see Figure 5.6) and where specific fauna habitats or 

vegetation corridors are being established (see below). 

As with the Ravensworth remnant, the removal of grazing will allow those species in the soil 

seed bank to germinate and create a self-sustaining vegetation community commensurate 

with the Central Hunter Ironbark – Spotted Gum – Grey Box Forest EEC (PD) currently 

occurring in the Offset Area and wider central Hunter Valley. 

The locations within the Hillcrest Offset Area (south) that are expected to naturally 

regenerate are shown on Figure 5.6. These areas are considered to be medium to high 

quality derived grasslands dominated by native grass and forb species and are located 

adjacent to or between existing remnants. These areas exhibit minimal erosion and while 

weed species are present, they are not out-competing native species. 

Natural regeneration, in combination with assisted regeneration in selected areas (refer to 

remediation of degraded areas) will result in the creation of linkages to the south and east of 

the Offset Area to adjacent habitats associated with Liddell coal mine and to habitats 

surrounding Lake Liddell. These habitat linkages will facilitate the movement of flora and 

fauna species through the landscape and will encourage the colonisation of regenerated 

habitats by flora and fauna species. The creation of corridors within the Offset Area will 

specifically benefit species such as woodland birds and bats and the green and golden bell 

frog (Litoria aurea) which has recently (2006) been recorded on the north-west shore of Lake 

Liddell. Open areas dominated by native grassland species will be retained in the Offset 

Area to provide habitat complexity and foraging niches for a wide range of native species 

such as the masked owl (Tyto novaehollandiae) and hooded robin (South-eastern form) 

(Melanodryas cucullata cucullata). 

Through building on existing remnants, natural regeneration is proposed for approximately 

300 hectares of Hillcrest Offset Area (south). 

Remediation of Degraded Areas 

Portions of the Hillcrest Offset Area (south) are subject to severe erosion and degradation in 

creeks, on slopes and in gullies. Areas proposed for remediation will be fenced to prevent 

access for cattle and a range of techniques will be employed to remediate the degraded land. 

Techniques will be detailed in the ROMP and may include: 

� prior to revegetation activities, the substrate will be characterised to determine the type 

and application rate that may be required for the addition of soil ameliorants 

(e.g. gypsum, lime, fertiliser, biosolids etc.); 





� appropriate soil ameliorants will be applied for incorporation into the final shaped surface; 

� where tree establishment is planned, final shaped surfaces will be deep ripped parallel 

with the contour prior to the application of seed to provide for an adequate seed bed; 

� suitable erosion control measures (e.g. catch drains, sediment dams, silt fences, mulches 

etc.) will be implemented to minimise soil loss from areas undergoing rehabilitation; 

� where appropriate and practical, structures such as tree hollows, logs and other woody 

debris will be incorporated into the final landform to augment the habitat value of the 

proposed vegetated corridors; 

� the installation of appropriate habitat structures (e.g. ponds) where practical; and 

� the planting and or direct seeding of local indigenous species. 

Eroded and degraded areas will remediated by Year 5 of the mining operation, as shown on 

Figure 5.6. Following remediation works, direct seeding and planting of tubestock will be 

undertaken in order to facilitate the rehabilitation of these degraded sites. As shown on 

Figure 5.6, creeks and gullies will be planted with species characteristic of the species 

composition and diversity known to occur in River-flat Eucalypt Forest EEC in the central 

Hunter Valley. Adjacent slopes will be planted with species characteristic of Central Hunter 

Ironbark Spotted Gum Grey Box Forest EEC (PD). 

Approximately 107 hectares of Hillcrest Offset Area (south) will be subject to remediation 

works. 

Augmentation of Fauna Habitat 

The augmentation of fauna habitat is a critical component of the regeneration and 

remediation of the Hillcrest Offset Area (south). Limited threatened species habitat has been 

identified in this portion of the Offset Area, however it is expected to provide high quality 

threatened woodland bird and micro-bat habitat following the regeneration and remediation 

of habitats. 

A range of fauna habitats and micro-habitats will be re-instated into the regenerating 

landscape of Hillcrest Offset Area (south). The extent and location of habitat augmentation 

will be detailed in the ROMP. Habitat augmentation will include: 

� provision of supplementary and augmented habitat for the green and golden bell frog 

(Litoria aurea) in accordance with strategies outlined in Section 5.8.9; 

� exclusion and/or management of cattle grazing in accordance with Section 6.2.1.1; 

� installation of nest boxes to supplement arboreal fauna habitat. Once rehabilitation is 

structurally mature, nest boxes will be installed in similar densities to those in unaffected 

vegetation on the site. Nest box design will consider the full range of hollow-dependent 

species known or expected to occur in the Hillcrest Offset Area, in particular hollowdependent 

threatened fauna species such as the squirrel glider (Petaurus norfolcensis) 

and threatened tree-roosting woodland birds and micro-bats. The re-instated density of 

salvaged tree hollows and nest boxes in rehabilitation areas will be carried out taking into 

consideration the carrying capacity of the rehabilitated vegetation in which the boxes are 

being established; 





� consideration of the structural diversity of regenerating vegetation communities (e.g. 

ground layer, shrub layer, small tree and canopy layers) to provide a range of structural 

habitat attributes and therefore habitat niches in regenerated communities; and 

� weed and feral animal control in accordance with Sections 6.2.1.2 and 6.2.1.3. 

6.2.2.3 Passive Regeneration and Remediation of Hillcrest Offset Area (North) 

Hillcrest Offset Area (north) (refer to Figure 5.6) is considered to provide high quality 

vegetation communities and fauna habitat and considerable threatened species habitat. This 

portion of the Hillcrest Offset Area is considered to be in good condition with little evidence of 

ongoing disturbance or areas requiring active remediation. The regeneration of vegetation 

communities in Hillcrest Offset Area (north) is expected to be passive and consist of the 

management and/or exclusion of grazing and weed and feral animal control. Based on the 

regeneration of woodland communities in the Ravensworth remnant, regenerated 

communities of a 20-25 year age class are considered likely to provide significant ecological 

values in a regional context. Passive management activities will include: 

� weed management particularly focusing on African olive (Olea europea subsp. cuspidata) 

and blackberry (Rubus fruticosus sp. agg.), which are important environmental weeds 

that are capable of severe reduction in ecological value without targeted management 

activities; 

� grazing management and/or exclusion at Hillcrest Offset Area (north) in accordance with 

Section 6.2.1.1; and 

� feral animal control if required. 

Through building on existing remnants, natural regeneration is proposed for approximately 

228 hectares of Hillcrest Offset Area (north). All of the vegetation communities identified in 

the Hillcrest Offset Area are expected to increase in area as a result of grazing management. 

6.2.3 General Ecosystem Monitoring 

Monitoring of retained vegetation and fauna habitats will be undertaken on an annual basis 

by an appropriately qualified and experienced ecologist in both the Ravensworth North and 

Hillcrest Offset Areas. The condition of retained vegetation within the Biodiversity Offset 

Areas will be monitored to identify any deterioration or improvement in habitat quality. The 

monitoring surveys will assess and systematically record the following vegetation 

characteristics: 

� general health of vegetation; 

� evidence of natural regeneration; 

� occurrence and abundance of weed species; 

� signs of disturbance, either by stock or humans; 

� evidence of feral animals; and 

� any observable impacts on the Offset Areas such as (but not including) erosion, dieback, 

unauthorised access or grazing, that could threatened the ecological integrity of the 

Offset Areas. 





An annual site inspection is proposed to ensure that the Offset Areas continue to provide an 

appropriate ecological offset for the Project. 

6.2.4 Ravensworth North Offset Area Monitoring 


Systematic fauna monitoring is proposed for Ravensworth North Offset Area due to the 

potential for adverse impacts from adjacent mining operations. Monitoring will be undertaken 

at two permanent monitoring locations biennially for the duration of the Project. 

At each of the proposed monitoring points, a range of fauna survey techniques will be 

employed to determine ongoing fauna use of habitat within the Ravensworth North Offset 

Area, specifically targeting key threatened species known to occur in the Ravensworth North 

Offset Area and wider the Project area. Monitoring of fauna will be undertaken every two 

years, and will be undertaken by suitably qualified and experienced ecologists. The types of 

surveys that will be required to undertake adequate monitoring of fauna may include 

spotlighting, herpetological surveys, diurnal and nocturnal bird surveys, Anabat echolocation 

call detection, and the use of hair funnels to detect terrestrial and arboreal mammals. Fauna 

surveys will specifically target threatened species previously recorded, or with potential to 

occur, within the area. The results of the monitoring will be analysed and compared to 

previous survey results to determine general trends and as necessary, appropriate 

management measures will be implemented as a result of monitoring outcomes. 

Monitoring for the green and golden bell frog (Litoria aurea) will be undertaken in accordance 

with Section 5.8.9. 

6.2.4.2 River-flat Eucalypt Forest EEC Monitoring 

Two permanent 20 metre by 20 metre vegetation plots will be established in River-flat 

Eucalypt Forest EEC to monitor the impact of mining in adjacent habitats. The permanent 

plots will be re-sampled over time and compared to previous surveys to provide detailed 

information on changes to the floristic or structural composition of the community. In the 

event that monitoring identifies a negative impact on the community Ravensworth Operations 

are committed to minimising identified impacts and maintaining the ecological integrity of the 

EEC. 

Monitoring of Fiver-flat Eucalypt Forest EEC will be undertaken biennially in conjunction with 

fauna monitoring. 

6.2.5 Hillcrest Offset Area 


Systematic fauna monitoring will be employed in the Hillcrest Offset Area if the general 

ecosystem monitoring undertaken in accordance with Section 4.1.2 indicates deterioration in 

habitat quality. As with the monitoring Ravensworth North Offset Area, the types of surveys 

that will be required may include spotlighting, herpetological surveys, diurnal and nocturnal 

bird surveys, Anabat echolocation call detection, and the use of hair funnels to detect 

terrestrial and arboreal mammals. Fauna surveys will specifically target threatened species 

previously recorded, or with potential to occur, within the area. 

The results of the monitoring will be analysed and compared to previous survey results to 

determine general trends and as necessary, appropriate management measures will be 

implemented as a result of monitoring outcomes. 





6.2.5.2 Vegetation Community Monitoring 

Vegetation community monitoring in the Hillcrest Offset Area is required when the results of 

the general ecosystem monitoring indicate a deterioration in vegetation floristic or structural 

diversity or in condition. In this event, permanent 20 metre by 20 metre plots will be 

established and monitored over a period of (at least) five years to determine if impact 

mitigation works are successful in reversing the trend of vegetation community decline. 

6.2.5.3 Vegetation Community Re-establishment Monitoring 

The monitoring of areas of regeneration in will be undertaken annually, until the relevant 

completion criteria have been met. The monitoring of these areas will identify any areas of 

land degradation and will allow for the identification of priority areas for remediation and 

rehabilitation. Permanent monitoring plots will be established within areas of regeneration in 

both the Ravensworth North Offset Area and Hillcrest Offset Area. 

Permanent monitoring plots will consist of quadrats which will be established in natural and 

assisted regeneration areas. These will be re-sampled annually, and the resulting data will 

be compared to previous results to identify changes to the vegetation between each 

monitoring period. The locations of the plots will be determined following the 

commencement of regeneration activities, and additional plots will be added to the 

monitoring program as regeneration progresses. 

The results from this monitoring will provide a comparison of flora species and abundance 

over time and will be used to determine whether the regeneration works have achieved the 

objective of creating self-sustaining native vegetation communities. 

Monitoring of any revegetated areas will include an assessment of the following features: 

� general impressions on revegetation germination rates; 

� plant health; 

� feral animals and the need for control measures; 

� weed infestation and the need for control measures; 

� requirements for additional planting to be undertaken; 

� need for further application of soil improver; 

� erosion and the need for repair of eroded areas; 

� fire management; 

� quality, effectiveness and need for protection; 

� signs of disturbance, either by animals or humans; and 

� success of any management programs implemented following previous monitoring 

inspections. 

Monitoring results will be assessed and utilised in the continual improvement and refinement 

of rehabilitation and revegetation techniques and will be documented as part of the annual 

environmental reporting. 



Ravensworth Operations Project References 


7.0 References 

Allison, F R & Hoye, G A, 2002. Eastern Freetail-bat, in: The Mammals of Australia Revised 

Edition, ed R Strahan, Reed New Holland, Sydney, pp. 484-485. 

Andrews Neil, 1999. Synoptic plan integrated landscapes for coal mine rehabilitation in the 

Hunter Valley of NSW. Prepared for New South Wales Department of Mineral 

Resources 

Anstis, M, 2002. Tadpoles of South-eastern Australia. Reed New Holland, Sydney. 

AUSRIVAS, 2007. AUSRIVAS, Australian River Assessment System, internet resources, 

www.ausrivas.canberra.edu.au Accessed January 2009. 

Austin, M, P, Cawsey, E, M, Baker, B, L, Yialeloglou, M, M, Grice, D, J, and Briggs, S, V, 

2000. Predicted Vegetation Cover in the Central Lachlan Region. Final report of the 

Natural Heritage Trust Project AA 1368.97. CSIRO Wildlife and Ecology, Canberra. 

Barrett, G, W, Ford, H, A, and Recher, H, F, 1994. Conservation of woodland birds in a 

fragmented rural landscape. Pacific Conservation Biology 1: 245-256. 

Barker, J, Grigg, G, C, & Tyler, M, J, 1995. A Field Guide to Australian Frogs. Surrey Beatty 

& Sons, Sydney. 

Bean J, M, 1999. Bothriochloa biloba (Poaceae) in natural grasslands on slopes of the 

Liverpool Plains, New South Wales. Cunninghamia 6(2): 383-387. 

Botanic Gardens Trust, 2008-2009. PlantNET – The Plant Information Network System of 

Botanic Gardens Trust, Sydney, Australia (version 2.0). 

accessed November 2008-May 2009. 

Braun-Blanquet, J, 1927. Pflanzensoziologie. Springer, Vienna. 

Branagan, D. F. and Packham, G.H. 2000 Field Geology of New South Wales. Third Edition. 

New South Wales Department of Mineral Resources, Sydney. 

Briggs, J, D, and Leigh, J, H, 1996. Rare or Threatened Australian Plants. CSIRO, 

Canberra. 

Chessman, B, 1995. Rapid Assessment of Rivers Using Macroinvertebrates: A Procedure 

Based Habitat Specific Sampling, Family Level Identification and Biotic Index. 

Australian Journal of Ecology, 20:122-129. 

Chessman, B, 2003. New sensitivity grades for Australian river macroinvertebrates. Marine 

and Freshwater Research, 54:95-103. 

Chessman, B, Growns, J, and Kotlash, A, 1997. Objective derivation of macroinvertebrate 

family sensitivity grade numbers for the SIGNAL biotic index: application to the 

Hunter River system, New South Wales. Marine and Freshwater Research, 48:159- 

172. 

Churchill, S, 1998. Australian Bats. Reed New Holland, Sydney. 

Churchill, S, 2008. Australian Bats. Reed New Holland, Sydney. 





Cogger, H, G, 2000. Reptiles and Amphibians of Australia. Reed Books, Chatswood. 

Cronquist, A, 1981. An Integrated System of Classification of Flowering Plants. Columbia 

University Press, New York. 

Daly, G, Craven, P, and Hyatt, A, 2008. Surveys for the green and golden bell frog Litoria 

aurea at Meroo National Park on the south coast of New South Wales. Australian 

Zoologist 34: 303-313. 

(DEC) Department of Environment and Conservation NSW, 2004. Threatened Species 

Survey and Assessment: Guidelines for development and activities (working draft). 

Department of Environment and Conservation NSW, Hurstville, NSW. 

(DEC) Department of Environment and Conservation NSW ( 2005) Draft Recovery Plan for 

the Green and Golden Bell Frog (Litoria aurea). DEC NSW, Hurstville, NSW. 

(DECC) Department of Environment and Climate Change NSW, 2008a. Principles for the 

use of biodiversity offsets in New South Wales (accessed January 2009) 

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/biocertification/offsets.htm 

(DECC) Department of Environment and Climate Change NSW, 2008b. NSW Threatened 

Species Profiles (accessed January 2009) 

www.threatenedspecies.environment.nsw.gov.au/tsprofile/index.aspx 

(DECC) Department of Environment and Climate Change NSW, 2007. Management Plan. 

.Green and Golden Bell Frog Key Population in the Upper Hunter. Department of 

Environment and Climate Change (NSW) Sydney. 

(DECC and DPI) Department of Environment and Climate Change NSW and NSW 

Department of Primary Industry, 2005. Draft guidelines for Threatened species 

assessment. Department of Environment and Climate Change NSW and NSW 

Department of Primary Industry, NSW. 

(DPI) NSW Department of Primary Industry, 2008c. Threatened species assessment 

guidelines the assessment of significance. NSW Department of Primary Industries, 

NSW. 

Dwyer, P, D, 2002. Common Bentwing-bat, in: The Mammals of Australia Revised Edition, 

Strahan, R, (ed) 2002. Reed New Holland, Sydney, pp. 494 - 495. 

ERM Mitchell McCotter 1998. Extension of Mining Operations at Ravensworth Mine. Report 

prepared for Peabody Resources. 

Garnett, S, T, and Crowley, G, M, 2000. The Action Plan for Australian Birds. Environment 

Australia. 

Glen Hoye, 2008. Personal Communication: Mr Glenn Hoye, Fly By Night Bat Surveys, 

Newcastle. 

Goldingay, R, L, 2008. Can the community contribute to conservation of the endangered 

green and golden bell frog at Port Kembla? Australian Zoologist 34: 387-392. 

Goldingay, R, L, and Lewis, B, 1999. Development of a conservation strategy for the green 

and golden bell frog in the Illawarra region of NSW. Australian Zoologist 31: 376-87. 





Goldingay, R, L, and Newell, D, A, 2005. Aspects of the population ecology of the green and 

golden bell frog at the northern end of its range. Australian Zoologist 33: 49-59. 

Hamer, A, J, Lane, S, J, and Mahony, M, J, 2008. Movement patterns of adult green and 

golden bell frogs Litoria aurea and the implications for conservation management. 

Journal of Herpetology 42: 397-407. 

Harden, G, J, editor, 1992. Flora of New South Wales. Volume 3. Royal Botanic Gardens 

Sydney & New South Wales University Press, Sydney. 

Harden, G, J, editor, 1993. Flora of New South Wales. Volume 4. Royal Botanic Gardens 

Sydney & New South Wales University Press, Sydney. 

Harden, G, J, editor, 2000. Flora of New South Wales. Volume 1. 2 nd edition. New South 

Wales University Press and Royal Botanic Gardens, Sydney. 

Harden, G, J, editor, 2002. Flora of New South Wales. Volume 2. Revised edition. Royal 

Botanic Gardens Sydney & New South Wales University Press, Sydney. 

Harris, J, H, and Gerhke, P, C, 1997. Fish and Rivers in Stress. The NSW Rivers Survey. 

NSW Fisheries Office of Conservation / Cooperative Research Centre for 

Freshwater Ecology: Sydney / Canberra. 

Hawley, S.P. and Brunton, J.S. 1995 The Newcastle Coalfield. Notes to Accompany the 

1:100,000 Newcastle Coalfield Regional Geology Map. Geological survey report 

GS1995/256. Department of Mineral Resources, Sydney. 

Healthy Rivers Commission of New South Wales, 2002. Independent Inquiry into the Hunter 

River System. Healthy Rivers Commission, Sydney. 

Hill, L, 2003. The Natural Vegetation of Maitland Local Government Area. Prepared for 

Maitland City Council. 

HLA-Envirosciences Pty Limited, 1996. Environmental Impact Statement for Cumnock No1 

Colliery Expansion. Report prepared for Cumnock No 1 Colliery. 

HLA-Envirosciences 2001. Environmental Impact Statement – Cumnock No. 1 Colliery Mine 

Life Extension. Report prepared for Cumnock No 1 Colliery. 

Hoye, G, A, 1999. Survey for Bats of the Liddell or Barrett Seams, Cumnock No 1 Colliery, 

near Ravensworth, New South Wales. Report prepared for Cumnock Collieries. 

Hoye, G, A, and Dwyer, P, D, 2002. Large-eared Pied Bat, in: The Mammals of Australia 

Revised Edition, Strahan, R, (ed) 2002. Reed New Holland, Sydney, pp. 510-511. 

Hoye, G, Murray, M, Mahoney, M, and Clulow J. 2008. Mt Owen Complex Fauna Monitoring 

2007. Report prepared for Mt Owen Coal Mine. 

Jacobs, S, W, L, and Wall, C, A, 1993. Bothriochloa. Pp. 439-441 in G. Harden (ed) Flora of 

New South Wales: Volume 4. University of New South Wales Press and Royal 

Botanic Gardens, Sydney. 

Kavanagh, R, P, 2002. Conservation and management of large forest owls in southeastern 

Australia, in: Ecology and Conservation of Owls, eds I Newton, R Kavanagh, J 

Olsen and I Taylor, CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood Australia. 





Kavanagh, R, P, 2004. Conserving Owls in Sydney’s Urban Bushland: Current Status and 

Requirements, in: Urban Wildlife – more than meets the eye, eds. D Lunney and S 

Burgin, Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales, Mosman, Sydney. 

Kovac, M. and Lawrie J.W., 1991. Soil Landscapes of the Singleton 1:250,000 Sheet. Soil 

Conservation Service of New South Wales, Sydney. 

Marine Pollution Research, 2000. Aquatic Ecological Aspects (Fish Habitat) Cumnock No. 1 

Colliery. Report prepared for HLA-Envirosciences Pty Limited. 

Marine Pollution Research, 2001. Aquatic Ecological Aspects (Fish Habitat) Ashton Coal 

Project. Report prepared for HLA-Envirosciences Pty Limited. 

McClung, G. 1980. Permian Marine Sedimentation in the Northern Sydney Basin. Pp 55-72 

in C. Herbert and R. Helby (eds) A Guide to the Sydney Basin. A Geological Survey 

of New South Wales Bulletin No. 26. Department of Mineral Resources, Sydney. 

McInnes-Clarke, S.K. 2002. Soil Landscapes of the Murrurundi 1:100,000 Sheet (Parkville, 

Kars Springs, Murrurundi, Quirindi, Wallabadah). Department of Land and water 

conservation, Sydney. 

Menkhorst, P, and Knight, F, 2004. A Field Guide to the Mammals of Australia, Oxford 

University Press, South Melbourne. 

(Mt King and Gingra) Mt King Ecological Surveys and Gingra Ecological Surveys, 2006. 

Biodiversity Monitoring – Cumnock No. 1 Colliery. Flora and Fauna Studies. Report 

prepared for Cumnock No 1 Colliery. 

(Mt King and Gingra) Mt King Ecological Surveys and Gingra Ecological Surveys, 2007. 

Biodiversity Monitoring – Cumnock No. 1 Colliery. Flora and Fauna Studies. Report 

prepared for Cumnock No 1 Colliery. 

(NPWS) NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service 2000. Hygiene Protocol for the Control of 

Disease in Frogs. Information Circular No 6. 

(NPWS) NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service 2003. Environmental Impact Assessment 

Guidelines: Green and Golden Bell Frog Litoria aurea. 

NSW Scientific Committee, 2001a. Final Determination – Brown Treecreeper – Vulnerable 

Species Listing. 

NSW Scientific Committee, 2001b. Final Determination – Speckled Warbler – Vulnerable 


NSW Scientific Committee, 2001c. Final Determination – Hooded Robin – Vulnerable 


NSW Scientific Committee, 2001d. Final Determination – Grey-crowned Babbler – 

Vulnerable Species Listing. 

NSW Scientific Committee, 2001e. Final Determination – Grey-headed Flying-fox – 

Vulnerable Species Listing. 

NSW Scientific Committee, 2005. Final Determination – grey-headed flying fox – Vulnerable 






Peake, T, C, 2006. The Vegetation of the Central Hunter Valley, New South Wales. A 

Report on the Findings of the Hunter Remnant Vegetation Project. Hunter – Central 

Rivers Catchment Management Authority, Paterson. 

Phillips, W, 2002. Eastern false pipistrelle Falsistrellus tasmaniensis, in: The Mammals of 

Australia Revised Edition, Strahan, R, (ed) 2002. Reed New Holland, Sydney, pp. 

520-521. 

Pyke, G, H, and White, A, W, 1996. Habitat requirements for the green and golden bell frog 

Litoria aurea (Anura: Haylidae). Australian Zoologist 30: 224-232. 

Pyke, G, H, White, A, W, Bishop, P, J, and Waldman, B, 2002. Habitat-use by the green and 

golden bell frog Litoria aurea in Australia and New Zealand. Australian Zoologist 32: 

12-31. 

Pizzey, G, and Knight, F, 1997. Field guide to birds of Australia: seventh edition. Harper 

Collins Publishers, Sydney. 

Poore, M, E, D, 1955. The use of phytosociological methods in ecological investigations. I. 

The Braun-Blanquet system. Journal of Ecology 42: 216-224. 

Richards, G, C, 2002. Large-footed Myotis Myotis adversus, in: The Mammals of Australia 

Revised Edition, Strahan, R, (ed) 2002. Reed New Holland, pp. 521-523. 

Roberts, D, E, Murray, S, R, 2005. Assessment of assemblages of fish associated with 

upgrading the Bowmans Creek rail bridge crossing. Preliminary report to Cardno 

Lawson Treloar Pty Ltd. BIO-ANALYSIS: Marine, Estuarine & Freshwater Ecology, 

Narara. 

Robinson, M, 1998. A Field Guide to Frogs of Australia. Australian Museum/Reed New 

Holland, Sydney. 

Slater, P, Slater, P, and Slater, R, 2003. The Slater Field Guide to Australian Birds. Reed 

New Holland, Sydney. 

Strahan, R, (ed) 2002. The Mammals of Australia Revised Edition. Reed New Holland, 

Sydney. 

Swan, G, Shea, G, and Sadlier, R, 2004. A Field Guide to Reptiles of New South Wales. 

Reed New Holland, Sydney. 

Swift Parrot Recovery Team, 2001. Swift Parrot Recovery Plan. Department of Primary 

Industries, Water and Environment, Hobart. 

Tidemann, C, R, 2002. Grey-headed flying-fox, in: The Mammals of Australia Revised 

Edition, Strahan, R, (ed) 2002. Reed New Holland, Sydney, pp. 439 - 441. 

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited, 2003. Mt Owen Operations Environmental Impact 

Statement. 

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited, 2005. Flora and Fauna Management Strategy Ravensworth 

West Mine. Report prepared for Ravensworth Operations Pty Limited. 





Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited, 2000. Flora and Fauna Assessment Proposed Modification 

to Reject Emplacement and Water Management Systems. Report prepared for 

Nardell Colliery Pty Ltd. 

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited, 2008. Cumnock Wash Plant Pit Mining and Rehabilitation 

Project. Report prepared for Cumnock No.1 Colliery. 

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited, 2009. Biodiversity and Land Management Strategy Stage 2. 

Ecological Characteristics of XCN Non-operational Land. Report prepared for 

Xstrata Pty Limited. 

Walters, J, Ford, H and Cooper, C, 1999. The ecological basis of sensitivity of Brown 

Treecreepers to habitat fragmentation: a preliminary assessment. Biological 

Conservation 90, 13-20. 

Weigel, J, 1990. Australian Reptile Park’s Guide to Snakes of South-East Australia. Weigel 

Postscript. 

Wellington, R, C, and Haering, R, 2001. Hygiene Protocol for the Control of Disease in 

Frogs. Information Circular Number 6. NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service, 

Hurstville NSW. 

Wheeler D, J, B, Jacobs S, W, L, and Whalley R, D, B, 2002. Grasses of New South Wales, 

3 rd Edition. The University of New England, Armidale. 

Wilson, S, and Swan, G, 2008. A Complete Guide to Reptiles of Australia. Reed New 

Holland, Sydney. 

Yu, P, Prakash, N, and Whalley, R, D, B, 2003. Sexual and apomictic seed development in 

the vulnerable grass Bothriochloa biloba. Australian Journal of Botany 51(1): 75-84. 



APPENDIX A 

Biodiversity Offset Strategy 

Supporting Documentation



Supporting Documentation 


February 2010



Supporting Documentation 

Prepared by 


on behalf of 


Project Director: Barbara Crossley 

Project Manager: Tim Crosdale 

Report No. 2383/R10/Final Date: February 2010 

2/20 The Boulevarde 

PO Box 838 

Toronto NSW 2283 

Ph: 02 4950 5322 

Fax: 02 4950 5737 

Email: mail@umwelt.com.au 

Website: www.umwelt.com.au

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1.0� Introduction ................................................................................. 1� 

2.0� Survey Methodology ................................................................... 1� 

2.1� Hillcrest Offset Area ............................................................................. 1� 

2.1.1� Literature Review ................................................................................................ 1� 

2.1.2� Flora Survey ....................................................................................................... 2� 

2.1.3� Vegetation Mapping ............................................................................................ 5� 

2.1.4� Fauna Survey ..................................................................................................... 6� 

2.2� Ravensworth North Offset Area .......................................................... 7� 

2.3� Habitat and Condition Assessment Methodology ............................. 7� 

3.0� Results of Surveys in Biodiversity Offset Areas ...................... 8� 

3.1� Fauna Species List ............................................................................... 8� 

3.2� Flora Species Lists ............................................................................. 15� 

3.2.1� Hillcrest Offset Area Flora Species List ............................................................ 16� 

3.2.2� Ravensworth North Offset Area ....................................................................... 25� 

FIGURES 

2.1 Hillcrest Offset Area Flora Survey Effort .................................................... 3 

2.2 Hillcrest Offset Area Fauna Survey Sites ................................................... 6 

2.3 Hillcrest Offset Condition Assessment ....................................................... 8 


2383/R10/Final February 2010 i

1.0 Introduction 

The Biodiversity Offset Strategy includes the long-term conservation of two areas: the on-site 

Ravensworth North Offset Area (refer to Figure 5.2 of the Ecological Assessment) and the 

Hillcrest Offset Area (Figure 5.3 of the Ecological Assessment) at Liddell, approximately 

6 kilometres to the north of the project area. 

The Ravensworth North Offset Area covers approximately 262 hectares and is located to the 

north of the proposed disturbance area between the out-of-pit dump and the New England 

Highway and includes Davis Creek. The Hillcrest Offset Area covers about 1392 hectares of 

ecologically significant vegetation and fauna habitats and is considered an important addition 

to flora and fauna species conservation outcomes in the Hunter Valley. 

This Biodiversity Offset Strategy Supporting Document includes the details of the survey 

methodology employed at the Hillcrest Offset Area and the flora and fauna species lists 

compiled following the completion of surveys at both the Ravensworth North and Hillcrest 

Offset Areas. Section 5.9 of the Ecological Assessment provides details of the proposed 

Biodiversity Offset Strategy including a discussion of the substantial ecological values of both 

sites. 

2.0 Survey Methodology 

2.1 Hillcrest Offset Area 

Ecological survey of the Hillcrest Offset Area was undertaken across two seasons with the 

first survey undertaken as part of the Xstrata Biodiversity and Land Management Strategy 

(Umwelt 2009) in June 2008. Additional detailed survey was undertaken in February 2009, 

September 2009 and December 2009. 

The purpose of the June 2008 field survey was to delineate and describe vegetation 

communities and to record any potentially occurring threatened flora and fauna species, 

endangered populations and threatened ecological communities (TECs). The delineation of 

vegetation communities was undertaken through the use of aerial photograph interpretation 

and ground-truthing field surveys, which are described in the following sections. Fauna 

surveys comprised opportunistic observations only. 

The February, September and December 2009 surveys at Hillcrest Offset Area aimed to 

further ground-truth vegetation mapping and to undertake targeted fauna and threatened 

species surveys. 

2.1.1 Literature Review 

A review of all relevant and available literature was undertaken in order to gain a greater 

understanding of the ecological values of the Hillcrest Offset Area. Documents reviewed 

included previous ecological studies relating to sites with proximity to the Hillcrest Offset 

Area, regional vegetation mapping, relevant papers in scientific journals and threatened 

species information resources such as the Department of Environment, Climate Change and 

Water (DECCW) internet resources. 

The literature review also included a search of relevant ecological databases to identify 

threatened species, endangered populations and TECs that have been previously recorded 

in, or with proximity to, the Hillcrest Offset Area. 



A summary of the ecological findings of the key literature is provided in the following 

sections. 

2.1.1.1 Xstrata Biodiversity and Land Management Strategy Stage 2b (Umwelt 2009) 

The Xstrata Biodiversity and Land Management Strategy (BLMS) (Umwelt 2009) aims to 

document the vegetation communities, threatened species, populations and ecological 

communities on non-operational land managed by Xstrata Coal NSW (XCN). 

A gap analysis was conducted initially to determine the information available for each XCN 

operation. For areas where there was limited existing ecological information, field surveys 

were conducted to delineate and describe vegetation communities, and to document the 

occurrence of threatened species, populations and ecological communities. For areas where 

there was existing and reliable information available, surveys were conducted to ground-truth 

existing vegetation mapping and to record any additional threatened species, endangered 

populations or TECs. A field survey was conducted at Liddell Operations which included the 

Hillcrest Offset Area, to ground-truth regional scale vegetation mapping previously 

undertaken by Peake (2006) and to opportunistically record flora and fauna. 

This report included non-operational land at Liddell (which included the Hillcrest Offset Area) 

and therefore provided vegetation mapping and information on threatened species, 

populations or ecological communities within the Hillcrest Offset Area. 

2.1.1.2 Ecological Database Searches 

In order to identify all threatened species, endangered populations and TECs with the 

potential to occur in the Hillcrest Offset Area, an assessment of relevant ecological 

databases was completed. These database sources comprised: 

� a 10 kilometre radius search from the centre of the Hillcrest Offset Area of the DECCW 

Atlas of NSW Wildlife (January 2009); and 

� a 10 kilometre radius search from the centre of the Hillcrest Offset Area of the 

Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA) Protected Matters 

Database (January 2009). 

Records from these database searches were combined with records derived through 

literature reviews and professional opinion to identify the range of potentially occurring 

threatened species. The identification of potentially occurring threatened species was then 

used to assist in the development of appropriate survey methods. 

2.1.2 Flora Survey 

2.1.2.1 Systematic Plot-based Survey 

Systematic 400 m 2 plots were used to undertake semi-quantitative sampling of vegetation 

within the Hillcrest Offset Area. The typical dimensions of the plots sampled were 20 metres 

by 20 metres. 

Systematic survey sites were selected by considering a range of attributes that were 

considered to influence or determine the type of vegetation communities present. This 

stratification was done intuitively, but based on existing topographic, soil, vegetation and 

geological mapping. Other factors considered included the spacing of sites across the site, 

as well as topographic position and aspect. 



Plots were located to sample each stratification unit as representatively as possible, while 

recognising the limitations in finding representative locations within inherently heterogeneous 

vegetation communities. The location of each plot was recorded using a 1:25,000 

topographic map sheet, as well as a GPS. A total of 5 systematic plots were sampled during 

the flora surveys, specifically focusing in communities that were considered to have potential 

to comprise a TEC. 

At each plot, roughly 45 to 60 minutes were spent by two ecologists searching for all vascular 

flora species present within the plot. Searches of each plot were generally undertaken 

through parallel transects from one side of the plot to another. Most effort was spent on 

examining the groundcover, because at most sites this supported well over half of all 

species. However, at each plot the surveys also thoroughly examined the shrub layer, midunderstorey, 

canopy and emergents. Effort was made to search the canopy and tree trunks 

for mistletoes, vines and epiphytes. The location of systematic plots is shown on Figure 2.1. 

Species within the plot were assigned a cover-abundance value (Table 2.1) to reflect their 

relative cover and abundance in the plot. A modified Braun-Blanquet 6-point scale (Braun- 

Blanquet 1927, with modifications by Poore 1955 and Austin et al. 2000) was used to 

estimate the cover-abundances of all plant species within each plot. 

Table 2.1 - Modified Braun-Blanquet Crown Cover-abundance Scale 

Class Cover-abundance* Notes 

1 Few individuals (less than 5% 

cover) 

2 Many individuals (less than 5% 

cover) 



5 50%– less than 75% cover 

6 75% – 100% cover 

Forbs, sedges and grasses: < 5 individuals 

Shrubs and small trees: < 5 individuals 

Forbs, sedges and grasses: 5 or more 

individuals 

Shrubs and small trees: 5 or more individuals 

Medium-large overhanging tree 

Note: * Modified Braun-Blanquet scale (Braun-Blanquet 1927; Poore 1955; Austin et al. 2000). 

2.1.2.2 Rapid Assessment Vegetation Sampling 

Rapid vegetation assessments were completed across the Hillcrest Offset Area, primarily to 

assist in the delineation and refinement of vegetation mapping. These assessment sites were 

located within each broadly mapped vegetation community to allow data collection for each 

community without confounding effects from adjacent communities. Dominant, common and 

some uncommon plant taxa were recorded within each vegetation community along random 

meandering tracks, carried out by foot, at each location. The location of rapid vegetation 

assessments completed within the Hillcrest Offset Area is provided on Figure 2.1. 

The rapid vegetation assessments did not utilise a quantitative sampling approach (such as 

those described above in Section 2.1.2.1), as this method was designed to allow rapid 

collection of non-quantitative species dominance data across the Hillcrest Offset Area within 

limited timeframes. A meandering technique was selected over the plot-based method since 

the amount of replicate plots that could have been sampled within each vegetation unit was 

limited by a restricted survey time. The meandering technique at each location increased the 

amount of data that could be collected within the available survey time, thereby maximising 

the quality and coverage of vegetation description and mapping. 



The relative abundance of vascular plants recorded within each vegetation community used 

a four-point scoring system, shown in Table 2.2. At each assessment site, records were 

made of all dominant plants, most common plants and a selection of occasional and 

localised plants to facilitate further description of the vegetation community. 

Table 2.2 – Relative Cover-Abundance Scoring System 

used in Rapid Vegetation Assessments 

Relative Abundance in Vegetation Community Field code Numerical Code 

(for data entry) 

Dominant D 4 

Common C 3 

Localised patches (not dominant) L 2 

Occasional and uncommon O 1 

2.1.2.3 Targeted Threatened Flora Transects 

Targeted flora transects are useful for detecting threatened flora species across large areas, 

as they enable the surveyor to cover large proportions of the area under investigation, unlike 

plot-based surveys. 

Extensive dedicated transects were walked across most of the Hillcrest Offset Area to search 

for threatened flora species thought to have some potential to occur within the Hillcrest Offset 

Area based on ecological knowledge and also the outcomes of the literature review. 

Transects were variable in length and location, and were tailored to suit the environment in 

which they occurred. In all cases, searches were made in all strata, and around dams and 

riparian areas. The locations of targeted threatened flora transects is shown on Figure 2.1. 

2.1.2.4 Determination of Threatened Ecological Communities 

Vegetation communities identified in the Hillcrest Offset Area were compared to threatened 

ecological communities (TECs) listed under the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 

1995 (TSC Act) and the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity 

Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). 

The assessment of similarity with TECs was made using the following approach: 

� comparison with published species lists, including lists of ‘important species’, for the TSC 

Act and EPBC Act listed TECs; 

� comparison with habitat descriptions and distributions for the TSC Act and EPBC Act 

listed TECs; and 

� assessment using guidelines published by the former Commonwealth Department of 

Environment and Heritage and the former NSW Department of Environment and Climate 

Change. 

2.1.2.5 Biases and Limitations 

The survey was influenced by limitations in time and by seasonal factors as the survey was 

conducted during three seasons only (winter, summer and spring). The use of consistent 

surveyors for the sampling effort helped to minimise observer bias which may occur when 

surveys are conducted by more than one surveyor. Despite this, specific surveys conducted 



during some of the drier parts of the overall survey period were affected by the impact of 

drought conditions on plant flowering and fruiting. 

For herbaceous and graminoid species, such as those belonging to the families Asteraceae, 

Orchidaceae, Cyperaceae and Poaceae, the allocation of specimens to sub-specific levels 

was affected by the availability of adequate flowering or fruiting material. In this case 

specimens were always forwarded to the National Herbarium of New South Wales if they 

were considered to be of potential significance or importance. 

2.1.2.6 Total Flora Survey Effort 

Flora surveys were undertaken during the following months and seasons: 

� winter (June); 

� summer (February); 

� spring (September); and 

� summer (December). 

As a result of all botanical surveys, the following total sampling effort was conducted: 

� ten 20 metre x 20 metre plots sampled; 

� 42 rapid vegetation assessment points; and 

� approximately 18 kilometres of walking transects, specifically targeting threatened flora 

species. 

Figure 2.1 displays the location of all flora plots, and the location of threatened flora walking 

transects. 

2.1.3 Vegetation Mapping 

Vegetation mapping was undertaken using best-practice techniques to delineate vegetation 

communities across the Hillcrest Offset Area. 

Vegetation mapping involved the following key steps: 

� preparation of draft vegetation community map based on aerial photograph interpretation 

of 1:25,000 stereo pairs (see below) and preliminary delineation of vegetation community 

floristics; 

� ground-truthing of vegetation map based on survey effort documented in Section 2.1.2; 

� revision of vegetation community floristic delineations based on plot data; and 

� revision of vegetation map based on additional ground-truthing. 

Mapping was undertaken using 1:25,000 stereo pairs of photographs flown in November 

2005, and a mirror stereoscope, which enabled three dimensional viewing of the land 

surface. Vegetation boundaries were directly digitised on to a digital aerial photograph using 

Mapinfo geographic information system (GIS). 



2.1.4 Fauna Survey 

The following sections detail the methods employed for the fauna surveys undertaken by 

Umwelt within the Hillcrest Offset Area. The June 2008 survey primarily involved 

opportunistic fauna observations during other aspects of the field survey. The majority of the 

targeted fauna survey was undertaken in February and September 2009. 

2.1.4.1 Hair Funnel Sampling 

Hair funnel sampling transects were established at three separate locations, shown on 

Figure 2.2. At each transect, 20 ground funnels and 10 arboreal funnels were placed out at 

a spacing of 10 to 20 metres and left in-situ for 14 days. Each funnel was sprayed with a 

concentrated honey-water solution either on logs and leaf litter on the ground or on the trunk 

of the tree above and below the arboreal mounted funnels. Half the funnels along each 

transect were baited with a peanut butter/oat/honey mixture and half were baited with raw 

beef strips. 

2.1.4.2 Spotlighting 

Spotlighting was conducted on foot using 30 watt Lightforce hand-held spotlights along four 

transects across the Hillcrest Offset Area. A total of 18 person hours of spotlighting was 

undertaken at the locations shown on Figure 2.2. Spotlighting was undertaken generally 

between 8.00 pm and 12 am. Spotlighting targeted nocturnal birds, reptiles, amphibians and 

arboreal and terrestrial mammals. 

In addition, approximately 4 kilometres of driving spotlight survey was undertaken from a 

slow-moving vehicle within the Hillcrest Offset Area (refer to Figure 2.2). 

2.1.4.3 Call Play-Back 

At five sites across the Hillcrest Offset Area (refer to Figure 2.2) the recorded calls of the 

powerful owl (Ninox strenua), masked owl (Tyto novaehollandiae), barking owl (Ninox 

connivens), squirrel glider (Petaurus norfolcensis), and koala (Phascolarctos cinereus) were 

played. Each call was played for a minimum of 4 minutes followed by a listening period of 

2 minutes before the beginning of the next species call. Calls were broadcast using a 10 

watt directional loud hailer. Mammal calls were played before bird calls to prevent the calls 

of predators (large owls) decreasing the likelihood of prey species (glider and koala) 

responding to call playback. 

2.1.4.4 Micro-bat Echolocation Recordings 

Bat echolocation recordings were made using an ‘Anabat II Bat Detector‘ and an ‘Anabat CF 

Storage ZCAIM‘. Hereafter the detector and storage unit will collectively be referred to as the 

‘Anabat detector’. 

All-night micro-bat echolocation recordings were undertaken at six survey sites (Figure 2.2) 

for two nights at each site and at a further four sites for one night. The Anabat detector was 

placed upon a small platform which was attached to a tree trunk at a height of approximately 

6 metres. Each detector was positioned within possible bat flyways. The Anabat detector 

was programmed to start recording 30 minutes before dusk and stop recording 30 minutes 

after dawn the following morning. The Anabat detector was contained in a rain-proof housing 

and all-night recordings were made regardless of weather conditions. 



2.1.4.5 Diurnal Bird Surveys 

A total of 14 diurnal bird surveys, each of one person-hour duration, were undertaken 

throughout the Hillcrest Offset Area. Each survey consisted of a slow walking transect. 

Species were identified from characteristic calls and by observation, using 10 x 50 

binoculars. The general location of the diurnal bird surveys is shown on Figure 2.2. 

Opportunistic observations of bird species were also recorded during all other aspects of the 

field surveys. 

2.1.4.6 Diurnal Herpetological Searches 

A total of 14 diurnal herpetological surveys each of one person hour, were conducted in likely 

habitat areas throughout the Hillcrest Offset Area. The general location of the diurnal 

herpetological surveys is shown on Figure 2.2. 

During each diurnal search, likely micro-habitats were examined, such as under rocks, logs, 

tree bark, ground litter and dams. The diurnal searches were typically conducted between 

11.00 am and 3.00 pm. 

Opportunistic observations of reptile and amphibian species were also recorded during other 

aspects of the field survey. 

2.1.4.7 Searches for Secondary Traces 

Indirect evidence of faunal presence was identified (where possible) and recorded when 

detected. Such evidence included tracks, scats, hairs, scratches, burrows, bones, nests and 

dreys. A number of scat samples, along with the hair samples collected from the hair funnel 

survey, were sent to specialist Barbara Triggs for expert identification. 

2.2 Ravensworth North Offset Area 

A detailed survey of the Ravensworth North Offset Area was undertaken as part of ecological 

surveys undertaken in the project area. The full range of flora and fauna methods employed 

in the Offset Area is detailed in Section 3 of the Ecological Assessment is shown on Figures 

3.3 to 3.7 of that report. In addition, Mount King and Gingra Ecological Surveys undertook 

ecological monitoring within the Offset Area during 2006 and 2007, as described in Section 

3.1.1.2 of the Ecological Assessment. 

Significant, seasonal survey has been undertaken in the Ravensworth North Offset Area 

which has allowed for the thorough identification and description of ecological values and the 

identification of threatened species and endangered ecological communities (EECs), as 

described in Section 5.9 of the Ecological Assessment. 

2.3 Habitat and Condition Assessment Methodology 

A detailed fauna habitat and condition assessment was undertaken in both the Ravensworth 

North and Hillcrest Offset Areas. The habitat and condition assessment was undertaken in 

accordance with the methods detailed in Section 3.6 of the Ecological Assessment. The use 

of the same methodology in both the impact area and offset areas enables a direct 

comparison between the targeted habitat characteristics. 



A total of 11 habitat and condition assessment points were sampled in the Ravensworth 

North Offset Area and 18 in the Hillcrest Offset Area. The location of the habitat and 

condition assessment survey points is shown on Figure 2.3 and on Figure 3.6 of the 

Ecological Assessment. 

3.0 Results of Surveys in Biodiversity Offset Areas 

3.1 Fauna Species List 

Table 3.1 was developed from surveys of the Ravensworth North Offset Area and Hillcrest 

Offset Area. The survey methodologies are detailed in Section 3.5 of the Ecological 

Assessment and in Section 2.0. It includes all species of vertebrate fauna observed during 

project specific fieldwork and previous ecological assessments and ecological monitoring 

detailed in Section 3 of the Ecological Assessment. 

The following abbreviations or symbols are used in the list: 

asterisk (*) denotes species not indigenous to the Biodiversity Offset Areas; 

subsp. subspecies; 

MAR Listed marine species under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity 

Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act); 

MIG Listed migratory species under the EPBC Act; 

V Vulnerable under Schedule 2 of the Threatened Species Conservation Act 

1995 (TSC Act); and 

E Endangered under Schedule 1 of the TSC Act. 

PD Preliminary Determination 

Birds recorded were identified using descriptions in Slater et al. (2003) and the scientific and 

common name nomenclature of Birds Australia. Reptiles recorded were identified using keys 

and descriptions in Cogger (2000), Swan et al (2004), Weigel (1990) and Wilson & Swan 

(2008) and the scientific and common name nomenclature of Cogger (2000). 

Amphibians recorded were identified using keys and descriptions in Cogger (2000), 

Robinson (1998), Anstis (2002) and Barker et al. (1995) and the scientific and common name 

nomenclature of Cogger (2000). Mammals recorded were identified using keys and 

descriptions in Strahan (2002) and Menkhorst & Knight (2004) and the scientific and 

common name nomenclature of Strahan (2002) for non bat species. Bat species recorded 

were identified using keys and descriptions in Churchill (1998) and ecological information 

was obtained from Churchill (2008). 



Table 3.1 - Fauna Species Recorded in the Ravensworth North Offset Area 

and Hillcrest Offset Area 

Scientific Name Common Name Conservation 

Status 

BIRDS 

Phasianidae 


North Offset 

Area 

Hillcrest 

Offset 

Area 


2383/R10/Final February 2010 9 

TSC 

Act 

EPBC 

Act 

Coturnix pectoralis stubble quail MAR �� 

Coturnix ypsilophora brown quail �� 

Anatidae 

Chenonetta jubata Australian wood duck MIG �� 

Anas superciliosa Pacific black duck MIG �� 

Tachybaptus 

novaehollandiae 

Phalacrocoracidae 

Phalacrocorax 

melanoleucos 

Ardeidae 

Australasian grebe �� 

little pied cormorant �� 

Egretta novaehollandiae white-faced heron �� 

Ardea pacifica white-necked heron �� 

Threskiornithidae 

Platelea flavipes yellow-billed spoonbill � 

Accipitridae 

Elanus notatus black-shouldered kite MIG �� 

Accipiter fasciatus brown goshawk MAR 

& MIG 

Aquila audax wedge-tailed eagle MIG �� 

Falconidae 

Falco berigora brown falcon MIG �� 

Falco cenchroides nankeen kestrel MAR 

& MIG 

Rallidae 

Porphyrio porphyrio purple swamphen �� 

Charadriidae 

Elseyornis melanops black-fronted dotterel MIG � �� 

Vanellus miles masked lapwing MIG �� 

Columbidae 

Macropygia amboinensis brown cuckoo-dove �� 

Phaps chalcoptera common bronzewing �� 

Ocyphaps lophotes crested pigeon �� 

Lopholaimus antarcticus topknot pigeon � 

Aegothelidae 

Aegotheles cristatus Australian owletnightjar 

Cacatuidae � � 

Cacatua roseicapilla galah �� 

�� 

�� 

�


and Hillcrest Offset Area (cont) 


Status 


North Offset 

Area 

Hillcrest 

Offset 

Area 



TSC 

Act 

EPBC 

Act 

Cacatua sanguinea little corella �� 

Cacatua galerita sulphur-crested 

cockatoo 

Psittacidae 

Glossopsitta concinna musk lorikeet �� 

Alisterus scapularis Australian king-parrot �� 

Platycercus elegans crimson rosella �� 

Platycercus eximius eastern rosella �� 

Psephotus haematonotus red-rumped parrot � 

Cuculidae 

Cacomantis flabelliformis fan-tailed cuckoo MAR �� 

Chrysococcyx lucidus shining bronzecuckoo 

�� 

MAR �� 

Scythrops novaehollandiae channel-billed cuckoo MAR �� 

Strigidae 

Ninox novaeseelandiae southern boobook MAR/ 

MIG 

Tytonidae 

Tyto novaehollandiae masked owl V �� 

Halcyonidae 

Dacelo novaeguineae laughing kookaburra �� 

Todiramphus macleayii forest kingfisher MAR �� 

Todiramphus sanctus sacred kingfisher MAR �� 

Meropidae 

Merops ornatus rainbow bee-eater MAR 

& MIG 

Coraciidae 

Eurystomus orientalis dollarbird MAR �� 

Climacteridae 

Corombates leucophaeus white-throated 

treecreeper 

Climacteris picumnus 

victoriae 

Maluridae 


(eastern 

subspecies) 

�� 

�� 

�� 

V �� 

Malurus cyaneus superb fairy-wren �� 

Malurus lamberti variegated fairy-wren �� 

Acanthizidae � 

Sericornis frontalis white-browed 

scrubwren 

� � 

Chthonicola sagittata speckled warbler V �� 

Smicrornis brevirostris weebill ��




Status 


North Offset 

Area 

Hillcrest 

Offset 

Area 



TSC 

Act 

EPBC 

Act 

Gerygone mouki brown gerygone �� 

Gerygone albogularis white-throated 

gerygone 

Acanthiza pusilla brown thornbill �� 

Acanthiza reguloides buff-rumped thornbill �� 

Acanthiza chrysorrhoa yellow-rumped 

thornbill 

�� 

Acanthiza nana yellow thornbill �� 

Pardalotidae 

Pardalotus punctatus spotted pardalote �� 

Pardalotus striatus striated pardalote �� 

Meliphagidae � � 

Anthochaera carunculata red wattlebird �� 

Plectorhyncha lanceolata striped honeyeater �� 

Philemon corniculatus noisy friarbird �� 

Manorina melanocephala noisy miner �� 

Meliphaga lewinii Lewins honeyeater �� 

Lichenostomus chrysops yellow-faced 

honeyeater 

Lichenostomus penicillatus white-plumed 

honeyeater 

Acanthorhynchus 

tenuirostris 

Melithreptus lunatus white-naped 

honeyeater 

Entomyzon cyanotis blue-faced 

honeyeater 

Petroicidae 

�� 

�� 

� �� 

eastern spinebill �� 

Microeca leucophaea jacky winter �� 

Petroica boodang scarlet robin PD V �� 

Petroica goodenovii red-capped robin �� 

Petroica rosea rose robin �� 

Eopsaltria australis eastern yellow robin �� 

Cisticolidae 

Cisticola exilis golden-headed 

cisticola 

Acrocephalidae 

Acrocephalus australis Australian reedwarbler 

Pomatostomidae 

Pomatostomus 


grey-crowned 

babbler (eastern 

subsp.) 

MIG � 

MAR 

& MIG 

V �� 

�� 

�� 

�




Status 

Neosittidae 

Daphoenositta 

chrysoptera 

Pachycephalidae 


North Offset 

Area 

Hillcrest 

Offset 

Area 



TSC 

Act 

EPBC 

Act 

varied sittella PD V � 

Pachycephala pectoralis golden whistler �� 

Pachycephala rufiventris rufous whistler �� 

Colluricincla harmonica grey shrike-thrush �� 

Dicruridae 

Myiagra cyanoleuca satin flycatcher MAR �� 

Grallina cyanoleuca magpie-lark MAR �� 

Rhipidura fuliginosa grey fantail �� 

Rhipidura leucophrys willie wagtail �� 

Campephagidae 

Coracina novaehollandiae black-faced cuckooshrike 

Oriolidae 

MAR �� 

Sphecotheres vieilloti Australian figbird � � 

Oriolus sagittatus olive-backed oriole �� 

Artamidae 

Cracticus torquatus grey butcherbird �� 

Cracticus nigrogularis pied butcherbird �� 

Gymnorhina tibicen Australian magpie �� 

Strepera graculina pied currawong �� 

Corvidae 

Corvus coronoides Australian raven �� 

Corvus mellori little raven MAR �� 

Corcoracidae 

Corcorax melanorhamphos white-winged chough �� 

Ptilonorhynchidae 

Ptilonorhynchus violaceus satin bowerbird �� 

Motacilidae 

Anthus novaeseelandiae Richards pipit MAR �� 

Passeridae 

Taeniopygia bichenovii double-barred finch �� 

Neochmia temporalis red-browed finch �� 

Dicaeidae 

Dicaeum hirundinaceum mistletoebird �� 

Hirundinidae 

Hirundo neoxena welcome swallow MAR �� 

Hirundo ariel fairy martin � ��




Status 

Zosteropidae 


North Offset 

Area 

Hillcrest 

Offset 

Area 



TSC 

Act 

EPBC 

Act 

Zosterops lateralis silvereye MAR �� 

Sturnidae 

*Sturnus vulgaris common starling �� 

*Acridotheres tristis common myna �� 

REPTILES 

Gekkonidae 

Diplodactylus vittatus stone gecko �� 

Oedura lesueurii Lesueur's velvet 

gecko 

Oedura robusta robust velvet gecko �� 

Underwoodisaurus milii thick-tailed gecko �� 

Varanidae 

Varanus varius lace monitor �� 

Agamidae 

Pogona barbata eastern bearded 

dragon 

Scincidae 

Carlia tetradactyla southern rainbow 

skink 

�� 

�� 

�� 

Ctenotus robustus striped skink �� 

Ctenotus taeniolatus copper-tailed skink �� 

Egernia modesta �� 

Egernia striolata tree skink �� 

Egernia whitii White's skink �� 

Lampropholis delicata grass skink �� 

Lampropholis guichenoti garden skink �� 

AMPHIBIANS 

Myobatrachidae 

Crinia signifera brown froglet �� 

Limnodynastes dumerilii banjo frog, eastern 

pobblebonk 

Limnodynastes fletcheri barking marsh frog �� 

Limnodynastes peronii striped marsh frog �� 

Limnodynastes 

tasmaniensis 

�� 

spotted marsh frog �� 

Uperoleia laevigata smooth toadlet � �� 

Hylidae 

Litoria aurea green & golden bell 

frog 

E V �� 

Litoria fallax dwarf tree frog ��




Status 


North Offset 

Area 

Hillcrest 

Offset 

Area 



TSC 

Act 

EPBC 

Act 

Litoria latopalmata broad-palmed frog �� 

Litoria peronii Perons tree frog �� 

Litoria tyleri Tylers tree frog � �� 

Litoria verreauxii Verreauxs tree frog � �� 

MAMMALS 

Tachyglossidae 

Tachyglossus aculeatus short-beaked echidna �� 

Dasyuridae 

Antechinus flavipes yellow-footed 

antechinus 

Antechinus stuartii brown antechinus �� 

Dasyurus maculatus spotted-tailed quoll V E � �� 

Sminthopsis murina common dunnart �� 

Phascolarctidae 

Phascolarctos cinereus koala V � 

Vombatidae 

Vombatus ursinus common wombat �� 

Petauridae 

Petaurus breviceps sugar glider �� 

Petaurus norfolcensis squirrel glider V �� 

Phalangeridae 

Trichosurus vulpecula common brushtail 

possum 

Macropodidae 

Macropus giganteus eastern grey 

kangaroo 

�� 

�� 

�� 

Macropus robustus common wallaroo �� 

Macropus rufogriseus red-necked wallaby �� 

Wallabia bicolor swamp wallaby � �� 

Pteropodidae 

Pteropus poliocephalus grey-headed flyingfox 

Rhinolophidae 

Rhinolophus megaphyllus eastern horseshoebat 

Molossidae 

Mormopterus 

norfolkensis 

V V �� 

eastern freetail-bat V �� 

Mormopterus planiceps southern freetail-bat �� 

Mormopterus "Species 2" freetail-bat �� 

Nyctinomus australis white-striped freetailbat 

�� 

��




Status 

Vespertilionidae 


North Offset 

Area 

Hillcrest 

Offset 

Area 



TSC 

Act 

EPBC 

Act 

Miniopterus australis little bentwing-bat V �� 

Miniopterus schreibersii 

oceanensis 

eastern bentwingbat 

V �� 

Nyctophilus geoffroyi lesser long-eared bat �� 

Nyctophilus sp. �� 

Chalinolobus dwyeri large-eared pied bat V V �� 

Chalinolobus gouldii Gould's wattled bat �� 

Chalinolobus morio chocolate wattled bat �� 

Myotis adversus large-footed myotis V �� 

Scotorepens balstoni inland broad-nosed 

bat 

Scotorepens orion eastern broad-nosed 

bat 

Vespadelus regulus southern forest bat �� 

�� 

�� 

Vespadelus vulturnus little forest bat �� 

Muridae 

*Mus musculus house mouse �� 

*Rattus rattus black rat �� 

Canidae 

*Canis lupus dingo dingo �� 

*Vulpes vulpes fox �� 

Bovinae 

Bos taurus cattle �� 

Felidae 

*Felis catus cat �� 

Leporidae 

*Oryctolagus cuniculus rabbit �� 

*Lepus capensis brown hare �� 

Suidae 

*Sus scrofa pig �� 

Bovidae 

*Capra hircus goat ��

3.2 Flora Species Lists 

The following flora species lists were developed from surveys of the Ravensworth North 

Offset Area and Hillcrest Offset Area. The survey methodologies are detailed in Section 3 of 

the Ecological Assessment and Section 2.0 above. Tables 3.2 and 3.3 include all species 

of vascular plants observed in the Biodiversity Offset Areas during fieldwork. Not all species 

are readily detected at any one time of the year and therefore the list will not necessarily 

include all plant species likely to occur. Many species flower only during restricted periods of 

the year, and some flower only once in several years. In the absence of flowering material, 

many of these species cannot be identified, or even detected. 

Names of classes and families follow a modified Cronquist (1981) system. 

The following abbreviations or symbols are used in the lists: 

sp. specimens that are identified to genus level only; 

asterisk (*) denotes species not indigenous to the Biodiversity Offset Areas; 


var. variety; 

All vascular plants recorded or collected were identified using keys and nomenclature in 

Harden (1992, 1993, 2000 & 2002) and Wheeler et al. (2002). Where known, changes to 

nomenclature and classification have been incorporated into the results, as derived from 

PlantNET (Botanic Gardens Trust 2009), the on-line plant name database maintained by the 

National Herbarium of New South Wales. 


on other sources such as local names where these references do not provide a common 

name. 

3.2.1 Hillcrest Offset Area Flora Species List 

Table 3.2 lists the flora species that were recorded during surveys of the Hillcrest Offset 

Area. Section 2.0 details the flora survey methodology employed. 

Table 3.2 – Flora Species Recorded in the Hillcrest Offset Area 

Family 

Coniferopsida (conifers) 


Cupressaceae Callitris endlicheri black cypress pine 

Filicopsida (ferns) 

Adiantaceae Adiantum aethiopicum common maidenhair 

Adiantaceae Adiantum hispidulum rough maidenhair fern 

Adiantum formosum giant maidenhair 

Cheilanthes austrotenuifolia rock fern 

Cheilanthes distans bristly cloak fern 

Cheilanthes sieberi subsp. 

sieberi 

poison rock fern 

Pellaea falcata sickle fern 

Aspleniaceae Asplenium flabellifolium necklace fern 

Blechnaceae Doodia aspera prickly rasp fern 



Table 3.2 – Flora Species Recorded in the Hillcrest Offset Area (cont) 

Family Scientific Name Common Name 

Dennstaedtiaceae Pteridium esculentum bracken 

Polypodiaceae 

Platycerium bifurcatum elkhorn 

Pyrrosia rupestris rock felt fern 

Magnoliopsida (flowering plants) - Liliidae (monocots) 

Anthericaceae Caesia parviflora pale grass-lily 

Commelinaceae 

Aneilema acuminatum 

Commelina cyanea native wandering Jew 

Cyperaceae Carex appressa tall sedge 

Cyperus enervis 

Fimbristylis dichotoma common fringe-sedge 

Gahnia aspera rough saw-sedge 

Lepidosperma laterale 

Schoenus apogon fluke bogrush 

Juncaceae *Juncus acutus subsp. acutus sharp rush 

Juncus sp. 

Liliaceae *Lilium formosanum Formosan lily 

Lomandraceae Lomandra confertifolia 

Lomandra confertifolia subsp. 

pallida 

Lomandra filiformis subsp. 

filiformis 

Mat-rush 

wattle mat-rush 

Lomandra longifolia spiny-headed mat-rush 

Lomandra multiflora subsp. 

multiflora 

many-flowered mat-rush 

Luzuriagaceae Eustrephus latifolius wombat berry 

Orchidaceae Acianthus sp. 

Geitonoplesium cymosum scrambling lily 

Dendrobium sp. 

Pterostylis nutans nodding greenhood 

Phormiaceae Dianella caerulea var. caerulea blue-flax lily 

Dianella caerulea var. producta blue-flax lily 

Dianella sp. 

Stypandra glauca nodding blue lily 

Poaceae Aristida ramosa purple wiregrass 

Aristida sp. 

Austrodanthonia fulva wallaby grass 

Austrostipa scabra speargrass 

Austrostipa scabra subsp. 

scabra 

Austrostipa sp. 

Corkscrew grass 

Austrostipa verticillata slender bamboo grass 

Bothriochloa decipiens red grass 

Bothriochloa macra red grass 

Chloris divaricata var. 

divaricata 

slender chloris 

Chloris ventricosa tall chloris 





Poaceae (cont.) Cymbopogon refractus barbed wire grass 

Cynodon dactylon common couch 

Dichelachne micrantha shorthair plumegrass 

Dichelachne sp. 

Digitaria sp. 

Echinopogon ovatus forest hedgehog grass 

Elymus scaber 

Eragrostis brownii Brown’s lovegrass 

Eragrostis leptostachya paddock lovegrass 

Eragrostis sp. 

Eriochloa pseudoacrotricha early spring grass 

Imperata cylindrica var. major blady grass 

Lachnagrostis filiformis 

*Melinis repens red Natal grass 

Microlaena stipoides var. 

stipoides 

weeping grass 

Oplismenus aemulus basket grass 

Panicum effusum hairy panic 

*Paspalum dilatatum paspalum 

*Pennisetum clandestinum kikuyu grass 

*Setaria gracilis slender pigeon grass 

Sporobolus creber slender rats tail grass 

Themeda australis kangaroo grass 

*Vulpia myosuros rats tail fescue 

Vulpia sp. 

Xanthorrhoeaceae Xanthorrhoea glauca subsp. 

glauca 

Magnoliopsida (flowering plants) - Magnoliidae (dicots) 

grass tree 

Acanthaceae Brunoniella australis blue trumpet 

Pseuderanthemum variabile pastel flower 

Rostellularia adscendens 

subsp. adscendens 

Aizoaceae *Galenia pubescens galenia 

Amaranthaceae Deeringia amaranthoides 

Anacardiaceae *Schinus areira pepper tree 

Apiaceae Hydrocotyle laxiflora stinking pennywort 

Apocynaceae Parsonsia sp. 

Araliaceae Polyscias elegans celery wood 

Asclepiadaceae *Gomphocarpus fruticosus narrow-leaved cotton bush 

*Tweedia coerulea 

Marsdenia sp. 





Asteraceae *Aster subulatus wild aster 

*Bidens pilosa cobblers pegs 

*Bidens subalternans greater beggars ticks 

Brachycome microcarpa 

Brachycome multifida var. 

multifida 

cut-leaved daisy 

Calotis cuneifolia purple burr-daisy 

Calotis lappulacea yellow burr-daisy 

*Carthamus lanatus saffron thistle 

Cassinia arcuata sifton bush 

Cassinia quinquefaria cough bush 

Chrysocephalum apiculatum common everlasting 

*Cirsium vulgare spear thistle 

*Conyza bonariensis flaxleaf fleabane 

*Conyza sp. 

*Cotula coronopifolia water buttons 

Eclipta platyglossa 

Euchiton involucratus star cudweed 

*Gamochaeta calviceps 

*Gnaphalium calviceps 

Ozothamnus diosmifolius white dogwood 

Senecio hispidulus var. 

hispidulus 

hill fireweed 

*Senecio madagascariensis fireweed 

Sigesbeckia orientalis subsp. 

orientalis 

Indian weed 

*Sonchus oleraceus common sowthistle 

*Tagetes minuta stinking Roger 

*Taraxacum officinale dandelion 

Vernonia cinerea var. cinerea 

Vittadinia hispidula var. 

hispidula 

Vittadinia muelleri 

Bignoniaceae *Jacaranda mimosifolia jacaranda 

Pandorea pandorana subsp. 

pandorana 

Boraginaceae *Amsinckia calycina 

Brassicaceae Lepidium sp. 

wonga wonga vine 

Cactaceae *Opuntia aurantiaca tiger pear 

*Opuntia stricta var. stricta common prickly pear 

Campanulaceae Wahlenbergia communis tufted bluebell 

Wahlenbergia gracilis sprawling bluebell 

Wahlenbergia sp. 

Capparaceae Capparis arborea wild lime 





Caryophyllaceae *Petrorhagia velutina proliferous pink 

*Polycarpon tetraphyllum four-leaved allseed 

*Stellaria media common chickweed 

Stellaria pungens prickly starwort 

Casuarinaceae Allocasuarina torulosa forest oak 

Celastraceae Denhamia celastroides denhamia 

Elaeodendron australe cassine 

Maytenus silvestris narrow-leaved orangebark 

Chenopodiaceae Einadia hastata berry saltbush 

Einadia nutans subsp.nutans climbing saltbush 

Einadia polygonoides 

Einadia sp. 

Enchylaena tomentosa ruby saltbush 

Maireana microphylla small-leaved bluebush 

Sclerolaena birchii galvinized burr 

Sclerolaena muricata black rolypoly 

Chloanthaceae Spartothamnella juncea bead bush 

Convolvulaceae Dichondra repens kidney weed 

Crassulaceae *Bryophyllum delagoense mother of millions 

Crassula sieberiana subsp. 

sieberiana 

Cunoniaceae Aphanopetalum resinosum gum vine 

Australian stonecrop 

Dilleniaceae Hibbertia obtusifolia hoary guinea flower 

Droseraceae Drosera peltata sundew 

Ebenaceae Diospyros australis black plum 

Elaeocarpaceae Elaeocarpus obovatus hard quandong 

Ericaceae (Styphelioideae) Melichrus urceolatus urn heath 

Monotoca scoparia 

Euphorbiaceae Alchornea ilicifolia native holly 

Baloghia inophylla brush bloodwood 

Breynia oblongifolia coffee bush 

Chamaesyce drummondii caustic weed 

Claoxylon australe brittlewood 

Glochidion ferdinandi var. 

ferdinandi 

cheese tree 

Mallotus philippensis red kamala 

Homalanthus populifolius bleeding heart 

Phyllanthus gunnii scrubby spurge 

Phyllanthus sp. 

Eupomatiaceae Eupomatia laurina bolwarra 





Fabaceae (Faboideae) Bossiaea obcordata spiny bossiaea 

Fabaceae (Mimosoideae) 

Desmodium gunnii 

Desmodium rhytidophyllum 

Glycine clandestina 

Glycine microphylla small-leaf glycine 

Glycine tabacina Variable glycine 

Indigofera australis Australian indigo 

Jacksonia scoparia dogwood 

Medicago sp. 

Podolobium ilicifolium prickly shaggy pea 

Pultenaea microphylla 

*Trifolium repens white clover 

Swainsona galegifolia smooth Darling pea 

Acacia decora western golden wattle 

Acacia elongata swamp wattle 

Acacia falcata sickle wattle 

Acacia implexa hickory wattle 

Acacia irrorata subsp. irrorata green wattle 

Acacia linearifolia narrow-leaved wattle 

Acacia longissima long-leaf wattle 

Acacia paradoxa kangaroo thorn 

Acacia sp. 

Pararchidendron pruinosum 

var. pruinosum 

snow wood 

Flacourtiaceae Scolopia braunii flintwood 

Gentianaceae *Centaurium erythraea common centaury 

Centaurium spicatum spike centaury 

Geraniaceae Geranium potentilloides var. 

potentilloides 

Goodeniaceae Goodenia rotundifolia 

Pelargonium australe native storksbill 

Scaevola sp. 

Iridaceae *Romulea rosea var. australis onion weed 

Lamiaceae *Marrubium vulgare horehound 

Ajuga australis austral bugle 

Mentha satureioides native pennyroyal 

Plectranthus parviflorus 

Lauraceae Cryptocarya microneura murrogun 

Neolitsea dealbata hairy-leaved bolly gum 

Lobeliaceae Pratia purpurascens whiteroot 





Malvaceae Abutilon oxycarpum flannel weed 

Hibiscus heterophyllus subsp. 

heterophyllus 

native rosella 

*Modiola caroliniana red-flowered mallow 

Sida filiformis 

*Sida rhombifolia Paddys lucerne 

Sida subspicata 

Meliaceae Dysoxylum fraserianum rosewood 

Synoum glandulosum scentless rosewood 

Toona australis red cedar 

Menispermaceae Sarcopetalum harveyanum pearl vine 

Stephania japonica var. 

discolor 

snake vine 

Monimiaceae Daphnandra sp. A socketwood 

Moraceae Ficus obliqua small-leaved fig 

Ficus rubiginosa rusty fig 

Streblus brunonianus whalebone tree 

Myoporaceae Eremophila debilis amulla 

Myrsinaceae Embelia australiana 

Myoporum montanum western boobialla 

Myrsine howittiana brush muttonwood 

Myrsine variabilis muttonwood 

Myrtaceae Acmena smithii lilly pilly 

Angophora floribunda rough-barked apple 

Backhousia myrtifolia grey myrtle 

Corymbia maculata spotted gum 

Eucalyptus blakelyi Blakelys red gum 

Eucalyptus crebra narrow-leaved ironbark 

Eucalyptus moluccana grey box 

Eucalyptus punctata grey gum 

Eucalyptus punctata X 

canaliculata 

grey gum 

Eucalyptus sparsifolia narrow-leaved stringybark 


Rhodamnia rubescens scrub turpentine 

Oleaceae Jasminum volubile stiff jasmine 

Notelaea longifolia forma 

longifolia 

Notelaea microcarpa var. 

microcarpa 

*Olea europaea subsp. 

cuspidata 

Oxalidaceae Oxalis exilis 

Oxalis sp. 

large mock olive 

native olive 

African olive 

Olea paniculata native olive 





Passifloraceae Passiflora herbertiana subsp. 

herbertiana 

native passionfruit 

Phytolaccaceae *Phytolacca octandra inkweed 

Piperaceae Piper novae-hollandiae giant pepper vine 

Pittosporaceae Bursaria spinosa subsp. 

spinosa 

blackthorn 

Pittosporum multiflorum orange thorn 

Hymenosporum flavum native frangipani 

Pittosporum revolutum rough fruit pittosporum 

Pittosporum undulatum sweet pittosporum 

Plantaginaceae *Plantago lanceolata lambs tongues 

*Plantago myosuros 

Polygonaceae Muehlenbeckia gracillima slender lignum 

Persicaria decipiens slender knotweed 

Rumex brownii swamp dock 

Rumex sp. 

Portulacaceae Calandrinia sp. 

Primulaceae *Anagallis arvensis scarlet pimpernel 

Proteaceae *Grevillea robusta silky oak 

Persoonia linearis narrow-leaved geebung 

Stenocarpus salignus scrub beefwood 

Ranunculaceae Clematis aristata old mans beard 

Clematis glycinoides headache vine 

Rhamnaceae Alphitonia excelsa red ash 

Cryptandra amara var. amara bitter cryptandra 

Emmenosperma alphitonioides yellow ash 

Pomaderris sp. 

Rosaceae Acaena novae-zelandiae bidgee-widgee 

Rubiaceae Asperula sp. 

*Rubus fruticosus sp. agg. blackberry complex 

Rubus parvifolius native raspberry 

Psydrac odorata stiff canthium 

Galium binifolium 

Morinda jasminoides sweet morinda 

Pomax umbellata 

*Richardia stellaris 

Rutaceae Correa reflexa native fuschia 

Geijera salicifolia var. salicifolia wilga 

Melicope micrococca hairy-leaved doughwood 

Sarcomelicope simplicifolia 

subsp. simplicifolia 

big yellow wood 

Santalaceae Exocarpos cupressiformis native cherry 





Sapindaceae Alectryon subcinereus wild quince 

Dodonaea viscosa subsp. 

angustifolia 

Guioa semiglauca guioa 

sticky hop-bush 

Scrophulariaceae *Verbascum virgatum twiggy mullein 

Veronica plebeia trailing speedwell 

Solanaceae *Lycium ferocissimum African boxthorn 

Stackhousiaceae Stackhousia sp. 

Solanum aviculare kangaroo apple 

Solanum brownii violet nightshade 

*Solanum nigrum black-berry nightshade 

Solanum opacum green-berry nightshade 

Solanum prinophyllum forest nightshade 

*Solanum pseudocapsicum madeira winter cherry 

Solanum pungetium eastern nightshade 

Solanum stelligerum devils needles 

Sterculiaceae Brachychiton populneus subsp. 

populneus 

kurrajong 

Ulmaceae Trema tomontox, var viridis native peach 

Urticaceae 

Dendrocnide excelsa giant stinging tree 

Urtica incisa stinging nettle 

Verbenaceae Clerodendrum tomentosum hairy clerodendrum 

*Lantana camara lantana 

*Verbena bonariensis purpletop 

*Verbena rigida veined verbena 

*Verbena sp. 

Vitaceae Cayratia clematidea slender grape 

Cissus antarctica water vine 

Cissus hypoglauca giant water vine 

Cissus opaca small-leaved water vine 

Tetrastigma nitens three-leaf water vine 



3.2.2 Ravensworth North Offset Area 

Table 3.3 lists the flora species that were recorded during surveys of the Ravensworth North 

Offset Area. Section 3.5 of Ecological Assessment details the flora survey methodology 

employed. 

Table 3.3 – Flora Species Recorded in the Ravensworth North Offset Area 

Family/Sub-family 

Filicopsida (Ferns) 


Adiantaceae Cheilanthes distans bristly cloak fern 

Adiantaceae Cheilanthes sieberi subsp. sieberi poison rock fern 

Magnoliliidae (Flowering plants) - Liliidae (Monocots) 

Anthericaceae Laxmannia gracilis slender wire lily 

Tricoryne elatior yellow autumn-lily 

Commelinaceae Commelina cyanea native wandering Jew 

Cyperaceae Carex inversa knob sedge 


Cyperus imbecillis 

Fimbristylis dichotoma common fridge-sedge 

Lomandraceae Lomandra confertifolia subsp. 

pallida 

Lomandra filiformis subsp. filiformis 

Lomandra glauca pale mat-rush 


multiflora 

Phormiaceae Dianella caerulea var. caerulea blue flax-lily 

Dianella caerulea var. producta blue flax-lily 

Dianella longifolia blue flax-lily 


Poaceae Aristida ramose purple wiregrass 

Aristida sp. 

Aristida vagans threeawn speargrass 

Austrodanthonia auriculata lobed wallaby grass 

Austrodanthonia sp. 

Austrodanthonia tenuior 

Austrostipa scabra subsp. scabra corkscrew grass 





*Briza minor shivery grass 

Chloris divaricata var. divaricata slender chloris 


Cymbopogon refractus barbed wire grass 

Dichanthium sericeum subsp. 

sericeum 

Dichelachne inaequiglumis 

Digitaria breviglumis 

Digitaria sp. 

queensland bluegrass 



Table 3.3 – Flora Species Recorded in the Ravensworth North Offset Area (cont) 

Family/Sub-family Scientific Name Common Name 

Poaceae (cont) Elymus scaber 


Microlaena stipoides var. stipoides weeping grass 

Paspalidium distans 

Paspalidium gracile slender panic 

Sporobolus creber slender rat's tail grass 

Magnoliopsida (Flowering Plants) - Magnoliidae (Dicots) 

Acanthaceae Brunoniella australis blue trumpet 

Rostellularia adscendens 

Aizoaceae *Galenia pubescens var. pubescens galenia 

Apiaceae Centella asiatica pennywort 

*Cyclospermum leptophyllum slender celery 


Asteraceae 

*Bidens pilosa cobbler's pegs 




Chrysocephalum apiculatum common everlasting, yellow buttons 

Chrysocephalum semipapposum clustered everlasting 



*Conyza sumatrensis tall fleabane 

Cotula australis common cotula 

Euchiton gymnocephalus creeping cudweed 

*Gamochaeta americana cudweed 


Glossogyne tannensis cobbler's tack 

*Hypochaeris radicata catsear 


Senecio linearifolius 


Solenogyne bellioides 



Vittadinia condyloides 

Vittadinia cuneata var. hirsuta 

Vittadinia sp. 

Vittadinia sulcata 

Boraginaceae Cynoglossum australe 

*Lepidium africanum 

*Lepidium bonariense 


*Opuntia humifusa creeping pear 








Caryophyllaceae *Petrorhagia nanteuilii *Petrorhagia nanteuilii 

Polycarpaea corymbosa var. minor Polycarpaea corymbosa var. minor 

Casuarinaceae Allocasuarina luehmannii bulloak 

Casuarina glauca swamp oak 

Chenopodiaceae Atriplex semibaccata creeping saltbush 

Einadia hastata berry saltbush 

Einadia nutans subsp. linifolia 

Einadia nutans subsp. nutans 


Maireana microphylla 

Chloanthaceae Spartothamnella juncea 

Convolvulaceae Convolvulus angustissimus subsp. 

angustissimus 

Convolvulus erubescens blushing bindweed 

Dichondra repens kidney weed 

Euphorbiaceae Chamaesyce drummondii caustic weed 

Fabaceae 

(Faboideae) 

Fabaceae 

(Mimosoideae) 

Phyllanthus virgatus 

Daviesia ulicifolia gorse bitter pea 


Glycine clandestine twining glycine 

Glycine tabacina variable glycine 

*Trifolium arvense haresfoot clover 

*Trifolium campestre hop clover 

Acacia amblygona fan wattle 

Acacia doratoxylon currawang 


Acacia salicina cooba 

Acacia sp. 

Gentianaceae Centaurium spicatum spike centaury 

Geraniaceae *Geranium molle 

Lamiaceae Ajuga australis austral bugle 

Mentha diemenica slender mint 

Linaceae *Linum trigynum French flax 

Linum marginale native flax 

Lobeliaceae Pratia purpurascens whiteroot 

Loranthaceae 

Amyema cambagei box mistletoe 

Lysiana exocarpi subsp. tenuis 

Lysiana linearifolia 





Malvaceae 

*Pavonia hastata 

Sida corrugata corrugated sida 

Sida corrugata 

Sida cunninghamii 


*Sida rhombifolia Paddy's lucerne 

Sida spinosa 

Sida trichopoda 


Myrtaceae Angophora floribunda rough-barked apple 


Eucalyptus melliodora yellow box 


Eucalyptus sp. 


Oleaceae Notelaea microcarpa var. 

microcarpa 

Oxalidaceae Oxalis perennans 

native olive 

*Olea europaea subsp. cuspidata African olive 

Oxalis sp. 

Pittosporaceae Bursaria spinosa subsp. spinosa native blackthorn 

Plantaginaceae Plantago debilis native plantain 

Plantago gaudichaudii 

*Plantago lanceolata lamb's tongues 


Polygonaceae Rumex brownii swamp dock 


Ranunculaceae Clematis aristata old mans beard 

Rubiaceae 

Asperula conferta common woodruff 

*Galium divaricatum slender bedstraw 

Opercularia aspera coarse stinkweed 

Opercularia diphylla stinkweed 


Scrophulariaceae Veronica plebeia trailing speedwell 

Solanaceae Solanum cinereum narrawa burr 



Stackhousiaceae Stackhousia muricata slender stackhousia 

Stackhousia sp. 

Verbenaceae *Verbena bonariensis purpletop 



APPENDIX B 

Threatened Species Assessment

Appendix B – Threatened Species Assessment 

Threatened species, endangered populations, and threatened ecological communities (TECs) 

recorded during surveys of the project area are listed in Tables 1 and 2 below, which also 

includes the results of the searches of the DECCW Atlas of NSW Wildlife and DEWHA 

Protected Matters Database for a 10 kilometre radius of the project area. 

Tables 1 and 2 contain the relevant ecological details of each listing (including their habitat 

requirements, known range and reservation with conservation reserves), as well as an 

assessment as to whether there may be an impact on any recorded or potentially occurring 

threatened species or TECs as a result of the project. This assessment is based on the 

information contained in Section 5.0 of this report as well as the specific habitat requirements of 

each threatened species or TEC. For the purposes of these tables, the ‘region’ is broadly 

defined as the Central Hunter Valley, the western limit being Muswellbrook and the eastern limit 

being approximately Maitland. The northern and southern boundaries of the region are 

approximately 30 kilometres north and south of the project area. 

An assessment of significance was prepared in accordance with the requirements of the 

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) for each threatened species, 

population or TECs for which there is the potential for impact as a result of the project. The 

assessment of significance is provided in Appendix E. An assessment of significance for those 

species listed under the Commonwealth EPBC Act which have potential to be impacted by the 

project is provided in Appendix F. 

2383/R08/AB 1

Species Legal 

Status 

Bothriochloa 

biloba 

Commersonia 

rosea 

scant 

pomaderris 

Pomaderris 

queenslandica 

Denman 

pomaderris 

Pomaderris 

reperta 

Table 1 - Threatened Flora Assessment 

Specific Habitat Distribution in relation to 


V (EPBC) Grows in woodlands and 

grasslands on poorer soils. 

E (TSC) Occurs on skeletal sandy 

soils in scrub or heath 

vegetation with occasional 

emergents of Eucalyptus 

crebra, Callitris endlicheri or 

Eucalyptus caleyi subsp. 

caleyi. 

E (TSC) This species is found in moist 

eucalypt forest or sheltered 

woodlands with a shrubby 

understorey, and occasionally 

along creeks. 

E (TSC) 

PD E 

(EPBC) 

2V (ROTAP) 

This species occupies 

woodland in association with 

Eucalyptus crebra, E. 

blakelyi, Notelaea 

microcarpa, and 

Allocasuarina littoralis. This 

species grows on a sandy 

loam on sandstone or 

conglomerate. 

Regionally recorded across 

much of the central and 

upper Hunter Valley with 

fewer records in the lower 

Hunter but as far east as 

Maitland. 

Only known from four 

localities in the Sandy Hollow 

district of the upper Hunter 

Valley, New South Wales, all 

within an 8 km radius of 

Sandy Hollow. 

This species is widely 

scattered but not common in 

north-east NSW and in 

Queensland. It is only known 

from a few locations on the 

New England Tablelands and 

North West Slopes, including 

near Torrington and Coolatai, 

and also from several 

locations on the NSW North 

Coast. 

This species has been 

recorded from a small 

number of sites near Denman 

in the upper Hunter Valley 

(Muswellbrook LGA). This 

species is also known from 

the Wybong area. 

Reservation in the 

Region 

Potential to 

Occur/Potential for 

Impact 

Wollemi NP The species occurs in the 

project area and is 

potentially sensitive to the 

development. 

This species is not 

known to occur in 

any reserves in the 

region. 

The project area does not 

provide suitable habitat 

for this species and it has 

not been recorded at the 

site. There is no potential 

for a significant impact on 

this species. 

Manobalai NR The project area does not 






this species. 




region. 







this species. 

Further 

Assessment 

Required? 

2383/R08/AB 2 

Yes. 

No. 

No. 

No.

Species Legal 

Status 

Lasiopetalum 

longistamineum 

Broken Back 

ironbark 

Eucalyptus 

fracta 

Pokolbin 

mallee 

Eucalyptus 

pumila 

Singleton 

mallee 

Eucalyptus 

castrensis 

V (TSC) 

V (EPBC) 

2VC- 

(ROTAP) 

V (TSC) 

2R- 

(ROTAP) 

V (TSC) 

2VCi 

(ROTAP) 

E (TSC) 



The species typically grows in 

rich alluvial deposits and 

flowers in spring. Little is 

known about this species’ 

ecology or biology. 

The dominant tree in a 

narrow band along the upper 

edge of a sandstone 

escarpment. Occurs in dry 

eucalypt woodland in shallow 

soils. 

The single known population 

occupies north-west-facing 

slopes derived from 

sandstone. 

Occurs on a low broad 

ridgetop on loam over 

sandstone. The understorey 

consists of grasses and 

scattered shrubs, with bare 

ground and litter. 

This species occurs in the Mt 

Dangar – Gungal area within 

Merriwa and Muswellbrook 

LGAs. Three sites are 

recorded within Goulburn 

River NP. 

Confined largely to Pokolbin 

State Forest. Locally common 

but restricted to the northern 

Broken Back Range near 

Cessnock, NSW. 

Currently known only from a 

single population west of 

Pokolbin in the Hunter Valley. 

Historical records also exist 

for Wyong and Sandy Hollow, 

however, has not been 

recorded recently in these 

areas. 

Known only from a single 

dense stand near Singleton in 

the lower Hunter Valley. Here 

it is locally dominant stand 

over about ten hectares with 

a number of smaller outlying 

stands over a 2.5 km range. 


Region 

Potential to 


Impact 

Goulburn River NP The project area does not 






this species. 




region. 







this species. 

Pokolbin FR The project area does not 






this species. 




region. 







this species. 

Further 


Required? 

2383/R08/AB 3 

No. 

No. 

No. 

No.

Species Legal 

Status 

finger panic 

grass 

Digitaria 

porrecta 

Ozothamnus 

tesselatus 

painted diuris 

Diuris tricolor 

austral toadflax 

Thesium 

australe 

E (TSC) 

E (EPBC) 

V (TSC) 

V (EPBC) 

2VC- 

(ROTAP) 

V (TSC) 

V (EPBC) 

V (TSC), 

V (EPBC) 



Native grassland, woodlands 

or open forest with a grassy 

understorey, on richer soils. 

Often found along roadsides 

and travelling stock routes 

where there is light grazing 

and occasional fire. 

Dry sclerophyll forest and 

woodlands. 

Sclerophyll forest among 

grass, often with Callitris. 

Sandy soils, either on flats or 

small rises. 

This species occurs in 

grassland or grassy 

woodland and is often found 

in damp sites in association 

with kangaroo grass 

(Themeda australis). This 

species is a root parasite that 

takes water and some 

nutrient from other plants, 

especially kangaroo grass. 

Found in NSW and 

Queensland. In NSW, occurs 

on north-west slopes and 

plains, from near Moree 

south to Tambar Springs and 

from Tamworth to 

Coonabarabran. 

Restricted to a few locations 

north of Rylstone. 

Unconfirmed recording exists 

near Mt Owen. 

Muswellbrook LGA is the 

eastern limit of the known 

range and the only recorded 

occurrence in the Sydney 

Basin Bioregion. 

This species is found in very 

small populations scattered 

across eastern NSW, along 

the coast, and from the 

Northern to Southern 

Tablelands. It is also found in 

Tasmania, Queensland and 

in eastern Asia. Occurs also 

at Anvil Hill, NSW. 


Region 


known from any 

conservation 

reserves in the 

region. 

Potential to 


Impact 

The project has not been 

recorded in the project 

area; however, it could 

occur there. There is no 

potential for a significant 

impact on this species. 

Goulburn River NP The project area does not 






this species. 



conservation 


region. 



conservation 


region. 

The species has not been 


area; however, it could 

occur there. There is no 


impact on this population. 







this species. 

Further 


Required? 

2383/R08/AB 4 

No. 

No. 

No. 

No.

Species Legal 

Status 

slaty red gum 

Eucalyptus 

glaucina 

V (EPBC) 

V (TSC) 

THREATENED FLORA POPULATIONS 

Acacia pendula 

(a tree) in the 

Hunter 

Catchment 

tiger orchid 

Cymbidium 

canaliculatum 



Typically grows in grassy 

woodland on deep, 

moderately fertile and wellwatered 

soil and can be 

locally frequent but very 

sporadic. 

EP (TSC) Grows on major river 

floodplains on heavy clay 

soils, sometimes as the 

dominant species and 

forming low open woodlands. 

Within the Hunter catchment 

it typically occurs on heavy 

soils, sometimes at the 

margins of small floodplains, 

but also in more undulating 

locations remote from 

floodplains, such as at Jerrys 

Plains. 

EP (TSC) This species occurs within 

dry sclerophyll forests and 

woodlands of tablelands and 

western slopes, growing in 

hollows of trees. It is usually 

found occurring singly or as a 

single clump, typically 

between two and six metres 

above the ground. 

Occurs near Casino and from 

Taree to Broke in the North 

Coast botanical subdivision. 

The project area is within the 

known distribution of this 

species. 

There are 17 confirmed and 

four unconfirmed naturally 

occurring remnants of the A. 

pendula population in the 

Hunter catchment. These 

range as far east as 

Warkworth, and as far west 

as Kerrabee, west of Sandy 

Hollow. Acacia pendula is 

not known to occur naturally 

further north than the 

Muswellbrook-Wybong area. 

Eight planted A. pendula 

populations (not naturally 

occurring) have been 

recorded in the Hunter, and it 

is likely that numerous more 

planted populations occur. 

The population of Cymbidium 

canaliculatum in the Hunter 

Catchment is at the southeastern 

limit of the 

geographic range for this 

species. 


Region 



conservation 


region. 

This population is 

not known to occur 

in any reserves in 

the region. 

This population is 

not known to occur 

in any reserves in 

the region. 

Potential to 


Impact 







this species. 

This population has been 


area and the species is 


proposed development. 

The population has not 

been recorded in the 

project area; however, it 

could occur there. There 

is no potential for a 

significant impact on this 

population. 

Further 


Required? 

2383/R08/AB 5 

No. 

Yes. 

No.

Species Legal 

Status 

river red gum 

Eucalyptus 

camaldulensis 

in the Hunter 

Catchment 

Leionema 

lamprophyllum 

subsp. 

obovatum in 

the Hunter 

Catchment 



EP (TSC) River red gums are located 

on the banks and floodplains 

of watercourses on alluvial 

soils. This endangered 

population may occur with 

Eucalyptus tereticornis, 

Eucalyptus melliodora, 

Casuarina cunninghamiana 

subsp. cunninghamiana and 

Angophora floribunda. 

EP (TSC) Found on a rocky cliff line in a 

dry eucalypt forest. 

Threatened Ecological Communities 

River-flat 

Eucalypt Forest 

EEC (TSC) 

Associated with silts, clayloams 

and sandy loams, on 

periodically inundated alluvial 

flats, drainage lines and river 

terraces associated with 

coastal floodplains. 

The Hunter population occurs 

as far east as Hinton, east of 

Maitland, west to Bylong, and 

north to near Scone. 

Currently only 28 populations 

are known in the Hunter 

Valley, covering an area of 

only 83 hectares and 

constituting about 1840 trees, 

and occurring over a range of 

at least 2000 km 2 . 

The Hunter Catchment 

population of L. 

lamprophyllum subsp. 

obovatum is currently known 

to occur in Pokolbin State 

Forest. The total number of 

mature individuals is 

estimated to be very low with 

only 4 individuals currently 

known. 

This EEC occurs in the NSW 

North Coast, Sydney Basin 

and South-east corner 

bioregions. The project area 

is within the known 

distribution of this species. 


Region 




region. 




region. 

There are no known 

occurrences of this 

EEC within the 

conservation 

reserves of the 

region. 

Potential to 


Impact 

The population occurs in 

the project area but there 

is no potential for a 


population as the 

occurrences are located 

outside the area of 

impact. 







this species. 

This community has been 





Further 


Required? 

2383/R08/AB 6 

No. 

No. 

Yes.

Species Legal 

Status 

Weeping Myall 

– Coobah – 

Scrub Wilga 

Shrubland 

Central Hunter 

Grey Box- 

Ironbark 

Woodland in 

the NSW North 

Coast and 

Sydney Basin 

Bioregions 

CEEC 

(EPBC) 

PD EEC 

(TSC) 



This EEC consists of a 

woodland of weeping myall 

(Acacia pendula) with coobah 

(Acacia salicina) and scrub 

wilga (Geijera salicifolia). 

yarran (Acacia omalophylla) 

and stiff canthium (Canthium 

buxifolium) are also present 

in the small tree/shrub layer. 

The ground stratum is dense 

and primarily grassy. Grasses 

include kangaroo grass 

(Themeda triandra/australis), 

wallaby grass 

(Austrodanthonia sp.), snow 

grass (Poa sieberiana) and 

barbed wire grass 

(Cymbopogon refractus). 

Some exotic grasses have 

also invaded the site. 

The EEC occurs on Permian 

sediments in the Hunter 

Valley and typically forms a 

woodland to open forest on 

slopes and undulating hills. 

Dominated by narrow-leaved 

ironbark (Eucalyptus crebra) 

and grey box (E. moluccana) 

with a moderately dense to 

dense ground layer 

dominated by grasses and 

forbs. 

The EEC occurs in a small 

stand on heavy, brown clay 

soil at Jerry's Plains in the 

Hunter Valley, in the South 

Hunter Province of the 

Sydney Basin Bioregion. 

Located in the NSW North 

Coast and Sydney Basin 

Bioregions 


Region 




conservation 


region. 




conservation 


region. 

Potential to 


Impact 


project suitable habitat for 

this community and it has 




this community. 



area and the community 

is potentially sensitive to 

the proposed 

development. 

Further 


Required? 

2383/R08/AB 7 

No. 

Yes.

Species Legal 

Status 

Central Hunter 

Ironbark- 

Spotted Gum- 

Grey Box 

Forest in the 

NSW North 

Coast and 

Sydney Basin 

Bioregions 

Hunter Valley 

Footslopes 

Slaty Gum 

Woodland in 

the Sydney 

Basin Bioregion 

PD EEC 

(TSC) 

PD EEC 

(TSC) 



The EEC occurs on Permian 


Valley and typically forms an 

open forest to woodland on 

slopes and undulating hills. 

Dominated by narrow-leaved 

ironbark (Eucalyptus crebra), 

spotted gum (Corymbia 

maculata) and grey box (E. 

moluccana) with a sparse to 

moderately dense ground 

layer dominated by numerous 

forbs and a few grasses. 

This ecological community 

generally occurs at the 

interface of Narrabeen 

Sandstone and Permian 


Valley and typically forms a 

low to mid-high woodland. 

The community is 

characterised by an 

overstorey of slaty gum 

(Eucalyptus dawsonii) and/or 

grey box (E. moluccana) with 

a moderately dense to dense 

shrub stratum. The ground 

layer is generally sparse to 

very sparse and generally 

species poor. 



Bioregions. 

Located in the Sydney Basin 

Bioregion. 


Region 

Potential to 


Impact 

Belford NP This community has been 


area and the community 

is potentially sensitive to 

the proposed 

development. 

Minor occurrences 

in Wollemi NP and 

Goulburn River NP 



for this community and it 

has not been recorded at 

the site. There is no 


impact on this community. 

Further 


Required? 

2383/R08/AB 8 

Yes. 

No.

Species Legal 

Status 

Hunter 

Floodplain Red 

Gum Woodland 

in the NSW 

North Coast 

and Sydney 

Basin 

Bioregions 

Hunter Lowland 

Red Gum 

Forest 

Hunter Valley 

Weeping Myall 

Woodland 

PD EEC 

(TSC) 

EEC (TSC) 

EEC (TSC) 



Occurs on floodplains and 

associated floodplain rises 

along the Hunter River and its 

associated tributaries. This 

community typically occurs in 

tall woodland form and is 

dominated by river red gum 

(Eucalyptus camaldulensis). 

Occurs on gentle slopes 

arising from depressions and 

drainage flats on permian 

sediments of the Hunter 

Valley floor. 

Associated with heavy clay 

soils on depositional 

landforms in the southwestern 

part of the Hunter 

River valley floor. This EEC 

typically comprises a 

relatively dense or open tree 

canopy up to about 15 m tall, 

sometimes with an open 

understorey of semisclerophyllous 

shrubs, and a 

variable groundcover 

dominated by grasses or 

herbs. 



Bioregions along the Hunter 

River. 

Recorded from Maitland, 

Cessnock and Port Stephens 

LGAs (in the Sydney Basin 

Bioregion) and Muswellbrook 

and Singleton LGAs (in the 

NSW North Coast Bioregion) 

but may occur elsewhere in 

these bioregions. 


known distribution of this 

EEC. 

Currently known from parts of 

the Muswellbrook and 

Singleton LGAs, but may 

occur elsewhere, including 

the Upper Hunter LGA. 


Region 




conservation 


region. 

Werakata NP 

Werakata SCA 




conservation 


region. 

Potential to 


Impact 




















Further 


Required? 

2383/R08/AB 9 

Yes. 

No. 

No.

Species Legal 

Status 

White Box – 

Yellow Box – 

Blakely’s Red 

Gum Woodland 



EEC (TSC) This EEC is characterised by 

the presence or prior 

occurrence of white box, 

yellow box and/or Blakelys 

red gum. The trees may 

occur as pure stands, 

mixtures of the three species 

or in mixtures with other 

trees, including wattles. 

Commonly co-occurring 

eucalypts include apple box 

(E. bridgesiana), red box (E. 

polyanthemos), candlebark 

(E. rubida), snow gum (E. 

pauciflora), Argyle apple (E. 

cinerea), brittle gum (E. 

mannifera), red stringybark 

(E. macrorhyncha), grey box 

(E. microcarpa), cabbage 

gum (E. amplifolia) and 

others. The understorey in 

intact sites is characterised 

by native grasses and a high 

diversity of herbs; the most 

commonly encountered 

include kangaroo grass 

(Themeda australis) poa 

tussock (Poa sieberiana), 

wallaby grasses 

(Austrodanthonia sp.) and 

spear-grasses (Austrostipa 

sp.). Shrubs are generally 

sparse or absent, though they 

may be locally common. 

This EEC is found from the 

Queensland border in the 

north, to the Victorian border 

in the south. It occurs in the 

tablelands and western 

slopes of NSW. 


Region 

Goulburn River NP 

Manobalai NR 

Towarri NP 

Wingen Maid NR 

Wollemi NP 

Potential to 


Impact 








Further 


Required? 

2383/R08/AB 10 

No.

Species Legal 

Status 

White Box- 

Yellow Box- 

Blakely's Red 

Gum Grassy 

Woodland and 

Derived Native 

Grassland 

REFERENCES 

CEEC 

(EPBC) 



This ecological community 

occurs in areas where rainfall 

is between 400 and 1200 mm 

per annum, on moderate to 

highly fertile soils at altitudes 

of 170 metres to 

1200 metres. 

E: endangered 

C: recorded in a conservation reserve (ROTAP) 

CEEC: critically endangered ecological community 

EEC: endangered ecological community 

EPBC: Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 

i: inadequately reserved (ROTAP) 

K: poorly known 

FR: Flora Reserve 

LGA: Local Government Area 

NR: Nature Reserve 

This EEC occurs in an arc 

along the western slopes and 

tablelands of the Great 

Dividing Range from 

Southern 

Queensland through NSW to 

central Victoria. It occurs in 

the Brigalow Belt South, 

Nandewar, New England 

Tableland, South Eastern 

Queensland, Sydney Basin, 

NSW North Coast, South 

Eastern Highlands, South 

East Corner, NSW South 

Western Slopes, Victorian 

Midlands and Riverina 

Bioregions. 

Botanic Gardens Trust 2009 

PlantNET – The Plant Information Network System of Botanic Gardens Trust, Sydney, Australia (version 2.0). 

http://plantnet.rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au (accessed 16 February 2009) 

Briggs J.D & Leigh J.H, 1996, Rare or Threatened Australian Plants: 1995 Revised edition. CSIRO: Australia. 


Region 



CEEC within the 

conservation 


region. 

Potential to 


Impact 


provide suitable habitat for 

this community and it has not 

been recorded at the site. 

There is no potential for a 


community. 

NP: National Park 

PD: Preliminary Determination 

R: rare (ROTAP) 

ROTAP: Rare or Threatened Australian Plants 

SCA: State Conservation Area 

TSC: Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 

V: vulnerable 

VEC: vulnerable ecological community 

2: species found over

Species Legal 

Status 

Amphibians 

green and 

golden bell frog 

Litoria aurea 

Reptiles 

pale-headed 

snake 

Hoplocephalus 

bitorquatus 

Stephen’s 

banded snake 

Hoplocephalus 

stephensii 

E (TSC) 

V (EPBC) 

Table 2 - Threatened Fauna Assessment 



Occurs among vegetation 

in permanent water bodies 

(Cogger 2000), particularly 

where bullrush (Typha 

spp.) and spikerush 

(Eleocharis spp.) occur. 

Known to occur in 

degraded water bodies 

such as brick-pits and 

industrial sites. 

V (TSC) Found mainly in dry 

eucalypt forests and 

woodlands, cypress 

woodland and occasionally 

in rainforest or moist 

eucalypt forest. Favours 

streamside areas, 

particularly in drier habitats. 

V (TSC) Rainforest and eucalypt 

forests and rocky areas up 

to 950 m in altitude. 

Occurs in eastern and southeastern 

NSW to far eastern 

Victoria, largely at low altitudes 

(Cogger 2000). Once 

widespread, it is now restricted to 

isolated coastal populations. 

The project area is at the western 

limit of the species distribution. 

A patchy distribution from northeast 

Queensland to north-east 

NSW. In NSW it occurs from the 

coast to the western side of the 

Great Divide as far south as 

Tuggerah. 


known distribution of this species. 

Coast and ranges from Southern 

Queensland to Gosford in NSW. 



Reservation 

in the 

Region 

Kooragang 

NR 

Hexham 

Swamp NR 

The species 

is not known 

from 

conservation 

reserves in 

the region. 

Barrington 

Tops NP 

Potential to 

Occur/Potential for Impact 

The species occurs in the 

project area and is potentially 

sensitive to the development. 



this species and it has not 




species. 







species. 

Further 


Required? 

2383/R08/AB 12 

Yes. 

No. 

No.

Species Legal 

Status 

Birds 

blue-billed duck V (TSC) This species prefers deep 

water in large permanent 

wetlands and swamps with 

dense aquatic vegetation. 

The species is completely 

aquatic, swimming low in 

the water along the edge of 

dense cover. 

freckled duck 

Stictonetta 

naevosa 



V (TSC) This species prefers 

permanent freshwater 

swamps and creeks with 

heavy growth of cumbungi, 

lignum or tea-tree. During 

drier times they move from 

ephemeral breeding 

swamps to more 

permanent waters such as 

lakes, reservoirs, farm 

dams and sewage ponds. 

This species generally 

rests in dense cover during 

the day, usually in deep 

water. Nesting usually 

occurs between October 

and December but can take 

place at other times when 

conditions are favourable. 

The nests are usually 

located in dense vegetation 

at or near water level. 

Widespread in NSW, but most 

common in the southern Murray- 

Darling Basin area. 



The freckled duck is found 

primarily in south-eastern and 

south-western Australia, occurring 

as a vagrant elsewhere. This 

species may also occur as far as 

coastal NSW and Victoria during 

such times. 



Reservation 

in the 

Region 

This species 

is not known 

from any 

conservation 

reserves in 

the region. 

The species 

is not known 

from any 

conservation 

reserves in 

the region. 

Potential to 



recorded in the project area; 

however, it could occur there. 



species. 







species. 

Further 


Required? 

2383/R08/AB 13 

No. 

No.

Species Legal 

Status 

little eagle 

Heiraaetus 

morphnoides 

spotted harrier 

Circus assimilis 

PD V 

(TSC) 

PD V 

(TSC) 



This species is typically 

identified in open eucalypt 

forests, woodlands and 

open woodlands, and other 

areas where prey are 

plentiful. The nest in tall 

living trees within remnant 

patches. This species 

occurs as a single 

population within Australia. 

Their habitat of choice is 

open grassy woodland, 

grassland, inland riparian 

woodland and shrub 

steppe. Although mostly 

associated with native 

grasslands it has also been 

identified in agricultural 

farmland. Their nest is 

made in a tree and 

composed of sticks. 

Individuals of this species 

are sparsely distributed 

throughout Australia and 

occur as a single 

population. 

The little eagle is distributed 

throughout mainland Australia 

except for the most densely 

forested parts of the Great 

Dividing Range escarpment. 

The spotted harrier can be found 

throughout mainland Australia 

except for areas of dense forest 

on the coast, escarpments and 

ranges and rarely ever in 

Tasmania. 

Reservation 

in the 

Region 

Potential to 


Mt Royal NP The species has not been 





species. 

Wollemi NP The species has not been 





species. 

Further 


Required? 

2383/R08/AB 14 

No. 

No.

Species Legal 

Status 

swift parrot 

Lathamus 

discolor 

regent 

honeyeater 

Anthochaera 

phrygia 

E (TSC) 

E (EPBC) 

E (TSC) 

E (EPBC) 



Often visits box-ironbark 

forests, feeding on nectar 

and lerp (Garnett & 

Crowley 2000). In NSW, 

typical feed species include 

mugga ironbark, grey box, 

swamp mahogany, spotted 

gum, red bloodwood, 

narrow-leaved red ironbark, 

forest red gum and yellow 

box (Swift Parrot Recovery 

Team 2001). 

Semi-nomadic, generally 

occurs in temperate 

eucalypt woodlands and 

open forests, commonly 

recorded from box-ironbark 

eucalypt associations, wet 

lowland coastal forests 

dominated by swamp 

mahogany, spotted gum 

and riverine Casuarina 

woodlands. 

Breeds in Tasmania, migrating to 

the mainland in May to August, 

mainly foraging in Victoria and 

NSW (Swift Parrot Recovery 

Team 2001). In NSW, it has been 

recorded from the western slopes 

region along the inland slopes of 

the Great Dividing Range, as well 

as forests along the coastal plains 

from southern to northern NSW 

(Swift Parrot Recovery Team 

2001). 



Patchily distributed across the 

eastern states of Australia, from 

Adelaide, to Dalby, Queensland, 

and from the coast to the western 

foothills of the Great Dividing 

Range (Garnett and Crowley 

2000). 



Reservation 

in the 

Region 

Tomaree NP 

Lake 

Macquarie 

SCA 

This species 

is not known 

from any 

conservation 

reserves in 

the region. 

Potential to 







species. 






species. 

Further 


Required? 

2383/R08/AB 15 

No. 

No.

Species Legal 

Status 

glossy blackcockatoo 

Calyptorhynchus 

lathami 

gang-gang 

cockatoo 

Callocephalon 

fimbriatum 



V (TSC) Habitat for this species 

includes forests on lownutrient 

soils, specifically 

those containing key 

Allocasuarina feed species. 

They will also eat seeds 

from eucalypts, 

angophoras, acacias, 

cypress pine and hakeas, 

as well as eating insect 

larvae. Breeding occurs in 

autumn and winter, with 

large hollows required. 

V (TSC) In summer this species 

occurs in tall mountain 

forests and woodlands, 

particularly in heavily 

timbered and mature wet 

sclerophyll forests. In 

winter this species moves 

to drier more open eucalypt 

forests and woodlands. It 

favours old growth trees for 

nesting and roosting. 

The glossy black-cockatoo has a 

sparse distribution along the east 

coast and adjacent inland areas 

from western Victoria to 

Rockhampton in Queensland. In 

NSW, it has been recorded as far 

inland as Cobar and Griffith. 



In NSW this species occurs from 

the south east coast to the Hunter 

region and inland to the Central 

Tablelands and South-west 

Slopes. 



Reservation 

in the 

Region 

Wollemi NP 

Yengo NP 

Mount Royal 

NP 

Manobalai 

NR 

Barrington 

Tops NP 

Wollemi NP 

Yengo NP 

Barrington 

Tops NP 

Potential to 







species. 






species. 

Further 


Required? 

2383/R08/AB 16 

No. 

No.

Species Legal 

Status 

powerful owl 

Ninox strenua 

masked owl 

Tyto 




V (TSC) The powerful owl inhabits a 

range of vegetation types, 

from woodland and open 

sclerophyll forest to tall 

open wet forest and 

rainforest. It generally 

requires large tracts of 

forest or woodland habitat 

but can occur in 

fragmented landscapes as 

well. The species breeds 

and hunts in open or closed 

sclerophyll forest or 

woodlands and 

occasionally hunts in open 

habitats. It roosts by day in 

dense vegetation. 

V (TSC) 

Generally recorded from 

open forest habitat with 

sparse mid-storey but 

patches of dense, low 

ground cover. It is also 

recorded from ecotones 

between wet and dry 

eucalypt forest, along minor 

drainage lines and near 

boundaries between forest 

and cleared land 

(Kavanagh 2004). 

The powerful owl occurs in 

eastern Australia, mostly on the 

coastal side of the Great Dividing 

Range, from south western 

Victoria to Bowen in Queensland. 



Occurs sparsely throughout the 

continent and nearby islands, 

including Tasmania and New 

Guinea (Kavanagh 2002). 



Reservation 

in the 

Region 

Wollemi NP 

Yengo NP 

Mt Royal NP 

Belford NP 

Manobalai 

NR 

Barrington 

Tops NP 

Karuah NR 

Tomaree NP 

Watagans 

NP 

Medowie 

SCA 

Jilliby SCA 

Potential to 







species. 

The species occurs in the 

project area but there is no 


impact on this species. The 

project area may form part of 

an extensive foraging habitat 

for this species; however 

suitable hollow trees for 

roosting and breeding were 

not identified. 

Further 


Required? 

2383/R08/AB 17 

No. 

No.

Species Legal 

Status 

brown 

treecreeper 

(eastern subsp.) 

Climacteris 

picumnus 

victoriae 

black-chinned 

honeyeater 


Melithreptus 

gularis gularis 

speckled warbler 

Chthonicola 

saggitata 

V (TSC) 

V (TSC) 

V (TSC) 



Typical habitat for this 

species includes drier 

forests, woodlands, scrubs, 

with fallen branches; river 

red gums on watercourses 

and around lake-shores; 

paddocks with standing 

dead timber; and margins 

of denser wooded areas 

(Pizzey & Knight 1997). 

This species prefers areas 

without dense understorey. 

In NSW, it is mainly found 

in woodlands with annual 

rainfall of 400-700 mm 

containing box-ironbark 

associations and river red 

gum (Garnett & Crowley 

2000). It is also known from 

drier coastal woodlands of 

the Cumberland Plain, 

Western Sydney and in the 

Hunter, Richmond and 

Clarence valleys. 

In NSW, occupies eucalypt 

and cypress woodlands, 

generally on the western 

slopes of the Great Dividing 

Range. Inhabits woodlands 

with a grassy understorey, 

leaf litter and shrub cover, 

often on ridges or gullies 

(Garnett & Crowley 2000). 

This species occurs over central 

NSW, west of the Great Dividing 

Range and sparsely scattered to 

the east of the Divide in drier 

areas such as the Cumberland 

Plain of Western Sydney, and in 

parts of the Hunter, Clarence, 

Richmond and Snowy River 

valleys. 



Found mainly west of the Great 

Dividing Range through NSW into 

southern Queensland, and south 

into Victoria and South Australia. 



The speckled warbler has a 

distribution from south-eastern 

Queensland, through central and 

eastern NSW to Victoria. 



Reservation 

in the 

Region 

This species 

is not known 

from any 

conservation 

reserves in 

the region. 

This species 

is not known 

from any 

conservation 

reserves in 

the region. 

Belford NP 

(T Peake 

pers. obs.) 

Potential to 



recorded in the project area 

and the species is potentially 

sensitive to the proposed 

development. 

The project area does 


this species, although it has 

not been recorded at the site. 

The species is potentially 


development. 





development. 

Further 


Required? 

2383/R08/AB 18 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes.

Species Legal 

Status 

grey-crowned 

babbler (eastern 

subsp.) 

Pomatostomus 

temporalis 

temporalis 

varied sittella 

Daphoenositta 

chrysoptera 

hooded robin 

(south-eastern 

form) 

Melanodryas 

cucullata 

cucullata 

V (TSC) 



Habitat for this species 

includes open forest and 

woodland, acacia 

scrubland and adjoining 

open areas (Garnett & 

Crowley 2000). 

PV (TSC) The varied sittella can 

typically be found in 

eucalypt forests and 

woodlands, especially of 

rough-barked species and 

mature smooth-barked 

gums with dead branches, 

it can also be identified in 

mallee and acacia 

woodlands. This species 

builds a cup shaped nest 

made of plant fibres and 

spiders webs which is 

placed at the canopy level 

in the fork of a living tree. 

V (TSC) Hooded robins are found in 

lightly timbered woodland, 

mainly dominated by 

acacia and/or eucalypts. 

Occurs on the western slopes and 

plains of NSW. Isolated 

populations are known from 

coastal woodlands on the North 

Coast, in the Hunter Valley and 

from the South Coast near Nowra. 



The varied sittella is a sedentary 

species that inhabits the majority 

of mainland Australia with the 

exception of the treeless deserts 

and open grasslands. Its NSW 

distribution is basically continuous 

from the coast to the far west. 

Hooded robins are found 

extensively over much of 

mainland Australia, but are more 

commonly found in south-eastern 

Australia from Adelaide to 

Brisbane. 



Reservation 

in the 

Region 

Munmorah 

SCA 

Belford NP 

(T Peake 

pers. obs.) 

Manobalai 

NR 

Wollemi NP 

Yengo NP 

Potential to 






development. 







development. 

Wollemi NP This species has been 




development. 

Further 


Required? 

2383/R08/AB 19 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes.

Species Legal 

Status 

scarlet robin 

Petroica 

boodang 

flame robin 

Petroica 

phoenicea 

PD V 

(TSC) 

PD V 

(TSC) 



This robin can be found in 

woodlands and open 

forests from the coast 

through to inland slopes. 

The birds can sometimes 

be found on the eastern 

fringe of the inland plains in 

the colder months of the 

year. Woody debris and 

logs are both important 

structural elements of its 

habitat. It forages from low 

perches on invertebrates 

either on the ground or in 

woody debris or tree 

trunks. 

This species is known to 

breed in moist eucalypt 

forests and woodlands. It 

can usually be seen on 

ridges and slopes in areas 

where there is an open 

understorey layer. This 

species migrates during the 

winter to more lowland 

areas such as grasslands 

where there are scattered 

trees, as well as open 

woodland of the inland 

slopes and plains. 

The scarlet robin can be found in 

south-eastern Australia, from 

Tasmania to the southern end of 

Queensland, to western Victoria 

and south South Australia. 

This robin is located in southeastern 

Australia from the 

Queensland border to Tasmania 

and into Victoria as well as southeast 

South Australia. 

Reservation 

in the 

Region 

Potential to 


Wollemi NP This species has been 




development. 

This species 

is not known 

to occur in 

any reserves 

in the region. 







development. 

Further 


Required? 

2383/R08/AB 20 

Yes. 

Yes.

Species Legal 

Status 

diamond firetail 

Stagonopleura 

guttata 

white-browed 

woodswallow 

Artamus 

superciliosus 

V (TSC) 

PD V 

(TSC) 



Habitat includes a range of 

eucalypt-dominated 

communities with a grassy 

understorey, including 

woodland, forest and 

mallee (Garnett & Crowley 

2000). Populations appear 

unable to persist where 

remnants are less than 

200 hectares in area. 

This species breeds in 

open forests and 

woodlands (usually 

eucalypt, acacia, mallee or 

sheoak) typically between 

the far western plains and 

inland slopes. In times of 

drought they tend to 

relocate further east to 

areas nearer to the coast. 

Their nest is a cup shape 

made of small twigs and 

plant fibres, and can be 

found in either an artificial 

structure, shrub or tree 

(living or dead) fork, vine, 

creeper or stump. 

In NSW, it mainly occurs west of 

the Great Dividing Range, 

although populations are known 

from drier coastal areas such as 

the Cumberland Plain and the 

Hunter, Clarence, Richmond and 

Snowy River valleys. 



This species is distributed across 

eastern, northern and central 

Australia. 

Reservation 

in the 

Region 

This species 

is not known 

from any 

conservation 

reserves in 

the region. 

Potential to 








development. 

Wollemi NP� The project area does 






development. 

Further 


Required? 

2383/R08/AB 21 

Yes. 

Yes.

Species Legal 

Status 

painted 

honeyeater 

Grantiella picta 

Mammals 

spotted-tailed 

quoll 

Dasyurus 

maculatus 



V (TSC) Inhabits Boree, Brigalow 

and Box-Gum Woodlands 

and Box-Ironbark Forests. 

V (TSC) 

E (EPBC) 

Habitat for this species is 

highly varied, ranging from 

sclerophyll forest, 

woodlands, coastal 

heathlands and rainforests. 

Records exist from open 

country, grazing lands and 

rocky outcrops. Suitable 

den sites including hollow 

logs, tree hollows rocky 

outcrops or caves. 

The greatest concentrations of 

this species bird and almost all 

breeding occur on the inland 

slopes of the Great Dividing 

Range in NSW, Victoria and 

southern Queensland. During the 

winter it is more likely to be found 

in the north of its distribution. 



In NSW the spotted-tailed quoll 

occurs on both sides of the Great 

Dividing Range, with the highest 

densities occurring in the north 

east of the state. It occurs from 

the coast to the snowline and 

inland to the Murray River. 



Reservation 

in the 

Region 

Potential to 


Wollemi NP The project area does 






development. 

Wollemi NP 

Yengo NP 

Mt Royal NP 

Belford NP 

Barrington 

Tops NP 







species. 

Further 


Required? 

2383/R08/AB 22 

Yes. 

No.

Species Legal 

Status 

koala 

Phascolarctos 

cinereus 

eastern pygmy 

possum 

Cercartetus 

nanus 



V (TSC) This species inhabits 

eucalypt forest and 

woodland, with suitability 

influenced by tree species 

and age, soil fertility, 

climate, rainfall and 

fragmentation patterns. The 

species is known to feed on 

a large number of eucalypt 

and non-eucalypt species; 

however it tends to 

specialise on a small 

number in different areas. 

Eucalyptus tereticornis, E. 

punctata, E. cypellocarpa, 

E. viminalis, E. microcorys, 

E. robusta, E. albens, E. 

camaldulensis and E 

populnea are some 

preferred species. 

V (TSC) Found in a broad range of 

habitats from rainforest 

through sclerophyll 

(including Box-Ironbark) 

forest and woodland to 

heath, but in most areas 

woodlands and heath 

appear to be preferred, 

except in north-eastern 

NSW where they are most 

frequently encountered in 

rainforest. 

The koala has a fragmented 

distribution throughout eastern 

Australia, with the majority of 

records from NSW occurring on 

the central and north coasts, as 

well as some areas further west. It 

is known to occur along inland 

rivers on the western side of the 

Great Dividing Range. 



This species is found in southeastern 

Australia, from southern 

Queensland to eastern South 

Australia and in Tasmania. In 

NSW it extents from the coast 

inland as far as the Pilliga, Dubbo, 

Parkes and Wagga Wagga on the 

western slopes. 



Reservation 

in the 

Region 

Wollemi NP 

Yengo NP 

Mt Royal NP 

Manobalai 

NR 

Barrington 

Tops NP 

Wollemi NP 

Yengo NP 

Barrington 

Tops NP 

Potential to 








species. 







species. 

Further 


Required? 

2383/R08/AB 23 

No. 

No.

Species Legal 

Status 

squirrel glider 

Petaurus 

norfolcensis 

grey-headed 

flying-fox 

Pteropus 

poliocephalus 

eastern freetailbat 

Mormopterus 

norfolkensis 



V (TSC) Inhabits a variety of mature 

or old growth habitats, 

including box, box-ironbark 

woodlands, river red gum 

forest, and blackbuttbloodwood 

forest with 

heath understorey. It 

prefers mixed species 

stands with a shrub or 

acacia mid-storey, and 

requires abundant tree 

hollows for refuge and nest 

sites. 

V (TSC) 

V (EPBC) 

V (TSC) 

This species feeds on a 

variety of flowering and 

fruiting plants, including 

native figs and palms, 

blossoms from eucalypts, 

angophoras, tea-trees and 

banksias (Tidemann 2002). 

Camps sites are usually 

formed in gullies, usually in 

vegetation with a dense 

canopy and not far from 

water (Tidemann 2002). 

Occurs mostly in dry 

eucalypt forest and 

woodland. Also recorded 

over a rocky river in 

rainforest and wet 

sclerophyll forest (Churchill 

1998). Generally roosts in 

tree hollows, but may use 

man-made structures 

(Churchill 1998). 

The species is widely though 

sparsely distributed in eastern 

Australia, from northern 

Queensland to western Victoria. 



Recorded along the eastern 

coastal plain from Bundaberg in 

Queensland, through NSW and 

south to eastern Victoria. 



Has a distribution along the east 

coast of NSW from south of 

Sydney north into south east 

Queensland, near Brisbane 




Reservation 

in the 

Region 

Wollemi NP 

Yengo NP 

Mt Royal NP 

Wallaroo NR 

Karuah NR 

Lake 

Macquarie 

SCA 

Glenrock 

SCA 

Munmorah 

SCA 

Potential to 








species. 





development. 

Tomaree NP This species has been 




development. 

Further 


Required? 

2383/R08/AB 24 

No. 

Yes. 

Yes.

Species Legal 

Status 

eastern 

bentwing-bat 

Miniopterus 

schreibersii 

oceanensis 

eastern longeared 

bat (SE 

form) 

Nyctophilus 

timoriensis 

V (TSC) 

V (TSC) 

V (EPBC) 



Habitat varies widely, from 

rainforest, wet and dry 

sclerophyll forest, monsoon 

forest, open woodland, 

paperbark forests and open 

grasslands (Churchill 

1998). Requires caves for 

roosting and maternity 

sites. 

Inhabits a variety of 

vegetation types, including 

mallee, bulloak 

(Allocasuarina leuhmanni) 

and box/eucalypt 

dominated communities, 

but it is distinctly more 

common in 

box/ironbark/cypress-pine 

vegetation that occurs in a 

north-south belt along the 

western slopes and plains 

of NSW and southern 

Queensland. Roosts in tree 

hollows, crevices, and 

under loose bark. 

This species has an eastern 

distribution from Cape York along 

the coastal side of the Great 

Dividing Range, and into the 

southern tip of South Australia 

(Churchill 1998). There are 

records of this species north of 

the Assessment Area. 



Overall, the distribution of the 

south eastern form coincides 

approximately with the Murray 

Darling Basin with the Pilliga 

Scrub region being the distinct 

stronghold for this species. 



Reservation 

in the 

Region 

Wallaroo NR 

Kooragang 

NR 

Lake 

Macquarie 

SCA 

Munmorah 

SCA 

Manobolai 

NR Wollemi 

NP 

Potential to 






development. 






recorded within 10km of the 

project area and is not 

expected to occur. There is 

no potential for a significant 

impact on this species. 

Further 


Required? 

2383/R08/AB 25 

Yes. 

No.

Species Legal 

Status 

little bentwingbat 

Miniopterus 

australis 

yellow-bellied 

sheathtail bat 

Saccolaimus 

flaviventris 

V (TSC) 



Habitat includes wet and 

dry sclerophyll forest, 

rainforest, dense coastal 

banksia scrub, and 

Melaleuca swamps. Cavedwelling, 

often sharing 

roosts with the eastern 

bentwing-bat (Miniopterus 

scheribersii oceanensis). 

Sometimes roost in tree 

hollows. Forages for small 

insects beneath the canopy 

of densely vegetated 

habitats. May depend on a 

large colony for the high 

temperatures required to 

rear the young. May 

hibernate over winter in 

southern parts of their 

range. 

V (TSC) This species forages for 

insects, flies high and fast 

over the forest canopy, but 

lower in more open 

country. It forages in most 

habitats across its very 

wide range, with and 

without trees; and appears 

to defend an aerial territory. 

It roosts singly or in groups 

of up to six, in tree hollows 

and buildings; in treeless 

areas they are known to 

use mammal burrows. 

Occurs in coastal areas from 

Cape York to northern NSW. 



The yellow-bellied sheathtail-bat 

is a wide-ranging species found 

across northern and eastern 

Australia. In the most southerly 

part of its range - most of Victoria, 

south-western NSW and adjacent 

South Australia - it is a rare visitor 

in late summer and autumn. 

There are scattered records of 

this species across the New 

England Tablelands and North 

West Slopes. 



Reservation 

in the 

Region 

Potential to 


Werakata NP This species has been 




development. 

Wollemi NP 

Manobalai 

NR 







development. 

Further 


Required? 

2383/R08/AB 26 

Yes. 

Yes.

Species Legal 

Status 

eastern false 

pipistrelle 

Falsistrellus 

tasmaniensis 

greater broadnosed 

bat 

Scoteanax 

rueppellii 

eastern cave bat 

Vespadelus 

troughtoni 



V (TSC) Habitat for this species 

includes sclerophyll forest. 

It prefers wet habitats, with 

trees over 20 metres high, 

and generally roosts in tree 

hollows or trunks. 

V (TSC) The greater broad-nosed 

bat appears to prefer moist 

environments such as 

moist gullies in coastal 

forests, or rainforest. They 

have also been found in 

gullies associated with wet 

and dry sclerophyll forests 

and open woodland. It 

roosts in hollows in tree 

trunks and branches and 

has also been found to 

roost in the roofs of old 

buildings. 

V (TSC) This species is a caveroosting 

bat that is usually 

found in dry open forest 

and woodland, near cliffs or 

rocky overhangs. It has 

been recorded roosting in 

disused mine workings, 

occasionally in colonies of 

up to 500 individuals, and 

is occasionally found along 

cliff-lines in wet eucalypt 

forest and rainforest. 

This species has a range from 

south eastern Queensland, 

through NSW, Victoria and into 

Tasmania, and occurs from the 

Great Dividing Range to the 

coast. 



The greater broad-nosed bat is 

found mainly in the gullies and 

river systems that drain the Great 

Dividing Range, from northeastern 

Victoria to the Atherton 

Tableland. It extends to the coast 

over much of its range. In NSW it 

is widespread on the New 

England Tablelands, however it 

does not occur at altitudes above 

500 m. 



The eastern cave bat is found in a 

broad band on both sides of the 

Great Dividing Range from Cape 

York to Kempsey, with records 

from the New England Tablelands 

and the upper north coast of 

NSW. The western limit appears 

to be the Warrumbungle Range, 

and there is a single record from 

southern NSW, east of the ACT. 



Reservation 

in the 

Region 

Wollemi NP 

Yengo NP 

Barrington 

Tops NP 

Wollemi NP 

Yengo NP 

Barrington 

Tops NP 

Wollemi NP 

Manobalai 

NR 

Yengo NP 

Potential to 






development. 







development. 







development. 

Further 


Required? 

2383/R08/AB 27 

Yes. 

Yes.

Species Legal 

Status 

large-eared pied 

bat 

Chalinolobus 

dwyeri 

large-footed 

myotis 

Myotis adversis 

Note 

V (TSC) 

V 

(EPBC) 

V (TSC) 



Generally found in a variety 

of drier habitats, including 

the dry sclerophyll forests 

and woodlands, however 

probably tolerates a wide 

range of habitats (Hoye & 

Dwyer 2002). Tends to 

roost in the twilight zones 

of mines and caves 


Occurs in most habitat 

types providing they are 

near to water (Richards 

2002). Commonly cavedwelling, 

however it is also 

recorded from tree hollows, 

dense vegetation, bridges, 

mines and drains (Churchill 

1998). 

DPI: Department of Primary Industries 

E: endangered 

EPBC: Environment Protection Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 

LGA: Local Government Area 

NR: Nature Reserve 

NP: National Park 

PD: Preliminary Determination 

SCA: State Conservation Area 

TSC: Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 

V: vulnerable 

Has a distribution from south 

western Queensland to Bungonia 

in southern NSW, from the coast 

to the western slopes of the Great 

Dividing Range (Churchill 1998, 

Strahan 2002). 



This is a coastal species, ranging 

from the Kimberley to South 

Australia (Churchill 1998). 



Reservation 

in the 

Region 

Watagans 

NP 

This species 

is not known 

from any 

conservation 

reserves in 

the region. 

Potential to 








development. 





development. 

Further 


Required? 

2383/R08/AB 28 

Yes. 

Yes.

APPENDIX C 

Flora Species List

Appendix C – Flora Species List 

The following list was developed from surveys of the project area detailed in Section 3 of the 

main report. It includes all species of vascular plants observed in the project area during 

fieldwork. Not all species are readily detected at any one time of the year; therefore the list 

will not necessarily include all plant species likely to occur in the project area. Many species 

flower only during restricted periods of the year, and some flower only once in several years. 

In the absence of flowering material, many of these species cannot be identified, or even 

detected. 

Names of classes and families follow a modified Cronquist (1981) System. 

Any species that could not be identified to the lowest taxonomic level are denoted in the 

following manner: 

sp. specimens that are identified to genus level only; 

? specimens for which identification was uncertain; 

prob. specimens for which identification was considered highly likely but not 

definite; and 

poss. specimens for which identification was considered likely but not definite. 


asterisk (*) denotes species not indigenous to the project area; 


var. variety; 

f. forma; and 

X hybrid. 

All vascular plants recorded or collected were identified using keys and nomenclature in 

Harden (1992, 1993, 2000 & 2002) and Wheeler et al. (2002). Where known, changes to 

nomenclature and classification have been incorporated into the results, as derived from 

PlantNET (Botanic Gardens Trust 2009), the on-line plant name database maintained by the 

National Herbarium of New South Wales. 


on other sources such as local names where these references do not provide a common 

name. 

2383/R08/AC 1


Filicopsida (Ferns) 

Adiantaceae Cheilanthes distans bristly cloak fern 

Adiantaceae Cheilanthes sieberi subsp. sieberi poison rock fern 

Adiantaceae Pellaea falcata sickle fern 

Magnoliliidae (Flowering plants) – Liliidae (Monocots) 

Alismataceae Alisma plantago-aquatica water plantain 

Anthericaceae Arthropodium milleflorum vanilla lily 

Arthropodium species B vanilla lily 

Dichopogon strictus chocolate lily 

Laxmannia gracilis slender wire lily 

Thysanotus tuberosus common fringe-lily 

Tricoryne elatior yellow autumn-lily 

Asphodelaceae Bulbine bulbosa bulbine lily 

Commelinaceae Commelina cyanea native wandering Jew 

Cyperaceae Carex inversa knob sedge 

Cyperus difformis dirty Dora 


Cyperus gracilis 

Cyperus imbecillis 

Cyperus sp. 

Eleocharis equisetina 

Fimbristylis dichotoma common fringe-sedge 

Ptilothrix deusta 

Hydrocharitaceae Ottelia ovalifolia subsp. ovalifolia swamp lily 

Juncaceae *Juncus acutus subsp. acutus sharp rush 

Juncus continuus 

Juncaginaceae Triglochin procerum water ribbons 

Lomandraceae Lomandra confertifolia mat rush 

Lomandra confertifolia subsp. 

pallida 

mat rush 

Lomandra filiformis wattle matt-rush 

Lomandra filiformis subsp. filiformis wattle matt-rush 

Lomandra glauca pale mat-rush 

Lomandra longifolia spiny-headed mat-rush 


multiflora 

Lomandra sp. 

Phormiaceae Dianella caerulea var. caerulea blue-flax lily 

Dianella caerulea var. producta blue-flax lily 


Dianella longifolia blueberry lily 

Dianella sp. 

2383/R08/AC 2


Poaceae Aristida benthamii var. benthamii three-awned speargrass 

Aristida calycina var. calycina 

Aristida jerichoensis var. 

jerichoensis 

Jericho wiregrass 

Aristida personata purple wiregrass 

Aristida ramosa purple wiregrass 

Aristida sp. 

Aristida vagans threeawn speargrass 

Austrodanthonia auriculata lobed wallaby grass 

Austrodanthonia caespitosa ringed wallaby grass 

Austrodanthonia racemosa var. 

obtusata 

Austrodanthonia richardsonii wallaby grass 

Austrodanthonia setacea 

Austrodanthonia sp. 

Austrodanthonia tenuior 

Austrostipa platychaeta flat-awn speargrass 

Austrostipa scabra subsp. scabra speargrass 

Austrostipa setacea corkscrew grass 


Austrostipa trichophylla 


*Avena sp. 

Bothriochloa biloba lobed blue-grass 



Bothriochloa sp. 

*Briza minor shivery grass 

*Bromus catharticus praire grass 

Capillipedium parviflorum scented-top grass 

Chloris divaricata 

Chloris divaricata var. divaricata slender chloris 

*Chloris gayana Rhodes grass 

Chloris sp. 

Chloris truncata windmill grass 


Cymbopogon refractus barbed wire grass 

Cynodon dactylon common couch 

Dichanthium sericeum subsp. 

sericeum 

Dichelachne inaequiglumis 

Queensland bluegrass 

Dichelachne micrantha shorthair plumegrass 

Digitaria breviglumis 

Digitaria divaricatissima umbrella grass 

Digitaria parviflora small-flowered finger grass 

Digitaria sp. 

2383/R08/AC 3


Echinopogon caespitosus var. 

caespitosus 

tufted hedgehog grass 

Echinopogon ovatus forest hedgehog grass 

Echinopogon sp. 

*Ehrharta erecta panic veldtgrass 

*Eleusine tristachya goose grass 

Elymus scaber var. scaber common wheatgrass 

Eragrostis brownii Brown’s lovegrass 

*Eragrostis cilianensis stinkgrass 


Eragrostis parviflora weeping lovegrass 

Eriochloa pseudoacrotricha early spring grass 

*Hyparrhenia hirta Coolatai grass 

*Lolium perenne perennial ryegrass 

*Melinis repens red Natal grass 

Microlaena stipoides var. stipoides weeping grass 

*Panicum maximum guinea grass 

Panicum simile two-colour panic 

Panicum sp. 

Paspalidium distans 

Paspalidium gracile slender panic 

*Paspalum dilatatum paspalum 

Paspalum distichum water couch 

*Pennisetum clandestinum kikuyu grass 

*Phalaris aquatica phalaris 

*Setaria gracilis slender pigeon grass 

Setaria sp. 

*Setaria sphacelata South African pigeon grass 

*Setaria viridis green pigeon grass 

Sporobolus creber slender rats tail grass 

Themeda australis kangaroo grass 

*Vulpia muralis 

Typhaceae Typha orientalis broad-leaved cumbungi 

Magnoliopsida (Flowering Plants) – Magnoliidae (Dicots) 

Acanthaceae 

Brunoniella australis blue trumpet 

Rostellularia adscendens subsp. 

adscendens 

Aizoaceae *Galenia pubescens galenia 

Amaranthaceae Alternanthera denticulata lesser joyweed 

Alternanthera species A 

Anacardiaceae *Schinus areira peppercorn tree 

Apiaceae *Cyclospermum leptophyllum slender celery 

*Foeniculum vulgare fennel 

Centella asiatica pennywort 


Marsdenia viridiflora native pear 

2383/R08/AC 4


Asteraceae *Bidens pilosa cobblers pegs 

*Bidens subalternans greater beggars ticks 

Brachycome ciliaris var. ciliaris variable daisy 

Brachyscome multifida cut-leaved daisy 

Calocephalus citreus lemon beauty-heads 

Calotis cuneifolia purple burr-daisy 




Cassinia quinquefaria cough bush 

Cassinia sp. 

Chrysocephalum apiculatum common everlasting 

Chrysocephalum semipapposum clustered everlasting 

Chrysocephalum sp. 



*Conyza sp. 

*Conyza sumatrensis tall fleabane 

Cotula australis common cotula 

Euchiton gymnocephalus creeping cudweed 

Euchiton involucratus star cudweed 

*Facelis retusa 

*Gamochaeta americana cudweed 


Glossogyne tannensis cobblers tack 

*Hypochaeris radicata catsear 

*Lactuca serriola prickly lettuce 

Lagenifera sp. 

Lagenifera stipitata blue bottle-daisy 

Olearia elliptica subsp. elliptica sticky daisy bush 


Senecio linearifolius 


Sigesbeckia orientalis subsp. 

orientalis 

Indian weed 

*Silybum marianum variegated thistle 

Solenogyne bellioides 


Sonchus sp. 

*Tagetes minuta stinking Roger 


*Verbesina encelioides subsp. 

encelioides 

Vernonia cinerea 

Vittadinia condyloides 

crownbeard 

Vittadinia cuneata var. hirsuta fuzzweed 

2383/R08/AC 5


Vittadinia muelleri 

Vittadinia pterochaeta rough fuzzweed 

Vittadinia sp. 

Vittadinia sulcata 

*Xanthium spinosum Bathurst burr 

Basellaceae *Anredera cordifolia Madeira vine 

Bignoniaceae Pandorea pandorana subsp. 

pandorana 

Boraginaceae Cynoglossum australe 

wonga wonga vine 

*Heliotropium amplexicaule blue heliotrope 

Brassicaceae *Coronopus didymus lesser swinecress 

*Lepidium africanum peppercress 

*Lepidium bonariense peppercress 

Lepidium pseudohyssopifolium peppercress 

Lepidium sp. 

*Rapistrum rugosum turnip weed 

*Rorippa palustris yellow cress 

*Sisymbrium irio London rocket 


*Opuntia humifusa creeping pear 




Wahlenbergia luteola 

Wahlenbergia sp. 

Caryophyllaceae *Paronychia brasiliana Chilean whitlow wort 

*Petrorhagia nanteuilii 

*Petrorhagia sp. 

*Petrorhagia velutina velvet pink 

Polycarpaea corymbosa var. minor 

*Polycarpon tetraphyllum four-leaved allseed 

Casuarinaceae Allocasuarina littoralis black sheoak 

Allocasuarina luehmannii bulloak 

*Casuarina cristata belah 

Casuarina cunninghamiana subsp. 

cunninghamiana 

river oak 

Casuarina glauca swamp oak 

Chenopodiaceae *Chenopodium album fat hen 

Atriplex semibaccata creeping saltbush 

Atriplex sp. 

Chenopodium carinatum keeled goosefoot 

Chenopodium pumilio small crumbweed 

Einadia hastata berry saltbush 

Einadia nutans subsp. linifolia climbing saltbush 

Einadia nutans subsp. nutans climbing saltbush 

Einadia polygonoides 

2383/R08/AC 6


Einadia sp. 


Maireana microphylla small-leaf bluebush 

Salsola kali var. kali 

Chloanthaceae Spartothamnella juncea 

Clusiaceae 

Sclerolaena birchii galvanized burr 

*Hypericum perforatum St. Johns wort 

Hypericum gramineum small St John's wort 

Convolvulaceae Convolvulus angustissimus subsp. 

angustissimus 

Convolvulus erubescens blushing bindweed 

Dichondra repens kidney weed 

Evolvulus alsinoides 

Crassulaceae Crassula sieberiana Australian stonecrop 

Euphorbiaceae Chamaesyce drummondii caustic weed 

Fabaceae 

(Faboideae) 

Fabaceae 

(Mimosoideae) 

Phyllanthus gunnii scrubby spurge 

Phyllanthus hirtellus spurge 

Phyllanthus sp. spurge 

Phyllanthus virgatus spurge 

*Ricinus communis castor oil plant 

Bossiaea rhombifolia 

Chorizema parviflorum eastern flame pea 

Daviesia ulicifolia subsp. ulicifolia gorse bitter pea 

Desmodium brachypodum large tick-trefoil 

Desmodium gunnii slender tick-trefoil 


Glycine clandestina love creeper 

Glycine latifolia love creeper 

Glycine microphylla small-leaf glycine 

Glycine sp. 

Glycine tabacina love creeper 

Hardenbergia violacea false sarsaparilla 

Indigofera australis Australian indigo 

Kennedia rubicunda red Kennedy pea 

*Medicago polymorpha burr medic 

*Trifolium arvense haresfoot clover 

*Trifolium campestre hop clover 

*Trifolium repens white clover 

Pultenaea scabra 

Swainsona galegifolia smooth Darling pea 

Templetonia sp. 

Zornia dyctiocarpa zornia 

Acacia amblygona fan wattle 

Acacia decora western golden wattle 

Acacia doratoxylon currawang 

2383/R08/AC 7



Acacia implexa hickory wattle 

Acacia linearifolia narrow-leaved wattle 

Acacia longifolia Sydney golden wattle 

Acacia paradoxa kangaroo thorn 

*Acacia podalyriifolia Queensland silver wattle 

Acacia salicina cooba 

Acacia sp. 

Vachellia farnesiana mimosa bush 

Gentianaceae Centaurium spicatum spike centaury 

Geraniaceae Erodium crinitum blue storksbill 

*Geranium molle 

Geranium solanderi native geranium 

Geranium sp. 

Pelargonium inodorum 

Goodeniaceae Goodenia hederacea subsp. 

hederacea 

ivy goodenia 

Goodenia ovata hop goodenia 

Goodenia pinnatifida 

Goodenia sp. 

Velleia paradoxa spur velleia 

Haloragaceae *Myriophyllum aquaticum parrots feathers 

Lamiaceae Ajuga australis austral bugle 

*Marrubium vulgare horehound 

Mentha diemenica slender mint 

Linaceae *Linum trigynum French flax 

Linum marginale native flax 

Lobeliaceae Pratia concolor poison pratia 

Pratia purpurascens whiteroot 

Loranthaceae Amyema cambagei box mistletoe 

Lysiana exocarpi subsp. tenuis 

Lysiana linearifolia 

Malvaceae *Pavonia hastata 

Sida corrugata corrugated sida 

Sida cunninghamii 


*Sida rhombifolia Paddy’s lucerne 

Sida spinosa 

Sida sp. 

Sida trichopoda 


Myoporum montanum western boobialla 

Myrtaceae Angophora floribunda rough-barked apple 

Corymbia maculata spotted gum 

*Eucalyptus cladocalyx sugar gum 


2383/R08/AC 8


Eucalyptus fibrosa red ironbark 

Eucalyptus melliodora yellow box 


Eucalyptus sp. 


Melaleuca uncinata broombush 

Oleaceae Notelaea microcarpa var. 

microcarpa 

native olive 

*Olea europaea subsp. cuspidata African olive 

Onagraceae Ludwigia peploides subsp. 

montevidensis 

*Oenothera mollissima 

Oxalidaceae Oxalis exilis 

Oxalis perennans 

Oxalis sp. 

water primrose 

Phytolaccaceae *Phytolacca octandra inkweed 

Pittosporaceae Bursaria spinosa subsp. spinosa native blackthorn 

Plantaginaceae Plantago debilis native plantain 

Plantago gaudichaudii narrow plantain 

*Plantago lanceolata lambs tongues 


Plantago sp. 

Polygonaceae Persicaria hydropiper water pepper 

Rumex brownii swamp dock 

*Rumex crispus curled dock 


Proteaceae *Grevillea robusta silky oak 

Ranunculaceae Clematis aristata old man’s beard 

Clematis glycinoides var. 

glycinoides 

headache vine 

Rhamnaceae Cryptandra amara var. amara bitter cryptandra 

Rubiaceae Asperula conferta common woodruff 

Rutaceae 

Psydrax odorata shiny-leaved canthium 

*Galium divaricatum slender bedstraw 

Galium sp. 

Opercularia aspera coarse stinkweed 

Opercularia diphylla stinkweed 

Opercularia hispida hairy stinkweed 

Opercularia sp. 


Geijera parviflora wilga 

Geijera salicifolia var. salicifolia bush mitga 

Salicaceae *Populus alba white poplar 

*Salix x sepulcralis var. sepulcralis weeping willow 

Santalaceae Exocarpos cupressiformis native cherry 

Sapindaceae Dodonaea viscosa sticky hop-bush 

2383/R08/AC 9


Dodonaea viscosa subsp. cuneata wedge-leaved hop-bush 

Dodonaea viscosa subsp. 

mucronata 

sticky hop-bush 

Scrophulariaceae Veronica plebeia trailing speedwell 

Solanaceae *Lycium ferocissimum African boxthorn 

Nicotiana suaveolens native tobacco 

Solanum americanum glossy nightshade 

Solanum campanulatum 

Solanum cinereum Narrawa burr 


*Solanum nigrum black-berry nightshade 

Solanum prinophyllum forest nightshade 


Solanum sp. 

Stackhousiaceae Stackhousia muricata 

Solanum stelligerum devils needles 

Stackhousia sp. 

Stackhousia viminea slender stackhousia 

Sterculiaceae Brachychiton populneus subsp. 

populneus 

Thymelaeaceae Pimelea latifolia subsp. elliptifolia 

kurrajong 

Urticaceae *Urtica urens small nettle 

Verbenaceae *Verbena bonariensis purpletop 

*Verbena X brasiliensis gin case 

*Verbena rigida veined verbena 

Vitaceae Cayratia clematidea slender grape 

Zygophyllaceae *Tribulus terrestris catshead 

2383/R08/AC 10

APPENDIX D 

Fauna Species List

Appendix D – Fauna Species List 

The following list was developed from surveys of the project area detailed in Section 3.5 of 

the main report. It includes all species of vertebrate fauna observed in the project area during 

fieldwork. 


asterisk (*) denotes species not indigenous to the project area; 


MAR Listed marine species under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity 

Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act); 

MIG Listed migratory species under the EPBC Act; 

V Vulnerable under Schedule 2 of the Threatened Species Conservation Act 

1995 (TSC Act); 

E Endangered under Schedule 1 of the TSC Act; and 

PD Preliminary Determination. 

Birds recorded were identified using descriptions in Slater et al. (2003) and the scientific and 

common name nomenclature of Birds Australia. Reptiles recorded were identified using keys 

and descriptions in Cogger (2000), Swan et al (2004), Weigel (1990) and Wilson & Swan 

(2008) and the scientific and common name nomenclature of Cogger (2000). 

Amphibians recorded were identified using keys and descriptions in Cogger (2000), 

Robinson (1998), Anstis (2002) and Barker et al. (1995) and the scientific and common name 

nomenclature of Cogger (2000). Mammals recorded were identified using keys and 

descriptions in Strahan (2002) and Menkhorst & Knight (2004) and the scientific and 

common name nomenclature of Strahan (2002) for non bat species. Bat species recorded 

were identified using keys and descriptions in Churchill (1998) and ecological information 

was obtained from Churchill (2008). 

2383/R08/AD 1

Scientific Name Common Name Conservation Status Source 

BIRDS 

Phasianidae 

TSC Act EPBC Act 

Coturnix pectoralis stubble quail MAR �� 

Coturnix ypsilophora brown quail � �� 

Coturnix sp. quail � �� 

Anatidae 

Anas castanea chestnut teal MIG �� 

Anas gracilis grey teal MIG �� 

Anas rhynchotis Australasian shoveler MIG �� 

Aythya australis hardhead MIG �� 

Stictonetta naevosa freckled duck V MIG � � 

Cygnus atratus black swan MIG � �� 

Chenonetta jubata Australian wood duck MIG � �� 

Anas superciliosa Pacific black duck MIG � �� 

Oxyura australis blue-billed duck V MIG � � 

Biziura lobata musk duck MAR & 

MIG 

2383/R08/AD 2 

Database Searches 

DEWHA Protected Matters 

Search Tool 

� � 

Tadorna tadornoides Australian shelduck MIG �� 

Cygnus atratus black swan MIG � �� 

Umwelt Surveys 

ERM Mitchell McCotter 1998 

HLA 2001 

Cumnock Ecological Monitoring 

Ravensworth West and Narama 

Ecological Monitoring 

Cumnock (Umwelt 2008)


Podicipedidae 

Tachybaptus 


Poliocephalus 

poliocephalus 

Australasian grebe 

hoary-headed grebe 


2383/R08/AD 3 



Search Tool 



HLA 2001 




� �� 

� �� 

Podiceps cristatus great crested grebe � �� 

Anhingidae 

Anhinga melanogaster darter � � �� 

Phalacrocoracidae � 

Phalacrocorax carbo great cormorant � � � � 

Phalacrocorax 

melanoleucos 

little pied cormorant 

� �� 

Phalacrocorax sulcirostris little black cormorant �� 

Phalacrocorax varius pied cormorant �� 

Pelecanidae 

Pelecanus conspicillatus Australian pelican MAR � �� 

Ciconiidae 

Ephippiorhynchus 

asiaticus 

black-necked stork E 

� 



Ardeidae 


Egretta novaehollandiae white-faced heron � �� 

Ardea pacifica white-necked heron � �� 

Ardea alba great egret MAR � � �� 

Ardea ibis cattle egret MAR � � 

Ardea intermedia intermediate egret MAR � 

Threskiornithidae 

Platalea flavipes yellow-billed spoonbill � 

Platalea regia royal spoonbill � 

Threskiornis molucca Australian white ibis MAR � 

Threskiornis spinicollis straw-necked ibis MAR � � 

Accipitridae 

Elanus notatus black-shouldered kite MIG � �� 

Haliaeetus leucogaster white-bellied sea-eagle MAR & 

MIG 

Haliastur sphenurus whistling kite MAR & 

MIG 

2383/R08/AD 4 



Search Tool 


� � � 

� �� 

Hieraaetus morphnoides little eagle V (PD) MIG �� 

Accipiter fasciatus brown goshawk MAR & 

MIG 

� �� 

Aquila audax wedge-tailed eagle MIG � �� 


HLA 2001 







Aviceda subcristata Pacific baza MIG �� 

Circus assimilis spotted harrier V (PD) MIG �� 

Falconidae 

Falco berigora brown falcon MIG � �� 

Falco longipennis Australian hobby MIG �� 

Falco peregrinus peregrine falcon MIG �� 

Falco cenchroides nankeen kestrel MAR & 

MIG 

Rallidae 

2383/R08/AD 5 



Search Tool 



HLA 2001 




� �� 

Gallinula tenebrosa dusky moorhen � � � 

Porphyrio porphyrio purple swamphen � �� 

Fulica atra Eurasian coot � �� 

Recurvirostridae 

Himantopus himantopus black-winged stilt MAR & 

MIG 

Recurvirostra 


Charadriidae 

red-necked avocet MAR & 

MIG 

Elseyornis melanops black-fronted dotterel MIG � �� 

Vanellus miles masked lapwing MIG � �� 

Rostratulidae 

� 

� 



Rostratula australis Australian painted 

snipe 

Scolopacidae 


E MAR 

Gallinago hardwickii Lathams snipe MAR & 

MIG 

Turnicidae � 

Turnix varia painted button-quail � � 

Laridae 

Chlidonias hybridus whiskered tern MAR �� 

Chroicocephalus 


silver gull MAR 

Sterna caspia Caspian tern MAR 

Columbidae 

Phaps chalcoptera common bronzewing � �� 

Ocyphaps lophotes crested pigeon � �� 

Columba livia rock dove � 

Geopelia cuneata diamond dove � 

Geopelia humeralis bar-shouldered dove � 

Geopelia placida peaceful dove � 

Lopholaimus antarcticus topknot pigeon �� 

chinensis Streptopelia * spotted turtle-dove �� 

2383/R08/AD 6 


� 


Search Tool 

� 

� 



HLA 2001 






Podargidae 


Podargus strigoides tawny frogmouth � 

Caprimulgidae 

Eurostopodus mystacalis white-throated nightjar MAR � 

Cacatuidae 

Cacatua galerita sulphur-crested 

cockatoo 

2383/R08/AD 7 



Search Tool 



HLA 2001 




� � � � � 

Cacatua sanguinea little corella � � � � 

Cacatua roseicapilla galah � �� 

Psittacidae 

Alisterus scapularis Australian king-parrot � � � 

Glossopsitta concinna musk lorikeet � � 

Glossopsitta pusilla little lorikeet V (PD) � � 

Trichoglossus haematodus rainbow lorikeet � �� 

Platycercus elegans crimson rosella �� 

Platycercus eximius eastern rosella � �� 

Lathamus discolor swift parrot E E & MAR � � � � � � � � 

Psephotus haematonotus red-rumped parrot � � 

Cuculidae 



Chalcites basalis Horsfields bronzecuckoo 


MAR 

2383/R08/AD 8 



Search Tool 


� � 

Chalcites lucidus shining bronze-cuckoo MAR � � 

Cuculus pallidus pallid cuckoo MAR � �� 

Cacomantis flabelliformis fan-tailed cuckoo MAR � �� 

Eudynamis orientalis eastern koel �� 

Scythrops novaehollandiae channel-billed cuckoo MAR � �� 

Strigidae 

Ninox strenua powerful owl V � � 

Ninox novaeseelandiae southern boobook MAR & 

MIG 

Tytonidae 

� �� 

Tyto alba barn owl �� 

Tyto novaehollandiae masked owl V � �� 

Aegothelidae 

Aegotheles cristatus Australian owlet-nightjar � �� 

Apodidae 

Hirundapus caudacutus white-throated needletail MAR & 

MIG 

� � � 

Apus affinis house swift MAR �� 


HLA 2001 







Apus pacificus fork-tailed swift MAR & 

MIG 

Halcyonidae 

2383/R08/AD 9 



Search Tool 


� � 

Alcedo azurea azure kingfisher � � � � � 

Dacelo novaeguineae laughing kookaburra � �� 

Todiramphus macleayii forest kingfisher MAR � �� 

Todiramphus sanctus sacred kingfisher MAR � �� 

Meropidae 

Merops ornatus rainbow bee-eater MAR & 

MIG 

Coraciidae 


HLA 2001 




� � �� 

Eurystomus orientalis dollarbird MAR � �� 

Climacteridae 

Corombates leucophaeus white-throated 

treecreeper 

Climacteris picumnus 

victoriae 

Ptilonorhynchidae 



Ptilonorhynchus violaceus satin bowerbird � 

Maluridae 

V 

� �� 

� �� 

Malurus cyaneus superb fairy-wren � �� 




Malurus lamberti variegated fairy-wren � �� 

Pardalotidae 

Pardalotus punctatus spotted pardalote � �� 

Pardalotus striatus striated pardalote � �� 

Acanthizidae � � � � � 

Chthonicola sagittata speckled warbler V � �� 

Smicrornis brevirostris weebill � �� 

Gerygone mouki brown gerygone � � 

Gerygone olivacea white-throated gerygone � �� 

Acanthiza pusilla brown thornbill � �� 

Acanthiza reguloides buff-rumped thornbill � �� 

Acanthiza chrysorrhoa yellow-rumped thornbill � �� 

Acanthiza nana yellow thornbill � �� 

Acanthiza lineata striated thornbill � �� 

Sericornis frontalis white-browed scrubwren � � 

Sericornis magnirostris large-billed scrubwren � � � 

Meliphagidae 

Anthochaera carunculata red wattlebird � �� 

Entomyzon cyanotis blue-faced honeyeater � � � 

Plectorhyncha lanceolata striped honeyeater � �� 

2383/R08/AD 10 



Search Tool 



HLA 2001 







Philemon corniculatus noisy friarbird � �� 

Phylidonyris niger white-cheeked 

honeyeater 

2383/R08/AD 11 



Search Tool 



HLA 2001 




�� 

Plectorhyncha lanceolata striped honeyeater �� 

Manorina melanocephala noisy miner � �� 

Manorina melanophrys bell miner � � � � � � � � 

Anthochaera phrygia regent honeyeater E E & MIG � � � � � � � 

Meliphaga lewinii Lewin’s honeyeater � �� 

Lichenostomus chrysops yellow-faced honeyeater � �� 

Lichenostomus fuscus fuscous honeyeater � � � � 

Lichenostomus leucotis white-eared honeyeater �� 

Lichenostomus penicillatus white-plumed 

honeyeater 

Melithreptus gularis 

gularis 

black-chinned 

honeyeater (eastern 

subsp.) 

Melithreptus brevirostris brown-headed 

honeyeater 

Melithreptus lunatus 

white-naped honeyeater 

V 

� �� 

� � 

� �� 

�� 



Acanthorhynchus 

tenuirostris 

eastern spinebill 


Myzomela sanguinolenta scarlet honeyeater � 

Petroicidae 

2383/R08/AD 12 



Search Tool 



HLA 2001 




� �� 

Microeca leucophaea jacky winter � �� 

Petroica boodang scarlet robin V (PD) � � �� 

Petroica goodenovii red-capped robin � �� 

Petroica phoenicea flame robin V (PD) MAR �� 

Petroica rosea rose robin � �� 

Melanodryas cucullata 

cucullata 

hooded robin (southeastern 

form) 

V 

� �� 

Eopsaltria australis eastern yellow robin � �� 

Eupetidae 

Cinclosoma punctatum spotted quail-thrush � 

Psophodes olivaceus eastern whipbird � 

Pomatostomidae 

Pomatostomus 


Neosittidae 

Daphoenositta 

chrysoptera 

grey-crowned babbler 


varied sittella V (PD) 

V 

� �� 

� 



Pachycephalidae 


Pachycephala pectoralis golden whistler � �� 

Pachycephala rufiventris rufous whistler � �� 

Colluricincla harmonica grey shrike-thrush � �� 

Falcunculus frontatus eastern shrike-tit �� 

Dicruridae 

Monarcha melanopsis black-faced monarch MAR � �� 

Myiagra inquieta restless flycatcher � � � 

Myiagra rubecula leaden flycatcher � � � 

Myiagra cyanoleuca satin flycatcher MAR � �� 

Grallina cyanoleuca magpie-lark MAR � �� 

Rhipidura fuliginosa grey fantail � �� 

Rhipidura leucophrys willie wagtail � �� 

Campephagidae 

Coracina novaehollandiae black-faced cuckooshrike 

MAR 

2383/R08/AD 13 



Search Tool 



HLA 2001 




� �� 

Coracina tenuirostris cicadabird � � � � 

Lalage tricolor white-winged triller � � � � � 

Oriolidae 

Oriolus sagittatus olive-backed oriole � �� 



Artamidae 


Artamus personatus masked woodswallow � � � 

Artamus cinereus black-faced 

woodswallow 

Artamus cyanopterus dusky woodswallow � �� 

Artamus superciliosus white-browed 

woodswallow 

V (PD) 

2383/R08/AD 14 



Search Tool 



HLA 2001 


�� 

�� 

Cracticus torquatus grey butcherbird � �� 

Cracticus nigrogularis pied butcherbird � �� 

Gymnorhina tibicen Australian magpie � �� 

Strepera graculina pied currawong � �� 

Corvidae 

Corvus coronoides Australian raven � �� 

Corvus mellori little raven MAR �� 

Corcoracidae 

Corcorax melanorhamphos white-winged chough � �� 

Motacilidae 

Anthus novaeseelandiae Richard’s pipit MAR � �� 

Passeridae 

*Passer domesticus house sparrow �� 






Estrildidae � � � 

Taeniopygia guttata zebra finch �� 

Taeniopygia bichenovii double-barred finch � �� 

Neochmia temporalis red-browed finch � �� 

Stagonopleura guttata diamond firetail V � � � � � � 

Dicaeidae 

Dicaeum hirundinaceum mistletoebird � �� 

Hirundinidae 

Petrochelidon ariel fairy martin � � 

Petrochelidon nigricans tree martin � � � 

Cheramoeca leucosternum white-backed swallow � �� 

Hirundo neoxena welcome swallow MAR � �� 

Muscicapidae � � � � � � 

Zoothera sp. unidentified ground 

thrush 

Sylviidae 

2383/R08/AD 15 



Search Tool 



HLA 2001 




�� 

Acrocephalus australis Australian reed-warbler � �� 

Megalurus gramineus little grassbird � 

Cisticolidae 

Cisticola exilis golden-headed cisticola � 



Megaluridae 


Cincloramphus cruralis brown songlark � � 

Megalurus timoriensis tawny grassbird � 

Zosteropidae 

Zosterops lateralis silvereye MAR � �� 

Sturnidae 

*Acridotheres tristis common myna � �� 

*Sturnus vulgaris common starling � � 

REPTILES 

Cheloniidae 

Chelodina longicollis snake-necked turtle MIG � �� 

Gekkonidae 

Diplodactylus vittatus stone gecko � �� 

Oedura robusta robust velvet gecko � �� 

Phyllurus platurus southern leaf-tail gecko � � 

Underwoodisaurus milii thick-tailed gecko �� 

Varanidae 

Varanus varius lace monitor � �� 

2383/R08/AD 16 



Search Tool 



HLA 2001 






Agamidae 


Amphibolurus muricatus jacky lizard � �� 

Physignathus lesueurii eastern water dragon �� 

Pogona barbata eastern bearded dragon � � �� 

Scincidae 

Acritoscincus platynota red-throated skink � � � 

Carlia tetradactyla southern rainbow skink � �� 

Cryptoblepharus virgatus cream-striped shinningskink 

Ctenotus regius 

Ctenotus robustus striped skink � �� 

Ctenotus taeniolatus copper-tailed skink �� 

Egernia striolata tree skink � �� 

Egernia modesta skink �� 

Eulamprus quoyii eastern water-skink �� 

Hemiergis decresiensis skink �� 

Lampropholis delicata grass skink � �� 

Lampropholis guichenoti garden skink �� 

Lygisaurus foliorum tree-base litter-skink � � � � � � 

Morethia boulengeri � �� 

2383/R08/AD 17 


� 


Search Tool 



HLA 2001 







Saiphos equalis three-toed skink �� 

Tiliqua scincoides eastern blue-tongue � � 

Pygopodidae 

Delma plebeia leaden delma � � 

Typhlopidae 

Ramphotyphlops wiedii brown-snouted blind 

snake 

Elapidae 

Furina diadema red-naped snake � �� 

Hemiaspis signata marsh snake � � � 

Pseudechis porphyriacus red-bellied black snake � � � � 

Pseudonaja textilis eastern brown snake � � � � � 

Vermicella annulata bandy bandy �� 

AMPHIBIANS 

Myobatrachidae 

Crinia signifera common eastern froglet 

Limnodynastes dumerilii banjo frog, eastern 

pobblebonk 

2383/R08/AD 18 


� 


Search Tool 



HLA 2001 




� �� 

� �� 

Limnodynastes fletcheri barking marsh frog �� 

Limnodynastes ornatus ornate burrowing frog � � 




Limnodynastes peronii striped marsh frog � �� 

Limnodynastes 

tasmaniensis 

spotted marsh frog 

Uperoleia fusca dusky toadlet �� 

Uperoleia laevigata smooth toadlet � �� 

Uperoleia sp. � 

Hylidae 

Litoria aurea green and golden bell 

frog 

E E 

2383/R08/AD 19 



Search Tool 



HLA 2001 




� �� 

� � �� 

Litoria caerulea green tree frog � � � � 

Litoria fallax green reed frog, dwarf 

tree frog 

� �� 

Litoria latopalmata broad-palmed frog � �� 

Litoria lesueuri Lesueur’s Frog � � � � 

Litoria nasuta rocket frog � � � � �� 

Litoria peronii Peron’s tree frog � �� 

Litoria revelata whirring tree frog �� 

Litoria tyleri Tyler’s tree frog � �� 

MAMMALS 

Ornithorhynchidae 

Ornithorhynchus anatinus platypus � 



Tachyglossidae 


Tachyglossus aculeatus short-beaked echidna � �� 

Dasyuridae 

Dasyurus maculatus spotted-tailed quoll V E � � � � � 

Antechinus flavipes yellow-footed antechinus � �� 

Antechinus stuartii brown antechinus � � � 

Sminthopsis murina common dunnart � �� 

Planigale tenuirostris narrow-nosed planigale � 

Phascolarctidae 

Phascolarctos cinereus koala V � 

Vombatidae 

Vombatus ursinus common wombat � 

Petauridae 

Petaurus breviceps sugar glider �� 

Petaurus norfolcensis squirrel glider V � 

Phalangeridae 

Trichosurus vulpecula common brushtail 

possum 

Trichosurus sp. brushtail possum � �� 

2383/R08/AD 20 



Search Tool 



HLA 2001 




� �� 



Pseudocheiridae 


Pseudocheirus peregrinus common ringtail possum � � 

Macropodidae 

Macropus giganteus eastern grey kangaroo � �� 

Macropus robustus common wallaroo �� 

Macropus rufogriseus red-necked wallaby �� 

Petrogale penicillata brush-tailed rockwallaby 

E V 

Wallabia bicolor swamp wallaby � 

Pteropodidae 

Pteropus poliocephalus grey-headed flying-fox V V � � �� 

Emballonuridae 

Saccolaimus flaviventris yellow-bellied 

sheathtail-bat 

Rhinolophidae 

Rhinolophus megaphyllus eastern horseshoe-bat � 

Molossidae 

Mormopterus 

norfolkensis 

eastern freetail-bat V 

V 

2383/R08/AD 21 



Search Tool 


� � � � 

� 


HLA 2001 




� � �� 

Mormopterus planiceps southern freetail-bat � �� 

Mormopterus sp. mastiff bat �� 




Nyctinomus australis white-striped freetail-bat � �� 

Vespertilionidae 

Miniopterus australis little bentwing-bat V � �� 

Miniopterus schreibersii 

oceanensis 

eastern bentwing-bat V 

Nyctophilus geoffroyi lesser long-eared bat � �� 

Nyctophilus gouldi Gould’s long-eared bat � �� 

Nyctophilus timoriensis 

(South-eastern form) 

eastern long-eared bat V V 

2383/R08/AD 22 



Search Tool 



HLA 2001 




� �� 

� � 

Nyctophilus sp. long-eared bat � � � � � 

Chalinolobus dwyeri large-eared pied bat V V � � � � 

Chalinolobus gouldii Gould’s wattled bat � �� 

Chalinolobus morio chocolate wattled bat � �� 

Falsistrellus 

tasmaniensis 

eastern false pipistrelle V 

Myotis adversus large-footed myotis V � � � � �� 

Scotorepens balstoni inland broad-nosed bat � �� 

Scotorepens orion eastern broad-nosed bat � �� 

Vespadelus darlingtoni large forest bat � � � � � 

Vespadelus pumilus eastern forest bat � � � � � 

Vespadelus regulus southern forest bat � �� 

�� 




Vespadelus vulturnus little forest bat � �� 

Muridae 

Hydromys chrysogaster water-rat � � 

Mus musculus* house mouse � �� 

Pseudomys 


New Holland mouse 

2383/R08/AD 23 



Search Tool 


� � 

Rattus fuscipes bush rat � � 

Rattus lutreolus swamp rat � � 

*Rattus rattus black rat � �� 

Canidae 

Canis lupus dingo dingo � � � � 

*Canis familiaris dog � �� 

Vulpes vulpes* fox � �� 

Cervidae � � � 

*Cervus sp. unidentified deer �� 

Equidae � � � 

*Equus caballus horse �� 

Felidae 

*Felis catus cat � 

Leporidae 


HLA 2001 







*Oryctolagus cuniculus rabbit � �� 

*Lepus capensis brown hare � �� 

Cervidae 

*Bos taurus cattle � �� 

Suidae � � � 

*Sus scrofa pig �� 

2383/R08/AD 24 



Search Tool 



HLA 2001 





APPENDIX E 

EP&A Act Assessment 

of Significance

Appendix E - Assessment of Significance – 

Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 

Part 3A of the EP&A Act requires an assessment of significance relating to the potential impacts of the 

project on listed threatened species, endangered populations or threatened ecological communities 

(TECs). As a formal assessment method format is yet to be established by the relevant government 

authorities, an assessment that applies the key principles of the Section 5A assessment is used here 

to assess the potential for the project to impact on threatened species, endangered populations or 

TECs within the project area. 

An assessment of significance is provided below for those identified threatened species, endangered 

populations or TECs considered (within Tables 1 and 2 of Appendix B) to have the potential to be 

impacted by the project. The following species are assessed: 



� black-chinned honeyeater (eastern subspecies) (Melithreptus gularis gularis); 

� speckled warbler (Chthonicola saggitata); 

� grey-crowned babbler (eastern form) (Pomatostomus temporalis temporalis); 

� varied sittella (Daphoenositta chrysoptera); 

� diamond firetail (Stagonopleura guttata); 



� flame robin (Petroica phoenicea); 

� white-browed woodswallow (Artamus superciliosus); 

� painted honeyeater (Grantiella picta); 




� eastern long-eared bat (south-eastern form) (Nyctophilus timoriensis); 


� yellow-bellied sheathtail-bat (Saccolaimus flaviventris); 

� eastern false pipistrelle (Falsistrellus tasmaniensis); 

� greater broad-nosed bat (Scoteanax rueppellii); 

� eastern cave bat (Vespadelus troughtoni); 

� large-eared pied bat (Chalinolobus dwyeri); and 

� large-footed myotis (Myotis adversis). 

2383/R08/AE 1

In addition, the following endangered populations (EPs) and endangered ecological communities 

(EECs) are also assessed: 

� Acacia pendula (a tree) in the Hunter Catchment EP; 

� River-flat Eucalypt Forest EEC; 

� Central Hunter Grey Box – Ironbark Woodland (PD) EEC; 

� Central Hunter Ironbark – Spotted Gum – Grey Box Forest (PD) EEC; and 

� Hunter Floodplain Red Gum Woodland (PD) EEC. 

Threatened Species 

Assessment of Significance under EP&A Act 

Green and golden bell frog (Litoria aurea) 

a) Whether the life cycle of the species is likely to be disrupted such that a local viable 

population of the species is likely to be placed at risk of extinction. 

The green and golden bell frog has been recorded in the project area on three occasions over an 

11 year period. The project area forms part of the Upper Hunter GGBF Key Population consisting 

of one main diffuse population at, or in the vicinity of, the Ravensworth and Liddell area and 

bordering areas of the Singleton and Muswellbrook local government areas (DECC 2007).The 

population is assumed to have a diffuse distribution across lands encompassed by these locations 

and has been recorded sporadically; this is probably caused by climatic circumstances and/or 

seasonal life cycle changes of the species (DECC 2007). 

To meet all of its life cycle requirements the green and golden bell frog requires a complex mosaic 

of habitats including permanent breeding habitat such as dams, ephemeral areas for breeding and 

dispersal, woodland and grassland for foraging and shelter opportunities and microhabitats such as 

fallen logs, rocks and sometimes disused industrial waste. In the context of the project area, any 

areas within 500 metres of moderate and high quality dam habitats is considered core habitat for 

the species, which equates to a loss of 179 hectares. 

The project will result in the removal of 179 hectares of habitat for the species, including potential 

breeding habitat and it is considered moderately likely to result in significant distruption to the life 

cycle of the species such that the local viable population of the species may be placed at risk of 

extinction. 

b) In relation to the regional distribution of the habitat of the threatened species, whether 

a significant area of known habitat is to be modified or removed, or isolated from 

currently interconnecting or proximate areas. 

The site forms part of the Upper Hunter GGBF Key Population consisting of one main diffuse 

population at, or in the vicinity of, the Ravensworth and Liddell area and bordering areas of the 

Singleton and Muswellbrook local government areas (DECC 2007). The Upper Hunter population 

is one of two inland populations of the species and is known from eight verified locations. The 

population is assumed to have a diffuse distribution across lands encompassed by these locations 

and has been recorded sporadically, probably caused by climatic circumstances and/or seasonal 

life cycle changes of the species (DECC 2007). 

In the upper Hunter Valley, in excess of 10000 farm dams provide permanent potential breeding 

and foraging habitat for the species (DECC 2007). Due to the sporadic recording of the species in 

the local population (as defined in the Upper Hunter GGBF Management Plan (DECC 2007)) the 

project area is considered to comprise a significant area of potential habitat. The project will result 

in the removal of a significant area of potential habitat of the species. The project will not result in 

2383/R08/AE 2

the further isolation of the species as movement along Davis Creek to Bayswater Creek (and 

therefore north, south and east of the project area) will not be affected. 

c) Whether the species, or its habitat, are adequately represented in conservation 

reserves (or other similar protected areas) in the region. 

The green and golden bell frog is known to occur in Kooragang NR and Hexham Swamp NR. 

Potential habitat for the species is conserved at Mt Owen mine under an in-perpetuity conservation 

agreement (Umwelt 2003), however the species has not currently been recorded within the 

Biodiversity Offset Area. The species is not adequately conserved in the region. 

d) Whether the species is at the limit of its known distribution. 

The species is at the western limit of its distribution in the project area (refer to Table 2 of 

Appendix B). 

Brown treecreeper (eastern subspecies) climacteris picumnus victoriae 



The brown treecreeper has been recorded at five locations within the project area all of which occur 

in Central Hunter Box Ironbark Woodland. This species occurs throughout the project area in 

suitable habitat. The project would also require the removal of 512 hectares of woodland and 

forest vegetation which represents foraging and breeding habitat for the species. The project will 

result in a significant reduction in the size of the local viable population, however the local 

population of the brown treecreeper will not be placed at risk of extinction. 




The project will result in the removal of approximately 473 hectares of Central Hunter Grey Box – 

Ironbark Woodland EEC. Interrogation of the Hunter Remnant Vegetation Project shows that the 

mapped extent of this community across its distribution is approximately 14 800 hectares. 

Therefore the project represents a loss of approximately 3.5% of the current distribution of this 

community. The brown treecreeper is highly susceptible to fragmentation and the species appears 

unable to maintain populations in less than 200 hectares. The Ravensworth Central Hunter Box – 

Ironbark remnant currently covers an area of approximately 1200 hectares making it the largest 

Central Hunter Box – Ironbark Woodland remnant in the Hunter Remnant Vegetation Project 

(HRVP) study area and the sixth largest remnant overall (Peake 2006). Therefore, although the 

project will only result in the loss of approximately 3.5% of the regional extent of this community, 

this loss is considered significant in a regional context as it will result in the loss of a significant 

remnant that provides un-fragmented contiguous habitat in a regional landscape that has been 

significantly impacted by habitat loss and fragmentation. 



This species is not known from any conservation reserves in the region and is not considered to be 

adequately conserved. 


The species is not at the limit of its distribution in the project area (refer to Table 2 of Appendix B). 

2383/R08/AE 3

Speckled warbler (Chthonicola sagittata) 



The speckled warbler has been recorded at nine locations within the project area, occurring in 

Central Hunter Box – Ironbark Woodland and Central Hunter Bulloak Regeneration. This species 

occurs throughout the project area in suitable habitat. The project includes the loss of 

512 hectares of woodland and forest vegetation which represents foraging and breeding habitat for 

the species. The project will result in a significant reduction in the size of the local viable 

population, however the local population of the speckled warbler will not be placed at risk of 

extinction. 




The speckled warbler is threatened by clearance and fragmentation of habitat including removal of 

dead timber. The species has been shown to decrease in abundance as woodland area 

decreased, and it appears to be extinct in districts where no fragments larger than 100ha occur 

(Barrett 1994). The project will result in the removal of approximately 503 hectares of Central 

Hunter Grey Box – Ironbark Woodland EEC. Interrogation of the Hunter Remnant Vegetation 

Project shows that the mapped extent of this community across its distribution is approximately 

14 800 hectares. Therefore the project represents a loss of approximately 3.5% of the current 

distribution of this community. The Ravensworth Central Hunter Box – Ironbark remnant currently 

covers an area of approximately 1200 hectares making it the largest Central Hunter Box – Ironbark 

Woodland remnant in the Hunter Remnant Vegetation Project (HRVP) study area and the sixth 

largest remnant overall (Peake 2006). Therefore, although the project will only result in the loss of 

approximately 3.5% of the regional extent of this community, this loss is considered significant in a 

regional context as it will result in the loss of a significant remnant that provides un-fragmented 

contiguous habitat in a regional landscape that has been significantly impacted by habitat loss and 

fragmentation. 



This speckled warbler is known from Belford NP (T Peake pers. obs.) and the species is not 

considered to be adequately conserved. 



Black-chinned honeyeater (eastern subspecies) (Melithreptus gularis 

gularis) 



The black-chinned honeyeater has not been previously recorded within the project area, however 

potential habitat was identified in woodland and forest communities. The project includes the loss 

of 512 hectares of woodland and forest vegetation which represents potential foraging and breedng 

habtiat for the species. The project will result in a significant reduction in any potentially occurring 

local viable population, however the local population of the black-chinned honeyeater will not be 

placed at risk of extinction. 

2383/R08/AE 4

) In relation to the regional distribution of the habitat of the threatened species, whether 



The project will result in the removal of approximately 473 hectares of Central Hunter Grey Box 


mapped extent of this community across its distribution is approximately 14,800 hectares. 


community. The black-chinned honeyeater is highly susceptible to fragmentation and the species 

appears unable to maintain populations in less than 200 hectares. The Ravensworth Central 

Hunter Box – Ironbark remnant currently covers an area of approximately 1200 hectares making it 

the largest Central Hunter Box – Ironbark Woodland remnant in the Hunter Remnant Vegetation 

Project (HRVP) study area and the sixth largest remnant overall (Peake 2006). Therefore, 

although the project will only result in the loss of approximately 3.5% of the regional extent of this 

community, this loss is considered significant in a regional context as it will result in the loss of a 

significant remnant that provides un-fragmented contiguous habitat in a regional landscape that 

has been significantly impacted by habitat loss and fragmentation. 



This species is not known from any conservation reserves in the region and is not considered to be 




Grey-crowned babbler (Pomatostomus temporalis temporalis) 



The grey-crowned babbler occurs widely in the project area with 17 recorded locations of the 

species. In addition to this multiple babbler nests were recorded which identifies the species as a 

breeding resident within the project area. All woodland vegetation within the project area is 

expected to provide habitat, including breeding habitat, for this species. The project includes the 

loss of 512 hectares of woodland and forest vegetation which represents foraging and breedng 

habtiat for the species. The project will result in a significant reduction in the size of the local viable 

population, however the local population of the grey-crowned babbler will not be placed at risk of 

extinction. 




The grey-crowned babbler is known to occur in suitable woodland and forest communities in the 

Hunter Valley. The project will result in the loss of approximately 512 hectares of known habitat of 

the species however, Peake (2006) identified approximately 14,818 hectares of Central Hunter Box 

– Ironbark Woodland remaining in the region. The grey-crowned babbler also occurs in a range of 

other woodland communities in the central Hunter Valley, covering tens of thousands of hectares. 

A significant area of known habitat will not be modified or removed, or isolated from currently 

interconnecting or proximate areas as a result of the project. 



The grey-crowned babbler is known to occur in Belford NP (T Peake pers. obs.). The species is 

not considered to be adequately conserved in the region. 

2383/R08/AE 5



Diamond firetail (Stagonopleura guttata) 



The diamond firetail has not been previously recorded within the project area, however potential 

habitat was identified in woodland and forest communities. The project includes the loss of 512 

hectares of woodland and forest vegetation which represents potential foraging and breeding 

habtiat for the species. The project will result in a significant reduction in the size of any potentially 

occurring local viable population, however the local population of the diamond firetail will not be 









community. The diamond firetail is highly susceptible to fragmentation and isolation and the 

species appears unable to occur in regions where there are no fragments greater than 

200 hectares. The Ravensworth Central Hunter Box – Ironbark remnant currently covers an area 

of approximately 1200 hectares making it the largest Central Hunter Box – Ironbark Woodland 

remnant in the Hunter Remnant Vegetation Project (HRVP) study area and the sixth largest 

remnant overall (Peake 2006). Therefore, although the project will only result in the loss of 

approximately 3.5% of the regional extent of this community, this loss is could be significant in a 


contiguous potential habitat in a regional landscape that has been significantly impacted by habitat 

loss and fragmentation. 



This species is not known from any conservation reserves in the region and is not likely to be 




Hooded robin (Melanodryas cucullata cucullata) 



The hooded robin was recorded at four locations within Central Hunter Box Ironbark Woodland (2 

locations), derived grassland and rehabilitation (Mt King 2006; 2007). All vegetation communities 

within the project area are expected to provide potential habitat for this species. The project 

includes the loss of 512 hectares of woodland and forest vegetation and 527 hectares of derived 

grassland which represents foraging and breeding habtiat for the species. The project will result in 

a significant reduction in the size of the local viable population, however the local population of the 

hooded robin will not be placed at risk of extinction. 

2383/R08/AE 6








community. The hooded robin is highly susceptible to fragmentation and isolation and the species 

appears unable to persist in remnants smaller than 100 to 200 hectares. The Ravensworth Central 

Hunter Box – Ironbark remnant currently covers an area of approximately 1200 hectares making it 

the largest Central Hunter Box – Ironbark Woodland remnant in the Hunter Remnant Vegetation 

Project (HRVP) study area and the sixth largest remnant overall (Peake 2006). Therefore, 

although the project will only result in the loss of approximately 3.5% of the regional extent of this 

community, this loss is considered significant in a regional context as it will result in the loss of a 

significant remnant that provides un-fragmented contiguous habitat in a regional landscape that 




The hooded robin is known to occur in Wollemi NP, however the species is unlikely to be 

adequately conserved in the region. 



Painted honeyeater (Grantiella picta) 



The painted honeyeater has not been previously recorded within the project area, however 

potential habitat was identified in woodland and forest communities. The project includes the loss 

of 512 hectares of woodland and forest vegetation which represents potential foraging and 

breeding habtiat for the species. The project will result in a significant reduction in the size of any 

potentially occurring local viable population, however the local population of the painted honeyeater 

will not be placed at risk of extinction. 








community. The painted honeyeater is highly susceptible to fragmentation and isolation and 

reduced patch size. The Ravensworth Central Hunter Box – Ironbark remnant currently covers an 

area of approximately 1200 hectares making it the largest Central Hunter Box – Ironbark Woodland 







2383/R08/AE 7



The painted honeyeater is known to occur in Wollemi NP, Yengo NP, Mt Royal NP, Belford NP and 

Barrington Tops NP. The species is not considered to be adequately represented in conservation 

reserves in the region. 



Varied sittella (Daphoenositta chrysoptera) 



The varied sittella was not recorded within the project area, however potential habitat was 

identified in woodland and forest communities. The project includes the loss of 512 hectares of 

woodland and forest vegetation which represents potential foraging and breeding habitat for the 

species. The project will result in a significant reduction in any potentially occurring local viable 

population, however the local population of the varied sittella will not be placed at risk of extinction. 








community. The varied sittella is highly susceptible to fragmentation and isolation and reduced 

patch size. The Ravensworth Central Hunter Box – Ironbark remnant currently covers an area of 

approximately 1200 hectares making it the largest Central Hunter Box – Ironbark Woodland 









The varied sittella is known to occur in Manobalai NR, Wollemi NP and Yengo NP. The species is 

not considered to be adequately represented in conservation reserves in the region. 



2383/R08/AE 8

Scarlet robin (Petroica boodang) 



The scarlet robin was recorded at two locations in the proejct area; in Central Hunter Box Ironbark 

Woodland and in Central Hunter Swamp Oak Forest and all woodland and forest communities are 

expected to provide habitat for the species. The project includes the loss of 512 hectares of 

woodland and forest vegetation which represents foraging and breeding habtiat for the species. 

The project will result in a significant reduction in the size of the local viable population, however 

the local population of the scarlet robin will not be placed at risk of extinction. 








community. The scarlet robin is highly susceptible to fragmentation and isolation and reduced 

patch size. The Ravensworth Central Hunter Box – Ironbark remnant currently covers an area of 










The scarlet robin is known to occur in Wollemi NP. The species is not considered to be adequately 

reserved in conservation reserves in the region. 



Flame robin (Petroica phoenicea) 



The flame robin was not recorded within the project area, however potential habitat was identified 

in woodland and grassland communities. The project includes the loss of 512 hectares of 

woodland and forest vegetation and 527 hectares of derived grassland habitat which represents 

poential foraging and breeding habitat for the species. The project will result in a significant 

reduction in the size of any potentially occurring local viable population, however the local 

population of the flame robin will not be placed at risk of extinction. 

2383/R08/AE 9








community. The flame robin is highly susceptible to fragmentation and isolation and reduced patch 

size. The Ravensworth Central Hunter Box – Ironbark remnant currently covers an area of 










The flame robin is not known to occur in conservation reserves in the region and the species is not 

considered to be adequately reserved. 



White-browed woodswallow (Artamus superciliosus) 



The white-browed woodlswallow was not recorded within the project area, however potential 

habitat was identified in woodland and forest communities. The project includes the loss of 512 

hectares of woodland and forest vegetation which represents potential foraging and breeding 

habitat for the species. The project will result in a significant reduction in the size of any potentially 

occurring local viable population, however the local population of the white-browed woodswallow 

will not be placed at risk of extinction. 








community. The white-browed woodswallow is highly susceptible to fragmentation and isolation 

and reduced patch size. The Ravensworth Central Hunter Box – Ironbark remnant currently covers 

an area of approximately 1200 hectares making it the largest Central Hunter Box – Ironbark 

Woodland remnant in the Hunter Remnant Vegetation Project (HRVP) study area and the sixth 

largest remnant overall (Peake 2006). Therefore, although the project will only result in the loss of 



2383/R08/AE 10





The white-browed woodswallow is known to occur in Wollemi NP, Yengo NP, Mt Royal NP, Belford 

NP and Barrington Tops NP. The species is not considered to be adequately reserved in 

conservation reserves in the region. 



Grey-headed flying-fox (Pteropus poliocephalus) 



The grey-headed flying-fox was recorded at one location in the project area. All woodland 

vegetation within the project area is expected to provide foraging habitat for this species. Camp 

sites were not identified and are not expected to occur due to a lack of suitable habitat. The project 

includes the loss of 512hectares of woodland and forest vegetation which represents foraging 

habitat for the species. The project is not expected to result in a significant reduction in the size of 

the local viable population, and the local population of the grey-headed flying fox will not be placed 

at risk of extinction. 




Potential foraging habitat is widespread in suitable woodland and forest communities in the Hunter 

Valley and a permanent camp is located in Singleton township. The project will result in the loss of 

approximately 512 hectares of potential woodland/forest foraging habitat of the species. Peake 

(2006) identified approximately 14,818 hectares of Central Hunter Box – Ironbark Woodland 

remaining in the region. The grey-headed flying-fox also occurs in a range of other woodland 

communities in the central Hunter Valley, covering tens of thousands of hectares. A significant area 

of potential habitat will not be modified or removed, or isolated from currently interconnecting or 

proximate areas as a result of the project. 



The grey-headed flying-fox is known to occur in Wallaroo NR, Karuah NR, Lake Macquarie SCA, 

Glenrock SCA and Munmorah SCA. The species is not considered to be adequately conserved in 

the region. 



2383/R08/AE 11

Eastern bentwing-bat (Miniopterus schreibersii oceanensis 



The eastern bentwing-bat (Miniopterus schreibersii oceanensis) was recorded from analysis of 

echolocation calls from the all night Anabat location outside of a Lower Pykes Gully seam portal 

within the Cumnock Wash Plant Pit and at eight locations in Central Hunter Box – Ironbark 

Woodland across the project area. All native vegetation communities and derived grassland are 

considered to provide an extensive area of foraging habitat for this species in the project area. 

Natural caves and crevices suitable for bat occupation were not identified and therefore potential 

roost sites are limited to anthropogenic habitats such as sheds, roofs and culverts which are very 

sparsely distributed across the project area. The project includes the loss of 473 hectares of 

woodland and forest vegetation and 527 hectares of derived grassland which represents foraging 

habitat for the species. The project will result in a significant reduction in foraging habitat for the 

local viable population, however the local population of the eastern bentwing-bat will not be placed 

at risk of extinction. 




Potential foraging habitat for the eastern bentwing-bat is widespread in suitable woodland and 

forest communities in the Hunter Valley. The project will result in the loss of approximately 512 

hectares of woodland/forest habitat of the species. Peake (2006) identified approximately 14,818 

hectares of Central Hunter Box – Ironbark Woodland remaining in the region. The eastern 

bentwing-bat also occurs in a range of other woodland communities in the central Hunter Valley, 

covering tens of thousands of hectares. A significant area of potential habitat will not be modified or 

removed, or isolated from currently interconnecting or proximate areas as a result of the project. 



The species has been recorded in Wallaroo NR, Kooragang NR, Lake Macquarie SCA and 

Munmorah SCA. The species is not considered to be adequately conserved in the region. 



Little bentwing-bat (Miniopterus australis 



The little bentwing-bat (Miniopterus australis) was recorded foraging in Central Hunter Box Ironbark 

Woodland at one location. All woodland habitats within the project area are considered to provide 

potential foraging habitat for this species. Potential roosting habitat is limited within the project 

area. Natural caves and crevices suitable for bat occupation were not identified and therefore 

potential roost sites are limited to anthropogenic habitats such as sheds, roofs and culverts which 

are very sparsely distributed across the project area. The project includes the loss of 512 hectares 

of woodland and forest vegetation which represents foraging habitat for the species. The project 

will result in a significant reduction in foraging habitat for the local viable population, however the 

local population of the eastern bent-wing bat will not be placed at risk of extinction 

2383/R08/AE 12




Potential foraging habitat for the little bentwing-bat is widespread in suitable woodland and forest 

communities in the Hunter Valley. The project will result in the loss of approximately 512 hectares 

of woodland/forest habitat of the species. Peake (2006) identified approximately 14,818 hectares 

of Central Hunter Box – Ironbark Woodland remaining in the region. The little bentwing-bat also 

occurs in a range of other woodland communities in the central Hunter Valley, covering tens of 

thousands of hectares. A significant area of potential habitat will not be modified or removed, or 

isolated from currently interconnecting or proximate areas as a result of the project. 



The species has been recorded in Werakata NP. The species is not considered to be adequately 

conserved in the region. 



Eastern freetail bat (Mormopterus norfolkensis 



The eastern freetail-bat was recorded at one location in the project area and all woodland and 

forest communities are expected to provide potential foraging and roosting/breeding habitat for the 

species. The project includes the loss of 512 hectares of woodland and forest vegetation which 

represents foraging and roosting/breeding habitat for the species. The project will result in a 

significant reduction in habitat for the local viable population, however the local population of the 

eastern freetail-bat will not be placed at risk of extinction. 




Potential foraging habitat for the eastern freetail-bat is widespread in suitable woodland and forest 

communities in the Hunter Valley. The project will result in the loss of approximately 512 hectares 

of woodland/forest habitat of the species. Peake (2006) identified approximately 14,818 hectares 

of Central Hunter Box – Ironbark Woodland remaining in the region. The eastern freetail bat also 

occurs in a range of other woodland communities in the central Hunter Valley, covering tens of 

thousands of hectares. A significant area of potential habitat will not be modified or removed, or 

isolated from currently interconnecting or proximate areas as a result of the project. 



The eastern freetail-bat is known to occur in Tomaree NP, however the species is unlikely to be 


2383/R08/AE 13



Yellow-bellied sheathtail bat (Saccolaimus flaviventris) 



The yellow-bellied sheathtail bat was not recorded in the project area; however potential foraging 

and roosting/breeding habitat was identified across all habitats within the project area. The project 

includes the loss of 512 hectares of woodland and forest vegetation and 527 hectares of derived 

grassland which represents foraging and roosting/breeding habitat for the species. The project will 

result in a significant reduction in habitat for any potentially occurring local viable population of the 

species, however a local population of the yellow-bellied sheathtail bat will not be placed at risk of 

extinction. 




Potential foraging habitat for the yellow-bellied sheathtail bat is widespread in suitable woodland 

and forest communities in the Hunter Valley. The project will result in the loss of approximately 

512 hectares of woodland/forest habitat of the species. Peake (2006) identified approximately 

14,818 hectares of Central Hunter Box – Ironbark Woodland remaining in the region. The yellowbellied 

sheathtail bat also occurs in a range of other woodland communities in the central Hunter 

Valley, covering tens of thousands of hectares. A significant area of potential habitat will not be 

modified or removed, or isolated from currently interconnecting or proximate areas as a result of 

the project. 



The yellow-bellied sheathtail bat is known to occur in Wollemi NP and Manobalai NR, however the 

species is unlikely to be adequately conserved in the region. 



Eastern false pipistrelle (Falsistrellus tasmaniensis) 



The eastern false pipistrelle has been recorded at two locations in the project area in Central 

Hunter Box – Ironbark Woodland which represents foraging and potential roosting/breeding habitat. 

The project includes the loss of 512 hectares of woodland and forest vegetation and 527 hectares 

of derived grassland which represents foraging and breeding habitat for the species. The project 

will result in a significant reduction in habitat for the local viable population of the species, however 

a local population of the eastern false pipistrelle will not be placed at risk of extinction. 

2383/R08/AE 14




The project will result in the loss of approximately 512 hectares of woodland/forest habitat of the 

species. Peake (2006) identified approximately 14,818 hectares of Central Hunter Box – Ironbark 

Woodland remaining in the region. The eastern false pipistrelle also occurs in a range of other 

woodland communities in the central Hunter Valley, covering tens of thousands of hectares. A 

significant area of potential habitat will not be modified or removed, or isolated from currently 




The eastern false pipistrelle is known to occur in Wollemi NP, Yengo NP and Barrington Tops NP 

however the species is unlikely to be adequately conserved in the region. 



Greater broad-nosed bat (Scoteanax rueppellii 



The greater broad-nosed bat was not recorded in the project area; however potential foraging and 

roosting/breeding habitat was identified across all habitats within the project area. The project 

includes the loss of 512 hectares of woodland and forest vegetation which represents foraging and 

roosting/breeding habitat for the species. The project will result in a significant reduction in habitat 

for any potentially occurring local viable population of the species, however a local population of 

the yellow-bellied sheathtail bat will not be placed at risk of extinction. 






Woodland remaining in the region. The greater broad-nosed bat also occurs in a range of other 






The greater broad-nosed bat is known to occur in Wollemi NP, Yengo NP and Barrington Tops NP 

however the species is unlikely to be adequately conserved in the region 



2383/R08/AE 15

Eastern cave bat (Vespadelus troughtoni 



The eastern cave bat was not recorded in the project area; however potential foraging and 

roosting/breeding habitat was identified across all habitats within the project area. Natural caves 

and crevices suitable for bat occupation were not identified and therefore potential roost sites are 

limited to anthropogenic habitats such as sheds, roofs and culverts which are very sparsely 

distributed across the project area. The project includes the loss of 512 hectares of woodland and 

forest vegetation which represents foraging habitat for the species. The project will result in a 

significant reduction in foraging habitat for any potentially occurring local viable population, 

however the local population of the eastern cave bat will not be placed at risk of extinction. 






Woodland remaining in the region. The eastern cave bat could also occurs in a range of other 






The eastern cave bat is known to occur in Wollemi NP, Manobalai NR and Yengo NP however the 

species is unlikely to be adequately conserved in the region. 



Large-eared pied bat (Chalinolobus dwyeri 



The large-eared pied bat was not recorded in the project area; however potential foraging and 

roosting/breeding habitat was identified across all habitats within the project area. Natural caves 

and crevices suitable for bat occupation were not identified and therefore potential roost sites are 

limited to anthropogenic habitats such as sheds, roofs and culverts which are very sparsely 

distributed across the project area. The project includes the loss of 512 hectares of woodland and 

forest vegetation which represents foraging habitat for the species. The project will result in a 

significant reduction in foraging habitat for any potentially occurring local viable population, 

however the local population of the large-eared pied bat will not be placed at risk of extinction. 

2383/R08/AE 16






Woodland remaining in the region. The large-eared pied bat could also occurs in a range of other 






The large-eared pied bat is known to occur in Watagan NP, however the species is unlikely to be 




Large-footed myotis (Myotis adversi 



The large-footed myotis was recorded in the project area on eight occasions all within central 

Hunter Box – Ironbark Woodland. The species will roost/breed in tree hollows and natural caves 

and crevices and al farm and mine water dams in the project area are expected to provide a 

significant area of foraging habitat for the species. Natural caves and crevices suitable for bat 

occupation were not identified and therefore potential roost sites are limited to tree hollows and 

anthropogenic habitats such as sheds, roofs and culverts which are very sparsely distributed 

across the project area. The project includes the loss of 512 hectares of woodland and forest 

vegetation which represents foraging and roosting/breeding habitat for the species and 

approximately 20 farm dams. The project will result in a significant reduction in foraging habitat for 

the local viable population, however the local population of the large-footed myotis will not be 







Woodland remaining in the region. The large-footed myotis could also occurs in a range of other 

woodland communities in the central Hunter Valley, covering tens of thousands of hectares. in 

addition, greater than 10000 farm dams that could provide potential foraging habitat for the species 

are known to occur in the local area (DECC 2007). A significant area of potential habitat will not be 

modified or removed, or isolated from currently interconnecting or proximate areas as a result of 

the project. 

2383/R08/AE 17



The large-footed myotis is not known from any conservation reserves in the region and therefore 

the species is unlikely to be adequately conserved in the region. 



Endangered Populations 

Weeping myall (Acacia pendula) Endangered Population in the Hunter 

Catchment 

a) Whether the life cycle of the species that constitutes the endangered population is 

likely to be disrupted such that the viability of the population is likely to be significantly 

compromised. 

Weeping myall (Acacia pendula) has been recorded at four locations within the project area 

(records near Narama mine are considered as one location). A planted area adjacent to Old 

Lemington Road, contains a large number of planted weeping myall (Acacia pendula) and is 

estimated to contain 70 to 90 adult plants and 10 to 20 juveniles which are likely to be suckers from 

adult plants. One juvenile plant within the road reserve may have naturally recruited from the 

planted adults through seed dispersal. Planted weeping myall are currently not considered to form 

part of the listed endangered population unless there is evidence of natural regeneration. Since 

natural recruitment may be occurring within the planted area, the stand is cautiously considered to 

conform to the description of the Acacia pendula Endangered Population. The remaining three 

locations of weeping myall each refer to one individual. Each individual has been considered to 

conform to the description of the endangered population as there is no strong evidence to suggest 

that they have been planted. The project will not result in the removal of weeping myall and 

therefore the life cycle of the species that constitutes the population will not be placed at risk of 

extinction as a result of the project. 

b) In relation to the regional distribution of the habitat of the endangered population, 

whether a significant area of known habitat is to be modified or removed, or isolated 

from currently interconnecting or proximate areas. 

The project will not result in the modification or removal of a regionally significant area of known 

habitat and the habitats will not be significantly isolated from currently interconnecting or proximate 

areas. 

c) Whether the endangered population, or its habitat, are adequately represented in 

conservation reserves (or other similar protected areas) in the region. 

The Acacia pendula Population in the Hunter Catchment is not adequately reserved in the region 

(refer to Table 1 of Appendix B). 

d) Whether any threatened species, population or ecological community is at the limit of 

its known distribution. 

The population is not at the limit of its distribution in the project area (refer to Table 1 of 

Appendix B). 

2383/R08/AE 18

Endangered Ecological Communities 

Central Hunter Grey Box – Ironbark Woodland EEC (PD) 

a) In relation to the regional distribution of the habitat of the endangered ecological 

community, whether a significant area of known habitat is to be modified or removed, 

or isolated from currently interconnecting or proximate areas. 


Ironbark Woodland EEC (PD). Interrogation of the Hunter Remnant Vegetation Project (HRVP) 

shows that the mapped extent of this community across its distribution is approximately 

14,800 hectares. Therefore the project represents a loss of approximately 3.5% of the current 

distribution of this community. The Ravensworth Central Hunter Box – Ironbark remnant currently 

covers an area of approximately 1200 hectares making it the largest Central Hunter Box – Ironbark 

Woodland remnant in the HRVP study area and the sixth largest remnant overall (Peake 2006). 

Therefore, although the project will result in the loss of approximately 3.5% of the regional extent of 

this community, this loss is considered significant in a regional context as it will result in the loss of 

a significant remnant that provides un-fragmented contiguous habitat in a regional landscape that 


The HRVP further demonstrates the importance of large remnants as the average remnant size of 

all native vegetation in the HRVP study area is 13.9 hectares, with a median remnant size of 

1.6 hectares. Only 2% of remnants in the HRVP study area were classified as large (>100 

hectares). This analysis of extant vegetation shows that relatively few remnants contain the 

majority of the remnant vegetation in the study area (Peake 2006). This general pattern is 

representative of Central Hunter Grey Box – Ironbark Woodland EEC (PD), with 45% of the extant 

area of the community occurring within large remnants (>100 hectares) which represent 2% of the 

community in the HRVP study area. The distribution of large remnants in the local area and region 

is similarly uneven, with most large remnants occurring at the edge of the valley floor, where they 

adjoin the extensive dissected sandstone landscapes (Peake 2006). 

The loss of approximately 473 hectares of Central Hunter Grey Box – Ironbark Woodland EEC 

(PD) represents the loss of a significant area of known habitat in relation to the regional distribution 

of the habitat of the community. 

b) Whether the endangered ecological community, or its habitat, are adequately 

represented in conservation reserves (or other similar protected areas) in the region. 

There are no known occurrences of this preliminarily-determined EEC within the conservation 

reserves of the region. The community is not considered to be adequately represented in 

conservation reserves. 

c) Whether the endangered ecological community is at the limit of its known distribution. 

The community is not at the limit of its distribution in the project area (refer to Table 1 of 

Appendix B). 

2383/R08/AE 19

Central Hunter Ironbark – Spotted Gum – Grey Box Forest EEC (PD) 




The project will result in the removal of approximately four hectares of Central Hunter Ironbark – 

Spotted Gum – Grey Box Forest EEC (PD), which represents the full extent of the community in the 

project area. Approximately 18,300 hectares of the community occurs in the central Hunter Valley 

and the loss of four hectares is not expected to constitute a significant loss of habitat in a regional 

context. 



This community is known to occur in Belford NP and is not considered to be adequately 

represented in conservation reserves. 



Appendix B). 

River-flat Eucalypt Forest on Coastal Floodplains EEC 




The project will result in the removal of approximately five hectares of River-flat Eucalypt Forest 

EEC. Approximately 24 hectares of the community occurs within the project area. It is expected 

that the current area of the EEC is likely to represent less than 30% of its original range (NSW 

Scientific Committee 2005). Despite the limited and fragmented extent of this community in the 

region, the loss of five hectares is not expected to constitute a significant loss of habitat in a 

regional context. 



There are no known occurrences of this EEC within the conservation reserves of the region. The 

community is not considered to be adequately represented in conservation reserves. 



Appendix B). 

2383/R08/AE 20

Hunter Floodplain Red Gum Woodland EEC (PD) 




The project will result in the removal of less than one hectare (approximately 0.2 hectares) of 

Hunter Floodplain Red Gum Woodland EEC (PD). Approximately five hectares of the community 

occurs within the project area. It is expected that the current area of the vegetation community in 

the central Hunter Valley has been reduced by more than 90% of its pre-European extent (Peake 

2006). Despite the limited and fragmented extent of this community in the region, the loss of less 

than one hectare is not expected to constitute a significant loss of habitat in a regional context. 



There are no known occurrences of this community within the conservation reserves of the region. 

The community is not considered to be adequately represented in conservation reserves. 



Appendix B). 

Key Threatening Processes 

a) Whether the development or activity proposed is of a class of development or activity 

that is recognised as a threatening process. 

There are currently 31 key threatening processes (KTPS) listed under the Schedules of the TSC 

Act, as well as seven listed under the Schedules of the Fisheries Management Act 1994. Those 

KTPs with the potential to increase/be exacerbated by the project are discussed below. 

� Alteration to the natural flow regimes of rivers, streams, floodplains & wetlands – the 

Project involves the proposed discharge of excess mine water into the Hunter River and the 

mining and diversion of Emu Creek. The volume of water to be discharged will be determined 

via a detailed water balance. While the water quality discharge criteria will be similar to the 

existing background levels, they will be determined in consultation with DECCW. Given the 

current and expected criteria for quality and quantity of discharge it is not likely that the 

proposed discharge will detrimentally affect the flow regimes or quality of aquatic habitat within 

the Hunter River. 

a. Clearing of native vegetation – the project will require the removal of 512 hectares of native 

woodland and forest vegetation. This will result in the loss of habitat for native flora and fauna 

species. The establishment of the Ravensworth North and Hillcrest Offset Areas will ensure 

the long-term protection of similar amounts and qualities of vegetation to be removed. In 

addition to this, the rehabilitation and revegetation of the post-mining open cut will ensure the 

return of vegetation characteristic of the native vegetation communities currently in this area. 

This will assist in reducing the impact of this KTP in the project area as a result of the project. 

b. Ecological consequences of high frequency fires – the project is not likely to increase the 

incidence of high frequency fires within the project area and bushfire will be managed in 

accordance with Section 5.3.1.4. 

2383/R08/AE 21

c. Human-caused Climate Change – A detailed greenhouse gas and energy assessment for 

the project has been undertaken. This has included an assessment of the energy and 

greenhouse gas emissions from the project in accordance with recognised assessment 

guidelines, calculation of energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions at various 

operational stages, and identification of relevant management controls that can be utilised to 

minimise energy use and greenhouse gas emissions. 

d. Loss of Hollow-bearing Trees – the project will result in the removal of 512 hectares of 

native vegetation that is known to contain hollow-bearing trees. The removal of these trees will 

impact on hollow-dependent species, particularly during the tree felling process. In order to 

address this impact, nest boxes will be established in areas adjoining areas if deemed 

deficient in tree hollows and nest boxes will be established in the post mining landscape. Nest 

boxes will be specifically designed for target species, and will be subject to regular 

maintenance and monitoring. In addition, a detailed tree felling strategy (including pre-clearing 

surveys) has been developed to minimise direct impact on hollow-dependent species, as 

much as possible. These actions will assist in minimising the impact of the loss on hollowbearing 

trees within the project area. 

e. Removal of dead wood and dead trees – the project will result in the removal of 

545 hectares of native vegetation that is known to contain dead wood, dead trees and fallen 

timber. The removal of such resources will impact on habitat complexity and refuge availability 

for native fauna species. In order to address this impact, fallen timber, hollow logs and 

boulders salvaged from areas to be cleared will be stockpiled and used in the rehabilitation of 

the post-mining landscape to improve the quality of habitat for ground dependant species. 

This will assist in minimising the impact of this KTP within the project area. 

f. The degradation of native riparian vegetation along New South Wales water courses – 

the installation of the proposed discharge point on the Hunter River will not require the 

clearing of native riparian vegetation, as the proposed discharge point lies in a currently 

disturbed area, devoid of native vegetation. The project will not result in an increase of this 

KTP in the project area. 

g. Instream structures and other mechanisms that alter natural flow – The project has been 

specifically designed to avoid impacts that alter the natural flow regimes of the drainage lines 

in the project area. Emu Creek will be diverted to Davis Creek for the duration of the project 

and the diversion will be managed and monitored to ensure that natural flows are maintained. 

Additional information on the Emu Creek diversion can be found in Appendix 8 of the 

Environmental Assessment. 

Critical Habitat 

a) Will critical habitat be affected? 

The following listings are currently present on the critical habitat register: 

� Critical habitat declaration – final 

� Gould's Petrel; 

� Little penguin population in Sydney's North Harbour; 

� Mitchell's Rainforest Snail in Stotts Island Nature Reserve; and 

� Wollemi Pine. 

� Critical habitat recommendation - pending finalisation 

� Bomaderry zieria within the Bomaderry bushland; 

� Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub Endangered Ecological Community; and 

� Wollemia nobilis (the Wollemi pine). 

Critical habitat will not be affected by the project. 

2383/R08/AE 22

Conclusion 

The Project has the potential to result in a significant impact on the following: 


� Central Hunter Box Ironbark Woodland; 


� speckled warbler (Chthonicola saggitata); 

� grey-crowned babbler (eastern form) (Pomatostomus temporalis temporalis); 






� eastern false pipistrelle (Falsistrellus tasmaniensis); and 

� large-footed myotis (Myotis adversis). 

This assessment has been made without consideration of the mitigation, ameliorative or offset 

measures proposed as part of this project. The conclusions on the significance of impacts are 

based on the anticipated effects that the project would have on the ecological features of the 

project area if the project was implemented without any form of mitigation or offsetting. 

While not considered as part of the impact assessment presented above, a detailed Impact 

Mitigation Strategy has been developed and included as an integral component of this project. This 

strategy is designed to address the likely impacts on key ecological features within the project area, 

and is described in detail in Section 5 of the Ecological Assessment. 

2383/R08/AE 23

APPENDIX F 

EPBC Act Assessment 

of Significance

Appendix F – Assessment of Significance under Environment 

Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 

Under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act), 

approval from the Commonwealth Minister for the Environment, Heritage, Water and the Arts 

is required for any action that may have a significant impact on matters of national 

environmental significance (NES). These matters are: 

� listed threatened species and ecological communities; 

� migratory species protected under international agreements; 

� Ramsar wetlands of international importance; 

� the Commonwealth marine environment; 

� World Heritage properties; 

� National Heritage places; and 

� nuclear actions. 

Vulnerable Species 

In this case, an important population is a population that is necessary for a species’ 

long-term survival and recovery. This may include populations that are: 

� key source populations either for breeding or dispersal; or 

� populations that are necessary for maintaining genetic diversity, and/or 

� populations that are near the limit of the species range. 

Green and golden bell frog (Litoria aurea) 

The project area forms part of the Upper Hunter GGBF Key Population consisting of one main 

diffuse population at, or in the vicinity of, the Ravensworth and Liddell area and bordering 

areas of the Singleton and Muswellbrook local government areas (DECC 2007). The green 

and golden bell frog recorded in the project area is considered to comprise a sub-population of 

the Upper Hunter Key Population and therefore is considered to comprise an important 

population as defined by the EPBC Act impact assessment guidelines (EPBC Act Policy 

Statement, 2006). 

An action has, will have, or is likely to have a significant impact on threatened species if 

it does, will, or is likely to: 

� lead to a long-term decrease in the size of an important population of a species; 

The project might result in the long-term decrease in the size of an important population of the 

green and golden bell frog. The project will result in the loss of at least 179 hectares of 

potential habitat for the species which is expected to comprise breeding, foraging, dispersal 

and shelter habitats. The potential loss of the Ravensworth sub-population of the Upper 

Hunter GGBF Key Population due to a loss of dispersal opportunities and the loss of genetic 

diversity from a sporadically recorded and tenuous population might result in the long-term 

decrease in the size of an important population. 

2383/R08/AF 1

� reduce the area of occupancy of an important population, or; 

The project is likely to reduce the potential area of occupancy of an important population by 

approximately 179 hectares. This habitat includes potential breeding, foraging, shelter and 

dispersal habitats. Although the species has not been recorded in this area, it was recorded in 

habitat immediately adjoining this area in 1998; this habitat has since been removed as part of 

an approved mining operation. 

� fragment an existing important population into two or more populations, or; 

The project is unlikely to fragment an existing population in two or more populations. 

� adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of a species, or; 

The project will result in the removal of potential breeding, foraging, shelter and dispersal 

habitats. Despite this, the loss of habitat will not be such that it adversely affects habitat critical 

to the survival of the species. 

� disrupt the breeding cycle of an important population, or; 

Potential breeding habitat in the form of farm dams and ephemeral drainage line habitats of 

Emu Creek will be lost as a result of the project. This loss of potential habitat might disrupt the 

breeding habitat of the important population and might result in the significant reduction in the 

size and viability of the population. 

� modify, destroy, remove or isolate or decrease the availability or quality of habitat to 

the extent that the species is likely to decline, or; 

The potential loss of the Upper Hunter GGBF Key Population as a result of a significant impact 

on a sub-population would result in the loss of one of 45 known populations of the species. 

This is unlikely to cause the species to decline at any rate elevated above what it has already 

experienced. 

� result in invasive species that are harmful to a vulnerable species becoming 

established in the vulnerable species’ habitat, or; 

The project will not result in invasive species becoming established in the species’ habitat. 

� interferes substantially with the recovery of the species. 

The project might interfere with the recovery of the species as the incremental loss of subpopulations 

within the Upper Hunter GGBF population might lead to a reduction in the viability 

of the population and therefore the broader recovery of the species. 

Conclusion 

The outcome of the EPBC Act assessment of significance in relation to the green and golden 

bell frog indicates that the project might result in a significant impact on this species. Therefore, 

the project has been referred to the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the 

Arts for their assessment. 

2383/R08/AF 2

Lobed blue-grass (Bothriochloa biloba) 

Woodland and derived grassland communities within the project area provide potential habitat 

for this species. One individual lobed blue-grass was recorded in the project area. Due to the 

extensive level of flora survey effort undertaken within the project area as part of this and 

previous development assessments and ongoing ecological monitoring, the species is 

considered to be rare within the project area. The identification of the species within the project 

area is not considered to compromise an important population as the record of the species in 

the project area does not represent a key source population either for breeding or dispersal; 

the species is not important for the maintenance of genetic diversity of the species and the 

species is not at the limit of the its range. Therefore, the record of lobed blue-grass in the 

project area does not represent an important population. 




The project will not result in the long-term decrease in the size of an important population of 

lobed blue-grass. 


The project is not likely to reduce the area of occupancy of an important population of lobed 

bluegrass. The record of the species in the project area will not be impacted by the project. 


The project will not fragment an existing population of lobed blue-grass into two or more 

populations. 


The project will not adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of the species and the one 

known location of the species in the project area will not be impacted by the project. 


The project will not result in the disruption of the breeding cycle of an important population of 

lobed blue-grass and the record of the species in the project area will not be impacted by the 

project. 



The project will not result in the modification of habitats of lobed blue-grass such that the 

species is likely to decline. 




2383/R08/AF 3


The project will not interfere with the recovery of the species as the one known location of the 

species in the project area will not be impacted by the project. 

Conclusion 

The project is not expected to result in a significant impact on lobed blue-grass and referral to 

the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts is not required for this species. 

Grey-headed flying-fox (Pteropus poliocephalus) 

Woodland and derived grassland communities within the project area provide potential foraging 

habitat for this species. One individual grey-headed flying-fox was recorded in the project area. 

The identification of the species within the project area is not considered to compromise an 

important population as the record of the species in the project area does not represent a key 

source population either for breeding or dispersal; the project area is not important for the 

maintenance of genetic diversity of the species; and the species is not at the limit of the its 

range in the project area. Therefore, the record of the grey-headed flying-fox in the project 

area does not represent an important population. 




The project will not result in the long-term decrease in the size of an important population of the 

grey-headed flying-fox. 


The project is not likely to reduce the area of occupancy of an important population of the greyheaded 

flying-fox. The location of the one record of the species in the project area will not be 

impacted by the project. 


The project will not fragment an existing population in two or more populations. 


The project will not adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of the species. Breeding 

habitat will not be affected and significant areas of potential forging habitat occur within the 

region. 


The project will not result in the disruption of the breeding cycle of an important population of 

the grey-headed flying-fox. Breeding habitat for the species was not identified in the project 

area. 

2383/R08/AF 4



The project will not result in the modification of habitats of the grey-headed flying-fox such that 

the species is likely to decline. 





The project will not interfere with the recovery of the species due to the regional availability of 

potential foraging habitat and the lack of impact on breeding habitats of the species. 

Conclusion 

The project is not expected to result in a significant impact on the grey-headed flying-fox and 

referral to the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts is not required for 

this species. 

Migratory Species 

Surveys in the project area have identified a total of 16 migratory species listed under the 

schedules of the EPBC Act. These species include: 

� grey teal (Anas gracilis); 

� Australian wood duck (Chenonetta jubata); 

� Pacific black duck (Anas supericiliosa); 

� black swan (Cygnus atratus); 

� black-shouldered kite (Elanus notatus); 

� whistling kite (Haliastur sphrenurus); 

� brown goshawk (Accipiter fasciatus); 

� wedge-tailed eagle (Aquila audax); 

� Pacific baza (Aviceda subcristata); 

� brown falcon (Falco benigora); 

� nankeen kestrel (Falco cenchroides); 

� black-fronted dotterel (Elseyornis melanops); 

� masked lapwing (Vanellus miles); 

� southern boobook (Ninox novaeseelandiae); 

� rainbow bee-eater (Merops ornatus); and 

� snake-necked turtle (Chelodina longicollis). 

2383/R08/AF 5

An area of important habitat is: 

� habitat utilised by a migratory species occasionally or periodically within a region that 

supports an ecologically significant proportion of the population of the species; or 

� habitat that is of critical importance to the species at particular life-cycle stages; or 

� habitat utilised by a migratory species which is at the limit of the species range; or 

� habitat within an area where the species is declining. 

The migratory species recorded or potentially occurring in the project area are not considered 

to be part of any important population. Records of these species are distributed broadly across 

NSW, with no obvious concentrations of records in the local area to suggest the presence of an 

ecologically significant proportion of the population of these species. The project area is not at 

the limit of the known distribution for any of the species, nor is there any evidence to suggest 

these species are declining in the local area. It is unlikely that the project area forms an area of 

important habitat. Therefore it is considered that the Project will not have a significant impact 

on any migratory species. 

Conclusion 

The project is not expected to result in a significant impact on migratory species listed under 

the EPBC Act. 

2383/R08/AF 6

Ravensworth Operations Project Ecological Assessment

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?